‘Unprecedented corruption in police service’ taints informant: Dunkley lawyer

Evidence kept secret by police about a homicide that only the killer or a witness would know is called holdback evidence" by investigators.

In the case of the death of Michael Parmer, one such detail was that he was shot in the eye in September 2005. It was cited by the prosecution's key witness, a confidential informant who was also a crack dealer.

But did the informant know the detail because she saw Jermaine Dunkley kill Parmer, or because a police officer leaked it to her?

It was the latter scenario dilated upon by Dunkley's lawyer in court Wednesday, as he framed the role of the informant in the murder investigation as one tainted by an unprecedented example of corruption in the police service."

Defence counsel Nathan Gorham has repeatedly raised the spectre of the role played by former police officer Craig Ruthowsky, who had an illicit relationship with the informant. (Ruthowsky was convicted in 2018 for bribery, attempt to obstruct justice, breach of trust and trafficking cocaine.)

But Det. Troy Ashbaugh said the Parmer homicide holdback evidence was not available to Ruthowsky.

Did you ever contemplate," Gorham asked, that she may have gleaned information from police officers who she had lawful relationships with, or as part of a criminal enterprise (with Ruthowsky)?"

Homicide teams are very protective of holdback evidence," said Ashbaugh. At that time there was no way for (Ruthowsky or others) to have access to the major case file."

He couldn't have logged on to a computer and seen an occurrence report that he was shot in the eye?"

A constable wouldn't have access to those reports unless he was working in the homicide unit."

Testimony continues Thursday, when Gorham said he will take instructions from Mr. Dunkley on whether he will testify."

At one point Wednesday, Justice Joseph Henderson upbraided Gorham for commenting upon an observation the judge made, about the trial taking longer than the Crown and defence had forecast.

Mr. Gorham, I don't need you making comments on my comments," said the judge. I had a precognition that we were going to go down a path that took us two weeks beyond the original (predicted) three weeks. I had that precognition in week one, and voiced it. My comment now, in week four, is: I was right.."

Jon Wells is a Hamilton-based reporter and feature writer for The Spectator. Reach him via email: jwells@thespec.com