Article content continued

Alternatively, Edelson and Friedman are asking the judge to toss all evidence related to surveillance video taken from 55 Hilda St., Abdi’s home, which has been central to the Crown’s case, and contested by the defence since the trial’s outset in early February.

The defence motion alleges the Crown failed to preserve that critical video evidence, which was “lost as a direct result of unacceptable state negligence.”

The SIU did not seize the digital video recorder or its hard drive from the building, didn’t employ a forensic analyst to extract the data from the DVR, then failed to properly catalogue the seized video evidence, the charter motion alleges.

“That data was never properly preserved. Instead, the SIU allowed untrained and inexperienced amateurs to create exported copies,” the defence motion charges. “This state negligence was the first instance in an ongoing pattern of casual disregard for the proper forensic preservation of digital material. In fact, it has persisted throughout the investigation and well into the trial process itself.”

Photo by Errol McGihon / Postmedia

Those issues were compounded, the defence said, by the “negligent mishandling” of the video files, including a failure to disclose renderings to the defence until the day before the trial began, while other versions were disclosed as the trial was ongoing.

The defence also takes issue with the evidence of SIU forensic investigator David Robinson, the Crown’s first witness, who admitted in testimony he regularly deleted draft copies of his reports, forgot about forensic tasks assigned to him, and according to the charter motion, he “either ignored or forgot about the issues he observed with the digital video.”