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.






Thanks for the message