Court denies new trial for 3 who murdered Calgary dad over child visitation dispute - Action News
Home WebMail Saturday, November 23, 2024, 04:02 AM | Calgary | -12.0°C | Regions Advertise Login | Our platform is in maintenance mode. Some URLs may not be available. |
Calgary

Court denies new trial for 3 who murdered Calgary dad over child visitation dispute

Three killers who murdered a young man because he wanted to spend more time with his daughter were denied a new trial by the Alberta Court of Appeal on Monday.

Sheena Cuthill, her husband Tim Rempel and his brother Wilhelm Rempel are all serving life sentences

Wilhelm Rempel, Sheena Cuthill and Tim Rempel murdered Ryan Lane because he wanted visitation rights with the daughter he and Cuthill shared. The Court of Appeal has denied all three a new trial. (CBC/Global)

Three killers who murdered a young man because he wanted to spend more time with his daughter were denied a new trial by the Alberta Court of Appeal on Monday.

Sheena Cuthill, her husband Tim Rempel,and his brother WilhelmRempel were convicted by a jury in2016 and eachsentenced to life in prisonwith no chance of parole for 25 years.

Ryan Lane, 24, was killed after he was kidnapped by the Rempel brothers from a parking lot in the city's northwest. His body was burned in a barrel at a gravel pit near Beiseker, Alta., about 70 kilometres northeast of Calgary.

His remains were discovered in the barrel along with his class ring and pieces of his cellphone four months after he disappeared.

During the trial, Cuthilltestified she wanted to scare Lane intogiving up on his efforts to have visits with the daughter they shared.

Cuthill and her husband argued the trial judge erred in allowing damning text messages between the two to be admitted as evidence.

The panel of appeal judges said in the decision that previous case law "said nothing to suggest spousal communication privilege should be extended to such communications in situations such as those before this court."

Wilhelm Rempelargued the trial judge's instructions to the jury affected his right to a fair trial.

But the Court of Appeal found theerror"was at best minor and of no consequence."

"It is our view that the evidence incriminating Wil in this case was so overwhelming that a reasonable jury properly instructed would inevitably have convicted."