Evidence is nothing more than circumstantial, says lawyer

By Katrina Geenevasen

All of the evidence in the Shafia trial is nothing more than hearsay, says the lawyer representing Hamed Shafia.

Patrick McCann spent nearly three hours this morning explaining to jurors in a Kingston courtroom that there is a “huge hole” in the Crown’s theory.

“There is absolutely no evidence as to how the four women were incapacitated, driven to the canal, and pushed into the locks,” argued McCann.

Hamed Shafia, along with his parents Mohammad Shafia and Tooba Yahya, are accused of murdering four women, whose bodies were found in the Kingston Mills locks in 2009.

McCann said no testimony could be heard from the dead women themselves.  Speaking of the victims, he said none of the witnesses were sworn in, and they were witnesses who could not be cross-examined.

McCann also frequently disputed the Crown’s arguments that the four women are dead as a result of alleged “honour killings.”

“Family squabbles are not a motive for murdering four women,” said McCann. “It’s not conceivable.”

McCann argued all of the Crown’s evidence was circumstantial.

“The evidence just does not add up,” said McCann. “The only reasonable conclusion is that Hamed and his parents are not guilty. Hamed is guilty of being stupid, but he isn’t responsible for the girls’ deaths, nor his parents. It’s time to put an end to this Kafkaesque of an experience they have been through for the last two years.”

Crown lawyer Laurie LaSalle was to begin her closing arguments this afternoon.