Eviscerating Justice

"A fair reading of these emails supports the conclusion that Kelly -- almost from the outset of his involvement in this matter -- crossed the line from technical traffic collision investigator to general investigation of the offence. He immediately asserted himself as adviser and counsel to the officer in charge. He sought to be included in -- and even to initiate -- meetings with ... all others with a 'vested interest' in the case."
"He simply did not know any better."
Ontario Justice Neil Kozloff

Court evidence photos from the trial of Pembroke dentist Christy Natsis show the fatat accident scene in the WB lane of Hwy. 417 near Arnprior just after 8 p.m.. on March 31, 2011. Natsis is charged with impaired driving causing death. Bryan Casey of Ottawa died in the crash. Court evidence photos.

This is a statement that Judge Kozloff on Monday of October 6 addressed to the court when he ruled that OPP Constable Shawn Kelly, described as an expert witness, was judged by the justice to lack credibility due to a perceived lack of independence and impartiality in the case of Pembroke dentist Christy Natsis on trial accused of impaired driving causing death in a crash that occurred in 2011 that killed 50-year-old truck driver Brian Casey near Arnprior on Highway 17.

This case has been ongoing for over two years. It is a clear enough case of an irresponsible woman with an alcohol addiction problem and an arrogantly entitled personality, the combination of which resulted in the death of another human being. It also represents in the minds of many that justice is anything but equal, that those with money can find it quite possible to defeat justice. By steadily picking away at the fine details of the law, the guilty can be endowed with greater rights than the victim they have wronged.

And society looks on with incredulity as a judge accedes to the demands of a skilled interrogator, a high-priced lawyer whose conscience is securely locked away in a space where he won't easily stumble into it to complicate his goal of outsmarting justice. The lead defence lawyer in this case succeeded in persuading the presiding judge that the breathalyzer readings that pointed to a blood-alcohol level two and a half times the legal limit for the defendant was thrown out of court.

The next step for the defence was to completely destroy the reputation of Ontario Provincial Police members in the manner in which they pursued their duties in upholding the law to protect the public. The defence now contends that Constable Kelly "selectively omitted" three witness statements in the preparation of his report for the Crown. The three omitted witness statements were seen to be favourable to the defence.

One statement was from staff at an Ottawa bar and grill where Ms. Natsis had been imbibing alcohol. The bar's staff claimed that their client, Ms. Natsis, did not appear to be inebriated. What else might they say, when it is incumbent upon bar staff to stop serving customers who are drunk? Might it be in their best interests to admit that yes, she was drunk when she left, and in so doing risk having the bar's license suspended and their jobs lost?

There were witnesses in the parking lot of the bar who described seeing the drunk Ms. Natsis fumbling to enter her vehicle, backing it up into another vehicle, and then roaring off into the night. Another statement deemed favourable to the defence was a statement from a passing motorist who stopped at the crash site where, he said, Ms. Natsis informed him that Mr. Casey's truck had crossed into her lane. Would any inebriated individual claim to have been responsible for a crash? Particularly to someone she happened to know. And Ms. Natsis was recognized on the scene to be visibly inebriated, by onlookers and by seasoned police.

"That utterance was highly relevant to the area of impact issue, which is one of the central issues -- if not the pivotal issue - on causation in this case", ruled the judge. It like the other two issues, were all left out of the OPP officer's report. Poor judgement on his part, and obviously enough to imperil the case for holding this woman responsible for the accident and the death of Mr. Casey. Also left out of his report was that Mr. Casey's blood-alcohol level was one and a half times the legal limit.

It's well enough understood that generally speaking men hold their liquor better than women are capable of doing. Partly a matter of mass, but there are other complicating issues.* At the same time, Ms. Natsis's blood-alcohol reading was almost twice that of her victim's. Who was more likely to have been impaired between them? We cannot ask Mr. Casey what happened in the split moment before the crash, since he died from massive internal injuries.

His condition was of little interest to Ms. Natsis, who petulantly insisted that she be looked after in hospital, claiming to have sustained a muscle injury.

The Crown has suffered another setback in the long-running trial of Dr. Christy Natsis.

Ottawa Citizen

An obviously drunk Christy Natsis told the officer who arrested her after the crash that killed Bryan Casey that, “that man crossed the road in my car,” an OPP officer testified Tuesday.
“Does that make any sense to you?” prosecutor John Ramsay asked Const. Ryan Besner at the Pembroke dentist’s trial on charges including impaired driving causing death in the March 31, 2011 collision.
“None whatsoever,” said Besner, who arrested Natsis three minutes after arriving at the scene on Hwy. 17 near Arnprior.
He smelled alcohol on her breath, observed her “red and glossy eyes” in the lights of emergency vehicles, and noted she was “swaying back and forth.”
“It’s almost as though she had weights on her feet the way she was walking,” Besner said.
Besner said most of the debris from the crash between Natsis’ SUV and Casey’s pickup was in the eastbound lane “leading me to believe the point of impact occurred in the eastbound lane.”
He informed Natsis of her rights to a lawyer, to remain silent and asked for a breath sample.
“I will wait for my lawyer to tell me what to do,” she said, slurring. When he asked again, she said, “I refuse.”  Ottawa Sun, Tuesday, November 27, 2012

* In general, men are able to handle excessive alcohol consumption better than women. Being larger in build, men have more blood volume and less body fat than women. In addition, men have a higher concentration of dehydrogenase – an enzyme that breaks alcohol down. On the other hand, women have a smaller body size, more body fat, lower amounts of dehydrogenase and regular occurrences of hormonal changes. As a result, women respond faster and with more intensity after a round of drinks.