Ellard is not an appealing individual, and has displayed violence more than once since her original arrest. But she has mostly been in jail since then, having now spent a total of seven years locked up. She was 15 when Virk died, and 18 when first convicted in 2000. It would take a particularly strong, stable individual to withstand that at her age without some eruptions.
Virk herself was a tragic figure: an ugly, ungainly kid trying to become part of the cool crowd. Her East Indian family were Jehovah’s Witnesses, so she was marked out by race, by appearance and by a restrictive upbringing. She spent a short time in a foster home, but later went back to live with her parents.
The main issue for many people has been the stunning incompetence of the courts in British Columbia. Almost nobody believes Ellard is anything but a conniving sociopath, and the notion is hard to dispute.
What caught my attention, though, was a link to the defence brief to the Supreme Court. It can be found at: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/information/cms-sgd/fac-mem-eng.asp?32835 Her lawyer, Peter Wilson, QC, here sets out an intriguing case that much of the evidence against Ellard and the other seven people involved in Virk’s death was the result of collusion, or from them altering their stories to fit what police or media had said. Now, it’s Wilson’s job to make his client look good, and the fact that he can produce a convincing brief is only proof that he’s a good lawyer. Which, as a QC, he should be.
Yet it’s hard to read the brief without wondering just what went on. It’s very lucid, and to my non-legal mind, makes it plain that the investigations, like the trials, were hardly impeccably handled.
Ellard was part of the group of girls plus one young man, Warren Glowatski, who swarmed and attacked Virk in her final minutes, but virtually all those present have given conflicting stories at different times over the years. Some statements make no sense, with the participants describing scenes they could not have witnessed, or depicting injuries to Virk that were not found in the autopsy, and Glowatski, Ellard’s primary accuser, hated her, apparently for rejecting him earlier.
Since the crime was committed by young offenders, the sentences passed are not those adults would have received. One of the teenage girls has since died of an illness, the others were all back on the streets in a year or less, and even Glowatski, who drew a life sentence for his participation (which is, effectively, seven years for a juvenile in Canada) is now free again. Ellard’s is the only case that continues.
Which is the odd thing. Had she pled guilty when Glowatski did, or had she changed her plea along the way, she could now be free. There’s a possibility that even if she is convicted again, she may have her sentence commuted to time served. But what if, as one more odd story in our odd world, she didn’t actually kill Virk as Glowatski (eventually) said?
It’s easy to be reminded by Ellard of Karla Homolka, the Ontario murderess who evaded her clear culpability in two girls’ sexual torture and murder, and plea-bargained her way to a 12-year sentence through a botched investigation. Both are, or were, pretty, and neither has ever indicated remorse for her actions. (Correction: Homolka did make formal apology to her victims' families). In the public imagination, and in news-site comments, the two are sometimes linked. Neither is very likable, even disregarding the crimes in which they were involved.
Yet that brief bothers me. What did Ellard actually do? The Wikipedia entry on the case assigns clear responsibility to her, as does Rebecca Godfrey’s 2005 book Under the Bridge. Yet Wilson pokes huge holes in the reliability of the teenage witnesses’ recollections under police interrogation and, later, in court. The standard of proof in this case seems to have been weak all along. Glowatski is the main source, and Wilson points out that his stories kept on changing. By the time of the second and third trials, did any of those involved know exactly who had done what? That’s Wilson’s suggestion, and it’s plausible.
Wikipedia quotes Glowatski as having gone through native healing circles during incarceration (he is Metis), and on “receiving day parole he proceeded to hug every member of the parole board and those present, including the Virks.” My inner cynic … is cynical. I doubt Ellard is innocent, but Wilson makes it clear that proving her guilt is something three trials have not yet done in a fair, transparent and conclusive manner. His client, while obviously on the scene of a brutal killing, just might not be guilty of Virk’s death.