The defence lawyer for one of the men accused of killing Martin Payne called on a jury to acquit his client as he called the Crownsa国际传媒檚 argument against James Lee Busch weak and speculative.

The Crown on Monday tasked the jury with finding Busch guilty of first-degree murder, but Ryan Drury said the evidence presented over the last month shows there would be a reasonable doubt the escaped inmate couldsa国际传媒檝e committed the July 2019 killing.

Busch and Zachary Armitage were charged with first-degree murder following their William Head prison escape, but the latter of the accused men was removed from the trial as the jury heard hesa国际传媒檚 been dealt with in a separate way.

The evidence showing Busch was an active participant and assailant is inconclusive and the Crownsa国际传媒檚 narrative of what transpired in Paynesa国际传媒檚 Metchosin home is circumstantial, Drury argued in his closing address.

He presented a four-part defence on Dec. 13 and 14, which includes: the case is built on circumstantial evidence; theresa国际传媒檚 insufficient evidence to meet first-degree murder requirements; there was minimal evidence forensic evidence against Busch but an overwhelming case supporting Armitage committing the murder alone; and the Crown fell short of showing Busch was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Drury ultimately drew three possible conclusions from evidence: that Busch was never in the home; that he was at the home but had no involvement in the murder and he was just sa国际传媒渋n the wrong place at the wrong timesa国际传媒�; and that his only role was assisting in cleaning up a crime scene that Armitage had solely committed.

His sa国际传媒渃ircumstantialsa国际传媒� argument seemingly relied on how there could be no direct eyewitness since the victim was killed.

sa国际传媒淣o one has given any evidence that they saw Mr. Busch do anything at Mr. Paynesa国际传媒檚 residence, no one has even given any evidence that they saw Mr. Busch inside Mr. Paynesa国际传媒檚 residence,sa国际传媒� Drury said.

While the Crown said the jury could use evidence to draw inferences that connect how a planned ambush played out, Drury said the same evidence that could lead to inferences that Busch was innocent.

The lawyer pointed to Armitagesa国际传媒檚 fingerprints and DNA being found in the home and witnesses testifying how he was making calls from Paynesa国际传媒檚 landline, while the only thing placing Busch at the home was DNA on some underwear and shoes.

READ:

That related to Drurysa国际传媒檚 third argument, where he concluded the evidence was overwhelming that Armitage alone was responsible for Paynesa国际传媒檚 death. He recalled how Armitagesa国际传媒檚 DNA was found on the inside of bloody clothing, Asics shoes and on chewed gum left in the main bathroom where a hatchet and bowie knife were found.

A major crutch of Drurysa国际传媒檚 argument was that the Asics shoes had much more blood all over them compared to a pair of New Balancesa国际传媒檚 sa国际传媒� which held Buschsa国际传媒檚 DNA and were linked to a footprint left in the ensuitesa国际传媒檚 bloody floor. He said the shoes prove Busch couldnsa国际传媒檛 be in close proximity to Payne when the 60-year-old was being struck.

sa国际传媒淒o you think for a moment that these shoes would be so utterly lacking in blood if Mr. Busch was wearing them when he had committed a homicide, hitting Mr. Payne in the head with a hatchet or stabbing him with a knife?sa国际传媒�

Defence said the New Balance shoes alone prove a reasonable doubt and are a sa国际传媒渞oadblock to convicting Busch.sa国际传媒�

Crown said the bigger Payne could not have been attacked by a lone assailant as witnesses said his wounds came from the front and back, with at least three weapons. Drury refuted that, saying Armitage sa国际传媒� armed with the multiple suspected murder weapons sa国际传媒� could have overcome Payne and inflicted the myriad of wounds.

sa国际传媒淲e say the evidence simply does not allow you to figure out what happened,sa国际传媒� Drury said.

READ: