Closing arguments made in Alberta triple-murder trial

Editor’s note: This article has been corrected to reflect the Klaus family died in 2013.

After six weeks of evidence and countless descriptions of how Gordon, Sandra and Monica Klaus died, Crown prosecutor Doug Taylor told a Red Deer court Wednesday that only one account makes sense.

He said Jason Klaus planned the killing and Josh Frank carried it out.

Court heard closing arguments in Klaus and Frank’s triple first-degree murder trial.

The pair are accused of killing the Klaus family on Dec. 8, 2013 and setting fire to the Klaus family home.

They admitted to undercover police officers that Klaus had planned the killing. Court heard evidence he felt maligned by his family and was worried he’d be pushed off the family farm.

“With them gone, he could do what he wanted and the family farm would be his,” Taylor said.

Tweet This Click to share quote on Twitter: "With them gone, he could do what he wanted and the family farm would be his," Taylor said.

Taylor said Frank carried out the killings – shooting each of the victims in their beds – because he’s unemployed and a cocaine addict and Klaus promised him money.

During the trial, both Klaus and Frank testified and they offered very different accounts of the crimes compared to what they told undercover police and arresting officers.

READ MORE: Lawyer questions credibility of Jason Klaus at central Alberta triple-murder trial

Klaus said he and Frank planned to steal a truck from the Klaus farm but Frank decided on his own to go into the farmhouse to steal a valuable deer head. Somebody heard him, so he shot the three victims and burned down the house to hide the crime.

Klaus said he didn’t say anything because Frank threatened him and he was afraid.

Frank testified that Klaus planned and carried out the killings and then ordered him to tell undercover police officers that he carried out the shootings because Klaus wanted to appear to be the planner.

Frank said he agreed because he’s afraid of Klaus, dating back to alleged sexual assaults from when Frank was 14 years old.

The Crown addressed these new claims calling them, “fanciful concoctions designed to steer this honourable court away from the truth.”

Taylor added the claims “defy common sense.”

He pointed to police video recorded before and after Frank’s admission to undercover officers.

In that video, Frank and Klaus appeared in a truck, chatting with each other about what each had told police officers who they thought were criminals there to help them get police off their backs.

Taylor said the pair did not appear to be scared of one another. Nobody appeared intimidated by the other.

Instead, they looked “happy and realized that they had finally got away with murder. And how ironic it is that that’s the reason we ended up here.”

In his closing arguments, Klaus’ lawyer, Allan Fay, said his client’s relationship with his family isn’t proof of murder.

Fay maintains Klaus’ testimony was the truth. He didn’t kill his family and he didn’t say anything because he was afraid of Frank.

“This was about insurance fraud. This wasn’t about murder,” said Fay, who also took aim at Frank’s version of events.

“His testimony is a tapestry of lies woven by a man who is a constant liar,” said Fay. “He lied about lying.”

Tweet This Click to share quote on Twitter: "His testimony is a tapestry of lies woven by a man who is a constant liar," said Fay. "He lied about lying."

Frank’s lawyer said similar things of Klaus.

“Just because they say it doesn’t make it so,” Tonii Roulston said.

Roulston said Klaus’ story doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. She says Klaus had the motive to kill his family. Frank barely knew the family and there’s no evidence he has received any money for the killings.

READ MORE: Crown suggests Joshua Frank had financial motive for killing Alberta family

She said there is evidence Klaus has been manipulative from the very beginning.

Both defence lawyers tried explaining some of the many logical holes that remain in their clients’ stories.

Roulston conceded there are things about her client’s story that were simply lies. She can’t explain them.

“It doesn’t make a lot of sense today, but I’m sure it made sense to Jason Klaus at the time,” Fay said.

While the stories may not explain everything, lawyers for the two accused argue it raises reasonable doubt.

That decision is now in the hands of Justice Eric Macklin. He will deliver his verdict on the matter on Jan. 10.