Home | WebMail | Register or Login

      Calgary | Regions | Local Traffic Report | Advertise on Action News | Contact

Login

Login

Please fill in your credentials to login.

Don't have an account? Register Sign up now.

Manitoba

Amsel lawyers seek approval to question police

A judge will rule Tuesday whether lawyers for accused bomber Guido Amsel will be allowed to cross examine police officers who prepared DNA warrants that helped secure his arrest.

Important information missing from DNA warrants: defence

Testimony Wednesday in the trial of accused letter bomber Guido Amsel focused on continuity of evidence seized at three bomb scenes. (Submitted/WPS via CP)

A judge will rule Tuesday whether lawyers for accused bomber Guido Amsel will be allowed to cross-examine police officers who prepared DNA warrants that helped secure his arrest.

Amsel, 51, is on trial charged with five counts of attempted murder and several explosives offences.

Amsel was arrested in July2015 after letter bombs were delivered to his ex-wife and two law firms. Two of the letter bombs were safely detonated, but lawyer Maria Mitousis lost her right hand and suffered multiple other injuries when a package she was holding exploded.

Defence lawyers are arguing police officers failed to provide relevant information in warrant affidavits regarding swabs taken from Amsel's hands testing for explosive residue and an FBI handwriting analyses.

Court heard an initial swab test of Amsel's hands yielded a presumptive positive result for explosive residue. A subsequent test at the RCMP lab, which was not noted in police affidavits, could not confirm the presence of explosive residue. That second test result was not included in the police affidavits.

"The issue, ultimately, will be the credibility and reliability of what the [police officers] had to say," lawyer Jeremy Kostiuk told Judge Tracey Lord.

Kostiuk said there is nothing in the police officers' notes indicating whether some relevant reports were ever received or disclosed.

"The failure to include what are on the face relevant reports begs the question why they weren't included," Kostiuk said. "It could be an oversight or it could be an attempt to deceive the court."

Crown attorney Chris Vanderhooft argued the relevant question is what police officers knew at the time they filed their affidavits. He said there is no evidence officers excluded information they had in their possession.

"You have to show that at the time of the affidavits, [the officer]knew the results of the test were false, and you can't come to that conclusion," he said.