A 17-year-old boy was convicted of murder on Wednesday in connection with a shooting that occurred at a residence on Gilmour Street in Ottawa that was rented to the Airbnb platform in January 2020.
The teenager, whose identity could not be released under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, was found guilty of first degree murder and three counts of attempted murder after a seven -week trial and two days of jury deliberation. He was 15 years old when the incident happened.
The Court established that the defendant was instrumental in assisting an assassin in committing the quadruple shooting that claimed the life of Manyok Manny Akolan 18-year-old aspiring rapper and soccer player.
On January 8, 2020, Manyok Akol was shot while sleeping in rented accommodation in Ottawa on the platform Airbnb. Three other people were injured, including a 15 -year -old boy at the time.
During the trial, two of the three surviving victims of the shooting testified from a jail where they were awaiting trial in another case. They said they were asleep at the time and no one remembered the events that led to their friend’s death.
Testimony gathered during the trial decided it took less than two minutes for the killer to fire 14 shots inside a bedroom before he fled on foot. The area in question was used as a site of drug transactions, we learned.
The Crown accused the convicted 17-year-old gunman of assisting the shooter by being his eyes and ears for 490 Gilmour.
Also according to the Crown version that convinced the jurors, the young man watched, waited for the others to fall asleep and made sure the door was unlocked so that the shooter could make a stealth entry.
According to recordings and data gathered from the defendant’s cell phone, the teenager was inside the unit Airbnb dawn of January 8th.
Ottawa police have not arrested the shooter, nor have they publicly identified the identity of a potential shooter in this case. However, officers determined that the killer was talking to the teenager prior to the hunt.
Defense attorneys presented no evidence in the case, but told jurors in their final arguments that the tragic shooting events did not mean their 17-year-old client had to pay for here.
The defense contended that just because an anonymous shooter had a plan does not mean his client was an accomplice.
The real question is what does my client know? Did he manipulate the shooter?the lawyer asked Diane Magas.
The defense also maintained that the crown and police offered no motive in the crime.
I Stores said to CBC News after the judgment he intended to appeal the decision. In our opinion, this is a misconceptionhe commented.
With information from Shaamini Yogaretnam ng CBC News
Radio Canada
Source: Radio-Canada
