A Saskatoon Court of Queen’s Bench Justice will decide if the confession Joseph “David” Caissie gave to undercover police officers about killing Carol King was truthful - or if he made it all up when he was part of a fake crime ring he believed to be real.
Caissie, 55, is charged with first-degree murder and offering an indignity to a body in the Aug. 2011 death of his ex-girlfriend Carol King. Her disappearance from her home near Herschel, Sask. on Aug. 6 was widely reported; her PT Cruiser was found in a slough a few days later and her body was found at the end of the month. An autopsy couldn’t determine the cause of her death because animals disturbed her remains.
Caissie was questioned by police after King’s death but wasn’t arrested and charged until five years later after he confessed to the murder to undercover police officers in a six-month Mr. Big sting – a police tactic that sees officers bring a suspect into a fake crime ring.
Mr. Big sting confession
Caissie admitted to the officers he killed King on six different occasions. At first, he sasid he strangled King to death but then said he stabbed her, disposed of her body and drove her vehicle into the water.
Caissie’s defence lawyer Kevin Hill argued in his closing statement Thursday the confession he gave to the officers was made up because money was “dangled” in front of him when he was in a vulnerable financial position. He was paid to do small jobs for the fake crime ring. Hill also said the organization led Caissie to believe being a killer who had gotten away with murder was an asset.
“They laid out a path for him and he followed the path,” Hill said.
Crown prosecutor Matthew Miazga argued the confession was truthful and voluntarily given in an environment where Caissie felt relaxed. Aside from Caissie first saying he strangled King, the confession was told numerous times consistently after that, he said.
“The same statements were repeated several times over,” he said. “One of the statements in particular he was very passionate about being believed.”
After a voir dire, Justice Richard Danyliuk ruled the confessions and other evidence from the Mr. Big sting would be admissible in trial.
Admission vs. physical evidence
Hill argued much of the evidence that came out during the Mr. Big sting doesn’t match up with physical evidence.
“Mr. Caissie doesn’t know things he should know and the things he says he does know aren’t supported by any evidence,” Hill said.
Caissie told undercover police he threw away the knife he used to kill King in a field after the murder, but after a search a knife was never recovered. Hill said there was an “extensive” search that turned up other aged metal objects, but not the knife.
He also argued the way Caissie described driving the PT Cruiser into the slough doesn’t match the physical evidence of how it was found – with a jug under the gas pedal – and said Caissie can’t account for where King’s missing purse is.
“He doesn’t know. He wasn’t there,” Hill said.
To those points, Miazga argued the Crown isn’t required to prove “every tidbit” or even how King was killed, just the essential elements of the case.
Possible motive: ‘He was a controlling person’
Miazga said these types of cases don’t always have a clear motive other than someone not being able to control their partner the way they wish.
“I think Mr. Caissie was a stalker. He was a controlling person,” Miazga said outside of court Thursday.
He said Caissie wanted King to work for his business and share profits of her home.
In the voir dire, King’s sister Brenda testified about the way Caissie harassed her sister in the months leading up to her death.
King had reported the behavior, which Miazga said would amount to criminal harassment, to police and had an appointment scheduled to speak with RCMP at 5 p.m. on the day she disappeared.
Miazga also pointed to the testimony of a man who said Caissie hired him to lurk on King’s property to scare her in the days before her death.
“Why does he do that? There’s no reason for it unless he’s trying to cover up and set up sort of a fake suspect for her death that he basically committed the very next day,” Miazga said.
Was there enough time?
Was there enough of a window for Caissie to drive from Olds, Alberta to abduct King from her home around 4 p.m., drive her to a wooded area, stab her, dispose of her body, drive the vehicle into a slough six kilometres away, drive further to burn clothes, throw away the knife and drive back to Olds for 9 p.m? Depends who you ask.
“The timeline simply does not work at all,” Hill said.
“There was sufficient time,” Miazga said. Caissie had a 90-minute window but what he had to do could have been completed in an hour, Miazga said.
Justice Danyliuk has about two months’ worth of evidence to go through before delivering his verdict, which is scheduled for Jan. 4.