Video evidence at centre of murder case against teen charged in Limeridge stabbing
Crown arguing youth was part of group that ambushed Ali Mohummad and others in parking lot
Does video of an ambush in a Hamilton Mountain parking lot two and a half years ago clearly show a teen now on trial for second-degree murder?
This question is central in the case against the teen charged in the death of 19-year-old Ali Mohummad, who was stabbed during the melee at 310 Limeridge Rd. W. around 1 a.m. on July 19, 2020. The teen cannot be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
During closing submissions in court Monday and Tuesday, assistant Crown attorney Alannah Grady walked the court through video captured by witnesses from a nearby apartment balcony that captured part of the chaotic confrontation, stopping frequently to identify players, including who she says is the teen on trial dressed in a red shirt moving throughout the conflict.
The most crucial part of the video — often called the Twitter video in court because a witness posted it to the attention of Hamilton police on Twitter after the incident — shows what the prosecution says is Mohummad running for his life after being stabbed and the young man on trial chasing him out of the parking lot.
Court has heard Mohummad may have survived had he received immediate care for the two stab wounds to his chest. Instead, he ran and collapsed by a fence behind a nearby apartment at on Kendale Court. His body was found more than four hours later after a canine officer followed his blood trial.
It’s not clear who stabbed Mohummad, or who stabbed his brother and friend who survived. But it is the accused “chasing him away from safety where he ultimately collapses and dies,” Grady said.
Defence attorney Lauren Wilhelm said the Crown’s case rests on proving her client took part in the fight and that the “linchpin” of that is the video evidence, which does not show the teen beyond a reasonable doubt.
She said there is confirmation bias or “tunnel vision” in repeatedly watching the video looking for proof that the teen is there. Ultimately, she said the Crown is asking the court to convict a youth of second-degree murder based on clothing descriptions.
The Crown’s argument relies on party liability, essentially that the teen on trial was part of a conspiracy to ambush Mohummad’s older brother, Hamza Chaudry, and his friends amid a simmering conflict over perceived disrespect with two Hamilton teens that summer.
“It’s a collective group ambush,” Grady said, going through the video that shows the attacking group first targeting Chaudry’s blue Mustang and then moving on to his friends. It was a group attack, so legally a “blow of one is the blow of all.”
This was the same argument used in the separate trial of two other teens charged in Mohummad’s death, who were convicted of manslaughter last year.
Ontario Court Justice Leitch, who is trying the third teen separately, noted that the case against the first two teens was stronger. There was clear motive — they were the teens who had the conflict with Chaudry — and there was video of them bloodied after the fight calling for a rematch because they had been hit by cars.
Leitch said he has no trouble finding it is Mohummad being chased, but the bigger issue is whether the accused can be identified in the parking lot.
Separate surveillance video from 11 Kendale Crt. that night is quite clear and Leitch said he is likely able to find it shows the teen on trial coming and going from the apartment before and after the attack. The teen lived in that apartment building at the time. But the Twitter video is less clear.
Wilhelm conceded the court had reason to find the fleeing young man in the Twitter video was Mohummad. But she said even the much clearer Kendale video does not, beyond reasonable doubt, show her client.
But, if the court does find the teen participated in the fight, it is manslaughter not murder, because there is no evidence of intent, she said.
Grady also argued there was other corroborating evidence that proves the teen was part of the conspiracy. This includes cellphone evidence that shows the teen was friends on social media with one of the teens convicted of manslaughter. They had mutual friends’ contacts saved in their phones. On the night of the attack, their phones show calls with the same friend before and after the attack. Grady argued this friend, who was never identified by police, was the intermediary helping to recruit participants in the ambush.
She also pointed to cellphone tower evidence that showed the accused was in the area at the time of the attack, and then the video at 11 Kendale that shows him and a friend returning after the ambush. Grady argued that after the time of the ambush the teen’s shirt collar is loose and he is captured on video shadow boxing — as if re-enacting the fight. The video shows him continuously watching the scene across the street after police arrived and later appearing “agitated.”
The case returns Monday for the final part of defence submissions.