A Verbal Confrontation
and the Testimony of George Daranichak
The trial of Nicole Kish lasted a little over a month and consisted of over 20 different witness testimonies, which represented only a fraction of those who were present that night. The Crown’s chief witness in this case was self-described porn marketer and friend/co worker of Ross Hammond, George Dranichak. While Dranichak’s testimony at trial remained inconsistent from his previous testimonies that he had given before the court and on a whole riddled with ludicrous assertions that have yet to be correlated with any other testimony provided from a witness, George Dranichak remains the only witness to claim that Nicole and her friends had initially approached them panhandling on the night in question. In his testimony, he alleges to have been approached by a girl that he would go on to identify as Faith Watts, claiming initially that she had asked him for some change. An amount of money that was later to be inflated by George Dranichak to as high as twenty dollars. On the stand, George Dranichak admits that he and Ross Hammond had responded with vile and sexually degrading comments, such as demanding oral sex for the money and numerous other names that were equally obscene and demeaning. As well Dranichak acknowledges that it was the comments made by him and friend Ross Hammond that fueled the ensuing confrontation that was to take place. George Dranichak in his testimony alleges to have then attempted to walk away, making it as far as Queen and Niagara before the verbal altercation grew into a physical one when someone he alleges to be Nicole Kish, rode up on a bike and slammed it into his knee. Despite his adamancy on the location in where the events transpired and the assault of a woman on a bike, both were claims proven to be unsubstantial. All other witnesses that had testified as well as all the physical evidence gathered, establishes that the fight occurred further down on Queen St. Furthermore, in regards to being assaulted by a woman on a bike, no other testimony supports this claim, there was no bike confiscated at the scene, and the allegation on a whole is proven preposterous when one attempts to assert that Nicole Kish is the assailant, given that she was wearing a floor length skirt that evening.
Claiming that after being pummeled by a number of individuals, George Dranichak said that he gathered the strength to break free from his supposed assailants and fled the scene. From what direction he fled in a cab on a one way street, to how much he paid the cabby and the subsequent events that followed, his recollection of what transpired remain inconsistent and in many accounts, out right impossible. One of the few things George Dranichak remained consistent on in regards to his fleeing from the scene is that as an American, he feared his own arrest and deportation. The whole of George Dranichak’s testimony had been so discredited to the point that the prosecuting Crown Warren Thompson, didn’t even enter his testimony into his final argument, which would suggest that even the crown found his testimony to be far fetched to say the least. In addition, George Dranichak was caught lying about his past criminal record during cross-examination. While attending college in the state of Kentucky, George Dranichak was arrested for breaking into another person’s dorm and severely beating the individual, of which to resolve the issue, George Dranichak paid a fairly large monetary sum to the person he had assaulted. As he was on the stand however, George Dranichak tried to allege that his criminal record belonged to his father of the same name, until at last abandoning the idea after the notion was proven absurd by the defense.
Detective Sergeant Gary Giroux
and the Lost Evidence
While on the stand, Detective Sergeant Gary Giroux, claimed that he had based is laying of the murder charges against Nicole, due to the eye witness testimony of Molly Stopford and Jonathan Paget (of whom will be address shortly) instead of raw surveillance footage present that night. However, during cross examination, the defense suggested that Giroux had rushed to lay charges against Nicole due to public opinion, the fact that Nicole was the only one eligible for bail due to her Canadian citizenship, and on the account that her bail hearing landed on the same day of Ross Hammond’s funeral, which Detective Gary Giroux predictably denied. As well, Giroux provided an additional reason for upgrading Nicole’s charges, claiming her to be a “menace to society.”
As for surveillance footage present that night, two videos from two separate establishments that are believed to have captured the same vicinity were reportedly “lost” while in police custody or under police supervision. One of the video’s that had allegedly gone missing was a VHS tape from a jewelry store by the name of Anne Sportun. The jewelry store video points westward and is believed to catch the same vicinity as the second “lost” surveillance footage, which had been captured by the eastbound camera at the One of a Kind Pasta store. . While on the stand, Detective Giroux claimed that he first became aware of the jewelry store video only after being notified by the defense immediately after it came to their attention, which was only days before Nicole’s trial was to proceed. The explanation provided by Detective Gary Giroux was simplified in that during procedure, the video would have been placed in to a evidence box and that by the time the box came in to Giroux’s possession, the video was simply no longer present and nobody within the Toronto Police Department, knows what happened to the video along the way.
In regards to the second “lost” video, which was taken from One of a Kind Pasta, it is fair to say that it was not simply lost but destroyed, as it can never be recovered due to the equipment it had been recorded upon. On the second video, Justice Nordheimer does at this point acknowledge that Nicole’s rights were breached due to “unacceptable negligence” on the behalf of the police, but yet, failed to provide a remedy for the breach of her Charter of Rights as Nicole is entitled to. The video in question was recorded on a surveillance system that caught both the angle to the east and to the west of Queen Street, but was nonetheless, recorded on the same surveillance system. Thus they had called in Detective Olver who is in fact a trained specialist for the Toronto police department. Specializing in dealing with such sensitive surveillance video and as being a specialist, Detective Olver should know or ought to know how to properly extract such footage. As for the proper method for extracting the evidence, both the defense as well as Judge Nordhiemer, they were in agreement in that the proper procedure for the police to have undertaken in handling the evidence should have been to mirror the system’s hard drive, given that the system only stores footage for up to twelve days before recording over it. In addition to the obvious reasons for mirroring the whole hard drive, Justice Nordhiemer pointed out that “they had no way of knowing whether subsequent developments might make other times also relevant” aside from the hour in which the altercation occurred. However the specialist (Detective Olver) failed to do so and instead chose to copy such potentially vital evidence onto a thumb drive, a time frame of one-hour form both the east and west facing cameras. Furthermore, when downloading the videos onto the thumb drive, Detective Olver had downloaded the right day and proper time frame from the west facing camera but the wrong day entirely from the east bound video, which is the precise video that is thought to have captured the same vicinity as the footage from the jewelry store. This is startling in that Raymond To who is the owner of the pasta store, testified that the video had caught an altercation between three men. Testimony that was supported by other witnesses at Nicole’s trial, In addition, Raymond Tow testified that Detective Scott (who was originally the Detective in charge) had watched the surveillance video repetitively before leaving the evidence alone until a specialist could come and retrieve it. However, this is in contrast to Detective Scott’s testimony in that he claimed to have only watched a minute or so of this now “lost” video.
Eyewitnesses
and the Absence of Positive Identification
In addition to the “lost” evidence, the two eyewitnesses Detective Giroux based his case against Nicole Kish on; neither positively identified the women they had testified to seeing with a knife. Something the Judge had acknowledged about all the witnesses in general stating, “I am aware that, with one exception, none of the witnesses, on whose evidence I rely, positively identified Ms. Kish, or indeed Ms. Watts, from any photographic line-ups that they were shown by the police.” The one exception Justice Nordheimer speaks of is the positive identification of Faith Watts.
In fact, during her testimony, Molly Stopford had testified that she believed herself to be interchanging the two (possibly three) girls she had seen involved that night. At least two of them being the girl that had been stabbed (Nyki) and the other, the one with the Knife, which in correlation with her own testimony and the evidence presented by the defense, it is reasonable enough to say that that woman in question is Faith Watts. It is important to note that Faith and Nicole had similar features in appearance and that a number of other witnesses had warned the court that they might to in fact be interchanging the two girls.
Furthermore, it is vital to note that Molly Stopford and Jonathan Paget had testified that from what they had seen, Ross Hammond was by all reasonable deduction, being the aggressor. With Molly Stopford claiming that Ross Hammond appeared to be “full of rage” and Jonathan Paget recalling Hammond yell out “who’s next”, something that was substantiated by Shaun Park, after Hammond’s decimating assault on Douglas Fresh. In addition, both had described the sound of banging against the TTC rail car, which they stated to be the result of Ross Hammond violently beating Douglas Fresh (Faiths boyfriend) to the point of unconsciousness, something else that was substantiated by a number of other witnesses. They as well recall a frantic and terrified woman trying to stop Hammond although to no avail from beating Douglas Fresh any further, who as they recall was simply “swatted” away. Both witnesses testified that the more involved woman was in possession of a knife. Molly Stopford claiming the handle of the knife was being held in the woman’s mouth and Jonathan Paget saying it was being held in her right hand. This is significant in that neither saw who had stabbed Hammond as well they remain the only witnesses to see a woman and anyone other them Ross Hammond with a knife that night. Reiterating that point, of all the witnesses that testified to the event of that night, not a single one aside from the two mentioned saw anyone other than Ross Hammond with a knife and nor did anyone who has yet to come forward, recall seeing a single individual stabbed during the events that took place.
DNA and the
Testimony of Faith Watts
Greater clarity into the identification of the woman baring a knife is provided when correlating it with the testimony of Nicole’s former co-accused Faith Watts. Via a prerecorded video link, Faith Watts testified that the alleged murder weapon belonged to her and what is even more relevant, is that she testified to having produced the knife in question that night after becoming terrified for her life and the life of her boyfriend Doug, who was being beaten unconscious by Hammond at the time. However she testified that she was quickly disarmed by either George Dranichak or Ross Hammond, the later of whom was seen by the bulk of witnesses present that night to be in possession of the alleged knife. In her testimony, Faith Watts admitted to having stolen the alleged knife while in Montreal and that her boyfriend Douglas Fresh, had along with her stolen an identical one as well. This evidence remains indisputable when taking into account that Douglas Fresh did in fact have in his possession, a knife identical to the alleged murder weapon and that both Doug and Faith each had on there person, the same multi-tool that came with the knifes, each in a duel set of there own.
Greater relevance should be given to Faith’s testimony in that Faith gave her testimony at great risk to herself and that it was not until after her testimony that the police sought to do additional forensic testing on her cloths. It was during this testing that it was discovered that Faith had Ross Hammond’s DNA on seven different spots up her boots and two spots on her shorts, which is significant when considering the one, miniscule spot of DNA found near the sole of Nicole Kish’s shoe, which required a stereoscope to locate. This is alarming when considering that they had tested Nicole’s clothing 28 times before hand without any results.
The Fifth Suspect
“The Unidentified Male”
There exist a substantial amount of evidence that has come forward to suggest that the fatal fight that had claimed Ross Hammond’s life involved three male individuals. In addition to the owner of One of Kind Pasta Raymond To, witnesses Cam Bordignon and Paul Galletely both testify to seeing two males getting the better hand of one who is believed to be Ross Hammond, after Douglas Fresh had already been rendered unconscious. During this confrontation, Cam Bordignon recalls a man shouting out, “you die tonight.” In addition to the testimonies provided by the three just mentioned, Shaun Park recalls a man that has been dubbed the “unidentified male” by the courts, approached him and showed off a stab wound he had received in the chest. Stating that the man had said to him something along the lines of, it didn’t matter much to him as he had been stabbed 19 times before. On the stand, Shaun Park testified that he believed that the male in question is the same one seen on the sole surviving One of a Kind Pasta video, lifting up his shirt to show a possible wound to people present at the scene. As well the issue of a possible second knife was raised. The knife Faith Watts testified to have produced that night was serrated, which is consistent with the superficial wounds inflicted on Ross Hammond’s back. However, the wounds on Hammond’s chest, including the one that claimed his life, bare no resembling characteristics to the wounds inflicted on his back. On the stand Dr. Pollan who had performed the autopsy could not rule out the possibility of a second, non-serrated knife.