This trial started November 24, 2003 and is
ongoing.
March 31, 2004
by
Guest writer Carmen
9:10am
S.R. (Song Richardson) is cross examining Inspector
Henderson. She’s talking a little too fast and too softly and the
jury is signaling the judge that they can’t hear her.
The gist of the question is that Sebastian was
‘not concerned about money’. It appears that she is trying to
either plant the argument for them not needing cash or trying to
discredit the witness by implying that SB said he wanted money, and
now the witness is saying the opposite. I’m guessing a bit since
she was hard to hear in the beginning.
SB was paid a total of about $1,300.00
There is an exhibit (possibly from the day
before) with dates on it. S.R. elaborates on what all the dates are
(Note from Hilary: Scenarios):
April 6: First meeting in the parking
lot (with the undercover Mounties)
April 13: 2nd meeting (this is the one where he
brought the stolen car back from Whistler)
May 6: Four Seasons scenario
June 15 & 16: The dates when Jimmy Miyoshi and SB did the
money laundering at the Royal Scot hotel.
June 20: The two undercover officers went to SB’s home
June 28: Royal Scot hotel (2nd meeting at this
location)
July 18: The undercover officers at the Ocean Point hotel
July 19: Ocean Point hotel with both SB & AR.
-Objection: Form of question
-Overruled.
During the May 6 meeting the undercover
officers and the inspector showed two 9mm weapons along with
$250,000.00 – the argument is that this particular witness
introduced guns into the scenario.
S.R.: SB never said anything about wanting to
be involved in violence?
-Objection
-Restated
S.R.: is arguing that the witness thought SB
wanted to be a “hit man” and that SB wanted to jump from the bottom
to the top of the scenario hierarchy.
-Objection
-Overruled
Henderson: yes
Henderson also agrees that he is the architect of the scenario.
S.R.: You planned each scenario one at a time?
Henderson: yes.
S.R. Based on what happened in each scenario you would then decide
what would happen next?
Henderson: yes.
S.R. then was going to play the scenario of May 6. S.R. produces
transcripts.
9:33am
Lawyer huddle to look over the transcripts prior to giving them
to the jury. This building makes some kooky noises – right now it
sounds like a cross between a vacuum and a space ship taking off.
There are 9 observers today.
9:37am
S.R. is trying to find something in the transcript. They
weren’t passed out and the audio hasn’t played (?) it appears that
the defense needs to look at it or something about it isn’t right so
they are going to re-introduce it later.
Prosecution is now discussing how the “target”
(SB) will develop a social bond with the operator (Inspector H).
Part of his job is to talk about “Mr. Big” and tell him that Mr. Big
wants to give him a job. (Note from Hilary: This is Carmen's code
name for the "crime boss," who is really an undercover officer)
Henderson: Yes. Without benefits.
<<jury and lawyers laugh>>
S.R.: The most important thing you do is to
get the target to meet Mr. Big?
Henderson: yes
S.R.: But this operation didn’t go that way?
Henderson: yes
S.R.: The Crime Boss (Mr. Big) was introduced at the very first
meeting?
Henderson: yes.
Generally, the argument is this: S.R. is
saying that the scenarios are supposed to draw in the target to the
crime family and be excited about meeting Mr. Big. The main thing
they wanted to do with this case is to change the scenario so that
he would want to be associated with them and feel as though the
crime family could help him. Apparently they inferred that he may
have “left something” back in Bellevue (i.e. evidence).
9:45am
They wanted SB to believe the Bellevue police were coming for
him.
S.R.: Wouldn’t you agree that the crime boss usually remains aloof?
Henderson: yes
S.R.: He’s like the C.E.O. of the operation?
Henderson: yes
S.R.: So this is different than a normal operation in that Mr. Big
developed a close relationship with SB?
Henderson: yes
In regard to the Whistler trip; the argument is
that the trip was partly to create a closer relationship (between
Sebastian and Mr. Big).
S.R.; You needed SB to commit a crime?
Objection: form of question
Restated
S.R.: He wasn’t told until the last possible minute that he was
going to need to commit a crime?
Henderson: yes
S.R.: You wanted to make it more difficult for SB to back out?
Henderson: yes
S.R.: You took him outside of the Vancouver area to get him away
from his familiar environment
Henderson: yes – but to create an easier ‘social’ environment
S.R.: You wanted to get him away from his friends?
Henderson: our goal was to have a one-on-one with him, not to take
him away from his friends.
9:52am
Went to page 504 in (defendant’s exhibit) the copy of the
pre-trial transcript.
S.R.: You’ve testified under oath before?
-Objection: form of question
-Overruled.
Argument: you were under oath and telling the
truth during pre-trial.
Line 15 question (from transcript):
Q. You repeatedly took SB sort of outside the Vancouver area?
A. Yes
Q. Did you do this to get him away from his familiar environment?
A. Yes
Q. And to get him away from Atif and his friends?
A. Yes
9:55am
S.R.: You wanted to create the “path of least resistance”?
Henderson: what? I don’t understand what you’re saying.
S.R. re-explained the question.
-Objection: speculation
They just went past it since he doesn’t
understand her phrasing.
-Objection: speculation
-Re-stated
Argument: You need the target to commit a
crime for the scenario to work and you also to make it more
difficult for the target to back out.
Page 354 of pre trial testimony. Line 53.
Q. And you wanted to make it more difficult for the target to back
out for the crime boss scenario to work?
A. Yes.
Q. You wanted to create the path of least resistance?
A. Yes.
The gist of this is: 1) to give 1 and ½ hours
of bonding for the crime boss and SB and 2) to make it more
difficult for SB to back out.
10:01am
Back to June 20 – the unannounced visit.
S.R.: This unannounced visit didn’t go over very well.
-Objection: form of question
-Overruled
S.R.: in your opinion the visit didn’t go well
Henderson: not as well as well as I had hoped.
S.R.: This wasn’t a big day in the progress of your undercover
operation?
Henderson: I don’t know what you mean by “big day”..
S.R.: You weren’t happy that SB didn’t like that Mr. Big and you
were at his house?
<<back to the transcript>>
Statement: “Well I can tell you that our
arrival at the house didn’t go well. It wasn’t a big day in the
course of the investigation…..”
Henderson: yes.
10:06am
15 minute break.
The lawyers are arguing about who is going got
play what tapes and taking things out of context but the judge isn’t
happy about the possibility of the jury having to hear the tapes
twice. He (the judge) is wearing a very nice bow tie today.
Blondish haired (Note from Hilary: Roger Davidheiser) prosecutor
states that he wants advance notice before the defense does a
violation of the notice of liminy (sp?)
Atif doesn’t get a belt today, but I think he
got some new pants – the white tag threads are still on the back.
Brown haired prosecutor (Note from Hilary:
James Konat) is getting agitated about prior information and motions
that the defense filed.
Judge doesn’t like Lavine (AR’s attorneys'
expert witness) thinks he would do better on Geraldo Rivera.
10:24am
Judge went for coffee. The attorneys have to go and get CD’s
and transcripts.
10:49am
Everyone is back but the judge and the jury. I fed the
meter during the break and saw a crazy lady, so my day is complete.
I also saw an Asian dude riding his bike with his helmet on
backwards. Were there no directions? Not even a picture on the
box? Anything?
10:54am
Court is in session: They (the lawyers) are talking about
who is doing the scrolling transcript and who has what program and
whether or not they all have the same info on CD or DVD.
The Prosecution has a fancy program that
scrolls through the transcript while the audio is going. The
Defense just has a CD and Windows media player. Prosecution offered
to teach S.R. how to use it but it’s going to take a bit of time to
get her up to speed. They agree to break and come back at 12:30pm.
11:00am
Jury returns and the judge explains what’s going on. The jury
is dismissed until 12:30pm |
