Charges dropped against former NHLer Stan Jonathan in hunting death

[MikePal]

I don't for a minute believe there was a deer either.

I think it was standing on a grassy knoll....

[Species8472]

If the bullet passed through a deer and then struck the victim would there not be deer dna on Mr Kosid.

One would think so. Additionally if the bullet had already passed through a deer it would have expanded and/or fragmented and the entrance wound on the victim would have different characteristics than if the victim was hit first.

[M_P]

....He was hunting and believed he had shot a UNICORN. The deceased was not expected to have been there. He was bow-hunting out of bow-hunting season. He had no hunter’s orange on. This was just a terribly unfortunate accident.

“I think, ultimately, the family advised Mr. Orsini that they no longer saw a need to prosecute Stan and Mr. Orsini...interested in their position...accepted it and elected to withdraw the charges.”

They blame the victim. And....
Hamilton lawyer Dean Paquette, who represented Jonathan, said Sunday that the case they presented during the preliminary hearing was that his client had sighted the same UNICORN three times before he fired his rifle. He said Jonathan "shot a deer … and that the bullet that ended up killing Mr. Kosid had actually gone through a deer.

"He saw it go down … the practice is you don't approach a recently shot UNICORN. He approached about an hour later, believing the UNICORN would be there where he shot it. He had no idea Mr. Kosid was beyond where the UNICORN was."

The brothers arrived with a trailer, expecting to pick up the dead UNICORN. They found the camouflage-clad Kosid, called 911 and said a prayer.

Paquette said a deer carcass was never found, but a neighbour testified seeing a UNICORN about 90 minutes later that "was not acting normally. It matched the UNICORN that Stan had shot … It was acting as if something was wrong with it and we believe it was wounded."

I have changed the story a little and if this what what the defense lawyer had come up with I would have found it a little more believable. 2-1/2 years after the fact we now hear about a pass through shot killing the victim. Yep. i believe it.

[DDT]

this out come makes me sick, i think i'll just go and puke now

[JBen]

Obvious question.

Lets accept the version there was a pass through (which still imo leaves careless open for not ensuring its a safe shot) and the OPP arrive, and start taking notes.

Why is it, theres no mention of the OPP verifying a blood trail?

If I'm the defense counsel, would you not include that and line up your ducks. Cant, refuse to believe we have key stone OPP who when a human is shot and killed and the shooter says "But I shot a buck"….they wouldn't attempt to find the trail and verify it's existence………or not.

[Dythbringer]

There are actually two different versions of events here. This is the story from the Crown:

Orsini said Jonathan, 59, was out on Third Line Road in Ohsweken, Ont. on the morning of Nov. 11, 2012 when he spotted what he thought was a buck and shot at it from a distance of about 300 yards.

Orsini said when Jonathan went to retrieve the animal, he discovered it was a man who was wearing camouflage clothing.

Peter Kosid, 29, who was bow hunting in the bush, with permission, on an acquaintance's land, died after being shot in the back.

Orsini said Jonathan called 911, closed the victim's eyes, and he and his brother said a prayer for the man.

“There is no question he thought he was shooting a deer,” said Orsini. “It is a very tragic circumstance.”

This is the story from the defence lawyer:
Paquette said, “Mr. Jonathan wasn’t a bad man. He wasn’t intoxicated. He was hunting and believed he had shot a deer. The deceased was not expected to have been there. He was bow-hunting out of bow-hunting season. He had no hunter’s orange on. This was just a terribly unfortunate accident.

“I think, ultimately, the family advised Mr. Orsini that they no longer saw a need to prosecute Stan and Mr. Orsini...interested in their position...accepted it and elected to withdraw the charges.”

They blame the victim. And....
Hamilton lawyer Dean Paquette, who represented Jonathan, said Sunday that the case they presented during the preliminary hearing was that his client had sighted the same deer three times before he fired his rifle. He said Jonathan "shot a deer … and that the bullet that ended up killing Mr. Kosid had actually gone through a deer.

"He saw it go down … the practice is you don't approach a recently shot deer. He approached about an hour later, believing the deer would be there where he shot it. He had no idea Mr. Kosid was beyond where the deer was."

The brothers arrived with a trailer, expecting to pick up the dead deer. They found the camouflage-clad Kosid, called 911 and said a prayer.

Paquette said a deer carcass was never found, but a neighbour testified seeing a deer about 90 minutes later that "was not acting normally. It matched the deer that Stan had shot … It was acting as if something was wrong with it and we believe it was wounded."

The defence story doesn't have an air of reality, in my view. We are asked to believe something highly improbable on the word of the accused and his brother, with the only corroborating evidence being the word of a neighbour who believes he saw a deer that may have been wounded, during the hunting season. The court is not obliged to take this at face value, or to decide that it raises reasonable doubt, and I believe the court and not the Crown should have made that decision.



I disbelieve the defence lawyer's suggestion that the family asked for the charges to be withdrawn. In fact, the family has refused to comment.

The Crown seems to have decided that they can't prove he did not believe he was shooting at a deer. This is strange, because they aren't actually required to prove that. The suggestion made by their decision is that as long as you sincerely believe you're shooting at game, that's okay.

Here are The Spec's storys about this:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/55...hunting-death/

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/55...n-lawyer-says/



Good points welsh. I think this should be going to trial (and it may still but I would be surprised). There are way too many holes in the defense's explanation when logic is applied.

So Jonathan sighted the deer three times and then shot. He saw the deer go down but when he and his brother went to retrieve the deer, there was Kosid in camouflage (he was out deer hunting). Now the defenses story is Jonathan didn't see Kosid when he shot as he was behind the deer and the bullet passed through the deer and hit Kosid. Kosid was shot in the back (this fact is where this explanation falls apart). So Kosid was close enough to the deer's location where it went down for the brothers to find him when they went to retrieve the deer (according to the defense the deer went down and Jonathan noted where it went down) but wasn't close enough to be spotted when Jonathan sighted the deer three times. Put on top of this Kosid was shot in the back so Kosid was close enough to the deer to be hit by a pass thru and not seen but he was also facing away from the deer while deer hunting? How close can a hunter in camo get to a deer while walking backwards (or away from) it?

This doesn't pass the stink test at all. Why Orsini is withdrawing the charges based on the defenses explanation of the events when there are such glaring holes in the explanation? The story doesn't say. I think the people have a right to know why the crown attorney has deemed this explanation reasonable.

Dyth

[Deerslayer99]

There is nothing that can convince me that this is a cover up of the truth.....1....was Stan using a scope or open sights.....surely using either you can tell the difference between a man and a deer at that distance...2....quite the coincidence that he found a man laying there instead of a deer at the spot he shot at....3....was the alleged deer and bowhunter walking side by side...i doubt it.....4....is there seasons on the reserve....i thought you can hunt/fish there all year long and that our MNR laws dont apply on a reserve......so many unanswered questions that will never be answered......i hope you can sleep at night Stan for having one hell of a lawyer who fabricated a total lie of events to clear your name.....I know i couldnt live with myself knowing i accidently killed a person and lied about it......IMO i believe the race card played a HUGE factor here and where the accident occurred

[Dythbringer]

There is nothing that can convince me that this is a cover up of the truth.....1....was Stan using a scope or open sights.....surely using either you can tell the difference between a man and a deer at that distance...2....quite the coincidence that he found a man laying there instead of a deer at the spot he shot at....3....was the alleged deer and bowhunter walking side by side...i doubt it.....4....is there seasons on the reserve....i thought you can hunt/fish there all year long and that our MNR laws dont apply on a reserve......so many unanswered questions that will never be answered......i hope you can sleep at night Stan for having one hell of a lawyer who fabricated a total lie of events to clear your name.....I know i couldnt live with myself knowing i accidently killed a person and lied about it......IMO i believe the race card played a HUGE factor here and where the accident occurred

A person cannot be shot in the back walking side by side to another.

[Deerslayer99]

One could if they are walking AWAY from you.....

[Deerslayer99]

The point i was making was that i do not believe there was a deer involved at all and being sarcastic.....