last link on the left › deadmonton

On February 19th, 2008 Thomas George Svekla went on trial in an Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench courtroom to face two charges of second-degree murder in connection with the deaths of Theresa Merrie Innes and Rachel Liz Quinney.

This page is Part Eight of coverage by this site.

May 22nd, 2008
Closing arguments begin.
May 23rd, 2008
Defence closing arguments presented.

May 22nd, 2008

Closing arguments in the double murder trial of Thomas Svekla began with Crown prosecutor Ashley Finlayson outlining the evidence against him.

"The crux of the Crown's case essentially relates to possession of the body of Theresa Innes – the transportation of that elaborately wrapped body from High Level to Fort Saskatchewan," Finlayson told the court.

The Crown had argued Svekla killed Innes and hid her body in a freezer for four months before bringing it to his sister's home in Fort Saskatchewan. Finlayson said Svekla treated the woman's body "as an object, his possession."

The Crown asked Justice Sterling Sanderman to read a lot into the way Svekla behaved after he was arrested in May 2006.

Riding in an RCMP vechicle, he asked the officers if he was being arrested in connection with something that happened recently or not. Svekla thought he was being charged with the 2004 death of Rachel Quinney.

Svekla asked police: "Is it something that happened recently? Like, how recent?"

Finlayson argued Svekla was asking police: "What body? Which body?

"It is amazing that he could possibly think that it's not for the body he just brought from High Level,"

When police advised him he was arrested in connection with Theresa Innes' death, Finlayson said that to Svekla her death had no meaning and that she was just an object to be disposed of.

Finlayson said Svekla's reaction was "overwhelming evidence" of how little concern Svekla had for Innes.

"Who would react in that fashion? I can't think of anyone," Finlayson said. "Unless, of course, you have done it before, and it is just another day at the office.

“He wasn't in a rush, because he was going to do something more than bury her. The eventual outcome would have been that the two were identical. He wanted to bury her in a location that was important to him and not to anyone else ... certainly that would be self-gratification.

"His only concern is for his purpose, whatever that is. It is not about self-preservation. It is about that purpose. It is all about self-gratification," Finlayson said.

The prosecutor pointed to Svekla's differing accounts of how he came to possess Innes' body and how he often readily admitted that he is a liar.

During police questioning, Svekla said he denied knowing Innes, later saying he brought her body from High Level to Fort Saskatchewan to give her a decent burial. He also said he was framed and simply found Innes' body in his truck.

It "strains credulity" to suggest someone would spontaneously spend hours meticulously wrapping a body in Svekla's shower curtain and air mattress before stuffing it into his hockey bag and stashing it in his truck, Finlayson said.

“Your lordship should reject that explanation and find, based on the logical inferences that flow from his possession of the body, that in fact it was he who wrapped the body in three layers and placed it in the truck.”

Finlayson described the elaborate wrapping of the body – a process that would have taken a considerably long time – and questioned Svekla's risky decision to bring the body to Fort Saskatchewan instead of disposing of it in the abundant remote areas outside of High Level.

"Clearly when he wrapped the body ... he did not have quick disposal in mind," Finlayson said. "There is no urgency. He wants to hang onto that body because he has a reason for doing so, a purpose for doing so. What is overwhelming evidence of that is his reaction when he is arrested."

"He had to be thinking of some particular purpose, because it was a very deliberate act," Finlayson said.

Finlayson drew attention to Svekla's ever-changing stories and explanations.

“Whenever he's confronted or challenged on something, a very common response from him is, 'I'm a liar but that doesn't make me a murderer,'

“The lies continue to flow, so you should have no difficulty, simply based on that, in rejecting his explanation.”

Finlayson suggested the theory that Svekla intended to place Innes' body near that of Quinney's. The prosecutor cited significant similarities between both women in that they were both prostitutes, crack addicts and of similar weight and appearance. Both led lifestyles and had family relationships in which their absence would not be immediately noticed.

Several women had earlier given testimony that Svekla took them to an area east of Sherwood Park where Quinney's body was found.

"He goes there knowing that the body is there and has orchestrated this so he can show the body to (the woman he was with) and shock her," Finlayson said, suggesting this was another quest for self-gratification.

The Crown prosecutor also referred to statements Svekla made while being held in the Edmonton Remand Centre.

Svekla invited an old friend to help him write a book and pitch a movie deal about his life. He told her people are interested in serial killers.

He then asked that friend to deliver a message to the first girl he ever attacked – to tell her she was "the first one to see the bogeyman."

It was the first in a series of near-admissions, Finlayson said.

He told his mother "that's what serial killers do, that's our motive."

He told his sister "they're going to pick on me for awhile until I crack."

In a conversation with a police officer, he said "there's no way I did that to all these girls," and he told an undercover officer he was "in the presence of a serial killer."

Finlayson prompted Justice Sanderman to apply similar fact evidence to the pair of deaths. If he finds Svekla guilty of killing Innes, he can apply that finding to Quinney's case because the similarities are overwhelming.

Sanderman said that though Svekla's story is full of holes, he questioned what could be believed as truth as Svekla was coming down from a crack binge when interviewed by police.

“When a guy that's high on crack makes a comment, what am I to make of it?” Sanderman asked. “He's a liar and a BS'er, all these things I agree to 100 per cent. He likes to live an outlaw life and tell people what a bad ass he is, but if whether or not it's true, I don’t know.”

As Finlayson addressed the court presenting his five-hour argument, Svekla sat expressionless in the prisoner box, flanked by two armed guards. Occasionally sipping water, he simply looked straight ahead.

back to menu

May 23rd, 2008

As he did while listening to the Crown's lengthy closing argument, Thomas Svekla sat quietly in the prisoner box, looking weary, as his defence lawyer presented the case for his freedom.

Robert Shaigec worked through a list of points countering the circumstantial evidence offered by the Crown and said a case was not presented that proves his client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Shaigec suggested the Crown's evidence is flawed and tainted, and that there were numerous witness who shouldn't be believed.

The testimony of Donna Parkinson, Svekla's sister, was singled out.

Shaigec suggested Parkinsn would tell police antyhing if she thought it would help their effort.

"She's the opposite of a reluctant witness. She is somebody who became in her mind ... a part of this investigation."

The defence lawyer pointed to inconsistencies in their testimony during the trial and compared their statements to those given to police when they were first interviewed.

Speaking to the death of Rachel Quinney, Shaigec suggested it may not even have been a homicide even though her body was mutilated.

"There may be no homicide in this case, plain and simple," Shaigec said.

Citing her high risk lifestyle and the amount of cocaine in her body, Quinney may have died of a drug overdose. The lawyer reminded the court that the cause of her death could not be established.

Turning to the case of Theresa Innes, Shaigec suggested the mere possession of a body does not prove murder.

He argued there was no evidence to link Svekla to her death and no proof that he stuffed her body into the hockey bag, despite the fact that police looked dilligently for it.

Shaigec said the evidence they did collect was exculpatory: DNA found on Innes, from under her fingernails, came from an unknown male donor and not his client. Nor could the Crown link Svekla to the wire or tape used to bind her body, he said.

"Clearly the Crown has proven possession of a wrapped body ... (but) there's no forensic evidence that links Thomas Svekla to the death of Theresa Innes," Shaigec said.

The defence lawyer then attacked the Crown's suppositions about Svekla's character, referring to statements such as it was "just another day at the office" when it came to transporting Innes' body, and that doing so was for some sort of sinister purpose related to "self-gratification."

"It is a far-reaching psychoanalysis of a man who on every account has weirdnesses and strangenesses beyond what many people can comprehend," Shaigec stated. "It is illustrative of why character evidence is so persuasive ... but for all the very wrong reasons."

Shaigec turned to what the Crown called "near-admissions" and dismissed them as nothing but "nebulous" comments and "joking banter."

"The Crown has not revealed any evidence of any type of confession," Shaigec said.

He acknowledged that his client lied repeatedly to police, but cautioned the court the lies can't be used against Svekla unless it was found that they are part of a concocted story that shows a guilty conscience. And Shaigec said the lies were reactionary.

"He was caught with a body, he was interrogated, and he lied.

"Concoctions get you to culpability, but they speak nothing, in the vast majority of cases, to the level of culpability," Shaigec said.

The lawyer suggested even if Svekla's statements were used against him, it can only be concluded that Svekla committed manslaughter, not murder.

Shaigec admitted his client found two bodies and moved one of them. He repeatedly lied to police, but none of that proved he is a murderer, let alone a serial killer.

Svekal's reaction to discovering Quinney's body east of Sherwood Park led him to make certain statements

"He found a mutilated body in the bush. It was a traumatic event. It was a rush of emotion," the lawyer explained.

Addressing the Crown's consideration that similar-fact evidence be used to convict Svekla, Shaigec suggested the tactic can only succeed if it can be proved the cases are so similar, so "highly distinctive," that the probative value of the evidence offsets its prejudicial value.


Quinney	Innes

While the Crown drew similarities between the two women, Shaigec highlighted their dissimilarities: different ages, different heights and different races.

Quinney was a stranger to Svekla while Innes was a friend; Quinney's body was mutilated while Innes' was not.

"The is no uniqueness, there is no signature, there is no objective improbability of coincidence. There are threads of similarity and threads of dissimilarity and that's all that can be said," Shaigec said.

"The pieces of the puzzle don't fit. It's just a puzzle."

Justice Sterling Sanderman, now tasked with sorting through a great deal of evidence and legal argument from the nearly three-month long case, set June 3rd, 2008 as the date he would render his decisions.

Rachel Quinney's family sat through nearly every day of the long trial and they were particularly angered when Svekla's defence lawyer spoke of her.

"Mr. Svekla you're going to get it in fucking jail," one man offered CTV Edmonton's cameras.

Most of the family reserved further comment until the verdict was handed down, but Virginia Lajimodiere, Quinney's aunt, described the effect the trail has had.

"This last process is bringing the family much closer. I feel they're able to talk more freely about Rachel's death."

On May 26th, 2008 Rachel Quinney’s brother informed the Edmonton Sun he planned to attend court to hear Justice Sterling Sanderman's verdict for the man accused of killing his sister.

Sanderman banned Keith Lajimodiere from the trial on May 6th after he supposedly made a gun-to-the-head gesture directed toward Thomas Svekla. Keith later claimed he was just scratching his head.

Keith's wife Charlotte figured that with closing arguments now over, the trial should also be considered closed and they should be allowed back in.

“I think we're just going to walk in hand in hand and walk past everybody, if we're allowed to do so,” she said.

“Rachel was his closest sibling. He wants to hear the judge say it, he doesn't want to hear it through the grapevine.”

Charlotte acknowledged she and her husband might be challenged at the courtroom door.

“We're hoping that my husband doesn't feel the brunt of the justice system prior to going in to the courtroom. We hope he gets the chance to walk in and hear this judge's verdict because it’s an important day to us.”

The day before the verdict was to be delivered, the Edmonton Journal touched base with Quinney's family.

"After all these years of sitting and waiting, tomorrow is our day," said Charlotte.

"It's not coming fast enough for us. I haven't been able to think of anything else for days. I want to hear a guilty verdict. If we don't get a guilty verdict, I have no idea what is going to happen to the family. There will be pain and anger. It will be a tearful day."

The Quinney and Innes families planned to hold a prayer meeting just prior the verdicts being read out.

Danielle Boudreau, organiser of an annual Valentine's Day march paying tribute to the missing and murdered women of Edmonton and a volunteer with Prostitution Awareness and Action Foundation of Edmonton, spoke with Global Edmonton on behalf of the families.

"We're really scared ... lotta nerves, anxiety about the whole situation. I think that tomorrow will bring some closure because it's finally over.

"We don't know what to expect ... we're hoping the best."

Boudreau expressed fear that Svekla might be acquitted in Rachel's death.

"He'll be held accountable for something, but not what he should be held accountable for," she said.

Justice Sanderman read out his verdicts on June 3rd, 2008.

return to main Svekla trial page | return to main Svekla page

deadmonton - thomas george svekla - trial - 8