Witness inconsistencies and circumstantial evidence were two of the key features of the defence’s closing argument Thursday at the David Thomas murder trial.
Thomas is accused of killing Denise Bourdeau, whose body was found along the banks of the Grand River in the spring of 2007 – months after the last time she was seen alive.
An autopsy was unable to conclusively determine her cause of death.
The two were in a rocky relationship, his trial heard, in which Thomas would repeatedly attack Bourdeau.
“Just because he abused her emotionally and physically does not mean that he killed her,” defence lawyer Jeff Milligan told jurors.
Milligan also took issue with inconsistent testimony given by multiple witnesses, and pointed to evidence of Bourdeau’s blood being found in Thomas’ car, saying there was nothing to connect it to her death.
“It’s hardly surprising that blood was left in the car when Bourdeau was a passenger after one of his horrible assaults,” he said.
On the last night Bourdeau’s whereabouts are known, multiple witnesses saw Bourdeau and Thomas leave a New Year’s party together.
At the time, Bourdeau was living with another man – having left Thomas after another attack.
Crown attorney Karey Katzsch suggested that while Thomas was calm at the time, in front of others, his demeanour changed after leaving the party.
Milligan suggested that Bourdeau may have died from suicide, or from accidentally falling into the river.
Katzsch had a different explanation.
“David Thomas killed Denise Bourdeau,” she told jurors.
Thomas was arrested in 2011. He has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder.
The case is expected to be handed to the jury next week.
