deadmonton 2005 - nina louise courtepatte - the "cindy" trial
april 24th, 2007

delicious save to del.icio.us | submit to Digg


Nina Louise Courtepatte, 13, died from blunt force trauma on April 3rd, 2005.


Two adults and three teens, not identified by provision of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, were charged with first-degree murder, kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault.


<< april 23rd, 2007 | the "cindy" trial | april 30th, 2007 >>



Final arguments in the trial of the second teen charged with the murder of Nina Courtepatte finished with defence lawyer Colleen Connolly stating Cindy helped Joseph Laboucan pick out Nina from the crowd so he could have sex with her – but not kill her as the Crown has put forth.


Connolly also argued Laboucan's talk of killing someone was regarded as "farcical conversation" by those he was with.


CTV Edmonton image

The defence lawyer recounted for Justice June Ross that of the gang of five West Edmonton Mall rats, Laboucan was the only one who didn’t have a partner.


Cindy, 17 at the time, was with her 33-year-old boyfriend Michael Briscoe.


Two others, a 17-year-old teen nicknamed Pyro and his 16-year-old girlfriend nicknamed Buffy, were “so hot for each other” that they had sex in WEM’s parking lot, Connolly said.


It was at that time Laboucan and Cindy were trying to find someone in the mall for the group's fifth wheel.


“It was very reasonable for these people to conclude that he wanted to find someone to have as a sexual partner as well. [Cindy] had the innocent intent to find Laboucan a female companion,” Conolly told the court.


Connolly said Cindy may simply have thought she was setting Laboucan up with a date when she helped get Nina into Briscoe's car.


For all Cindy knew, the lawyer suggested, the promised party was an actual event.


With regard to statements made by Laboucan – wanting to kill someone, cutting people's heads off and throwing them out onto the street – they were not taken seriously by anyone in the group, Connolly suggested.


Besides, Connolly told the court, just because Cindy may have heard about Laboucan's wish to kill someone didn't mean she knew he had a specific plan in mind.


The lawyer said Laboucan and his friends said a lot of things in a "farcical conversation" while driving around the night before Nina was lured from West Edmonton Mall.


"Given the atmosphere of the vehicle, the response of the parties to it, when it was said – it has to be considered."


"What eventually happened to Nina does not make [the accused] morally culpable for her innocent attempt to help her friend find a female companion," Connolly said.


The defence lawyer acknowledged that her client was the first person to strike Nina that night, but the blow was well before the attack that led to her death.


"This was not the commencement of the beating," she said.


Connolly pointed out that five witnesses gave different versions of what happened.


Some said the blow knocked her down; some said it only staggered her. Some said it was delivered with a wrench the accused had hidden in her sleeve; some said she used her fists but only on Nina's back.


"The Crown has not proved that [the accused] struck Nina with sufficient force to cause significant bodily harm," said Connolly.


The lawyer also noted that accounts differed as to whether the accused held Nina's arms down as she was being raped, and suggested no one actually saw that happen.


Justice June Ross reminded Connolly that the Crown argued the accused aided and abetted Nina's murder, not that she participated in the fatal beating.


Ross pointed to corroborating evidence that a wrench was at least present, if not used.


The justice stated “a lot rides on proof of knowledge,” referring to what Cindy knew of what was planned for Nina out on the golf course.


Ross noted that the accused admitted, in conversations with her guardian and a social worker, to knowing about Laboucan's plan, using the wrench and restraining Nina.


Connolly responded that the accused had fallen out with her adoptive mother and that the woman was predisposed to believe her daughter's guilt.


She also argued that their testimony may have been affected by intense media coverage of the Briscoe-Laboucan trial.


"I don't believe their evidence is sufficient to erase any reasonable doubt," Connolly proposed.


The lawyer said Cindy's adopted mother was unable to deal the young woman's fetal alcohol syndrome and saw her as a "bad child." She wanted to distance herself from her charge, making her testimony unreliable.


As for social worker Brenda Haggart, she didn't want to hear Cindy's confession and recalled only bits and pieces out of context, according to Connolly.


The lawyer argued that given Cindy's limited role in the attack on Nina, she shouldn't be held responsible to the same degree as Laboucan and Pyro – the former found guilty and the latter who pleaded guilty – in the first-degree murder and sexual assault of the 13-year-old


The defence lawyer also pointed out that her client took Kitty away from the scene to Briscoe's car before Nina was killed.


"In doing this, she clearly communicated to everyone else there that, 'I am not part of this.' "


“Her caring, helpful act of assisting [Kitty] to the car is not consistent with someone having murderous intent,” Connolly said.


Cindy did nothing to prevent the attack on Nina, the lawyer acknowledged saying it would have been dangerous for her to do so.


"Why should we expect a 17-year-old to take that risk upon herself?"


"She is 17-years-old at that time. She's a child. And she found a way to get away from that situation and she took [Kitty] with her."


"She found a way to exit herself and to find a safer place than she was in."



The trial continued April 30th, 2007