Picard’s defence team, prosecutors make final arguments in murder trial
Investigators had “tunnel vision” when they zeroed in on Adam Picard as their prime suspect in the killing of Fouad Nayel, Picard’s defence team argued in their final plea to the jury.
“On the investigation side, their minds had already been made up,” Michael Crystal said as the defence made its closing arguments Thursday.
Crown prosecutor Dallas Mack countered Friday, detailing evidence that led investigators to Picard, who was arrested and charged with first-degree murder six months after Nayel was killed.
The Crown said police went to extraordinary lengths to follow up on tips Picard provided from his jail cell as he claimed to be a witness to the murder, not the killer. Those tips all unravelled, leading police back to Picard.
According to the Crown’s case, Picard was reeling from a significant loss from a previous dope deal when he lured Nayel to a Calabogie hunt camp, shot him twice and robbed him of marijuana worth $30,000 on June 17, 2012.
Picard testified in his own defence, claiming Nayel had arranged a cocaine deal that day with two mystery men who showed up and killed Nayel with Picard’s shotgun, ordered Picard to dig a hole and then let him go after Picard pleaded for his life.
They took a picture of his driver’s licence, then tossed the shotgun back in his trailer as he fled, Picard testified.
Mack called the story “outrageous.”
“If these ‘bad guys’ really used Adam Picard’s shotgun to kill Fouad and threw it in his trailer, along with all this evidence on it, then he would have bubble-wrapped it and preserved it for fingerprints.”
Instead, Mack said, Picard took the shotgun out for target-shooting days later with his brother, then again with his brother’s commonlaw wife and two children, letting them all handle the gun.
He then asked his brother to sell the gun, and, when he couldn’t, stashed it until a relative turned it over to police.
“It’s inconceivable that, two days after witnessing a violent death, Picard would go out recreationally shooting with the murder weapon,” Mack said.
Calling himself “the voice of reasonable doubt,” Crystal said evidence
at trial was “equally consistent with both theories” of the case.
“There’s no motive,” Crystal said. “This was an execution … as coldblooded as it gets.”
Crystal said Picard’s drug network was “making a lot of money” in a partnership with Nayel, the “golden goose” who would supply high-quality weed for Picard to ship to connections in Thunder Bay. He had no reason to kill Nayel, Crystal said.
Picard had been stiffed for payment on one of those shipments when his contact mailed back only a few $20 bills from an expected $17,000 payoff. “Nobody was breathing down his neck, nobody was threatening him to get the money,” Crystal said. “They got along well (and) the loss had nothing to do with Fouad … Mr. Picard had suffered setbacks before, and now all of a sudden he becomes a murderer … an executioner? It doesn’t add up.”
After the killing, Picard stashed the marijuana at his brother’s house, along with some items stowed in a tarp. Darcy Picard and his common-law wife, Jamie Taniwa, drove to Chelsea, tossed Nayel’s car keys into a river and burned the tarp at the roadside.
“We are saying it was burned because Mr. Picard was present (at the killing), was involved in drugs, his shotgun was used, and he was afraid he would be connected with the crime … that’s why he wanted them burned,” Crystal said.
Mack said there was a simpler explanation.
“It doesn’t make sense because it’s not true,” he said, listing several of Picard’s lies exposed by the evidence.
“From the moment he hatched his plan he lied about what happened that day, and most recently he lied to you,” Mack told the jury.
Mack said the purchase of the shotgun five days before the killing was proof of planning and Picard’s lies to those around him were “all part of the ruse.”
The Crown said Picard’s story about the two mystery killers — both in testimony and in two letters to police — was a “fabrication based on actual events.”
The defence argued there was “no way” Picard could have known the details contained in an anonymous letter sent to police in 2013, after Picard had been in jail for months.
But Mack said the letter was sent after Picard saw some of the evidence disclosed to his thenlawyers and he crafted a narrative meant to mislead police.
“He had an interest in creating this diversion, in distracting police,” Mack said. “Mr. Picard had the information contained in the letter, he knew the location of the remains, knew about the cement (encasing the remains), knew about the murder weapon.”
Mack said the defence argument made no sense.
“Unless, of course, this was an intent and plan to rob and shoot Fouad Nayel. … Then suddenly his behaviour makes more sense.”
The jury will begin deliberations Tuesday.
ERROL MCGIHON/FILES