REMARKABLY, (because one expects to find substance in
courtroom evidence) all of the evidence which was used
to suggest Morin's guilt, was as frivolous as the
testimony of the pathological liars with the favour-
induced memories. To cite an example, forensic
pathologist Dr. Hans Sepp determined that it was not
possible to reach a conclusion about whether
Christine's injuries were caused by a pocketknife or
by a much more substantial weapon like a knife with a
ten-inch blade.24
Guy Paul Morin owned a pocketknife. But what a remarkable leap it is, from a
simple innocuous fact, to the determination that Morin
is a murderer and his pocketknife is a murder weapon.
Clearly, according to any objective analysis, this
so-called evidence of guilt determines absolutely
nothing beyond the fact that Guy Paul Morin was the
owner of a pocketknife. But then the Crown seized the
pocketknife, entered it into evidence, and created a
deadly murder weapon. The Crown applied the same sort
of a nit-picking, single-minded analysis to forensic
evidence which was aptly described by defence lawyer
Clayton Ruby, in the following terms;
Aspects of forensic evidence that the Crown says
indicated Mr. Morin was in contact with Christine
at the time of her death are so weak that you
wouldn't hang a dog on it.25
24Globe and Mail, 4/27/92, p. A 8.
25Globe and Mail, 6/2/86, p. A 20.
