‘A whodunit case’: Closing arguments, deliberations in Calgary double murder trial | CBC News

It would be “extremely dangerous” for jurors to rely on the evidence of the prosecution’s star witness, defence lawyers argued in closing arguments of a first-degree murder trial in Calgary. 

Prabhjyot Bhatti, 25, and Jaskaran Sidhu, 24, each face two charges of first-degree murder. They were charged in the April 3, 2019, deaths of Jasdeep Singh, 25, and Japneet Malhi, 22.

Singh and Malhi were killed in a drive-by shooting as they got into the front seats of a Mercedes SUV after leaving the Mazaj Lounge just after 2 a.m.

On Thursday, prosecutors Brian Holtby and Aurelie Beland as well as defence lawyers Shamsher Kothari and Andrea Urquhart delivered closing arguments to jurors, who have been sitting through four weeks of evidence. 

‘A whodunit’

“This is a whodunit case,” said Kothari, who is Sidhu’s lawyer. 

The only issue for jurors to consider is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the two accused are responsible for the murders of the two victims.

The prosecution asked for convictions while the defence lawyers argued the Crown’s case “doesn’t come close” to providing enough evidence for guilty verdicts.

In his closing argument, prosecutor Brian Holtby argued the two men on trial carried out a “calculated, cowardly, cold and cruel” killing. 

Holtby and Beland reviewed the Crown’s evidence against the two men, which relies heavily on security camera footage of vehicles and people in parking lots and testimony from a former associate of the accused — a man who can only be identified as “WA” — who testified that he helped set up the killing.

While the evidence falls short of identifying a specific shooter, Holtby argued it could have been one of three men: Bhatti, Sidhu or Amandeep Saggu, an associate of the two accused who was placed at the scene by both the Crown’s key witness and cellphone records.

If neither of the two accused were the shooter, they at least “played a role in the setup,” Holtby told jurors. 

Cactus Club to Mazaj

The night of the shooting, Bhatti and Sidhu were at the northeast Cactus Club.

The Crown’s theory is that they were tipped off that Singh and Malhi were at the Mazaj Lounge, about 400 metres away just off Barlow Trail N.E.

They are seen leaving at 11:30 p.m. 

Although they are not spotted again, the Crown has asked jurors to rely on parking lot footage of vehicles to place both men in Bhatti’s Nissan,which the prosecution argues was used nearly three hours later in the drive-by.

Around 12:30 a.m., video evidence shows a side-by-side meetup between two vehicles a few blocks from the Mazaj Lounge. That’s where WA, the Crown’s star witness, testified that he was instructed to go into the restaurant to confirm the presence of Malhi and Singh.

WA’s actions a ‘criminal act’

WA testified that he walked into the Mazaj, spotted the men at a table, left and relayed the information to Saggu, Sidhu and Bhatti.

“[WA] made a serious mistake, a criminal act,” said Holtby. “It is a mistake he will have to live with for the rest of his life.”

But both defence lawyers called WA a “liar” and painted him as a man motivated by fear that the victims’ families were out to get him, as well as benefiting from the police protection and payout that came with co-operating with the investigation. 

“The truth only matters to [WA] if that serves his own interest,” said Urquhart.

For months, WA told police he had a hard time remembering the face of the person in the passenger seat.

‘The building blocks’

He didn’t start pointing fingers until police told him the victims’ family members were out “hunting” him. 

“They told him ‘you need to be worried’ and told him he’s a suspect,” Kothari told jurors.

Kothari said WA was told by police “If you become an essential witness, we can get you protection, we can get you a new life.”

“That’s the building blocks of his statement.”

WA was placed in witness protection, given relocation expenses and $70,000.

He then identified Bhatti as being in the Nissan based on a two-second interaction that night when he was beside the car.

‘Saggu had motive’

Urquhart pointed out that in his police statement, WA said he was “pretty sure” it was Bhatti in the Nissan.

“We don’t convict people on ‘pretty sure,'” said Urquhart.

She then pointed to Saggu — who is not on trial — as the shooter. A couple of years earlier, Saggu was involved in a stabbing involving Malhi. 

“Saggu had motive,” said Urquhart. “Saggu had a vendetta.”

And 14 minutes after the shooting, it was Saggu whose cellphone pinged off of a tower near Balzac, where the murder weapon was later found. 

‘If you agree with me … the case is over’

Kothari’s arguments to jurors also focused on two photos. 

In one, Sidhu, with a full beard, is clearly shown leaving the Cactus Club. 

In the second still image, a man is illuminated by tail lights in a parking lot. The Crown says this is also Sidhu.

But Kothari says the second photo shows a man with no beard. 

“If you agree with me that these are two different people, then the case is over,” said Kothari.

Jurors will receive final instructions on how to apply the law to their deliberations and are expected to be sequestered starting late Friday afternoon.