Articles

The Murder Trial: Justice vs. The Law

Print this Article See Also: Another Day of Disappointment June 18th, 2009 A Call For Courage July 28th, 2008 Please, Staff Sergeant Gross, Let Us Have Our Dispatch Back?! April 30th, 2008 "Scanning" For 9-1-1 Problems April 30th, 2008 'Busy' 911 Meant Woman Couldn't Report Murder January 11th, 2008

The following article is an attempt to reconstruct the events of the trial, based on my experience, the comments and feelings of others in attendence, news broadcasts and articles obtained during and following the trial. As with any published material which is intended to be sensational in nature, speculation, bias and opinions are inherently a large part of the viewpoint and need to be considered as such. Although I've tried to be as accurate as possible, there will inevitably be errors and incorrect information being presented as fact. If you find error with anything written here, please email me directly at gordrock@gmail.com and I will make corrections where warranted. Please include your accurate contact information with your email if you don't want to be ignored.

Monday, September 28th, was the first day of an anticipated 3 weeks worth expected to be the most dreaded in the lives of Don and Betty Michalsky. The murder trial they'd been losing sleep over for months, postponed since June 16th, was set to begin for the second and hopefully final time.

Since the murder of their daughter, Tammy, in December, 2007, they've awaited the day when her killer would have his day in court and be held accountable for his crime. In as much as the family was willing to accept nothing less than a 1st degree murder conviction, the reality of waiting to see which verdict the jury would return at the end of the trial was tearing them up inside. What if the jury chose 2nd degree or even worse, manslaughter? In order to get a grasp on the possibile verdicts, we'll first need to understand how the circumstances leading to someone's death at the hands of another are defined by the law.

In Canada, murder is classified as either first or second degree.

1. First degree murder is a murder which is (1) planned and deliberate, (2) contracted, (3) committed against an identified peace officer, (4) while committing or attempting to commit one of the following offences (hijacking an aircraft, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and forcible confinement or hostage taking), (5) while committing criminal harassment, (6) committed during terrorist activity, (7) while using explosives in association with a criminal organization, or (8) while committing intimidation. Standard conviction is life (which means "life") without chance of parole.
2. Second degree murder is all murder which is not first degree murder. It could be "spur of the moment". Standard conviction is life with no eligibility of parole for 10 years.
   

If somebody is committing an illegal act and causes the death of an individual then they are found guilty of manslaughter. Though the person died, there was no intention to cause death. Perhaps, there was only an intention to hurt someone but if a person dies because of that criminal act, the charge is manslaughter. The sentencing options for manslaughter are very complicated because there is no minimum. You can get anything from probation (which is unlikely) to life in jail. Often individuals found guilty of manslaughter will serve medium range penitentiary terms, in the neighbourhood of 7 to 15 years. To read in greater detail the distinctions and sentencing for each, our article can be found here.

Tammy's family and friends refused from the very beginning to even consider that manslaughter would be the verdict at the end of this trial. However, after having a conversation with a man who met Learn while in jail a few months ago, it was believed that the lesser verdict would be exactly what Learn would be aiming for. With witnesses to verify he was the one who shot Tammy, he was going to have to get creative in order to convince the jury to return anything less than a 1st or 2nd degree verdict.

It's been said that you should never go to court expecting justice. The best anyone should ever expect is the law. Would those statements apply to this situation? One thing was for sure; like it or not, everyone involved was going to find out.

Following a morning of jury selection, the seven men and five women were ordered out of the courtroom so the lawyers could allegedly argue over whether certain evidence could be included in the trial. Tuesday, the following day, was also interrupted by similar legal arguments, leaving Tammy's friends and family bewildered over when the bulk of the trial was to finally begin.

On one side of the legal fence was Leanne Swanson, acting for the Crown, and on the other, Brian Coleman, QC (Queen's Counsel), and Lisa Jean Helps, who both represented Learn. The judge hearing the case was B.C. Supreme Court Justice Joel Groves. The opening remarks on Wednesday by the Crown were precise and right to the point. Groves cautioned the jury that the Crown's claims were not to be considered as evidence and only when proven could the statements be considered as such. Swanson, the Crown prosecuter, said Learn's actions were "planned and deliberate", stating she'd be calling at least nine witnesses to back up the Crown's case. Swanson also stated that the events of December 17th, 2007, was played out against the drug culture of Cranbrook.

According to the Crown, Learn broke into Tammy's house on 5th street and shot her point blank after yelling she had turned his girlfriend into a "crackhead". Learn then fled the house and was arrested at his brother's home around dinner time the following afternoon. In the hours prior to the arrest, a disassembled sawed-off shotgun, a Winchester 1897 model, was found in several places along the banks of Joseph Creek below the bridge that crosses 4th street near the Liquor Store.

Swanson went on to say that over 60 pellets went through Tammy's body along with a wad of shell packing paper. The gun, when tested by forensics, was found to be operating normally and would not likely have fired accidentally. (It was later reveiled that an estimated 6 lbs. of pressure would have been required to pull the trigger on this particular shotgun.) Tammy had befriended Learn's ex-girlfriend and was present in the house along with Tammy and her room mate at the time of the incident. Swanson also stated that Tammy's room mate and Learn's former girlfriend would both be called as witnesses. At the close of her remarks, Swanson told the jury they'd have one very important question to answer; what was Learn's intentions when he went to the home with a loaded sawed-off shotgun?

The Crowns first witness was Eric Barnes, a 20 year veteran of the force and member of Cranbrook RCMP's Forensic Identification Section. Barne's testimony came equiped with a Power Point presentation consisting of more than 40 pictures.

Being the officer who discovered the shotgun, Barnes went on to state that he found a spent shell casing in the chamber and demonstrated how the gun could be taken apart, broken down into four pieces, and then put back together again. Two other unspent shells were found on the floor of Tammy's home. According to Barnes, no fingerprints were found on the weapon, which weighed roughly four pounds.

Tammy's parents had weighed the options of what they'd do when the graphic crime scene photos were to be shown. Inspite of the plan to have Tammy's mother escorted from the courtroom, they both stood fast and braced themselves for the images that no parent should ever have to see. Barnes, carrying on with his testimony, showed the various shots of Tammy lying face down on the living room floor after she had been shot. Barnes also added that he found no evidence of cocaine or marijuany use at Tammy's house.

Thursday's testimonies from Tammy's room mate, Lynn Neelin, and Learn's ex-girlfriend, Brandy Lahay, laid out the events that have been documented thoroughly on this website over the nearly two years since Tammy's death. Without repeating everything that's already been written, it will suffice to say that the two witness's testimonies lined up perfectly. Considering neither woman had any contact with the other since the evening of Tammy's death, it was reasonable to assume their descriptions of the events were untainted.

The testimonies from the two women were literally identical with regards to the events of the night of Tammy's death. Although the differences were subtle, the key points were based around Learn not appearing to be extremely intoxicated and the lack of provocation by Tammy prior to the shooting. Although a conversation was said to have taken place between Tammy and Learn outside the house, the content of that discussion was not known to either woman inside. Many of the details that Lynn revealed can be seen in the video interviews with her (via the Watch Videos link on the main menu) taped shortly after the murder. Brandy's testimony included the details of a phone call from Learn a short time later in which he tried to justify his actions.

Friday's session was largely spent with the cross examination of Learn's ex-girlfriend by Learn's defence attorney, Brian Coleman. Through her testimony, the court heard that Brandy and Learn were together for two years and had broken up a few days before Tammy's death. Going through her testimony in great detail, Coleman had Brandy elaborate on her relationship with Learn up until the murder.

Brandy had stated that she and Learn had been living in a trailer on his brother's property in November 2007 and had started using and selling cocaine in mid November. In response to Coleman's suggestions that Learn had wanted her to stop selling because it was too dangerous, Layay responded saying that he wanted her to stop because of the money she was making and the time away from Learn she was gaining as a result; both clearly a threat to Learn's fragile male ego. When asked how Learn and Tammy got along, she said they got along when they were first introduced but later Learn told her that Tammy was no good for her.

On the evening of December 17th, 2007, the three women, Tammy, Lynn and Brandy were living in the house on 5th Street. Later in the evening, Brandy saw Learn outside the home and told Tammy, who after hearing it, went outside to talk with him. Upon Tammy's reentry to the house, Tammy told Brandy she "put him in his place." After an unknown amount of time, Learn burst into the house through the back door and walked toward Tammy shouting, "You turned my fucking girlfriend into a crackhead!", after which he shot her as she was turning away, firing the gunshot pellets into Tammy's lower left back.

Coleman, obviously trying to enforce his theory of manslaughter, stated he did not disagree with Brandy's claim that Learn had shot Tammy, but rather ammended the suggestion that Learn was significantly intoxicated and was weaving back and forth before the gun misfired, shooting Tammy by accident. Brandy, firmly disagreed with Coleman's estimations of Learn's intoxication and of firing the gun accidently, stating Learn was not slurring his words and only pointed the gun at Tammy.

Continuing his attempt to discredit the witness, Coleman speculated that Brandy's claims of physical and mental abuse by Learn were fabricated and Brandy's belief that Tammy's murder was her fault was because she had lied to Tammy about the abuse. Brandy firmly rubuked Coleman's speculations.

On Monday, Pathologist Gilles Molgat, testified as an expert witness stating that Tammy was hit in the lower back with one shot gun blast that shattered her 11th rib, fractured her 10th rib and tore through her kidney, spleen and liver before four pellets lodged in her heart. With regards to the pellets in her heart, Molgat stated "in my opinion, that was the fatal injury."

In an exerpt from the Cranbrook Daily Townsman dated October 6, 2009, the article recorded, "The shotgun pellets entered Tammy's body in the lower left back just below her rib cage and travelled upward at an angle towards her right shoulder, the pathologist said. Numerous pellets were extracted from her body, some 60 in all, he said."

Lisa Jean Helps, the smug bookend of Learn's defence team, during cross examination of Molgat learned of the RCMP toxicology report for Tammy which revealed cocaine, Valium and another prescription drug in her body at the time of death. Don and Betty Michalsky were oblivious to their daughter's drug use and learning of it during the trial was not the preferred avenue for such disappointing information.

It was no great surprise that Learn wanted to testify on his own behalf; a move that had he known better, would have avoided like the plague. The scenario would have only been equaled if a doctor was to perform brain surgery on himself. Not a wise move. However, for a defence that had almost no defence, it would have appeared to be a grand idea.

A number of those in attendence were curious as to which approach he would take to try and sway the jury in his favor. Knowing he'd try to back up the defense strategy of manslaughter, apart from claiming temporary insanity - and knowing he couldn't back that up, it was doubtful it would be successful. As he took the stand everyone seemed to ponder how he would go about explaining his actions.

Learn's testimony was a conveluted mix of bullshit and wishfull thinking, claiming he was too drunk and didn't remember much of anything that happened that evening. There was little doubt he'd run and hide from his responsibility in Tammy's death - but his ignorant contempt witnessed by the court was an insult to the memory of Tammy and an additional punch in the face to Tammy's friends and family. From behind his fasade of false humility, the 50 year old, intellectually stunted, basement level career criminal actually believed he could fool everyone else in the court room. Perhaps he should have checked the credentials of the fellow inmates he was taking legal advice from while in jail? With this newest error in Learn's judgement, believed to have come at the prompting of his attorney, it's likely the Crown would have liked to have thanked him for his contributions to their case. In hindsight, if Learn's defence team would have had him speak with an accent similar to that of Forrest Gump it would have at least added some authenticity to his dillusions.

With the evidence presented in the trial laid out on the proverbial table for all to see, it was now time for us to recap.

On the evening of December 17th, 2007, Learn, who was drinking an unknown quantity of alcohol throughout the day, was angry with his ex-girlfriend for not returning his phone calls and not bringing the marijuana she was expected to bring to him. With an unknown act of violence on his mind, Learn assembled his old sawed-off shotgun and collected three shells, one of which he placed in the chamber. He then rode his bicycle 3 kms in the snow to the house where Brandy was staying; the house where Tammy and Lynn lived. When Brandy arrived at the house, she saw Learn standing in the driveway which scared her and she went inside and told Tammy of Learn's presense, at which point Tammy went outside to confront him. Following a conversation with Learn, Tammy went back inside and it is thought that Learn had left the property. A short time later, he kicked in the back door and walked into the living room where the three women were watching movies. Pointing the gun at her, he shouted at Tammy, who had stood up from the makeshift bed where she was sitting prior to Learn's entrance. Seemingly undaunted by Learn's words - and the shotgun in his hands that was pointed at her, she turned partially away to sit back down at which point he pulled the trigger and fired one shell consisting of 60 odd pellets into her body, killing her a short time later.

Although not relevant to the trial, (it's worth mentioning for our purposes here), at that point, Lynn knelt down to see if Tammy was still breathing - and she was. Immediately, the two women panicked, ran into Lynn's bedroom and pulled the mattress partially off the bed and crawled under it. While on the floor between the bed frame and outer wall, terrified and not entirely sure if Learn had left the residence, Lynn picked up the phone and started calling 9-1-1 and Brandy grabbed her cell phone and did the same. Tammy bled to death in the minutes that followed while Lynn and Brandy repeatedly dialed 9-1-1, reaching a recorded message each time. Full articles detailing these events and similar discussions can be found via the Articles link on the main menu.

With the trial drawing to a close, of the three plausible verdicts to be considered, the courtroom was divided as to which one would be reached in the conclusion. The only thing that everyone could agree on was that Learn fired the gun that killed Tammy.

Was Learn too drunk to know what he was doing? Did he plan to kill Tammy...or Brandy...or did he really plan to shoot Brandy's truck? With three shells in his possession, did he plan to kill all three women? These were serious questions but it was clear that many of these and others would never be answered. The speculations will likely continue long after this trial has ended.

Coleman, Learn's attorney, led his closing statements by cautioning the jury that although they may feel some level of simpathy for Tammy and negative bias towards Learn, they'd need to disregard those feelings while deciding on a verdict. "Learn is guilty of manslaughter", Coleman said, "but not 1st degree murder." According to Coleman, Learn did not go to the house to kill Tammy, but rather his "drunken, hair-brained scheme" was to shoot Brandy's vehicle to scare her, stating he had a significant amount of alchohol in his system at the time.

Crown Councel, Swanson, said Learn had a plan. It may not have been a good plan or smart plan, but nevertheless it was a plan. Swanson reminded the jury of the 2 shotgun shells found on the living room floor of the house after the shooting, claiming those were meant for the two remaining women, Lynn and Brandy. According to Swanson, the recoil of the gun after shooting Tammy knocked them out of Learn's hands and then he fled the buildling. Swanson also stated that any level of alcohol in Learn's body did not excuse the murder or prevent him from doing some things; managing to ride a bicycle across Cranbrook in the snow, handling the gun and evading detection after fleeing the house.

Judge Groves instructed the jury on the law and went over some key evidence with them, informing them of the three possible verdicts they'd have the task of deciding. If the jury failed to unanimously agree on a verdict, Groves would have to declare a mistrial. The jury was told they'd need to apply common sense and were the "sole judges" in deciding which evidence to consider and how important each was to their inevitable decision.

When the jury went into deliberation in the late afternoon of October 15th, initially it was hoped by Tammy's friends and family that it would be a slam dunk for the 1st degree conviction. However, as the hours went by, the possibility of having a lesser conviction returned was slowly working it's way into the minds of those who had hoped for a quick resolve.

To some, it was beginning to become apparent that a 2nd degree conviction was likely to be the outcome - and there was nothing Learn or his defence team could have said done that would have changed it. Murder by any other name is still murder. After all, the Crown offered Learn an instant 2nd degree murder conviction long before the trial started, so there must have been some assumption that the 2nd degree would be the verdict if it went to trial. If Lynn's recollection of the surprised look on Learn's face immediately after the shotgun was fired was to be any indication of his true intention (from an interview with her, January, 2008), then a 2nd degree murder conviction would likely be a logical conclusion. Of course, when having to take into consideration the actual amount of evidence presented during the trial, the exact reasoning behind the jury's decision will never be known. Of course, those of us who have intimate knowledge of the events outside the court room will be left speculating over whether Learn's shocked look came from the realization that he shot Tammy or from the immense recoil of the gun as it fired or perhaps, both.

Around 2 pm the following afternoon, the jury was lead back into the courtroom and delivered the verdict of 2nd degree murder with the chance of parole in 10 years. Following a talk from the judge, the jury was sent back out to decide whether or not the default of 10 years before parole was adequate. After a short time, the jury returned and recommended Learn receive no chance of parole for 20 years. The judge is not required to follow the jury's recommendation for the sentencing, but the fact that he sent the jury back out to consider modifying their initial decision leaves us wondering if the verdict was not as servere as the one he may have expected. Whatever the case, it is possible that the jury's recommendation could be considered at sentencing.

With the presentation of the evidence and the arguments throughout, the jury's decision could not have been easy and Learn's actions probably barely qualified him for the lesser 2nd degree verdict. Regardless of the jury's decision, there's little doubt in the minds of the family and friends of Tammy's that, morally speaking, Learn deserved the absolute worst the law would allow...and then some. According to one source, with younger brother, Leon's, alleged release from jail after serving roughly five years of an eight year term for manslaughter, one can only hope the two brother's examples of what not to do with one's life will resonate through the minds of anyone who's come to be known for their chronic criminal behaviors.

Over all, the trial went as expected and lasted the length predicted. Crown prosecuter, Swanson, followed every permitted available lead and was on the ball and reasonably accountable to the province as well as Tammy's friends and family. Between my bias and general dislike of lawyers, I found myself wondering if Learn's key defence attorney, Coleman, actually believed the crap that was coming out of his own mouth. But since his job was to defend his client, regardless of the truth, then the man's infuriatingly disorganized performance warrants some merrit as well. However, the defence's junior lawyer, Lisa Helps', review is not as positive. Actually, we're having trouble finding people involved with the trial who have anything positive to say about her. Apart from additional negative comments from others in attendence, Don told me he lost count of the number of dirty looks he believes she gave him throughout the trial. She certainly left a memorable impression during her short visit to our town.

In the meantime, we've been faced with accusations of trying to influence the jury during the trial. These accusations, implying all of us involved with the website have conspired with a well thought out plan to try to sway the jury in our favor, began with a reaction from Don after he heard something during the trial that upset him. Being the father of a murdered daughter could have had something to do with the emotional response - a response that he was aware would be unacceptable. The second claim was associated with a "Remember Tammy" card, a design I was asked to create back in June. Following Lynn's testimony, she placed a card on a bulletin board in the court house, which the judge was quite upset over. Although we've all been blamed for the latter event, it was solely Lynn who decided to take the card to the trial and place it on the board in the hallway. She didn't realize it was going to be the problem it turned out to be. The final insult came from an anonymous claim that photos existed that were allegedly of the Michalskys socializing with some of the jury members. All of this has left us with only one question: To what lengths will people go in order to have a mistrial declared? Apparently, any length. I can safely assure everyone that nothing was done with any intent to influence anyone. However, with the verdict already rendered, even if the accusations could be proven, there's no chance of a mistrial being declared.

The next waiting period would be for the sentencing. Would the jury's recommedation of 20 years before Learn could apply for parole be considered by Judge Groves? In the morning of Tuesday, October 27th, we were going to find out.

With the five of us, Don, Betty, Lynn, Brandy and myself, waiting in the courtroom for the sentencing to begin, I was curious what the reaction would be from those sitting next to me who had known Tammy personally and had an emotional investment in this trial. As an observer who had followed it closely and was knowledgeable of the intimate feelings of four of my five fellow observers, I found myself remembering my words to Don back in June. As I wrote at the beginning of this article, "you can't go to trial expecting justice; the best you can expect is the law." I figured no matter what the judge said about Learn's sentencing, there was going to be at least a few unhappy people in my vicinity.

The first thing on the agenda was an opportunity for the victims of this crime to address the court and read their victim impact statements. Of the four main victims in attendence, Brandy was the only one who read hers, inspite of some misguided objections from the defence. Don, Betty and Lynn submitted theirs to the judge to read privately.

The arguments for sentencing began with Crown Counsel, Swanson, quoting numerous law books and noting previous trials to back up the Crown's position that the jury's recommendation of 20 before being eligible for parole would be appropriate. Following Swanson, was defence attorney, Coleman, in his continually unorganzed manner, offering little argument to the Crown's selection of examples but rather talked about how Learn is "not a bad guy". Coleman also recited portions of some of the letters recieved from family members in hope of softening the sentence Learn would later receive.

During the break, I started thinking about the letters from Learn's family members. If, hypothetically, I was on trial for murder, I'd bet my family and friends would send letters to the court as well. Those letters would also proclaim my innocense and tell the Crown counsel about what a great guy I am and how I couldn't possibly be capable of doing such a horrible thing - and if it did happen, it must have been by accident. I don't think it would really even matter what the evidence or the jury said, people who have known me to be caring and compassionate would naturally have a very hard time believing it. Letters like these would be predictable as would the condemnation from the victim's friends and family. This trial certainly fits into what may be considered a typical scenario.

Being a fan of the numerous real life crime documentaries on television, I can hardly recall anyone close to a convicted murderer saying, "I always knew he'd do something like that", because in the majority of cases, prehand knowledge of someone's murderous capabilities is not known. In no way intended to be a personal or characteristic comparison to Learn, I remember an episode of American Justice in which a devoted husband and father was discovered to be a serial killer. Absolutely no one in this man's life had any idea of the secret existence he had hidden from them. The reality of not knowing of the horror someone is capable of can also be applied to people who only kill once. The reality is...we just don't know. Like it or not, Learn did kill Tammy. Thinking he wasn't capable of it is nothing less than refusing to believe that any human being is capable of it. Sadly, some people are capable of it - as Learn obviously was. With a history of violence and firearms offences, mentions of alcoholism and drug addition, it may have only been a matter of time until something pushed him to the point of breaking.

Following a lunch break, Coleman continued in this claims to minimize Learn's intentions in killing Tammy. He continued to read letters and submit additional trial examples to back up his claims that a 12 to 15 year ineligibility before parole would be more than adequate it the standard 10 years was not adhered to. Coleman, elaborating on the standard, said 10 to 12 years would be absolutely acceptable in this case.

Although not accepted as evidence during the trial, Learn's lengthy criminal record was finally brought into play for the sentencing. Spanning 30 years, Learn had 23 convictions, 5 of which were fire arms related and the latest was in 1990. One of the issues brought up was the "gap" principle, whereas if there is a lengthy period of time between the last conviction and the current one, some consideration might be applied to the sentencing. Judge Groves rejected any ideas that Learn would not offend again, stating that someone of middle age is more likely to (offend again) as opposed to someone much younger.

At 3:00, everyone shuffled back into the courtroom to hear what Judge Groves had to say about the attorney's statements and what the final decision would be. Groves laid out his understanding of the events from the evening of December 17th, 2007, stating the evidence in a timeline of what he considered to be the actual events and actions by Learn. Groves sited portions of the letters received in Learn's defence stating that Learn, from the references in those letters appeared "capable of affection, and caring for others".

Groves spoke thoroughly of the importance of the fire arms used in the murder, giving previous trial examples and noting the past offences in Learn's criminal record. He also spoke twice about the responsibility a trial judge faces in making the decisions that were before him, and that the length of ineligibility of parole should be directly relational to the seriousness of the offence, the chance of rehabilitation and the possibility of detering others. Groves called Learn "controlling", stating that whether or not Brandy's claims of abuse were accurate, Learn was out to control Brandy and anyone else who got in his way on that evening in December. One main point in Judge Groves statements, was a mention of the phone call Learn made to Brandy a short time after the murder. He accepted the phone call as fact, stating that phone records backed up the claim. This phone call consisting of, "How do you like it now, you fucking crackheads? How dare you use my love like this?" seemed to polish off Judge Grove's belief that Learn had no remorse for what he had done.

Groves also spoke of Learn's disposal of the gun, his claim of sleeping in a dumpster over night and then proceeding to his brother's home the next day with the intent of turning himself in. The latter, in combination with the letters from family, would play a part in any leniency Learn was to receive. However, as a consequence of the crime, Learn will receive a life time ban from owning any firearms and will be providing a DNA sample to the court.

Before announcing the sentence, Groves gave Learn the opportunity to speak before the court. Learn stood up and without any noticable emotion, said he was sorry for what he had done and didn't want anyone's forgiveness because he couldn't forgive himself. Sitting barely 4 feet from him as he spoke, Learn's statements completely lacked authenticity; like he was expected to say those things whether or not he actually believed it.

After nearly 40 minutes of going through all of the aspects of the legal and moral obligations he took into consideration in making his decision, Judge Groves finally announced that Learn would spend life in prison and wouldn't be eligible for parole for 16 years. To my amazement, I actually heard Don and Betty sign. It appears the end of the trial brought some relief after all.

In spite of my demeaning tone towards Learn, it's hard to imagine being a Learn family member and having to hear the sentence read by Judge Groves. It's not without a sick sense of irony that the Michalsky's lost a daughter and now the Learn's have lost a son, if only from an exaggerated perspective. Although death and prison are two very different fates, the effects on the families are profound for each, although hardly comparible to those on the edge of each circle. Perhaps I should not compare sensativities with the Michalsky's loss and apply it to the Learn's, but there were clearly no winners at the conclusion of this trial - regardless of what anyone may think. On the other hand, as unfair as it is, the Learn's will get to visit their family member and actually talk with him - something Tammy's family and friends will never have the opportunity to do with her ever again. The Michalsky's honestly feel they've been sentenced to a life without their daughter, and as a friend, I find it hard to find a good argument to prevent me from agreeing with them. Regardless of the reason, no parent should ever lose a child.

Since I've been bold enough to grade everyone involved with the trial, if I was to offer a critique of Court Justice Joel Grove's performance, I'd have to give the man high praise for staying solidly grounded and not giving too much weight to the defence's sometimes rediculous theories. I guess that's why he's a judge. I neither envy the jury or the judge for the decisions that each were required to make, but I believe that the evidence was seen in a realistic manner by all and the verdict and sentencing was exactly what it needed to be. Don, Betty and Lynn may not agree with me on everything, but I've no quarrel with the court or the law over what happened here and hope they, at some point, won't either.

With everything said and done, was this the justice Tammy's family and friends were seeking? Not likely, but it is the law. Two weeks ago I would not have hesitated to say no to the previous question, but today I'm willing to say it appears it may have come close. Although the intial reactions seemed positive, in time, the Michalsky's may have little choice but to find some solice in today's sentencing. However, besides the Michalsky family, there were two additional victims of this crime whose lives have been turned upside down; I'm speaking of Lynn Neelin and Brandy Lahay. It's unlikely that either woman will ever truly get over the events from the evening of December 17th, 2007; having to watch a friend's life being taken, having been helpless and powerless to do anything to prevent it.

So, now what? Is this going to bring some closure to Tammy's friends and family? Well, only time will tell. It's almost certain the defence will appeal the verdict, if not the sentencing as well, and it is possible Tammy's friends and family may have to go through this all over again. In the meantime, the primary concern for those of us close the Michalsky's is that the sentencing will not provide the closure they'd hoped for; as if the end of the trial was going to give them a major event that would provide them with something that ultimately will need to come from within themselves. I don't know if anyone's noticed Don's stubborness, but it's not likely that within the next while that he'll give in to the reasoning that his friends and I will continue to offer.

In conclusion, in the days ahead we'll see if the verdict and the sentence passes the test that everything has had to go through for the past two years. With this chapter coming to a close we know we'll be beginning another. Our 9-1-1 system still has problems and needs attention. Of course, exactly what we're going to do about it remains to be written here. However, it's going to be interesting and I'm sure you won't want to miss that! Back to work!!