Tag Archives: jennifer pan update

Behind The Scenes: “Postcards From The Edge” – The Pan et al Jurors

Gavel-300dpi-Small

A guilty verdict was rendered in the Pan et al trial on December 13, 2014 and on January 23, 2015 co-accused Pan, Mylvaganam, Wong, and Crawford were sentenced to life in prison. Both events drew large crowds and it became clear that the shadow of Juror 4’s wife and her actions still lingered in the hallway as many members of the public questioned whether the perception of a fair trial had been tarnished.

To recap, it was revealed in mid-July that Juror 4’s wife, (who actually kept this fact hidden and pretended simply to be a member of the public) had been texting information to her husband in the jury room and he, in turn, shared these communications with other members of the jury. The trial had started in March and J4’s wife had attended almost every day.

The jury wrote a letter to the judge informing him of the situation and took the initiative to deem the information they received by the spouse as “immaterial.” Subsequently a hearing was held in open court in which each member of the jury was placed in the witness box and questioned as to exactly what information had been relayed. It came out that the information involved petty issues that took place in the hallways concerning tardiness amongst lawyers and witnesses and that an upcoming witness had large breasts. However, J1 and J2 revealed that they were aware of issues that had been dealt with in court when the jury was not present: Eric Carty’s lack of receiving a sandwich as well as other concerns of the accused regarding their lunches and comforts.

The situation seemed to be diffused until it was further revealed that the wife had been very vocal in the hallways, loudly expressing pro crown opinions and complimenting the police.

J4 was again put on the witness stand and questioned. He raised some eyebrows when he backtracked on a specific question regarding whether or not he was aware of any contact his wife may have had with other members or the jury. After initially and immediately responding “No,” J4 then corrected himself and stated that one juror lived near him, that they have carpooled and had social gatherings together at their home. It appeared as though J4 suddenly realized that the rest of the jury might also be questioned and he would be caught in a lie so he had to modify his answer.

Jennifer Pan’s attorney Paul Cooper was adamant that J4 and his wife be criminally investigated for their actions and that their phones should be seized. The wife was called “deceitful” by Carty’s counsel who said he had approached her at the beginning of the trial and asked her who she was. She had stated to him that she liked watching trials and failed to disclose that her husband was on the jury. Attorney Edward Sapiano stated that, while he did not wish to become a witness himself, he wanted the court to know that, on occasion, he had casually discussed aspects of the trial with her throughout the months.

All defence counsel wanted J4 dismissed from the jury while the crown, who initially took no position on the matter, later argued for him to remain on the basis that the matter was “much ado about nothing.”

The wife fiasco caused a buzz around the courthouse: how could the trial move forward fairly? Would a mistrial ensue?  In the end, there was no mistrial, neither was J4 dismissed from the jury. But Justice Boswell banned J4’s wife from the courtroom. (Eric Carty did eventually receive a mistrial on September 8, 2014 after his lawyer fell ill.  Carty is still awaiting trial.)

So the trial continued, with many wondering if there was just too much at stake to declare a mistrial and start over. The Pan trial was already into month five of what was supposed to be a 6-month trial and at that point there was no end in sight of the crown wrapping up its case.

On a personal note, I question just how “immaterial” the text communications that J4’s wife sent into the jury room were. She was one of the public that I exchanged contact information with. E-mail correspondence exists between the wife and myself in which she expressed the strongly worded opinion that she felt it was wrong that the jury was at times excluded from proceedings because, as she put it, the jury should know everything and all “should be out in the open.”

magnifying_glass

By her own admission, throughout her correspondence with myself and others in court, J4’s wife expressed that she was “obsessed” with the case and had “withdrawals” on weekends and days off. She also stated that she had searched social media outlets including Facebook for profiles of the co-defendants.

It seems this is indicative of someone who very well may be willing to disobey the rules of the court.  In the end, people were left wondering about J4 and his wife and their texts.

And the inappropriate behaviour of one juror in particular heightened my concern.

After the wife was gone, over the course of the rest of the trial, I was personally approached by J3 on at least three separate occasions. (J3 was the carpooler and the one who had a social event with J4 at his house.) One day, after viewing a lengthy police video interview of Lenford Crawford’s, J3 came out of the courthouse.  I was speaking to another individual, but J3 made eye contact with me and asked, “how did you not fall asleep today?” implying that the day’s testimony was boring and painful. He then went on to speak briefly about cell phone testimony.

Another time, I arrived late to the courthouse after lunch one day and saw some jurors socializing and smoking by their cars in the parking lot. Among them was J3. I asked if they had been dismissed for the day and indeed they had been.  I then proceeded to the courthouse in order to find out if a voir dire was taking place. Typically when the jurors were released early there were legal issues being discussed in court that the jurors were not privy to.

Later, as I exited the courthouse and proceeded to my vehicle I noticed a black Porsche Cayenne slowly driving up the aisle in the parking lot and stopping as if it was waiting for me. Turned out I was right because as I approached the Cayenne, a dark tinted window rolled down to reveal J3’s face looking directly at me. With a squint of his eyes and a head nod, he asked, “so, what’s going on in there?”

As if I’d fall for that.

On another occasion J3 approached me as I left the courthouse and walked along with me talking about the weather. As usual J4 wasn’t far away, in a huddle and cackling with J8 just a foot or two away.

In mid-August Jennifer Pan was on the stand – one of the most anticipated and dramatic parts of the trial. But, J4 had other things on his mind and controversy was stirred up once again by J4 and his sidekick – future foreman, J3.

A letter was given to the crown and subsequently submitted to the judge with copies to all defence counsel. The letter stated that J3 and J4 had approached police officers after court on August 20, 2014 at approximately 4:30pm to complain about a member of the public that had apparently become “a distraction.”

This was a direct violation of juror rules and it is important to note that this came about during Jennifer Pan’s testimony in a packed to-the-brim courtroom of journalists, reporters and other media and public.

While everyone else in the packed courtroom was riveted by the testimony of Jennifer Pan, J 4 and J3 were distracted by a young blonde female who, as it turned out, was myself.

I was advised by counsel of the letter and the overall absurdity of the situation before court commenced in order to prepare me for the possibility that I was to become the focus of court that day on this first degree murder trial. However, Justice Boswell declined to deal with the matter that day, and instead pressed on with the trial. Ultimately, the issue of “distraction” raised by J 4 and 3 was never addressed in court and J4 and J3 failed in their attempt to have me banned from the courtoom (like his wife was).

photoj

At the end of the day on August 21, 2014 Justice Boswell addressed the jury and told them that, although he had instructed them on the rules and regulations of jury duty at the beginning of the trial, he felt it was warranted and important that he repeat them again that day.  He then proceeded to tell the members of the jury not to speak to anyone including family, friends, co-workers, police officers, court staff, lawyers, media or members of the public about the case, nor were they to approach police, court staff, lawyers, media, and members of the public. If a concern arose, they were to notify the court security officer who oversaw them and nobody else.  He urged them to immediately get into their vehicles after court completed for the day and go “straight home.”

The jurors were dismissed for a three week break after the judge’s directions and they immediately hit the parking lot where they were seen smoking, socializing and just generally hanging around as they often did, disregarding the judge’s instructions to them just moments before.

Jury conduct raised eyebrows at various times throughout the trial. During Jennifer Pan’s direct examination a message was relayed to the judge about the length of her testimony.

They stated that they were becoming anxious about how long her direct examination was going to be. After 6+ months of crown testimony, much of which was comprised of excruciatingly boring cell phone record testimony by phone experts, it seemed unconscionable that the jury was anxious after just three days of hearing what was, to all intents and purposes, the testimony of the star of the show.

Designated recesses were given to lawyers, staff and jurors throughout the course of the trial. Fifteen minute breaks in the morning and again in the afternoon and an hour and fifteen minutes for lunch. Oftentimes, due to unforeseen but legitimate reasons involving staff, lawyers, or the accused, the 15-minute breaks would run closer to 20-25 minutes. And oftentimes legal issues arose that were hashed out in court by motions and applications brought by either the crown or defence. The jury was excused at these times as they were not privy to these arguments. Often delays became lengthy and patience was demanded from all involved in the nine months of testimony during the Pan et al trial.

One morning a note was found in the jury room by one of the court services officers. The note contained tabs kept of the duration of time the jury spent inside the courtroom listening to testimony, versus the amount of time spent locked in the jury room, excluded from legal arguments.

The note was brought to the attention of Justice Boswell who in turn chastised the jury and attempted to explain to them the complicated legal components of a Superior Court criminal trial. It was neither their concern nor job to keep tabs or focus on issues such as time, he stated. Of vital importance was to ensure that each of the accused receive a fair trial.

sandwich

Ironically, in May 2014 Justice Boswell attempted to shorten the lunch hour from 75 minutes to 60 in an attempt to move the trial along more efficiently. However, the 60 minute lunches were swiftly shot down in less than a week by the jury who wrote a note and complained to the judge that they wanted their extra 15 minutes for lunch.  This request was granted.  There were times throughout the trial that the jury would plan a “group lunch” at restaurants like the Pickle Barrel and request extra time on those occasions.

As the months dragged along, the jury became used to asking for time off. Eventually they began requesting time off on a weekly basis and from September to the remainder of the trial which ended in December, there was not one full week of sitting. Conveniently, the majority of the days requested off made for extra long weekends as Thursdays, Fridays, and Mondays were most often desired.

Despite the humiliation of being banned from court proceedings, who should show up for the verdict and sentencing but J4’s wife. Obviously she had a lot of interest invested in the case as she made a point to get back into that courtroom. She was also seen speaking with media and she sat beside a reporter from the Toronto Sun on both occasions. Husband J4 and sidekick J3 also made a point of being there for the sentencing.

Each of the convicted are entitled to a process of appeals, which is the next step in their individual cases. Of the four co-accused convicted, all are seeking an appeal.

unnamed

Linked Articles:
Misconduct in the Jury Room – https://jenniferpantrial.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/behind-the-scenes-misconduct-in-the-jury-room/
Mr Sub Vs Swiss Chalet – https://jenniferpantrial.wordpress.com/2014/12/13/behind-the-scenes-convictions-going-down-but-more-importantly-mr-sub-vs-swiss-chalet/
Sentencing – https://jenniferpantrial.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/jennifer-pan-co-accused-sentenced-to-life-in-prison/

Jennifer Pan, Co-Accused Sentenced to Life in Prison

Jennifer_Pan_trial_photo___Content

Jennifer Pan, David Mylvaganam, Daniel Wong and Lenford Crawford all returned to court on Friday January 23, 2014 for a sentencing hearing. The defendants were led into the courtroom in handcuffs and shackled feet and appeared subdued as they entered the prisoners dock.

Members of the jury also returned to court in order to watch the co-accused go down for a mandatory life sentence.  J4 as well as his wife, and the jury foreman were among those who attended.

The jurors were shuffled in and out of the courtroom by police and ordered to sit on the far side of the courtroom, away from media, members of the public, and family of the accused. They displayed a demeanor of self importance and grandiosity.

Emotions were high before court convened and comments were made amongst the body of the public about jury misconduct and the lack of justice the case seemed to take once it was revealed that J4 had been communicating with his wife inside the courtroom during much of the trial. The deceitful behavior of the wife, who failed to disclose who she was for months was commented on and most agreed that a mistrial should have been granted and at the very least J4 should have been dismissed.

IMG_1946

Victim impact statements written by Hann and Felix Pan were read out in court by a witness protection aid. Hann Pan, Jennifer’s father has not been in contact with his daughter since her arrest and chose not to come to the courthouse to deliver his statement in person. He named his statement “Emotional Impact” and wrote about the emotional, physical and psychological trauma he has endured since the night of November 8, 2010. “When I lost my wife, I lost my daughter at the same time.” Mr. Pan spoke of how his daughter’s actions destroyed his family and how he now feels like “I don’t have family.” He highlighted the loneliness he’s felt since his wife’s passing, how his son has distanced himself from the rest of the family and stated that he “feels dead too.” Mr. Pan can no longer work or participate in activities that used to bring him joy like gardening and mechanics due to the injuries he sustained from being shot multiple times in the head.

Mr. Pan thanked the prosecutors, the officer in charge and the jury for their support throughout his ordeal and stated that his hope for his daughter Jennifer is that she will think about her family and one day become an honest person.

Felix Pan, Jennifer’s younger brother who is now living and working on the east coast also opted to forego attending court but, like his father, he wrote a statement to be read in court. Felix wrote that his life has been haunted by the events of November 8, 2010. He stated that in the last four years, time has not healed the wounds or depression he has suffered after losing “my emotional support, my mother.” He described how in seemingly an instant his life changed when word of what happened at 238 Helen Ave began spreading like wildfire through social media, news, friends and family. Felix stated that “everyone’s” reaction toward him changed after November 8, 2010 and he feels that his family name has been soiled. This is the reason he now lives on the east coast.

pan_funeral_jpg_size_xxlarge_promo

He talked of the toll these events have taken on his own life with potential employers and friends. For instance, when one searches his name, an abundance of articles on the internet appear with captions like “Brother believes sister’s lies.”

He talked of his fear of giving out the address of his parent’s Markham home because it uncovers a deluge of article of the horrible events that took place there.

First degree murder renders a mandatory life sentence of 25 years without the possibility of parole. The crown urged the judge to sentence the accused to a life sentence for the attempt murder charges as well.

On behalf of their clients, defence counsel argued that a 10-15 year sentence on the attempt murder to be run concurrently was appropriate.  Neither Pan nor Mylvaganam have a previous criminal record.  Their attorneys conceded that their clients should receive the higher end of the 10-15 years. Crawford and Wong’s attorneys argued for the lower end of 10-15. Crawford and Wong both have a previous but minor criminal record involving the possession and trafficking of marijuana.

law

The crown sought and was granted communication bans between co-accused as well as Eric Carty until his trial is complete. There was also a ban between the defendants and members of the Pan family. Paul Cooper stated that his client is open to communication with her family and therefore the court should allow the Pan family the option of contacting Jennifer if they so choose. The judge accepted this request.

Lenford Crawford was the only accused who made a statement to the court. Crawford, who was clean shaven throughout the duration of the trial, has since grown a full beard. He told the judge that he has great respect for the Canadian legal system, the attorneys and His Honour, and stated that he remained respectful to the court and the legal process throughout his arrest, police interviews and trial.

Justice Boswell returned his decision shortly before 4:30pm. His synopsis of the crime that took place on November 8, 2010 at 238 Helen Ave was summed up as horrific. Boswell stated that those willing to go along with such a plan have “very little concern for human life.”

All accused were sentenced to life without parole for 25 years for the first degree murder of Bich-Ha Pan and life for the attempted murder of Hann Pan. The sentences are to be run concurrently.  The earliest Jennifer Pan can apply for parole is November 22, 2035. David Mylvaganam is eligible for parole on April 14, 2036, Daniel Wong on April 26, 2036 and Lenford Crawford on May 4, 2036.

More to follow. Stay Tuned!

Behind the Scenes: Convictions Going Down But More Importantly – Mr. Sub VS. Swiss Chalet

priorities

Priorities?

A guilty verdict of first degree murder and attempt murder was rendered on Jennifer Pan, David Mylvaganam, Daniel Wong and Lenford Crawford on December 13, 2014.

After nine long months of evidence, and three and a half days of deliberation, the fates of four young lives were decided – an announcement that was made after lunch had been ordered. The jurors had issues about the lunch order. Mr. Sub was on the menu that day, but because of diet issues, three or four jurors wanted Swiss Chalet.

This was indulged and orders were placed for both sub sandwiches and Swiss Chalet.

Lunch orders were placed for the court staff as well but rumour has it that most were unable to eat due to nerves and anxiety over the impending verdict. Not so the jury, however, who ate their Mr. Subs and Swiss Chalet meals, then entered the courtroom to send the four co-accused down for life. Shocking!

After 10 Long Months, Verdict is Finally Returned in the Pan et al Trial

IMG_1946

The jury returned with a verdict in the Pan et al trial on Saturday, December 13, 2014. At around 1:20pm, the jury informed Justice Boswell that a verdict had been reached. At 2:45, just after the lunch break, the court convened for the verdict. Many people expressed surprise that Jennifer Pan smiled and waved to members of the public as they entered the courtroom.

The court registrar read the charge of murder and attempted murder for each accused and asked the foreman whether the verdict was guilty or not guilty. In the case of Jennifer Pan there were only two options: guilty or not guilty of first degree murder and attempt murder. For the three co-accused the options were guilty or not guilty of first degree murder, second degree murder, or manslaughter, and guilty or not guilty of attempt murder.

The atmosphere in the packed courtroom was silent and tense as the accused stood in the prisoner’s dock to learn their fate. After the verdict was read one by one, each accused was asked to sit down in the prisoner’s dock.

Jennifer Pan, David Mylvaganam, Daniel Wong, and Lenford Crawford were all found guilty of the murder of Bich-Ha Pan and the attempted murder of Hann Pan. Guilty as charged.

When Jennifer Pan was convicted of the murder of her mother and the attempted murder of her father, she held her head low and sobbed softly.

When David Mylvaganam was declared guilty of the charges as they appeared on the indictment, he appeared shocked and he held his head down. His sister ran from the courtroom in an emotional state and began screaming when she reached the hallway.

Daniel Wong’s reaction was solemn and subdued as he sat down in the prisoner’s box. Lenford Crawford appeared to be awaiting the jury’s verdict with anticipation, and upon its guilty return, he also appeared subdued.

IMG_1976-0.JPG
Attorney Laurence Cohen being bombarded by media after the verdict 12/13/14

It was an emotional scene as family members exited the courtroom in tears and amidst blood curdling screams outside the courtroom. In the aftermath of the verdict, the media attempted to chase down visibly distraught family members in an attempt to obtain interviews what were obviously unwanted.

The convicted are expected to return to court in January for a sentencing hearing.

Behind the Scenes: Misconduct in the Jury Room

jury

The Jennifer Pan et al trial is a high profile case that has garnered much attention in the community, both media and public interest. In the first few months of trial, the courtroom was packed with both newspaper and broadcast journalists who made daily reports on the case as well as interested members of the public, and family of the accused. In such a situation a dynamic develops whereby regular attendees become acquainted with one another and often discuss the case amongst themselves.

Lawyers, court constables, and police make it a point to know who attends court on a regular basis. In the case of the police this is for security reasons, and it is common for spectators to be questioned as to why they are there.

After nearly four months of testimony, on July 11, 2014, the Pan jury wrote a letter to Justice Boswell that brought the trial to a temporary standstill. The letter stated that a spouse of one of the jurors had been attending court on a regular basis and, through texting, had relayed information about the case to the jury room spouse who shared this information with other members of the jury. The jury deemed the information they received from the spouse as “immaterial” but they stated that they felt it was their obligation to inform the judge of what had been occurring.

This caused great concern amongst lawyers because there had been numerous times when the jury had been excused from the courtroom, either because of objections, when legal issues were argued, or during voir dires, which is a ‘trial within a trial’ where legal motions are argued.

The spouse had been present in court during these ‘in the absence of the jury’ sessions and had been privy to all of the discussions that were not meant for the jurors ears. Speculation erupted – who was it? Of the now familiar faces in the courtroom, who could it possibly be? Was it a male spouse? A female spouse? And what, exactly, was the undisclosed information that had been given to the jury regarding the case?

On July 14th Justice Boswell, after consulting with counsel, conducted an inquiry of the jury. The court waited with bated breath when the court officer went to the jury room to retrieve the juror who had been texting with a spouse. The identity of the culprit was revealed when J4 entered the courtroom and stepped into the witness box. He was questioned, and subsequently each member of the jury took the stand too.

sandwich
Priorities?

The inquiry brought out that the information relayed to the jury room was : “An upcoming witness had large breasts,” “The court was delayed on one occasion because the arrival of a late witness,” “The court was delayed on another occasion because of the late arrival of one of the lawyers,” “The court was delayed on a further occasion because Mr. Carty did not receive a sandwich,” and “An upcoming witness was Hana Omar.”

Because the messages appeared innocuous, it was decided that the trial would continue as normal. In spite of this decision, Jennifer Pan and Eric Carty sought a mistrial. Both applications were denied.

It seemed that this was the end of the misconduct, but, as it turned out, it wasn’t.

More information regarding the spouse of J4 emerged. She was characterized by people in the hallway as being “highly opinionated” and pro prosecution. She was seen approaching witnesses, including Detective Goetz who had conducted many of the police interviews throughout the investigation and had appeared numerous times on the stand. Detective Goetz was contacted and asked to write a will-say as to what had occurred with J4’s wife and, as a result, was brought back to testify on a voir dire, a hearing that took place in the absence of the jury.

Detective Goetz testified that he was approached a number of times by a woman in the hallways of the courthouse. On one occasion, the woman, who it was confirmed was J4’s wife, made a clapping motion to Goetz as he exited the courtroom and made his way toward the elevator. He stated that he understood this to mean encouragement and applause. On another occasion, J4’s wife told Goetz he “needed to fight back more” after he was cross-examined by defence counsel after Lenford Crawford and Daniel Wong’s police interview statements were viewed.

After being cross-examined by defence counsel about his aggressive interrogation techniques, J4’s wife made a point of telling Goetz, “I didn’t see any rubber hoses.” Goetz stated that he understood this comment to be a reference to torture. The wife also made comments to Goetz about having “a lot of patience.” But he did not remember a statement she made, according to a witness that, “I would have taken my gun out and shot him.” This was in reference to Lenford Crawford.

indisguise
Spies in disguise?

Goetz testified that these communications made him uncomfortable and he distanced himself from these episodes. Goetz was unaware of who the woman was. The revelation that this woman was a spouse of a juror sent shock waves through the courtroom amongst those who had regularly attended. She had become close acquaintances with members of the body of the court but did not disclose that her husband was a juror.

Although it was not brought into court, there is proof of a communication where J4’s wife referred to information that she was privy to and the jury was not. She expressed strongly worded opinions that “Everything should be out in the open.”

Defence counsel Edward Sapiano addressed the court in the absence of the public and accused juror 4’s wife of deception. He stated he had talked to her himself and she had portrayed herself as someone who, “just likes attending trials.” Believing this to be true, he said he had approached her at times after court sessions and asked her, “so what did you think?” The unbeknownst fact that she was a wife of a juror and trier of fact in the case was a betrayal, he claimed.

It became evident that the jury had been aware “from day one”, according to her, that she was the wife of a juror. No one else knew.

After all this, J4 was brought back into court, placed in the witness box, and questioned once again by Justice Boswell.

law

Five questions were put to him: Was he was aware of any comments his spouse made regarding any participants in the trial.

Did his wife ever express opinions about the case to him and what were those specific details.

If yes, and his wife expressed opinions, did he share this with fellow jurors.

Was he aware whether or not his wife had contact with any other jurors on the case.

Finally, had he heard anything outside of the courtroom about the case and if so, would he be able to remain unbiased?

J4 said no to all five questions. However, he backtracked on question 4 about contact with other jurors and corrected himself by stating that one juror lives nearby, they have car pooled and have had social get-together dinners at his home.

All defence counsel argued that J4 should be dismissed from the jury. All agreed that “the damage to the trial process and the appearance of justice and fairness had been irreparable since the moment the jury advised that J4’s spouse had improper contact with him.”

“The balance of the defence counsel joined in a request that J4 be discharged…. All agree that the conduct of J4’s spouse reflects a clear bias towards the police and/or prosecution.” Defence counsel also expressed concerns that J4’s spouse was indeed sharing opinions with her husband.

Boswell ultimately made an order that banned J4’s wife from attending the trial but J4 was allowed to continue as a member of the jury.

Verdict Watch at the Pan et al Trial

IMG_1946.JPG
The fate of each accused, with the exception of Carty was placed in the hands of the jury today.

Jury deliberations began in the Pan et al trial on December 10, 2014. The judge completed his final instructions to the jury by rehashing the theory of the crown and the position of each defendant.

Justice Boswell instructed the jury to judge the accused individually, according to the law and with an open mind. He reiterated that they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the crown has proven it’s case against each accused.

The jury received the case at 11:30am. Stay tuned!

Crown’s Closing at Pan Trial Part 2 – “Convict Co-Accused of First Degree Murder”

20101109bg_invasion02.JPG

The crown presented its closing argument from December 1-4, 2014, reiterated its theory, and explained to the jury why they must convict each accused of first degree murder and attempted murder.

Using the PowerPoint presentation, Michelle Rumble meticulously reviewed cell phone contact between co-accused on the day of November 8, 2010. That morning, Eric Carty sent Lenford Crawford a text message from Rochelle Grant’s phone. At around 10:30am Crawford texted Pan, “To after work ok will be game time.” The crown reminded the jury that in her police interview, Pan stated that Homeboy had sent her a message telling her tonight was “game on.” Pan then called Crawford and the two spoke for four minutes before Pan began texting Daniel Wong – text messages that were later deleted. Another call between Pan and Crawford took place at 1:42pm. Crawford then had contact with Andre Deterville, a friend of Eric Carty.

At 6:15pm a final call from Crawford was placed to Pan that lasted 43 seconds. The crown dramatically pointed out that this was the last contact between Pan and Crawford until they sat together in the prisoner’s dock, jointly charged with murder.

At 238 Helen Ave that night, Jennifer Pan was watching TV shows between 6-9pm with a friend, Adrian Tymcewicz. Jennifer’s mother, Bich was getting ready for her weekly line dancing class. She returned home at 9:30pm. Her father, Hann had spent a long day at work and was unwinding in his study before going to bed at 8:30pm.

At 8:16pm, as Jennifer watched ‘How I Met Your Mother’ in the basement TV room where her mother would die just two hours later, she received a call from Andre Deterville.  At 9pm Jennifer Pan was texting Wong in her normal and jovial way.  Her last call to him that day was placed at 9:11pm.

While the vehicle carrying the assailants headed east on Highway 401, Eric Carty turned his phone off at 9:01pm close to Jane St. Then David Mylvaganam’s phone reveals contact with the girlfriends and associates of Carty along with calls and text messages to Mylvaganam’s ex- girlfriend, Dora Reddick.  Mylvaganam’s phone placed a call to Pan’s at 9:34pm for just less than two minutes.

Mylvaganam then placed a call to Crawford at 9:42pm that rang for 61 seconds and went unanswered. The crown alleges that this call sent a clear message to Crawford that Carty and Mylvaganam were on their way to Markham to do the deed.  It is alleged that Carty and Mylvaganam were passing the phone between themselves and much of the phone communications of that night are actually attributable to Carty.

20101123bg_murder03.JPG
It appeared to be a peaceful night at the Pan residence on 11.8.2010

At 238 Helen Ave at 10:02pm the surveillance video from across the street showed a light flick on in the upstairs study for approximately one minute. A car is seen driving past the Pan residence and turning left onto Dodd’s Gate during this time. The crown theorizes that the intruders then parked the car in a laneway behind Helen Ave.

At 10:05pm Mylvaganam’s phone placed a final call to Pan’s iPhone that lasted three minutes and twenty-three seconds. Records reflect that, at the same time, Pan was using her Samsung phone to talk to her friend Edward Pacificador at 9:51pm, a call that lasted 15 minutes. Pacificador testified that Pan had put the phone down and placed him on hold for a few minutes during their conversation.

At 10:14 all hell broke loose. One can only imagine the terror that took place during those minutes in that seemingly peaceful house on that quiet suburban street.

By 10:32pm all of the intruders had left the house and at 10:33 the surveillance video showed that a car turned right from Dodd’s Gate and sped away down Helen Ave. Just minutes later an array of flashing lights dominates the video as emergency response vehicles pull up at the scene.

bichpan
Bich Pan died on November 8, 2010

At 10:46pm Mylvaganam’s phone made its one and only call to Duran Fernandes as the vehicle drove back south and west toward Rexdale. Fernandes is said to have relayed a message to Crawford at his workplace that the deed had been completed. At 11:53pm Crawford called Joseph Oh who allegedly relayed the message back to Wong that “we’re good.”

The crown went on to describe the reasons that Jennifer Pan and her co-accused are guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to the crown, the motive for Jennifer Pan was simple: she loved Daniel Wong with a passion and she bitterly resented her parents, who forbade them to be together. Pan, who helped her mother with the finances of the home was aware of her parent’s insurance policies, and the small fortune she would inherit if her parents were dead. Although Pan testified that she had previously felt anger towards her father, she claimed to be close to her mother, but the crown insisted that her parents were a united front, and as such, both had to be eliminated.

Rumble reminded the jury that Pan attempted to solicit two other men in the killing of her parents only months before the tragedy of November 8, 2010. When her attempted plan with Andrew Montemayor and Ricardo Duncan fizzled out, Jennifer sought help from the love of her life, Daniel who, as a drug dealer, had connections to shady associates.

Michelle Rumble stated that Jennifer wanted her father dead. She was depressed when he stopped speaking to her after her lies were undone. “These were her reasons,” she sneered. Pan’s perspective of life has been characterized as self centered and superficial and she has been described as somebody who craves attention.

The crown referred to Jennifer Pan’s lies. Lies -one upon another that ultimately spun into a lifestyle of lies. She cannot be trusted, Rumble stated. But the crown instructed the jury to accept certain admissions she made throughout the investigation as they are supported by evidence.  Jennifer admitted to Detective Goetz in her November 22, 2010 interview that there was a plan for murder, but she maintained that she was the target. The crown accepts Pan’s admission that there was a plan for a contracted murder, but insists she was lying about the target because the plan was always for her parents.  She admitted to Goetz, in the same interview that she unlocked the front door in order to let the intruders in and she handed over $2,000 to one of the assailant during the invasion.

imagesAWXP862K
Jennifer Pan in her November 9, 2010 interview

The crown portrayed Pan as a cold-blooded liar who is only out to protect herself. She was prepared to throw Ricardo Duncan under the bus because she was “pissed off” at him for ripping her off after she solicited him to kill her father. She told police he was the one who gave her Homeboy’s phone number. Rumble said that Jennifer Pan’s demeanor appeared calm and normal on November 8, 2010 because she is a master manipulator who was “warming up for the performance of her life. Act one in a long, bloody play.”

The crown claims that Daniel Wong’s motive for aiding and abetting the murder and attempted murder of Bich and Hann Pan was also love. Even though Wong was moving on with another woman, he was still very much attached to Jennifer Pan and told her he loved her frequently. In his police video statement after a year of dating his new girlfriend, he told police the relationship wasn’t serious. The crown asserts that Wong believed he and Jennifer would ultimately end up together.

In the police statement Wong eventually admitted that Pan approached him to help kill her parents. In the video, Wong told the police that sometime in August of 2010 and around Mrs. Pan’s birthday, Pan told him that she had “evil thoughts” and asked if he knew anyone who could “off them.” The crown alleged that it was around this time that Wong gave Pan the secret iPhone and by August 18, 2010 he had put her in touch with Homeboy.

The crown alleges that at the same time Crawford and Wong were staking out 238 Helen Ave on Halloween, they were relaying the cost of the hit at $10,000 with Eric Carty and David Mylvaganam. When asked by Detective Cooke how much it would cost to kill someone over marijuana, Daniel replied, “I don’t know” but once pressed he hesitated and said,“$10,000.”

On November 23, 2010 after York Regional Police held a press conference announcing Jennifer Pan’s arrest, Wong, Crawford and Carty are alleged to have met in Ajax to discuss the turn of events. The crown stated they met again on November 27th.  On March 26, 2011, Crawford gave a second police interview after which he and Wong were heard over a wiretap conversation making plans to meet. The crown states these are indications of post-offence conduct that point to guilt.

1297558838169_ORIGINAL
Daniel Wong

The crown alleges that Lenford Crawford was the “middleman” – the link between Jennifer Pan and Eric Carty. It asserts that Crawford began helping Pan in her murder plot on August 18, 2010, the first time their phones touched. Although after September 13, 2010 there is a five week gap in communications between the two, the crown stated that Wong was instrumental in relaying information to Pan before communication between Pan and Crawford resumed on October 28. The crown acknowledged that, although there may not be a motive for murder by Lenford Crawford, the crown is not obligated to prove one.

The patterns of phone communications between co-accused as referenced on the PowerPoint presentation was, again, referenced to the jury. The crown questioned the use of Crawford’s cryptic language in his messages to Pan where he used words such as “work” and “my stuff”.

textsjplc

The crown referred to Crawford as a “common link” and “coordinator” between his co-accused, the one who orchestrated the events at 238 Helen Ave on November 8, 2010. He dealt drugs with Daniel Wong, he had known Eric Carty and his entire family for a few years and although he was unfamiliar with David Mylvaganam, the two men did have some phone contact in the months after November 2010.

Although the crown concedes that Crawford was nowhere near 238 Helen Ave on November 8, it asserts that he played a key role in the planning of the events of that night.

David Mylvaganam’s defence was dismissed as a “look over there” tactic. The crown stated that Mylvaganam is asking the jury to ignore the evidence against him and focus on that of Eric Carty and the third party suspect AB. Rumble told the jury that AB was never charged in the case because the so called  evidence against him is based on two unreliable sources. And the crown made the bold assertion that even if AB was involved the plot that night, it does not exonerate David Mylvaganam , and he is guilty nonetheless.

The crown maintains that the October 31, 2010 “ten stacks” text messages between Mylvaganam and Carty implicates Mylvaganam in the plan. This message is said to have happened just after Crawford contacted Carty in an alleged meeting with Wong to stake out the Pan residence.  With two children and no evidence that Mylvaganam had a job in the fall of 2010, the crown asserts that money was the motivation in Mylvaganam’s involvement in the plot to kill Jennifer Pan’s parents.

5eachting

David’s alleged access to firearms and his knowledge of the IVIS system was referenced by the crown. The IVIS system is used to match firearm related evidence such as bullets and bullet fragments to an actual firearm and can distinguish a new gun from an old one. On November 5, 2010 Mylvaganam texted Carty, “Me need a new new.” Detective Jansz identified the term “new new” as a brand new firearm and the crown asserted Mylvaganam was seeking out a new gun in order to use it for the shootings on November 8, 2010.

Mylvaganam’s phone records on the night of November 8, 2010 were rehashed. Even if Eric Carty was using Mylvaganam’s phone to make the incriminating calls that night as defence counsel maintain, the crown stated that Mylvaganam was present and heard the conversations between Pan and Carty and was in the presence of armed gunmen make him just as guilty of first degree murder.

This concluded the final submissions in the Pan et al trial. Justice Boswell began his lengthy 460 page instruction to the jury on Friday December 5, 2014. The jury is expected to receive the case and begin deliberations on December 10, 2014.

Stay tuned for more updates.