A defence lawyer at a murder trial argued Andre Wareham had two options – repel Bill Atkins attack anyway possible, or die.
The lawyers of a second-degree murder trial taking place now in Thunder Bay gave their closing addresses to the jury at the Superior Court of Justice on Wednesday. Wareham faces the murder charge after he fatally stabbed 29-year-old Atkins on Jan. 14, 2009.
Wareham’s lawyer Steven Hinkson said it was the jury’s obligation to presume his client was innocent until the Crown proved without a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
“The only thing Andre Wareham is guilty of is trying to survive,” Hinkson said.
“There are no winners. A man lost his life. There’s no issue that Wareham stabbed Atkins. A tragedy occurred. Wareham stabbed Atkins because he had no choice, no options. That’s what this case is about.”
Wareham and Atkins lived at the same Finlayson Street apartment building.
The court heard that the two had been on friendly terms at one point, but eventually grew apart.
Wareham testified that he didn’t want to associate with Atkins anymore and tried to avoid him.
Hinkson described Atkins as violent and when he consumed alcohol became dangerous.
The court had heard earlier in the trial that Atkins had a prior assault conviction and had bragged about killing a man.
Hinkson said that prior conviction shows a dangerous man and that it wasn’t an idle threat that Atkins was making when he told Wareham he was going to kill him.
“Did (Wareham) want to kill Atkins? No. Why would he call 911 because he tried to help Atkins,” he said.
Hinkson said after Wareham received a massage, his defenses were down and was put in an even worse position after Atkins landed the first punch.
Wareham couldn’t run, couldn’t negotiate and couldn’t fight back, he said.
“(Wareham) was thinking of trying to survive,” he said.
Assistant Crown Attorney Rob Kozak painted a different picture of the events that led to the fatal incident.
While Kozak agreed the incident was tragic, he said events didn’t go the way Wareham had told the court.
Instead, the Crown lawyer said Wareham meant to cause bodily harm and was reckless.
“There is no dispute that the weapon, in the hands of Andre Wareham, stabbed William Atkins five times: three times to the abdomen, once to the leg, once to the arm; and that at least two of the wounds were fatal,” Kozak said.
“Think about what Wareham told you in his sworn testimony and think about whether what he told you
can logically be true. Compare it to other evidence you have heard in this case. Is he consistent with what he told the 911 operator? Is he consistent with what he told (police)?
“Is his evidence consistent with the physical evidence? Is his testimony internally consistent with itself? The answer to all is no. “
Forensic pathologist Nicholas Escott testified the wounds inflicted on Atkins could have been made from someone attacking from behind. Kozak said that theory better fit the evidence found at the crime scene than what Wareham had told the jury.
Kozak argued the refreshes evidence of what happened was when Wareham called 911 and not hours later when he was interviewed by police and not when he testified in court. He said the two versions were not consistent with each other.
“(Wareham) may truly believe what he told you in court,” he said. “Consider how his evidence was given, how responsive or evasive he was to questions, what he said compares to common sense, to what he said in the 911 call and on video, and how it compares to the other evidence in this case. If you do not find the intent established, we ask you to find him guilty of manslaughter.”
The court was dismissed until Thursday morning where the judge will charge the jury to reach a verdict.
None of the accusations against Wareham have been proven in court.
Follow Jeff Labine on Twitter @Labine_reporter
