News Local

Strangling cause of death in murder

By Kevin Anderson, The Northern Times

With Postmedia files 

It will be some time before anyone finds out what sentence the second-degree murder conviction of Kapuskasing man Patrick Carignan will carry.


Carignan was convicted of killing 24-year-old Moonbeam resident Emanuelle D'Amours.


The cause of death was determined to be soft-ligature strangulation, with or without smothering.


D'Amours, a mother of three, was engaged to be married to fiancé André Racine at the time of her death.

As of this writing, sentencing is scheduled for March 19, 2018 in Cochrane, Ontario. The reason for the delay is the unavailability of Carignan’s legal representative Graham Clark, as he was already committed to participating in another trial.

Sentencing may be rescheduled to an earlier date if Clark is able to iron out a conflict he has involving the other matter.

The possible rescheduling of the sentencing will be discussed at the Jan. 12 assignment court in Cochrane.


The court has ordered a pre-sentence report. 

It will be at that time that victim impact statements will be delivered for consideration in sentencing.

It took the jury just over 24 hours to return with a guilty verdict in the case.

Jury selection in the trial took place on Oct. 16, 2017, with the trial proper getting underway on Oct. 17, 2017.

Judge Cindy MacDonald charged the jury Monday morning.

The jury subsequently returned with its verdict late Tuesday afternoon.

During the course of the trial, the Crown called approximately 50 witnesses to the stand to provide testimony.

Among those, experts in forensics, toxicology, forensic pathology and computer analysis all testified on behalf of the Crown.

The Crown called a full 15 days of evidence, not including opening and closing submissions and the charge to the jury.

The defence called no witnesses and presented no evidence of its own. Carignan never took the stand.

Instead, Clark, a defence lawyer from North Bay who represented Carignan, suggested in his closing arguments to the jury, the Crown had failed to prove its case.

Ultimately, the jury disagreed.