The Crown and the defence have made their closing arguments in a Quesnel, B.C. man’s trial on a charge of first-degree murder.

The charge against Edward James Penner, 22, is related to the 2017 death of 25-year-old Adam Cormack. He is being tried by jury in Whitehorse, with Deputy Justice Scott Brooker of the Yukon Supreme Court presiding.

The closing arguments began Tuesday.

Crown prosecutor Tom Lemon told the jury he believes the evidence only points one way: that Penner is guilty of murder.

“The standard of reasonable doubt boils down to ‘are you sure?’” Lemon said.

He explained that the jurors don’t have to believe every witness beyond a reasonable doubt.

He outlined six points the Crown must prove noting the first three were all admitted. These are that Penner is the accused; Cormack is the victim; and that he was killed near Whitehorse.

The remaining three are more contentious. These are that Cormack died sometime on June 28, 2017; Penner killed him; and the act was both planned and deliberate.

Lemon felt the jury should have no difficulty finding that the murder took place on June 28, 2017, the day Cormack’s body was found in a wilderness area northwest of Whitehorse.

Cyril Golar, a witness at the scene, pointed out that the body was present on a trail near the old Castle Rock gravel pit, off the Alaska Highway.

Lemon pointed out that two witnesses, Teneil Arcand and Juanita Johnson, said they had gone to a party on June 27, 2017. Only Johnson stated that she had seen Penner and Cormack together at the party.

Lemon added that Clarence Haryett, another witness, stated that he had picked up and driven Penner around multiple times on June 27, 2017 as part of his sober driving service.

Both he and Penner went to the offsales outlet at the Airport Chalet at 11:22 p.m. on June 27. Haryett’s car was seen entering the hotel’s parking lot at that time.

The car was seen again at around 3 a.m. on June 28, 2017.

Lemon next pointed out that Richard Gavin, an EMS worker who attended the murder scene, said Cormack was displaying signs of severe rigor mortis.

Jason Morin, a forensic pathologist, testified that rigor sets in a couple of hours after death.

The Crown added that Cormack was found with maggot larvae in his mouth. These two findings indicate that the body had been there for sometime, he argued.

He suggested the evidence says the body was on the trail for hours, not days.

“How long could the body have been there in the wild?” Lemon suggested the jurors ask themselves.

Several witnesses said they knew Penner under the name Tanner or EJ. Lemon felt it would be easy for the jury to determine Tanner and EJ are Penner.

“That should cause you no difficulty,” Lemon said.

Penner had a motive and the means to commit the murder, Lemon added.

He explained that Penner was investigating a stolen gun linked to Cormack. He added that Penner had access to an AR-15, which the Crown submitted was the murder weapon.

He further argued that it’s unlikely that Penner brought the weapon with him to Whitehorse just to pose with for pictures shared on Facebook. The Crown entered several pictures of Penner doing this, with Lemon saying it makes no sense.

Penner arrived in the territory on June 24, 2017, according to the Crown, and Cormack was killed three days later.

Lemon argued that a firearm like an AR-15 has only one purpose: to kill people.

The defence did not call any evidence.

André Ouellette, one of Penner’s lawyers, told the jury that old expressions can help sort out the case. He pointed to one saying that “you can’t make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear.”

He explained that in this case, it’s how many times can a lie be told before it’s accepted as truth.

He felt the Crown’s case was a house of cards that it’s trying to sell as real estate.

Ouellette pointed out that only one witness, Alain Bernier, had said anything about the missing gun Penner was investigating. Bernier did not indicate how the gun was linked to Cormack, Ouellette added.

He pointed out more unclear facts. He said there was testimony that Cormack had owed money to people. None of the witnesses said who Cormack owed money to, the defence highlighted.

“It’s unclear,” Ouellette said.

He added that Cormack had not owed any money to his client. He felt there was no motive for Penner to kill Cormack.

The Crown is speculating on what the murder weapon was, Ouellette told the jury. He cited expert testimony by ballistics expert Megan Evoy, which indicated that a rifle or a high-powered handgun could have been used in the murder.

He explained that the Crown wants the jurors to believe that an AR-15 was used so they can follow its theory.

Ouellette said it’s suspicious that all the Facebook evidence gathered by the RCMP ended on June 27, 2017, and is curious as to why. He asked if the activity had stopped, or if there’s some other reason.

“Does the Crown not want you to see those?” Ouellette asked.

The defence’s assessment of an AR-15’s purpose makes no sense, Ouellette added.

Although a bullet and a casing were found at the scene, there was no fingerprint nor DNA found on either.

This meant, he argued, that police cannot determine when the items ended up at the scene and if they were related to the incident.

He reminded the jury that the gravel pit is used as an unofficial shooting range.

He said two Pepsi cans found at the scene were a distraction. While the accused’s and the victim’s prints were found on separate cans at the scene, he argued that it does not indicate when the item was deposited there.

Overall, Ouellette felt the Crown was asking the jury to bypass reason and common sense. He said it’s imperative for the the jury to not make leaps of faith nor jump to conclusions.

“All the evidence here is unequivocal or ambiguous,” Ouellette said.

He found it odd that Penner would seek out Bernier and confess to the murder. He said Bernier and Penner were not friends and had barely known each other.

“It doesn’t make sense,” he said.

Ouellette felt several witnesses were compromised. Several reported to be heavy drug users at the time of the murder. He said people were re-interpreting their memories to try to satisfy their curiosity.

“Would you bet your life on the evidence you heard here?” Ouellette asked the jury. “Would you bet someone else’s?”

He concluded by saying that police work with what is available, but a jury has to be sure.

Brooker charged the jury this morning, with deliberations set to begin later today.