Crown prosecutor Frank Dubenski suggested a grizzly version of events in which the accused shot his friend three times in the head before turning the gun on two others.
“I didn’t shoot anybody,” said John Ike Koopmans, who is charged with two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder in relation to the 2013 deaths of Keith Wharton and Rosemary Fox in Princeton.
“I had no reason to hate Keith, no reason at that point to be angry with him,” Koopmans said.
“That’s because he was dead,” Dubenski replied, adding he had no further questions for the accused.
On Monday, Koopmans sat on the stand recalling his whereabouts exactly two years ago to the day.
He said he was drinking and “overreacted” to an argument with his former girlfriend Elaine Hoiland before swearing at her and leaving her residence to walk across Princeton to the Wharton property on Old Hedley Road.
Earlier in the trial, Koopmans alleged that he would often stay in a camper on the Wharton property after he’d had an argument with Hoiland, something he said he had done multiple times in the past.
He said he walked with a bottle of vodka in hand to the Old Hedley Road property, where he found the lights in the Wharton’s residence were off. He alleges he continued down Old Hedley Road with the intention of stopping at an acquaintances house. When the lights were off at that residence as well, Koopmans said he turned around and headed back towards the Wharton residence.
Koopmans testified he then saw the police at the Wharton residence and decided not to get involved.
“Did it not worry you that something had happened?” Dubenski asked.
Koopmans replied he thought Keith had “got busted again” for trafficking crack cocaine and that he “didn’t want to get involved in the drug bust.”
“Last time I was there and the police were there, they pulled me over every time they saw me in a vehicle,” Koopmans said.
Koopmans said he took a path between the Wharton property and the bordering Weyerhaeuser Mill property to get to the camper where he was found and arrested on March 31, 2013.
“I’m suggesting that this story of you walking to the camper is just that, a story,” Dubenski said.
“That’s what happened, that’s what I did that night.” Koopmans replied.
Dubenski suggested that Koopmans had shot Wharton and Fox and, when he shot but failed to kill Bradley Martin, he fled and hid on the mill property, taking the empty shell casings out of the murder weapon before disposing of it in the Similkameen River.
“Those people are my friends, I had no reason to shoot them,” Koopmans replied.
“Were you so drunk that you don’t remember everything you did that night?” Dubenski said.
“No,” Koopmans replied.
Earlier in the trial, Koopmans provided his explanation as to why Keith Wharton’s blood was found on the clothes he was wearing when he was arrested. He said that he and Wharton were salvaging some scrap lumber on March 20, 2013 when Wharton was injured by a large sliver.
While attending to Wharton’s injury, which Koopmans said produced “a few teaspoons” of blood, he said a dog was licking the wound and sneezed on him.
“That’s the only reason there would be Keith’s blood on my clothes,” Koopmans said.
Last month, blood spatter and DNA analysis experts who analyzed Koopmans’ clothes found blood stains consistent with spatter and both Wharton and Koopmans’ blood on the pair of jeans and jacket that Koopmans was wearing when he was arrested.
Sister testifies
Non-violent, forgiving and even tempered were all characteristics Flora Balducci agreed with defence counsel that describe her brother John Koopmans.
Balducci took the stand in Penticton Supreme Court Monday locking eyes briefly with her brother before testifying.
Balducci saw Koopmans in the time frame between the alleged break and enter on his property and the alleged shooting.
The Crown has previously put forward the suggestion that Koopmans blamed Wharton, one of the people found dead on the Old Hedley Road property in 2013, for his involvement in the break and enter and that this was part of his motive for the alleged shooting.
Balducci said they were visiting with their parents in Langley and that they “had a really good time” playing pool and that Koopmans showed no signs of frustration or harboured anger over the break in.
Balducci was asked by defence counsel about an incident involving a past sexual offence committed to Koopmans’ daughter and whether or not he exhibited forgiveness.
“He was upset about the incident, as we all were,” Balducci said, adding that he “showed forgiveness” in that instance.
Defence counsel Don Skogstad also questioned Balducci on Koopmans character. He asked about a story involving quail eggs on a job site Koopmans previously worked at. Balducci indicated that Koopmans “couldn’t bear the thought” of some quail eggs hatching and being left to die on the site, saying that Koopmans brought the eggs home to look after them.
During cross examination the Crown asked whether Balducci would be surprised to know that Koopmans had a gun hidden in the rafters of his home.
This is in reference to the .357 magnum Koopmans said he had at one point owned, and since cut up because it was an unregistered firearm.
“Yes it would surprise me,” Balducci said.
All the witnesses have been called and the jury returns to court Tuesday when closing arguments will begin.