Article content
Article content
Bellemare’s lawyer will say they’re unreliable witnesses because they’re police and there were inconsistencies between their testimonies, Flannigan said. But he said inconsistencies are inevitable and that proves they weren’t colluding and that “you don’t have to resolve every inconsistency to accept the witnesses’ evidence.”
Article content
He also said Bellemare’s “spontaneous utterances” are relevant to his intent. When the officers say they want to take their shot colleague from the suite, he says, “Your member is dead, there’s a hole in his head” or “He’s dead, he has a hole in his head.”
Article content
And while being arrested by Const. Amber Carlson, he tells her to “f— off.”
Article content
She then asks him, “How could you possibly shoot a police officer, didn’t you hear us” or “didn’t you hear us say police,” and he says “no.”
Article content
She then gives him the standard police warning and he again tells her to “f— off,” said Flannigan.
Article content
His “no” answer shouldn’t raise doubt about whether he knew O’Brien was an officer “when you take into account that it’s between two belligerent f— offs.”
Article content
“So, when, if you accept that he said he didn’t hear they were police, when you look at all the evidence, you can reject that,” he said. “It does not raise a reasonable doubt.”
Article content
Flannigan also said he dismisses any possible defence suggestions that the shootings were accidental or that Bellemare was affected by intoxication or any mental illness.
Article content
Article content





















