Guilty plea in murder of Alexander Lo, brother of festival attack suspect
The B.C. Prosecution Service says Dwight Kematch pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree murder on Friday. His sentencing hearing has been scheduled for Aug. 11 in B.C. Supreme Court.
Alexander Lo, 31, was found dead last year in a home in east Vancouver, and police have confirmed he was the brother of the man now charged in the unrelated Lapu Lapu festival attack that killed 11 people.
Vancouver police said last year that officers responded around 1 a.m. on January 28 to a 911 call from a home near Knight Street and East 33 Avenue, arresting Kematch inside the residence where Lo's body was also discovered.
Kai-Ji Adam Lo is facing 11 second-degree murder charges in the ramming attack in April, when an SUV plowed through a crowd at a Filipino community festival.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Ottawa Citizen
an hour ago
- Ottawa Citizen
Ontario court upholds sex assault sentence for man who removed condom
Article content M.F. reported the encounter to police, saying, according to the court documents, that it was the worst day/ of her life. Article content 'She considered self-harm and suicide. She called the suicide prevention line and said that the person who answered her call was her 'saving grace' and got her through the night,' Gillese wrote. Article content Following a two-day trial, the respondent was convicted. Article content The trial judge found that M.F. had not heard Ranatunga say he was removing the condom and that there was no ambient noise in the bedroom that would have impaired her hearing. The trial judge also rejected Ranatunga's argument that he had an 'honest but mistaken' belief that M.F. had consented to unprotected sex. Article content At the sentencing hearing, the Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, and the defence submitted that a conditional sentence of 18 months to two years less a day was appropriate or a sentence of imprisonment between 12 and 18 months to be served in a reformatory. Article content Article content In the end, the trail judge sentenced the respondent to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding that he was a first-time offender with good rehabilitative prospects. Article content The trial judge found that removing a condom without consent is a 'form of violence' and an 'extremely serious violation,' but found that removing a condom is 'qualitatively different in nature than a sexual assault which involves physically holding a person down against their will and penetrating them or penetrating them when they are in a state where they could not resist; for example, sleeping or intoxicated'. Article content The Crown appealed the case, arguing that the sentence was unfit and that the judge did not appropriately consider the violent nature of the offence. Article content Gillese objected strongly to the trial judge's reasoning. 'There is no principled basis to distinguish penetration following non-consensual condom removal from other forms of penetrative sexual assault nor is there any principled basis for creating a much lower sentencing range for non-consensual condom removal sexual assault than that for other forms of penetrative sexual assault,' she wrote. Article content Article content She argued that forced penetrative sexual assault typically calls for three to five years behind bars. Article content However, the other two justices disagreed, saying the trial judge had intended to contrast sexual assault cases with overt force or incapacitation and that the trial judge was owed deference in her decision within the changing legal landscape of these sorts of sexual assault cases. Article content The decision builds on the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in R. v. Kirkpatrick, which clarified how condom use factors into sexual consent under Canadian law. In that case, the court found that a person can place conditions on their consent, and if those conditions aren't met, the sexual activity becomes non-consensual.
Edmonton Journal
an hour ago
- Edmonton Journal
Ontario court upholds sex assault sentence for man who removed condom
Article content M.F. reported the encounter to police, saying, according to the court documents, that it was the worst day/ of her life. Article content 'She considered self-harm and suicide. She called the suicide prevention line and said that the person who answered her call was her 'saving grace' and got her through the night,' Gillese wrote. Article content Following a two-day trial, the respondent was convicted. Article content The trial judge found that M.F. had not heard Ranatunga say he was removing the condom and that there was no ambient noise in the bedroom that would have impaired her hearing. The trial judge also rejected Ranatunga's argument that he had an 'honest but mistaken' belief that M.F. had consented to unprotected sex. Article content At the sentencing hearing, the Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, and the defence submitted that a conditional sentence of 18 months to two years less a day was appropriate or a sentence of imprisonment between 12 and 18 months to be served in a reformatory. Article content Article content In the end, the trail judge sentenced the respondent to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding that he was a first-time offender with good rehabilitative prospects. Article content The trial judge found that removing a condom without consent is a 'form of violence' and an 'extremely serious violation,' but found that removing a condom is 'qualitatively different in nature than a sexual assault which involves physically holding a person down against their will and penetrating them or penetrating them when they are in a state where they could not resist; for example, sleeping or intoxicated'. Article content The Crown appealed the case, arguing that the sentence was unfit and that the judge did not appropriately consider the violent nature of the offence. Article content Gillese objected strongly to the trial judge's reasoning. 'There is no principled basis to distinguish penetration following non-consensual condom removal from other forms of penetrative sexual assault nor is there any principled basis for creating a much lower sentencing range for non-consensual condom removal sexual assault than that for other forms of penetrative sexual assault,' she wrote. Article content Article content She argued that forced penetrative sexual assault typically calls for three to five years behind bars. Article content However, the other two justices disagreed, saying the trial judge had intended to contrast sexual assault cases with overt force or incapacitation and that the trial judge was owed deference in her decision within the changing legal landscape of these sorts of sexual assault cases. Article content The decision builds on the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in R. v. Kirkpatrick, which clarified how condom use factors into sexual consent under Canadian law. In that case, the court found that a person can place conditions on their consent, and if those conditions aren't met, the sexual activity becomes non-consensual.
Toronto Star
10 hours ago
- Toronto Star
US sanctions Brazil's Supreme Court justice overseeing trial against Trump ally Bolsonaro
RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — The U.S. Treasury Department on Wednesday announced sanctions on Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes over alleged suppression of freedom of expression and the ongoing trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro. De Moraes oversees the criminal case against Bolsonaro, who is accused of masterminding a plot to stay in power despite his 2022 election defeat to current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
