Black Mom gets White Justice

Dennis “Rocka” Knibbs was a black defendant facing a white jury – ten jurors were white and two were of Asian ancestry – in his murder trial in Vancouver. When this fact was mentioned early in the trial on the Downtown Eastside Enquirer blog, it drew a response from Lanre Aba Habib, mother of 21 yr. old Trumaine “Ekoh” Habib whom Knibbs, now 31, was accused of shooting multiple times in the New Wings Hotel. Habib wrote: “And as my son was half white, all I ask the court is that they would give his white side some form of JUSTICE”.

She got justice.

But questions linger about whether justice was stretched a little thin in places during the trial which saw Knibbs, the Montreal born son of Jamaican immigrants, convicted of second degree murder and sentenced last Thursday to 25 years in prison, with a mandatory ten years before being eligible for parole. Defense lawyer, Glen Orris, had argued in the hours before the verdict that Knibbs was being denied his right to fully defend himself.

Orris had felt ambushed when the jury was told at the last minute that they could consider whether the victim, Habib, had acted in self-defense when firing the first shot. Orris said he would have defended his client from this angle had he learned of it before the jury was heading off to deliberations.

“Who goes into a hotel they were just banned from toting a SHOTGUN?!!…he intended to what? Use it as a coat hanger?”

Even laypersons discussing this murder case instinctively gravitate toward the issue of whether Habib was defending himself or provoking Knibbs when he fired that first shot. Early in the case, Habib’s mother wrote to the Enquirer,

“…all I want to say is that my son was defendeding (sic) himself from two thugs that had nothing but bad blood towards him and he defended himself as he knew how to…”

After the verdict, a Knibbs supporter who wished to remain anonymous, argued that Habib’s conduct was more provocation than self defense:

“Who goes into a hotel they were just banned from toting a SHOTGUN?!! … Its obvious why this guy went back with a deadly weapon.. to use deadly force. I'm sure if he took it, he intended to what? use it as a coat hanger?”

The fact that the victim, Habib, had brought a shot gun to the New Wings Hotel in the hours before the shooting is a fact that was agreed upon by both the prosecution and the defense in this trial. Leroy Charlie, a 19 yr. old New Wings resident, had allowed Habib to stay in his room and later testified that Habib had walked in, pulled a shotgun out of his pants, and showed it to him.

Other facts too were agreed upon by both sides: Later in the day on which Habib had brought the shotgun into the hotel, Liscombe and Knibbs had been looking for Habib; Liscombe pushed on the door of Charlie’s room and as the door opened partially and then slammed shut again, Knibbs joined Liscombe in pushing on it – that’s when Habib fired the first shot from his shotgun. That first and only shot fired by Habib hit Liscombe in the gut, a wound from which he would die a few hours later in St. Paul’s hospital. A few days before Habib brought the shotgun into the hotel, he and Liscombe had gotten into a fist fight in the hallway of the hotel and Habib, the smaller of the two, had grabbed a baseball bat and whacked Liscombe across the head, leaving a cut that required a hospital visit and stitches. After that fight, Habib had been barred from the hotel by the manager but had returned to Charlie’s room with a concealed shotgun and an intent, he told Charlie, to “lay low” for awhile.

In closing statements, prosecutor Michael Luchencko told the jury that it was likely that Habib had brought the shotgun into the hotel simply because of the nature of the business he was in – Habib, Knibbs, and Liscombe were drug trafficking in the New Wings -- and not specifically to harm Liscombe or Knibbs.

Judge Silverman instructs the jury: first he says they could, then he says they couldn’t, then he says they could

After the verdict, a supporter of Knibbs commenting on the Downtown Eastside Enquirer blog, accused the jury of letting race influence their decision.

"Let me ask the jury this , 'How could you say that Ecko acted on self defense if he was barred from the New Wings . Means he isnt allowed in . How do you know defendent (sic) wasn't tryin to escort him out of there'. . . . You have it out for black people and I really think that it's a nasty attitude."

But if the jury's decision was colored by anything, it may have been Justice Silverman's instructions about whether they could consider if Habib had acted in self-defense when firing the first shot. First he said they could, then he said they couldn’t, then he said they could.

Trouble started when Justice Silverman, before sending the jury out to deliberate, instructed them that they could consider the issue of whether Habib had been acting in self-defense. The minute the jury left the room, Orris stood up and objected, telling the judge that it was unfair to put this issue to jurors for the first time as they were heading out to deliberate. Orris argued that the prosecution had not raised this issue during the trial, denying Knibbs an opportunity to defend himself in relation to it.

Orris -- who had told the jury the day before in closing statements that this case “screams out” for an acquittal based on the fact that Knibbs had been the one acting in self defense – now gave the judge an idea of how he would have defended his client if he had known that the jury would be asked to consider whether Habib had been acting in self-defense. Orris said he would have gotten the jury to distinguish between whether it was Knibbs or Liscombe that Habib may have felt the need to defend against.

Orris won over the judge. Justice Silverman recalled the jury and gave them strict instructions not to consider whether Habib had been acting in self-defense: “Take that off your radar.”

The jury didn’t take it off their radar. The next day, after deliberating until almost dinner time, the jury sent the judge questions. They asked: “When Liscombe and Nabib forced entry, did Nabib have the right to fire the shotgun? Was that an unlawful act?” And they asked for a brush-up on the “provocation” defense, specifically the part that states that some “unlawful act” must have suddenly been committed to provoke a person into committing murder. Even Orris’ receptionist smelled trouble here; she had dropped into the courtroom with an armful of papers and said in worried tone, “They’re talking about provocation.” Orris, a 30 year veteran of court rooms, responded, "Who knows why." He did not sound happy.

Even a layperson sitting in the gallery could see that the jury’s questions hinted at trouble for Knibbs. The jury appearing to be reviewing the defense of “provocation”, a place where the judge told them to go only if they had already found Knibbs guilty of murder. The provocation defense would allow the jury to drop a murder conviction down to the lesser conviction manslaughter. The provocation defense works like this: If Habib’s firing of the shotgun into Liscombe’s belly could be viewed as an unlawful act that had “provoked” Knibbs into a violent response, then Knibbs could be convicted on the lesser crime of manslaughter and be out on parole in 4 years. But if Habib had a right to fire that shotgun – i.e. if he had been exercising his right to self-defense -- he was not committing an unlawful act and the jury’s option of dropping a murder conviction to manslaughter was dead.

Orris put up a fight. It was getting late, about 8:30 p.m.; the lights were out in the halls of the cavernous court building, the sheriffs were on overtime, and the Canucks were in overtime a few blocks away, playing what would be their final playoff game.

Orris argued to the judge that prosecutors had “never taken the position in opening or closing statements that Habib was acting in self-defense in acquiring the gun.” And there had been “no suggestion” by the prosecution during the trial that Habib had acted in self-defense. Orris further pointed out that raising this issue was unfairly “putting the onus on Mr. Knibbs to prove that Mr. Habib was not acting in self-defense”. It was too late for Knibbs to mount a defense now, Orris said.

“I didn’t get a chance to say to this jury,” Orris argued, “‘Nobody saw guns in the hands of either of these men’”, either Knibbs or Liscombe, as they entered the room where Habib was staying. And Knibbs took out a baton only after Habib fired the first shot. And Knibbs had intervened in a fight a few days earlier between Liscombe and Habib, punching Habib once, just enough to put an end to the fight. “So what are the chances he wanted to blow this guy away from 30 centimeters with a shotgun?,” Orris told the judge. “I didn’t get a chance to argue that. Don’t go there.”

The judge went there. Justice Silverman told Orris that he intended to rule against him. He intended, he said, to instruct the jury to use a “common sense” standard for whether Habib had been acting in self-defense. Orris protested: You’re going to say to the jury that the criteria for self-defense that you instructed them to apply to Mr. Knibbs, don’t apply to Mr. Habib, and that for Habib the standard to be applied is “common sense which is much wider”.

“Give me ten minutes”, the judge said, as he ducked out to prepare the tricky wording of his instructions to the jury. Orris turned to a sheriff: How are the Canucks doing?

Justice Silverman recalled the jury and instructed them to decide whether Habib had a “perceived need to defend himself” – that’s the key phrase to remember, he told them -- when he fired that first shot. In a general sense, the judge explained, “a person has a legal right to defend himself from danger or threat of danger.” You will have to be satisfied that Habib did have that “need”, before you can decide that he had the “right” to fire the first shot. “There are clearly some common sense limitations that you’re going to have to consider”, he further explained. You will have to determine that:

1. Mr. Habib “honestly and reasonably perceived serious danger and threat to himself”,
2. Mr. Habib fired the shotgun “in response” to the perceived danger,
3. Mr. Habib’s “reaction in firing the shotgun was not excessive” in those circumstances.

The judge emphasized, "Apply common sense."

Common sense was exactly the standard that Habib’s mother wanted applied in this case. In a comment left at the Downtown Eastside Enquirer near the start of the trial, the Surrey mother referred to the judge’s opening comments, “COMMON SENCE (sic) IS WHAT THE JUDGE KEPT SAYING TO THE JURY I TRULY HOPE THAT HE USES SOME."

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that this case isn’t over yet. As Knibbs sat in the prisoner’s box for the first time after the verdict was read, his tie now missing, a tall, young, Mulatto guy who had arrived with his Asian girlfriend, spoke with him through the glass. He encouraged Knibbs to hold out hope for his appeal. “Now three judges get to deal with it,” his pal reminded him. "And when they see what’s up, they’ll see what’s up.”

Judge Sentences Garbles

There’s a Shania Twain song, “What made you say that?” It could have been the theme song of Judge Silverman's closing instructions to the jury in the Dennis Knibbs murder trial. Silverman later recalled the jury, telling them that there were several “mistakes or slips of the tongue that I have made and will attempt to correct.”

There was room for mistakes though. There was built-in redundancy in his instructions which lasted four hours (that’s after 2 hrs. worth of lunch and coffee breaks are subtracted). He kept circling back to key points that the jury would have to remember in the jury room.

The defense of “self-defense”: If it fits, you must acquit

Judge Silverman told the jury that in determining whether Knibbs was guilty of murder, they had to consider the defense of “self-defense”. If it fits, you must acquit. That the gist of his message.

In explaining self-defense, the judge told the jury that the law allows Knibbs to defend himself, or someone under his protection, from assault as long as he doesn’t use excessive force. Was Knibbs’ cousin Ian Liscombe under his protection? Knibbs had just watched Liscombe shot in the abdomen by Ekoh Habib who Knibbs is accused of then shooting.

First mistake:

Towards the end of his instructions, Judge Silverman had told the jury that they could consider not only whether Knibbs had been acting in self-defense but whether Ekoh Habib had been acting in self-defense when he fired the first shot. Both the defense and the prosecution agree that Habib fired the first shot after Liscombe was attempting, first alone and then with Knibbs’ help, to push open the door of the room in the New Wings Hotel where he was staying

The judge’s instruction to the jury, Orris argued, “gets into the question of whether Mr. Habib was the one acting in self defense from Mr. Knibbs or Ian [Liscombe] and this was not something that the law required they consider. “I better tell them not to pursue that analysis” said Silverman. And he did tell the jury just that.” “Whether or not Habib was acting is self-defense: take that off your radar.”

Recipe for murder

The judge explained to the jury that there are “five ingredients” in murder. The prosecution has to prove to you that all five ingredients are present, or they haven’t made their case that Knibbs is a murderer. You have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has given all five of the following ingredients, or the prosecution hasn’t made their case for murder.

1. identity of Mr. Knibbs as the offender, the “shooter” of one of the guns.
2. time and place of the events
3. Mr. Knibbs committed an unlawful act
4. An unlawful act caused the death of Mr. Habib. “Certainly the shotgun caused his death”, the judge added.
5. Knibbs either meant to cause the death of Mr. Habib or meant to cause bodily harm that Mr. Knibbs knew would cause death and was reckless about whether it caused death.

If all five ingredients are present – you mustn’t have doubts about even one – you can consider Knibbs a murderer.

But it ain’t over ‘til it’s over. Even if you conclude that you have all five ingredients that make Mr. Knibbs a murderer, Judge Silverman told the jury, you can knock his conviction down from murder to manslaughter – if you are convinced he was provoked by Mr. Habib.

Two more mistakes:

As the judge repeated his instructions to the jury, he told them that if you have a doubt about whether you have even one of the five ingredients for murder in the case of Knibbs, “you will find him guilty on both counts”, murder and manslaughter. Ooops! He should have said “not-guilty”, he told the jury after Orris brought it to his attention.

Judge Silverman also told the jury that if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the first four ingredients are present but not the fifth, “go on to manslaughter”. “Not correct,” Silverman admitted, when Orris drew it to his attention. If you have a reasonable doubt on ingredient 1,2,3, or 4, Silverman explained, “the result is not guilty on both counts.”

Defense lawyer couldn’t believe his ears

When Orris first pointed out one of the mistakes to Judge Silverman, he indicated that he didn’t quite believe his own ears. He told the judge that he thought he might have heard it wrong. Orris was listening to Silverman explain to the jury that Crown prosecutors had to have convinced them that they had the five ingredients in this case before they could find Knibbs guilty of murder.

Fourth mistake:

The first of the five ingredients is of course, Judge Silverman told the jury, that you have to know the “identity” of the shooter. “I don’t think you’ll have much trouble finding that”, he noted. Did Orris hear that correctly? The judge checked the transcript and confirmed that he had in fact said, “You’re not going to have any trouble determining the identity of the shooter.” I can’t believe I said that, Silverman said, as Knibbs watched. “I’ll correct that.”

A few minutes later, Silverman told the jury, “This one was a straight slip of the tongue” and a “serious one.” He said emphatically, “If I said that, I’m pulling that back.”

It was the drugs talking

Judge Silverman would no doubt be the first to admit that he’s not perfect. He’s the judge who reminded the jury twice that experts are "not deities" . They can make mistakes, he cautioned.

At least Judge Silverman was non-defensive when his inconsistent statements were brought to his attention -- unlike witness after witness in this case who excused their own inconsistent statements by saying, ‘Don’t blame me; it was the drugs talking’.

Two dead men murdered each other

The two dead guys shot each other. That’s what defense lawyer Glen Orris told the jury yesterday in closing statements at the murder trial of Dennis Knibbs.

But key evidence that could support or refute Orris’ version of events is missing – due to a blunder by the Vancouver Police. The VPD did not have either victim checked for gun powder residue on their hands and arms.

Prosecutor Michael Luchencko agrees with Orris that one of the dead guys murdered the other. But only one. The second dead guy was murdered by a man who walked out of the New Wings Hotel on Apr. 4, 2005. That shooter, Luchencko alleged in his closing statement to the jury, was the defendant Dennis Knibbs.

Prosecutor Michael Luchencko’s last words to the jury:

A few days before they were killed, Aliston “Ian” Liscombe and Trumaine “Ekoh” Habib, two young drug dealers inside the New Wings Hotel, had a fight. Liscombe had felt that Habib was, in the words of Liscombe’s girlfriend Susan Panich, “cutting his grass”, encroaching on his drug profits. Liscombe and the defendant, Dennis “Rocka” Knibbs, in his twenties, were cousins and “had joint interests” in the New Wings drug trade.

During the fight, Liscombe and Nabib were punching one another outside a room in the New Wings Hotel by Leroy Charlie, 19. Habib had entered Charlie’s room to get a baseball bat which he used to whack Liscombe on the head. Knibbs then arrived on the scene and gave a punch to Habib, putting an end to the fight. Liscombe got stitches to the cut on his head. He was “a little pissed off”, Panich testified.

Habib was barred from the New Wings Hotel by the manager after using the baseball bat on Liscombe. But Habib returned. "He no doubt returned to sell drugs." Drugs were found in a tan jacket belonging to Nabib which was found near his body in Leroy Charlie’s room where he sometimes stayed as a guest.

In the hours before the shootings, Nabib arrived at Charlie’s room and pulled a Winchester sawed off shotgun in a zippered bag out of his pants. He showed the weapon to Charlie who then left and went to his brother’s room in the building. It is likely that Nabib brought the shotgun into the building “to protect himself from no one in particular” because of the drug business he was in. When Liscombe saw Charlie in the hall, he asked if he knew where Nabib was and Charlie lied, “No.”

Liscombe didn’t believe Charlie and went over to his room and pushed on the door. Liscombe was quickly joined by Knibbs who stood behind him, pushing on the door as well. Liscombe and Knibbs were “aggressively trying to open the door by force”. They were “pumped”, just having been seen by witnesses expelling another man “with connections to Ekoh [Nabib]” from the hotel. As the door opened, Nabib “tries to defend himself”. He shoots Ian with his shotgun, a shooting which “may or may not have been justifiable”. We don’t know if Liscombe’s apparent attempt to kick the barrel of the shotgun, as described by witness Michael Vandeneele, contributed to it discharging.

Knibbs whipped out a police style baton from a pouch on his chest and entered the room. Habib suffered repeated blows by a baton or a similar instrument to his back, injuries that pathologist Dr. Laurel Grey confirmed “show the weight and roundness of a baton”. Habib also had injuries to his head, Grey reported, which were “likely to have been caused by a baton.” There is a possibility that the strike to Habib’s head by the baton had left him “dazed” or “stunned”.

Nabib “quickly loses control of the shotgun” after Knibbs entered the room. Nabib would have otherwise had time to rack the shotgun and shoot Knibbs who was attacking him with the baton. To fire the shotgun – Luchencko had earlier asked the jury to remember that the shotgun was heavy -- “requires a racking procedure that generally will require two hands.”

As Knibbs beat Habib, there was “nothing to prevent Rocka [Knibbs] from turning around and walking out; nobody was intending to shoot him or harm him.” The damage to Nabib’s head and back coupled with the shattered glass from a ceiling fixture “shows the effort behind the blows reigning down on Ekoh [Nabib]” “Effectively, he was unable to defend himself.” .

At this point Nabib “doesn’t have a gun; he’s been beaten down.” Knibbs then took out a handgun and fired four shots at very close range, at least two of which were fired from a range of less than 30 centimetres, as indicated by the powder residue around Nabib’s wounds and shirt. Two shots entered Nabib from behind: one entered behind his ear and left through his mouth, another entered behind his shoulder. A third shot entered his chest and exited through his back.

Then came the “coup de gras”. Despite Nabib being in a state in which he was not able to defend himself any further, Knibbs picked up the shotgun. He used it to shoot Nabib in the chest, a shot which Dr. Grey said would have killed him immediately.

A couple of machetes have been found by police between the mattresses of the bed, machetes which were “obviously not used by Nabib in any way, shape, or form.” Consider him using them: “he's then going to put them back between the mattresses? Does that make sense?” The machetes “played no part in the scenario.”

“Once the gun had been taken away from Ekoh [Nabib], there was no danger to Rocka [Knibbs] or Ian [Liscombe]”. “Rocka chose to stay there and extract as much vengeance as possible, first with the baton, then with the handgun, then with the shotgun.”

Luchencko then pre-empted the story he anticipated defense lawyer Glen Orris would run by the jury – a version that put Liscombe on the bed doing the shooting, not Knibbs. Liscombe’s “abdomen was blown off”, Luchencko continued. “We submit that his sole intent was to get to the bed to try to keep his entrails in his abdomen.” Liscombe, with his “hands or hands, clutched his belly and was physically incapable of racking the shotgun or using a handgun.”

Keep in mind that the shots were coming from different directions. “Whoever was doing the shooting was moving around.” Keep in mind that the ambulance paramedic, Reed Whiting, had to get a stretcher because Liscombe “wasn’t going to walk.”

Anticipating that the defense would not only present Liscombe as the shooter but the one who brought the handgun into the room, Luchencko turned the jury’s attention to witness Michael Vandeneele. According to Vandeneele’s testimony, Knibbs had a handgun prior to the shootings which was similar to one the firearms expert said was used in the shooting. Vandeneele also testified that he had seen Knibbs attempting to reload the gun outside the room after shots were fired, meaning he must’ve had fresh bullets. “It’s not reasonable to say you’d be walking around with bullets if you don’t have a gun.”

This was not self-defense. It’s self-defense only if he intends to prevent an assault, “if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent assault.” “If you shoot somebody with a handgun from 30 centimetres , right under the ear at such an angle that it goes out through their mouth, what is your intent?”

Defense lawyer Glen Orris’ last words to the jury:

“Ian and Ekoh are both dead and they probably killed each other.”

There was some animosity between Ian Liscombe and Ekoh Habib, a fact acknowledged by Liscombe’s girlfriend Susan Panich. “Ian was a bit pissed off”, after the altercation in which he needed stitches after being hit on the head with a baseball bat by Habib.

But Knibbs and Liscombe had not gone to Nabib’s room with an intent to kill him. Panich and Liscombe had plans to go out that night to buy a Rolex watch. But Liscombe tells her “to wait”, that they’ll go out later. “He’s heard that Ekoh [Nabib] is in the building and he goes looking for him.”

Liscombe was shot going into the room where Nabib was staying. He was shot by Habib who was holding a shotgun. “That’s the first loud bang” in a series of bangs that witnesses have reported hearing.

As Liscombe enters the room, he pulls out his handgun – Panich said she had seen him with a handgun 3 or 4 months earlier – and “fires at Habib” whose probably coming at him. “So we have a wound to Habib’s chest.” A second shot comes from the bed, misses and hits the floor.

Maybe Knibbs has a baton and is hitting Nabib on the back as he goes for Liscombe. Nabib has his back to Knibbs at the time. The prosecution has said that Nabib was kneeling while Knibbs was hitting him with a baton, but you wouldn’t be breaking the light fixture then, “but if he’s standing up you would be, trying to get him off Liscombe.”

Nabib is fighting. He would not have been “stunned” from a strike to the head from the baton, as the prosecutor claimed. The pathologist, Dr. Laurel Grey, had not come to that conclusion: she said there were “no injuries to the underlying scalp or skull.” Dr. Grey further said that Nabib’s wounds from the handgun would not have been immediately lethal. When a person is shot, they don't always fall quickly. This is not the movies.

Habib attempts to pump shotgun to shoot it a second time. Knibbs reaches around and grabs it, so his fingerprint is on it. But his fingerprint is in a "downward direction" on the barrel, the direction necessary to pump the shotgun to a back position -- a position from which it cannot be fired.

Habib turns away from Liscombe who is still firing the hand gun and, as he turns to the right, Liscombe shoots him under the ear, and as he is turning around, Liscombe shoots him in the back left shoulder from approximately the same range "‘cause he’s very close to the bed when he turns". Rather than the gun moving in relation to Habib, as the prosecutor claimed, Habib was “moving in relation to the gun.”

Perhaps there’s a struggle over the shotgun. It either dropped or ends up on the bed. Habib turns to deal with Liscombe who is out of bullets for his handgun. Liscombe racks the shotgun and gives Nabib a second shot in the chest. It’s a quick death, as Dr. Grey said it would have been, resulting in Nabib falling off the bed with his left leg still on the bed. That was the position that Constable Gillespie, one of the first police officers to arrive, found him in: “Habib’s left leg was on the bed, about half of the left leg is on the bed, slightly bent resting there.” Habib had clearly climbed onto the bed where Liscombe was.

The diagram produced by firearms expert, Rob Taunt, shows one of the bullets having been shot from the direction of the bed, “from just above the edge of the bed to about a foot and a half above the edge of the bed.” When New Wings resident Leroy Charlie went into the room to get his coat, he saw Liscombe “sitting on the bed with his back up against the wall, a location that would marry up perfectly with this diagram.”

Liscombe was not checked for gun powder residue on his hands and arms – gas and powder residue from combustion escapes though openings around the cylinder of a handgun, Rob Taunt said – and neither was Habib. “That should have been done.”

“Two people who were antagonists could very well have shot each other.”

But in coming to a verdict, “You can’t base it on speculation or guesswork." Crown prosecutors have to prove their case to the point that you are “sure” that Mr. Knibbs did the shooting, “sure” that he had an intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm, and you have to be “sure” that he wasn’t acting in self-defense.

In their closing statements, there was one thing that both Orris and Luchencko told the jury: The defendant, Mr. Knibbs, doesn’t have to prove a thing.

"Silver dollar" sized bullet hole in chest

When ambulance paramedic, Mr. Whiting, climbed the steep stairs to the first level of the New Wings Hotel, he saw police constables with weapons drawn standing at every corner of the floor which was laid out in an “H” pattern.

Whiting walked over to a constable standing with his shotgun pointed into a tiny room. “He looked stressed,” Whiting recalled.

What do you have?, Whiting asked. “There’s one dead and there’s one alive and he’s talking.”

From the hallway, Whiting could see 21 yr. old Trumaine “Ekoh” Habib lying spread-eagled on his back on the floor, just inside the door of tiny Room 15. “He had a silver dollar sized hole in his chest,” Whiting recalled. “You could actually see into his chest.”

Whiting, in his mid-thirties, tall, thin, with short blond hair, a mustache and goatee, blue eyes, and a speaking style that would get picked up on the “gaydar” most Vancouverite’s have by now developed, was testifying at the murder trial of Dennis Knibbs on Wednesday. Knibbs is accused of shooting Habib multiple times, just seconds after Habib shot Liscombe, as Knibbs and Liscombe attempted to force open the door of a hotel room in which Habib was staying. Whiting was consistently polite when testifying, referring to Habib as the “dusky-skinned gentleman” on the floor.

It was obvious to Whiting that the “larger gentleman” lying on the bed had a belly wound: “He was trying to hold his intestines on his belly with his hands.” Whiting described him as black, 250-260 pounds, bare chested. He was Winston “Ian” Liscombe. Like the stressed-looking Constable had indicated, Liscombe was lucid. “He arched his head to look at me when I stuck my head around the corner to look in.”

Whiting asked the Constable standing in the doorway with a shotgun, whom he once again described as looking “stressed”, if he knew where the shooter was. “No”, the cop replied. Whiting instantly “went back to the wall, which was the safest point.” Whiting explained, “All the constables were tied up…There was nobody to go into the room to search it.”

It was obvious to Whiting that the man still alive in the room had “a life-threatening injury”. So he made a decision to go into the room. A constable went in with him, with gun drawn, “watching my back.”

Whiting took the pulse of Habib. His partner, paramedic Margaret Kay, double-checked for a pulse. Habib had “expired”, as Whiting put it.

Liscombe too would die, later at St. Paul’s Hospital. But as he lay on the bed with his torso twisted to the left, cradling his belly with his hands, he was able to talk to Whiting. "He spoke like he was in pain.”

Whiting: What happened?
Liscombe: I’ve been shot.
Whiting: What were you shot with?
Liscombe: A rifle.
Whiting: Are you familiar with firearms?
Liscombe: Oh yeah.

Whiting had a reason for asking Liscombe the last question. Some of the injuries on the other victim, Habib, looked to him as though they had been inflicted by a pistol.

Liscombe was able to move not only his neck, but even his legs a little. “He kind of helped us as he was rolled over to see if there were any wounds on his back,” like exit wounds, Whiting explained. It was difficult to get Liscombe off the bed and onto the stretcher because the mattress “drooped”. “It was a slum,” Whiting said, the only time he sounded judgmental.

Did police fail to make safety of ambulance workers and quick medical treatment for shooting victims their top priority?

Whiting’s testimony raises questions about whether police made getting medical treatment to the shooting victims their top priority. Critical moments were lost as the ambulance waited a block away so that police could make the crime scene safe for paramedics – yet when ambulance workers arrived, the hotel room in which the victim lay had not yet been searched.

Whiting recalls arriving at the corner of Cordova and Dunley Streets, a block from the New Wings Hotel, and being “told to wait.” It is policy, he explained, for the ambulance to wait a block from a violent crime scene until police give clearance that it is safe to move in. Whiting and his crew “stuck our heads around the corner to see what was going on at the call.” They saw police everywhere, as well as fire vehicles, even two “mounted police” on horseback.

The ambulance workers made a call to dispatch, “Is it safe to move in?” It was then that they were told they were not dealing with a stabbing as they had originally been told, but a shooting. “Police lifted their yellow caution tape" Whiting testified, "so the ambulance could get in under it.”

They were met by a sergeant, Whiting continued, who gave them an update on the shooting: “Well, it’s two.”

Before Whiting and his crew arrived to climb up to the first floor of the New Wings, one level above the street, it appears that there had been ample police on site to search the room where the victims lay. Police had, after all, found time to search 'crackheads' on the sidewalk.

The time line tells the story. Whiting testified that the ambulance arrived a block away at 9:51 p.m. Constable Eileen Volpatti testified that she arrived at the New Wings Hotel at 9:49 p.m. and immediately saw “some of the members” of the VPD intercepting five women who were leaving the hotel through the front door. Volpatti performed “safety pat down searches of the females to make sure they had no weapons on them.”

Constable Mark Naufeld testified that he arrived at the New Wings at 9:49 p.m. -- two minutes before the ambulance stopped a block away. He saw “several members” dealing with “four or five” women exiting the front door of the hotel. He intercepted one of the women, Lauren Lee Wayne, and moved her to a wall nearby. Dealing with Wayne, an admitted crack cocaine addict whom Naufeld described as compliant, was his primary focus that night, until a bus arrived and he accompanied witnesses to the police station.

The testimony of Brian B., who lived in a seniors apartment building on Dunlevy St., across from the New Wings Hotel, would also suggest that there were sufficient police on site to search the hotel room before the ambulance workers arrived. He testified that when he heard gunshots, he noticed the time “9:38” p.m. on his digital pager, and “within five minutes of the gunshots, the street was full of policemen.” A number of them, he stated outside court, were carrying assault rifles.

Better police coordination could not have helped Nabib though. Whiting could see from the silver dollar sized hole near his sternum, that his internal organs were "maserated"; for the laymen jury, he explained that an example of maseration would be "liquified intestines". You don't come back from an injury like that, Whiting explained. But Liscombe had better odds of survival. He made it to St. Paul's Hospital where he was given an enormous amount of blood, according to earlier testimony by pathologist Dr. Grey.

As Whiting testified about the injuries of the two victims, defendant Dennis Knibbs hung his head. But his tie looked a tad upbeat. It was mauve.

Knibbs may have reason to be a tad upbeat. The fact that his cousin Liscombe had been moving and talking despite his shotgun wound, may help Knibbs. His lawyer, Glen Orris, has revealed that the defense intends to call an expert witness who will testify that one of the bullets in that room came from the direction of the bed. Could that have been the bullet that left the "silver dollar" hole in Nabib's chest?

As Whiting left the courtroom, a young male sheriff could be heard saying to another in a low voice. "Going to Starbucks? I need one. Badly."