From the Toronto Sun:
Toronto Police Det. Wayne Banks of the homicide squad said William Imona-Russel of Toronto was arrested yesterday afternoon and charged with first-degree murder. He had been under surveillance for several days leading up to the arrest, Banks said.
Anyone who saw Imona-Russel acting suspiciously in the days before the discovery to call police. Anyone with information on Ashareh should call police.
To have arrested Imona-Russel, the police would have had to convince a Crown attorney that there was enough evidence to go to trial. Evidence can be one of two things - physical or circumstantial.
Why would the police have asked the public for help concerning Imona-Russel's suspicious behaviour, if any? If the police had solid physical evidence, a bloody fingerprint or a shoe print or whatever, Imona-Russel's behaviour prior to the murder would be of little interest. On the other hand, if the Crown is building a circumstantial case, devoid of any compelling physical evidence, then the plea for witnesses would make sense.
It would also point to a weak case.
But on the other hand, maybe not. Maybe this is a very complex case. Consider the surveillance for a moment.
Why the surveillance? Surveillance is extremely expensive. In this case, anywhere from two to six officers are dedicated to one case for three or more days, possibly day and night. Add to that the cost of specialists in electronic surveillance (wiretaps and the like) and their equipment. The police weren't specific about the nature of the surveillance, so let's assume both human and electronic surveillance.
What did they hope Imona-Russel would do during the period he was under surveillance?
Dispose of the weapon? Doesn't sound likely. Yasmin was killed with a knife of some kind - not a hard thing to dispose off. A knife in the trash does not draw attention. A gun, on the other hand, would. In any case, why would the police think he would dispose of the weapon? In fact, why would the police assume he still had it in his possession in the first place? Wouldn't a search warrant be the way to go to gather physical evidence like that? Of course, if the case was weak, the police might not have been able to get a warrant.
Reveal the location of the primary crime scene? Remember that police are certain Yasmin was not killed where her body was found. First we're assuming the police don't know the location of the primary crime scene. If they didn't, why would they think Imona-Russel lead them to it? In any case, the crime scene wasn't going anywhere - why not arrest Imona-Russel and interrogate him?
Try to leave the country? Possible. Again, if the case against Imona-Russel was weak, catching him the process of buying a ticket for a flight out of the jurisdiction might have been deemed suspicious, especially since Imona-Russel is awaiting trial on other charges.
Here's another possible explanation. There are two things I do during the course of the day - I go places and I meet people. Were they watching Imona-Russel and listening to his phone calls in the hope that he would make contact with someone? Remember that the police believe that this man cut a woman's throat, and yet let him walk free for several days. That is a risky decision to take. If he had slipped away from police, or worse yet, committed another violent crime, the police would be in serious trouble. But if police had reason to believe that Imona-Russel would contact someone of interest related to this case, Imona-Russel would have to be allowed to continue on his way. The moment he was arrested, the person or persons of interest would almost certainly go to ground.
If you believe that, though, you have to wonder why did the police believe there would be someone else involved? Is this why the police asked for help concerning suspicious behaviour? Are they hoping someone remembers seeing Imona-Russel with someone unfamiliar or otherwise notable?
If you continue along this line of reasoning, the next question is even more interesting. Who did the police think this person was? Were the police on a fishing expedition, with only a general suspicion that there was another party involved, and that Imona-Russel would make contact? Or did they have a particular person in mind?
Remember that the police had to justify the expense of a surveillance operation lasting several days, so I expect they would have had to have solid set of expectations of what the operation would reveal, and not just a vague hope that something would break in their favour.
Finally, what terminated the surveillance? Did Imona-Russel do what the police hoped he would do? Did it firm up the case for the police, leading to the arrest? If so, why the plea to the public to report any of Imona-Russel's suspicious behaviour?
Or did the police grow impatient waiting for something to happen? Did a time limit for the surveillance expire (a time limit imposed by budget constraints or by the conditions of the related warrants), forcing the police to move in on Imona-Russel?
Or did Imona-Russel discover he was under surveillance, thus spoiling the operation and compelling the police to move earlier than they had planned?
Is the plea for the public's help concerning Imona-Russel's behaviour an attempt to gather information that a surveillance operation failed to uncover?
There isn't much simple about this case.
