A jealous and jilted Kevin Mantla flew from Gameti to Yellowknife on Sept. 27, 2015 for one reason – to kill his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend in a “focused” and planned attack, the Crown argued in NWT Supreme Court Thursday.
“This guy knew what he was doing from start to finish,” said Crown prosecutor Blair McPherson.
McPherson, tasked with proving to Judge Louise Charbonneau beyond a reasonable doubt that Mantla – the 38-year-old accused of killing Elvis Lafferty and injuring his ex-girlfriend in a brutal Lanky Court apartment stabbing – is guilty, drew from a “significant body of evidence” to reconstruct the night of Sept. 28, 2015, and the events that led up to it.
The motive, the Crown contended, is clear. Mantla and his ex-girlfriend, who can't be named due to a publication ban, once lived with each other in the same apartment she was stabbed in. They had a child and were together until 2015, when Mantla's former partner broke things off. Mantla was upset, but on Sept. 27, 2015, one day before the bloody attack took place, the Crown said his anger turned to jealousy.
After receiving a call from Mantla, his ex-girlfriend told him she'd moved on and handed the phone over to her new boyfriend, Elvis Lafferty.
“It was around this time,” McPherson submitted, that Manta made up his mind: he'd kill both of them.
The very same day, Mantla purchased an Air Tindi plane ticket to Yellowknife where he was greeted by an old acquaintance at the airport. The flight to Yellowknife, where Mantla's former girlfriend lived, was the first phase in a plan “hatched” by Mantla in Gameti, the Crown argued.
Re-introducing an exhibit from the trial, McPherson showed the court a photo board, pointing to a grainy CCTV image of the Yellowknife airport taken that day. A man in the photo, identified by the same acquaintance through testimony, is Mantla, McPherson said. The Crown submitted that during this time, Mantla made another call to his ex, saying “you guys are gonna die.” At that moment, McPherson argued, Mantla's intent to kill was established.
Kevin Mantla, 38, steps out of an RCMP transport on Feb. 6. On Thursday, the Crown and Mantla's defence submitted closing arguments, with the former focusing on circumstantial evidence, security footage and eye witness accounts , and the later zeroing in on "inconsistencies" in witness testimony. Judge Louise Charbonneau will make a decision on whether or not Mantla, charged with murder, attempted murder and aggravated assault, is guilty on May. 24.
It is up to the Crown to prove the identity of the Lanky Court assailant is Mantla, that he had planned and deliberated the attack and that he intended to kill both Lafferty and his ex-girlfriend. If Judge Charbonneau accepts Mantla as the assailant, but doesn't accept he showed intent or deliberated, lesser convictions - like second-degree murder or manslaughter - could be handed down. Mantla is charged with murder, attempted murder and aggravated assault.
As the day of Sept. 27 waned, Mantla went to the acquaintance's Crestview Manor apartment. Here, the Crown argued, he continued to plan his next step. At 12:22 a.m. Sept. 28, 2015, a man, alleged to be Mantla by the Crown, is seen walking down the Crestview Manor apartment building stairwell towards the exit.
“He's focused. He covers the 1.7 km distance between Crestview apartments and Lanky Court in good time,” said McPherson, turning his gaze to the security footage.
At 12:54 a.m. police were called about the Lanky Court attack.
Entering his ex-girlfriend's apartment undetected, McPherson said Mantla carried out the “execution of his plan.”
“No wavering. He targeted the two people he wanted to kill,” McPherson stated. Mantla, McPherson alleged, stabbed Lafferty before turning the knife on his ex-girlfriend, striking both with “very focused, repetitive injuries.” In the next room, two children awoke to the screams of their mother. The children, one as young as 9 years old at the time, testified as Crown witnesses over the course of the trial, recounting what – and who – they saw that night. McPherson, calling the girls' testimony that they saw Mantla in the apartment with a knife “rock solid and unimpeachable,” added the trauma they experienced should be “appreciated” in evaluating the reliability of their claims – a suggestion that Mantla's defence, making their own submissions following the Crown's, balked at.
“When it comes to assessing evidence, we don't give leniency,” said defence lawyer Charles Davison.
“Those kinds of traumatic experiences don't often yield accurate accounts of events.”
Davison said two pieces of testimony from the girls warranted pause. One witness initially denied having a verbal exchange with the attacker, but then said Mantla had told her, "she's cheating on me,"- an utterance the defence said no one else heard - when she asked him what he was doing. Davison cited the second girl's poor eyesight, saying the need for her to "squint" when looking at the attacker reflected inconsistencies in her testimony.
Davison also took aim at the third “main” Crown witness: their mother and Mantla's ex-girlfriend.
Davison noted discrepancies in her testimony and zeroed in on her claim that she – nor anyone else in the apartment that night – that been drinking. She was later found to have alcohol in her bloodstream – a “red flag” omitted from her testimony that “calls into question the accuracy of what she observed that night,” Davison said.
Defence also rejected the Crown's claim that the apartment was well lit, instead turning to first responder reports of a “dim” setting in their attempt to show witnesses could have misidentified Mantla as the attacker.
The defence fired back at the Crown's arguments about Mantla's "post-offence conduct," behavior - including the ditching of his hat, coat and shoes - McPherson said demonstrated a deliberate attempt to "cover his tracks."
Specifically, Davison rejected the contention Mantla had walked from his acquaintance's apartment to the RCMP detachment for the purpose of fabricating a "false alibi." McPherson submitted Mantla had shown up at the station at 7 a.m. , hours after the attack, as part of a considered plan to enter the drunk tank, thus being listed as being there the night of the murder.
Mantla's defence also maintained their client was intoxicated that night, far more so than what the Crown submits. McPherson said the Mantla's "mild intoxication" didn't play a role in the intent of the attack.
Mantla's ditching of his shoes near RCMP headquarters, the defence said, wasn't an attempt to disassociate himself from the attack, as it "did not have the effect of concealing evidence whatsoever."
"To leave running outside the RCMP doesn't seem like the actions of a sober person," Davison argued.
Judge Charbonneau is expected to render a decision on May 24.