Guilty! Murder 2

Some tough Canadian justice was served up today to a 31 yr. old Vancouver man, born in Montreal to parents who had come here from Jamaica. The jury gave Dennis Knibbs, on trial for murdering Trumaine "Ekoh" Nabib, 21, in the New Wings Hotel on Apr. 4, 2005, the maximum allowable: second degree murder. They rejected the option of manslaughter, although questions they sent back to the judge and lawyers suggest they grappled with it.

Knibbs will get an automatic 25 year sentence. He will have to serve a minimum of 10 years before he is eligible for parole.

Judge Silverman asked the jury of 8 women and four men, all White, except for two women of Japanese descent, to decide whether they would like to make a sentencing recommendation. They had the right, he explained, to recommend that Knibbs be required to serve more than ten years before being eligible for parole. The judge assured them that he would definitely take their recommendation into consideration. They wanted to go for lunch first. But they returned to the court room in mid-afternoon to recommend that Knibbs be eligible for parole after 10 years.

Knibbs remained stoic as the verdict was read. His lawyer, Glen Orris, who had in the moments before the verdict sat beside him and put his hand on the arm of Knibbs' chair, spoke softly to him now.

Knibbs made a cell phone call and then handed the phone to one of his male friends in the gallery.

A twenty-something Black woman who had accompanied Knibbs to court on the first day and regularly since, sobbed when the verdict was read -- Canadian style though, she didn't make a scene. Outside the courtroom, near the washroom which she had found locked on a Saturday, a young Black woman held her and she sobbed, louder.

Knibbs allowed the sheriffs to take him out to jail, no fuss. As he left, he turned to his male buddies who were sitting quietly, and with hand to forehead gave them a good-bye salute.

Ekoh Habib's family was not present for the verdict, although his mother has made appearances at the trial.

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.

Vancouver Police hold M16 assault rifle to head of innocent man

Vancouver Police got a neighbour of Nigel Roberts at Nanaimo St. and McGill to bang on his door in the middle of the night to tell him that his truck was being towed. Roberts recalls racing out his backdoor with no shirt or shoes and seeing “cops everywhere with assault rifles”. An M16 assault rifle was pointed at his head. “They slammed me down on the ground”, he says, and told me to shut up, that I was under arrest and investigation for double homicide. There were even police with rifles on tripods, he said, pointed at his windows. Roberts was handcuffed “behind my back”, and his ankles were shackled.

The 26 yr. old Roberts was delivered to the Vancouver Police Station near Main & Hastings. He was put in a small room to wait for Detectives Dale Weidman and Rob Faoro who would question him about the murders.

Nigel Roberts has since been cleared. Detective Weidman testified in B.C. Supreme Court earlier this month that at the time of Roberts’ arrest, the VPD had “no direct evidence against him.”

Weidman has been testifying – he finished last Wednesday -- at the murder trial of Dennis Knibbs, who is charged with one of the murders which had taken place inside the New Wings Hotel on the Downtown Eastside on Apr. 4/05, the night before Roberts’ arrest. Knibbs is accused of using both a shotgun and a revolver to shoot Trumaine “Ekoh” Habib, who had just shot Knibbs’ cousin Ian Liscombe with the same shotgun.

Weidman was first called to the witness stand at Knibbs’ trial on Apr. 5th, 2007, almost two years to the day since he interviewed Nigel Roberts at 2:55 a.m. on Apr. 5, 2005. Defense lawyer Glen Orris asked Weidman to recall interviewing Roberts just hours after police had discovered two murder victims at the New Wings Hotel: "Obviously , you’re dealing with somebody who might be considered a suspect, is that correct?” Weidman responded, “No.... I certainly don’t have reasonable grounds to think he’s involved or responsible for it….Certainly I don’t have grounds.”

Weidman told the court twice that he had not played a role in the actual arrest of Roberts at his home at 330 Nanaimo St. Roberts, he said, had come to police attention a few hours earlier when he and a passenger in his vehicle were seen “driving through the crime scene”. A patrol officer had noted that Roberts fit the description of the suspect. “Loosely”, Weidman noted. Roberts is an extremely light skinned Black man, what some American Blacks call, “light, bright, and almost white”. Knibbs on the other hand is, as Roberts told detectives, “Jamaican dark.”

Roberts testified that he had driven to the New Wings Hotel in his truck, a Ford Explorer with Florida plates, the night before his arrest, to buy heroin. It was a trip Roberts – who testified that he has been clean for a year now -- made up to 5 times a day at the height of his three year heroin addiction. Roberts, who described his passenger Ryan Watson as also involved in heroin and being of the “same ethnic” as himself, told the court that they “didn’t even get near the New Wings that night”. “It was blocked off.” So Roberts pulled into a gas station, made a U-turn, and headed up to Main & Hastings where he purchased heroin.

It was several hours later, shortly after Roberts had taken a quarter gram of heroin at his home that he was lured out of the house by a ruse about his truck. He recalls being “pretty high, which is why I was up at 2:30 in the morning”. When he raced out his back door and encountered police with assault weapons, “They told me I was being charged with the murders” – a fact he repeated a number of times over the course of his four days on the witness stand. Under usual circumstances, Roberts explained, he would have been nodding out after taking “a smash of heroin” – but he was so “traumatized” by having an M16 pointed at his head and being told he was being charged with double homicide that he was not even close to nodding out at the police station.

One of the detectives can be heard during the videotaped interview telling Roberts, “Calm down, calm down.” This was after Detective Faoro made an accusation: “You fucked off”. Faoro was referring to the police claim that Roberts had been followed after being spotted near the crime scene. Roberts defended himself: “You put the lights on when you’re trying to stop somebody.” The police vehicle, he insisted, had “no lights on or nothing.” One of the detectives reassured Roberts, “You’re not going to jail for not stopping.”

When questioning Weidman, defense lawyer Glen Orris pointed out that his partner, Detective Faoro, had “used the fuck-word quite often during the interview” with Roberts. Weidman acknowledged that Faoro was not in the habit of using this word in his daily life. Certainly Detectives Weidman and Faoro have some of the characteristics of a ‘good cop-bad cop’ team. In court testimony last week, Constable Faoro spoke in an armoured, ‘nobody’s-going-to- put-one-over-on-me’ tone of voice. Weidman spoke in the relaxed style of an approachable person. One tactic of this detective duo that Roberts testified had unnerved him, was that while he was being questioned, one of the detectives kept leaving the room. Just like in NYPD Blue.

At the beginning of the interview, Detective Faoro listed three alternatives and told Roberts to pick one:

“1. You guys had fuck all to do with this

2. Those are your buddies in that place right there [the New Wings Hotel], lying there dead.

3. You guys did it.

Which one of those three is it?”

Roberts responded, “We had fuck all to do with it.”

Roberts did not speak in such a coarse style when he testified in court last week; he did not have a street-tough persona. And despite a large diamond stud earring in his ear, his style was more classy than flashy. The roughly 5’9” Roberts wore a finely tailored black suit during the entire four days of his testimony, beginning on his first day with a white shirt and a tie with chunky horizontal stripes of black and white, and ending on his last day with a pale yellow shirt with a yellow-grey tie. His dark curly hair with a receding hairline was cropped close to his head.

After interviewing Roberts, Detectives Weidman and Faoro released him later the same morning. But they took a second statement from him the following day, Apr. 6/05, a statement of which Roberts has no memory as he was “out of it” from his heroin addiction throughout this period. Roberts does recall a telephone conversation with Weidman on Apr. 6/05 though. Roberts claims to have called Weidman about his truck and his mother.

First his mother. Roberts stated in court that he had called Detective Weidman to ask, “Why did you call my mother and tell her I’m a heroin addict?” Roberts’ mother had telephoned him, after Detective Weidman had contacted her, and asked, “What’s this about you being a heroin addict?”

Now his truck. Roberts says he also called Detective Weidman about the fact that the VPD had not released his truck which had been impounded. He didn’t understand, he testified, why the detectives “release me” but “have my truck for a whole week.”

Roberts confirmed that his impounded truck is registered in Florida in his mother’s name, but added that the insurance was in his name. Roberts lived in Florida but moved to Vancouver in 2002 where he has an uncle and a cousin – “My mother’s from here”, he told the court -- after being released from prison. He had gone to prison in Florida “at a young age” which, he says, is partially what screwed him up: “The things I seen…” Prosecutor Michael Luchencko read Roberts’ criminal record aloud in court, a record which seems to have ended in 1999 when Roberts was convicted of an array of offences in Florida including: robbery, burglary, grand theft, and aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer with intent to kill. Roberts was sentenced to five years and served three. Then he came to Canada.

Blame Canada. It was in Vancouver that Roberts developed a heroin habit. When he arrived from Florida, his drug use amounted to using marijuana “every day” and drinking on the weekends and occasionally during the week. But he began snorting heroin in Vancouver and eventually was using that “every day”.

How could you afford to purchase heroin?, Luchencko asked, “I was doing real good,” Roberts replied, “I was living in Coal Harbour in a high rise and I was selling marijuana.”

In 2003 or 2004, Roberts began injecting heroin. He would sometimes “fall asleep at the wheel of my vehicle” while on heroin. “But it took away all my problems.”

One of Roberts’ problems was a bi-polar/manic depressive disorder. “At the time I hadn’t been taking my medication at all.” He recalled having highs and lows, real lows. “Sometimes I didn’t know what I was doing.” One of the reasons Roberts says he was opting for heroin was that he didn’t like the way the medication he had been prescribed for his bi-polar disorder made him feel.

Roberts speaks freely to police about people he knew at the New Wings

Roberts was a rich vein of information for detectives. He was familiar with the world inside the New Wings as he was there purchasing heroin several times a day. “If I could’ve, I would’ve lived there at that time,” Roberts testified. “I was really messed up.” He was well acquainted with both the dead and the living in this murder saga.

When Roberts was shown a photograph of 21 yr. old Trumaine “Ekoh” Habib by the prosecutor – Habib had absorbed several handgun bullets and a shotgun blast to the chest -- his voice took on a note sadness and fondness, “Yeeaah, that’s Ekoh.”

Roberts recalled Ekoh (pronounced Echo) Nabib as being young, about 5’8” or 5’9” and 160 lbs. “He usually kept his hair in corn rows”. When asked Nabib’s race, Roberts replied, “Mulatto, I think, Black and White”. Roberts noted, “He was ok with me,” alluding to reports of tensions between Nabib and some other players in this case. “I would call him a homeboy”, Roberts added. Excuse me?, the prosecutor said. “I was cool with him,” Roberts elaborated. “I would stop by his room, to talk, listen to music, smoke some weed.” Sometimes the two would “smoke some herb” in Roberts truck. “I remember him ‘cause I had a better relationship with him than Ian.”

Roberts relationship with Ian Liscombe had involved purchasing heroin. Roberts identified both Ian Liscombe and his cousin, defendant Dennis “Rocka” Knibbs, as dealers in the New Wings. He never purchased drugs from these dealers directly though. When a user arrived to purchase heroin, the dealer would have “a separate person hook ‘em up.” Roberts explained: “I would go to Ian and I would know who he had working for him.” Liscombe would point to someone. “I’d purchase my heroin from a crack head, another user.”

Roberts would then inject the heroin, “chill out” at home, and return to the hotel to purchase more.

Although Roberts’ heroin habit made him a New Wings insider who had valuable information for Detectives Weidman and Faoro, Roberts says his heroin habit made much of the information he gave these detectives inaccurate. He retracted much of it in court last week.

Roberts retracts statements he made to VPD detectives

Just minutes before he was to begin testifying at the Knibbs’ murder trial, Roberts button-holed prosecutor Michael Luchencko outside the courthouse and told him he would not stand by incriminating statements he had made in 2005 about the defendant, Knibbs, to detectives. Roberts has given two reasons for his retractions:

1) Roberts claims he was scared when being interviewed by detectives after police had pointed an M16 at his head and told him he was being charged with double homicide. Roberts had exaggerated claims about people at the New Wings such as Knibbs, he testified, in his desperation to convince detectives to shift their focus from him. He was scared that police were “trying to frame me or something, ‘cause it happens everyday.”

2) Roberts claims his heavy use of heroin while interacting with residents of the New Wings coupled with the heavy dose of heroin he had taken before questioning by detectives, resulted in his statement to police being rife with inaccuracies. “At the time I gave that statement, I was high as a kite, and I didn’t know who was who or what was what.” Roberts explained that now that he had been straight for a year, he was able to think straight again, to think more clearly.

Defense lawyer embarrasses Vancouver Police detectives

It was the job of defense lawyer Orris to convince the jury that statements Roberts made to police about his client were unreliable. Orris impressed upon the jury that Detectives Weidman and Faoro had extracted this statement from 1) a scared man without making him aware of his rights, 2) a track-marked, admitted heroin addict, without asking him if he was currently under the influence of drugs.

Orris began his attack by asking Weidman whether Roberts had been “chartered and warned” before detectives took his statement. Weidman gave three answers to this question during the trial. When first asked this question by Orris on Apr. 5/07, Weidman responded, “No.” When Orris posed the same question again on April 25/07, Weidman seemed prepared and replied, “I’ve since reviewed…” Orris cut him off, insisting that he wanted to know what Weidman knew at the time he took Roberts’ statement. Had Weidman been aware of whether Roberts had been “chartered and warned”? “No, I wasn’t”, Weidman responded in a low, almost inaudible voice. Then Weidman suddenly piped up with a revised answer, “I don’t remember that day.”

Orris then got detectives to admit that they had not asked Roberts about any medication or illicit drugs of which he was under the influence when his statement was being taken. “Did you ask him if he was under the influence of drugs at any time,” Orris asked. Weidman responded, “No.”

Orris asked if Weidman or his partner had asked Roberts about any other disorders. He has a bi-polar disorder, Orris said. “Does that ring a bell?” Weidman replied “No”, but at that point volunteered, “I remember him telling us about his heroin addiction.” When questioned further, Weidman confirmed that his partner, Detective Faoro, also had never asked Roberts if he was under the influence of drugs.

Orris then turned his attention to the second statement the detectives had taken from Roberts: Did you or your partner ask Mr. Roberts if he was under the influence of drugs? “No,” Weidman responded. Did you ask him if he was on “any other medication for anything at any time?”, Orris asked. “No,” Weidman responded.

Orris: But you knew he was into the heroin?
Weidmman: Yes, he told us.

Luchencko attempted a little damage control: Did you have any reason "to believe it was necessary" to ask the questions Orris had been suggesting? "No," Weidman said, explaining that he'd had consider experience working "in the skids" with addicts.

Orris continued this line of questioning when Detective Faoro took the witness stand: Wouldn’t it have been “fair” to ask Mr. Roberts, “Are you under the influence of drugs?” At one point Faoro said he had considerable experience with heroin addicts and that Roberts did not exhibit the signs, such as nodding out.

Orris raised his voice to a booming level: “Why not simply ask? He told you he was a heroin addict; he showed you his arm and his track marks.”
Faoro: "I didn’t think it was necessary."
Orris: "Asking him if he was under the influence of drugs would not have taken much time?"
Faoro: “No.”

Weidman and Faoro seemed to have rehearsed for Orris’ line of questioning; at times their testimony was so similar in words and phrases that it seemed scripted. They both used the term "lucid" to describe Roberts, for example.

Judge and prosecutor weren't buying Roberts' story

The judge reviewed Roberts statement to police and said it was "not incoherent".

Luchencko noted that he had spoken with Roberts earlier in his office and "at no time did he suggest there was a possibility of such a problem."

Upon first hearing of Roberts' retractions, Luchenko had told the judge: "I think this is a witness under some pressure." I think I know what you're getting at, the judge, told him. But nobody said it out loud.

How to buy and sell heroin without saying a word

You don’t need words to buy heroin. Gestures will do. That's according to Nigel Roberts, 26, a former heroin addict who was testifying last week at the murder trial of Dennis Knibbs in B.C. Supreme Court.

Knibbs is on trial for one of two murders which were committed on Apr, 4, 2005 in the New Wings Hotel. "The Wings" was a residential hotel where Roberts, who says he's been clean for a year, was purchasing heroin multiple times a day at the peak of his 3 yr. habit in 2005.

Roberts was asked by prosecutor Michael Luchencko about his history of purchasing heroin at Oppenheimer Park or across the street at the New Wings Hotel on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. At Oppenheimer Park, Roberts explained, it was “users selling to other users.” He noted, “They didn’t have any real dealers out of Oppenheimer Park.”

But Roberts knew “a couple of dealers in the New Wings”. He explained that he never purchased drugs from these dealers directly though. “They had people give it to me.” When a user arrived to purchase heroin, the dealer would have “a separate person hook ‘em up.”

When asked if he had “personal knowledge” of any dealers at the New Wings Hotel, Roberts listed: “Ian, Rocka, John.” “Ian” is a nickname for Aliston Liscombe, the defendant’s cousin who was shot and killed at the New Wings on the night of Apr. 4/05. “Rocka” is a nickname for Dennis Knibbs, on trial for allegedly shooting the young man whom he had just witnessed shooting his cousin. “John” refers to John Whalen Jr., who admitted in court that he was a crack cocaine dealer [See “How much does a crack cocaine dealer earn?”] at the New Wings, and had shared a cab with Knibbs in the minutes following the shootings.

But Roberts noted that these men had never sold drugs to him directly; “They would hook me up.”

“I would go to Ian and I would know who he had working for him”, said Roberts. He explained that when purchasing heroin, “You don’t have to say words.” He demonstrated the gesture he would use when approaching Ian at the New Wings: repeatedly jabbing his left index finger downwards in the air, in the direction of his right forearm. Ian would respond by pointing his own finger, “like ‘Go to him’.” “I’d purchase my heroin from a crack head, another user”, Roberts said. “Where?”, the prosecutor asked. “Everywhere in the New Wings.”

The judge noted that witnesses where immune from prosecution for statements they made in court, unless they committed perjury.

Witnesses such as Nigel Roberts and John Whalen Jr. who knew Knibbs through the Downtown Eastside drug culture, have been testifying freely about the drug trade. Knibbs is not on trial for drug dealing, but for murder. When it comes to testimony that could affect the murder trial verdict though, these witnesses have been more guarded. Both Nigel Roberts and John Whalen Jr. have shown up in court to retract previous statements they made to police that could have proven damaging to the defense.

How much does a crack cocaine dealer earn?

John Whalen Jr. had a good memory for how much money he made as a crack cocaine dealer at the New Wings Hotel, when he testified last Tuesday at the murder trial of Dennis “Rocka” Knibbs. But he suddenly developed a bad memory about the drug turf war he told police had been occurring inside the New Wings Hotel at the time of the murder of 21 yr. old drug dealer, Trumaine “Ekoh” Habib. Whalen’s claim that he had no memory of the turf war was a blow to the prosecution which seemed intent on using it to suggest a motive for the murder to the jury.

Whalen, now 25, with a string of geometric tattoos on the back of each arm, a long gold chain around his neck, the sides of his head shaved and longer dyed blond hair sprouting on top of his head, testified that he had been going to the New Wings Hotel on the Downtown Eastside for years because his dad lived there. What did his father do? He sold drugs out of the New Wings. What business did John Jr. get into? Selling drugs out of the New Wings. When prosecutor Michael Luchencko asked who served his father’s customers when he was in the hospital with a broken leg, Whalen responded, “I did.”

In April, 2005, the time of the murder, Whalen told the court he had been addicted to “everything”: crack, heroin, speed, coke, pills. He sold drugs to support his own habit, just as, he told Luchencko, many tenants at the New Wings did. “That’s what everybody did in there, used and supported their habits.”

From 2004-05, Whalen was at the New Wings Hotel everyday. His father still had a room there. Whalen would sell drugs out of the rooms of various tenants, giving them crack to smoke in exchange: “You give him hoots and they’d let you sit in the room.”

How much does a crack cocaine dealer make?

Whalen, who has been granted immunity from prosecution for statements he makes during this trial, was asked by Luchencko about the money he made selling crack cocaine in 2005. Would it be correct to say “you used the money up, tended not to accumulate it.” Yes, Whalen said.

How much in the way of drugs were you selling in the spring 2005? “A kilo of crack over a month period”, Whalen responded.

Whalen couldn’t afford to buy a kilo at a time, so he would buy “an ounce here, an ounce there.” He testified that he would pay $800 for one ounce. There were 28 grams to an ounce and he sold a gram for $50.

Prosecutor Luchenko, took a moment to do the math. So you were bringing in about $45,000 a month; would that be correct, he asked. Yes, Whalen said. That would be his gross income, of course; his net would be less than half that amount.

Selling crack cocaine can be a stressful occupation though. Whalen admitted that he sometimes sold to customers when he and Knibbs were out walking around together, Luchenko asked “What would Rocka do when you were selling to the customers?” Whalen replied, “I wasn’t paying attention; I’d be too busy trying to watch for the cops.”

Hootin’ and shootin’

When he heard shots inside the New Wings Hotel, Whalen did not know what time it was, only that it was “dark”. He had not been out of the hotel since the previous night. “It was the night before that I came in to my dad’s room.”

Why were you staying inside, Luchenko asked. “Because I smoke crack.” Whalen had been “wandering the halls in and out of people’s rooms.” Shortly before the shooting, he had been standing by the office with 3 or 4 other people whose names he could not remember. His girlfriend [Lauren Lee Wayne] was there as well; he could not recall her name, but he knew her nickname was Bootie, and he confirmed that she had a “13” tattooed on her body, although he couldn’t recall exactly where. Whalen left the group to go to stand by the fire escape to “do a hoot”, smoke crack.

Whalen saw Echo – who was about to be killed in Room 15 -- “just before I walked away.” Ekoh had just come up the stairs [the office was at the top of a staircase] and was approaching the door of Room 15. “He was walking towards it when I walked away.”

How long were you at the fire escape, Luchencko asked. “Fifteen minutes….One hoot takes about 15 minutes”, Whalen explained. “I was standing there enjoying my high when I heard some shots and I ran away.” He recalled the first shot being different, “loud”, and the “other five or so were like a firecracker sound.” At another point, he described the shots as, “I just heard an echo through the building.”

As Whalen was exiting the building he passed the office which is situated near Room 15. “I saw Rocka standing there and everybody was all frantic.” He recalled, “quite a few” people, including his girlfriend, being there. “My girlfriend was standing there….Rocka was standing about 30 or 40 steps from the office….I seen him standing by the phone and I said, ‘Let’s go.’”

“So you just left your girlfriend?”, Luchencko asked. “She was more of a drug girlfriend,” he explained, “All guys who do drugs have them come around just to have a girl but they don’t really care about them.”

“Did you leave your stash at the hotel?”, Luchencko asked. “I left quite a bit there; my door was locked.”

Drug dealer yells on the witness stand

Luchencko reminded Whalen that he had told police in a March 2007 statement that as he was heading out of the building, “Everybody’s like, ‘Call the cops, call the ambulance.’” Luchencko pressed Whalen on why he had been so eager to get out of the hotel as the cops were being called. Whalen finally lost his temper:

Whalen: I’m a drug dealer. Do you think I wanted to go to jail?
Luchencko: Did you have a large amount of drugs on you at the time…even a small amount of drugs?
Whalen: I always have a small amount on me.
Whalen raised his voice in anger: Do I need a lawyer man?! He’s trying to screw me up!…I’m a fucking drug addict!”

If Whalen had not been a crack dealer, he might have been a defense lawyer. His position that the prosecution was out of line in persistently pursuing a drug trafficking angle was not unlike that of Knibbs defense lawyer, Glen Orris. The risk here, Orris told Judge Silverman, was that the jury could end up with the attitude that, “These were all bad people. Mr. Knibbs was a drug trafficker…These people were all drug traffickers, and two of them are dead, so we’ll put one of them away.” Even Judge Silverman had been thinking along the lines of the young crack dealer, when he said he intended to instruct the jury that evidence of drug trafficking at the New Wings was of “limited” value in this trial.

Drug dealer changes his story

Orris also told the judge that he was concerned that the prosecution was attempting to give the jury the impression that there had been an “ongoing drug war” at the New Wings Hotel that resulted in the killing. He said that the impression that the prosecution seemed to be attempting to give the jury was that there was a “gang that Rocka had control of” at the New Wings. That was “unfair” and “extremely prejudicial.” Orris told the judge that while drug trafficking issues point to character, “in no way do they go to the question of motive.” But this was the window he saw the prosecution attempting to open

Although Whalen had initially helped open that window, he now seemed determined to slam it shut. He changed his story. Suddenly he had no memory of any drug war. His court testimony in court last week differed markedly from the statement he had given to VPD Detective Joseph Danieli in prosecutor Luchenko’s office just a month ago, on March 16, 2007:.

Court testimony, Apr. 17 & 18, 2007
Question: Were you aware of Ekoh?
Whalen: Yes
Question: Do you recall him having issues with anyone in the New Wings
Whalen: Not really
[…]
Question: Where you aware of any people living in the New Wings “who didn’t get along.”
Whalen: No.
[…]
Question: Can you recall two groups of people aligned with one another in the New Wings?
Whalen:“Not that I can recall, No.
Question: Do you recall a confrontation between two groups of people within the New Wings Hotel?
Whalen: No
[…]
Question: Did you see yourself on one of two or more sides inside the New Wings?
Whalen: No

Police Interview, Mar. 16, 2007
Whalen: “Like Echo’s crew and Rocka’s crew had issues with each other.
Question: So you say they didn’t get along.
Whalen: Everytime they passed each other in the hall, they’d all be screaming and yelling at each other….“Rocka never really got into it”, just all the crackheads would do it for him.
Question: Where most of the crack heads on Rocka’s side?
Whalen: All of them were on our side, me and Rocka’s side….“And no one else would try to push their way into the building.”
Question: So these guys never got along but they never got into it you said.
Whalen: No, never.
Question: Nothing physical.
Whalen: No.

When the above statement he had given to police was brought to Whalen’s attention in court last week, he fell back on a drug abuse excuse: “I can’t remember what I said. I do drugs everyday. I’m a drug addict.” Luchencko said, “You’re saying you’re still doing drugs?” “Yeah”, Whalen said.

Whalen was contradicting himself again.

He had told the court the previous day that he had been addicted to drugs from 13 - 22 years of age. He had stated on another occasion the same morning in the witness box that he had been clean since last summer.

Not only would Whalen give the prosecution nothing they could use to present the jury with a “drug war” scenario inside the New Wings, he would no longer even finger the defendant, Knibbs, as a drug dealer. In the statement Whalen gave to police, Luchencko told the judge, he was asked for the names of persons who were trafficking in drugs in the New Wings Hotel. “He had said it was both Echo and Rocka at that time.” But in court, he consistently claimed to have no names, other than his father and himself. Even when he was asked for nicknames, he claimed he didn’t know any.

Whalen is not the only witness emerging from the Downtown Eastside drug culture to change his story in a manner that favours the defendant, Knibbs. Knibbs could be tapping his foot to a Garth Brooks tune on his ipod: “I’ve got friends in low places.”