New evidence has surfaced in the second-degree murder trial of Surrey man Tejwant Danjou, in the form of a video which was not initially disclosed by RCMP.
The video, filmed by Danjou, claims to show his common-law partner Rama Gauravarapu flirting with another man while the two were on a flight to Las Vegas in May 2018 sa国际传媒� just three months before he is alleged to have murdered her in a West Kelowna hotel room.
However, what Danjou claims the video contains, may not be what it shows.
On Tuesday, June 2, forensic psychiatrist Dr. Todd Tomita testified Danjou had shown him the video in their six-hour interview at Okanagan Correctional Centre.
Danjou claimed to Tomita that Gauravarapu had sa国际传媒渉iked up her dresssa国际传媒� while on the plane, allowing the man in the seat next to her to sa国际传媒渇lirt and fondle her.sa国际传媒�
sa国际传媒淚 took it as nothing, but he said a man sitting next to him fondled her leg,sa国际传媒� Tomita said of the video.
According to Danjousa国际传媒檚 defence lawyer, Donna Turko, the content of the video is important in determining whether Danjou had delusions regarding Gauravarapusa国际传媒檚 infidelity or if it progressed to hallucinations.
sa国际传媒淗allucination then makes the disassociation more in the realm of completely-out-of-touch,sa国际传媒� she said.
Another aspect of discomfort, said Turko, is what else the RCMP may not have disclosed.
sa国际传媒淭his is a video in the time period relevant. Theysa国际传媒檝e disclosed hundreds of pieces of evidence. Why would this have gotten missed?sa国际传媒� Turko said.
Turko suggested maybe the police need to go back and look through the material to see if anything else had been missed.
sa国际传媒淚t could go against me sa国际传媒� it could help me sa国际传媒� but I think it is my duty to make sure all the material that should be disclosed, is disclosed,sa国际传媒� she said.
B.C. Supreme Court Judge Allison Beames asked why the defence only recently requested the video, seeing as it had come up numerous times through the proceedings.
Turko claimed it is not her responsibility to request such items, rather it is the responsibility of the RCMP and the Crown to disclose them.
The Crown said it had also not received the video initially and would have disclosed it if it had. A 1991 Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v Stinchcombe, found the Crown has the duty to provide the defence with all evidence that could possibly be relevant to the case, even if the Crown itself doesnsa国际传媒檛 plan on calling that evidence.
sa国际传媒淲e take our Stinchcombe obligation very seriously,sa国际传媒� said Crown counsel Michael Lefebure.
Turko requested an adjournment until Friday morning, so she could review the file with Dr. Tomita. Judge Beames granted that adjournment.
READ MORE: Defence claims Surrey man was mentally unwell at time of West Kelowna murder
READ MORE: Kelowna trial for three men charged in Hope murder delayed 11 months
To report a typo, email:
newstips@kelownacapnews.com.
michael.rodriguez@kelownacapnews.com
Like us on and follow us on .
