In the 20 or so days of Robert Bradshaw鈥檚 Supreme Court trial for the first degree murders of Marc Bontkes and Laura Lamoureux, the jury has heard about what the drug culture in 91原创 has done to many lives, said the Crown in their closing arguments.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a world full of lies, violence, criminality,鈥� said Crown counsel Chris McPherson on Monday morning.

鈥淚t鈥檚 filled with everything we can鈥檛 imagine or fathom. But it鈥檚 in this world that two lives were lost and the evidence has shown that Roy Thielen killed Laura Lamoureux and Bradshaw killed Marc Bontkes.

Crown hasn鈥檛 proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Bradshaw had anything to do with the murders, said Bradshaw鈥檚 lawyer Paul McMurray in his closing arguments.

McMurray told a Supreme Court jury on that Crown is relying heavily on the 鈥渦nreliable鈥� evidence of convicted murderer Roy Thielen, who has already pleaded guilty to both murders.

鈥淭hielen鈥檚 objective is to minimize his consequences and to extricate [close friend] Michelle Motola as much as he can by escalating Bradshaw鈥檚 role,鈥� McMurray told the jury in his closing arguments on Monday. Motola, 21, has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the killing of Bontkes and is serving six years.

鈥淢r. Thielen was and is a liar. His statements have been contradicted by others . . .鈥� Thielen told an undercover police officer posing as a crime boss that he killed both himself, including torturing Bontkes. But after his arrest he implicated Bradshaw as the driver in Lamoureux鈥檚 murder and the shooter in Bontkes鈥� death.

鈥淭he only evidence that looks bad for Bradshaw is the taped conversations because it sounds like he admits to the killings,鈥� said McMurray. Police videotaped a conversation Thielen and Bradshaw had in a hotel room after homicide investigators approached Bradshaw about the murders in July 2010.

His lawyer suggested to the jury that Bradshaw feared for his safety if he didn鈥檛 go along and that he agreed to implicate himself to help out Motola, whom he still had feelings for.

Bradshaw took the stand in New Westminster on Thursday and told a Supreme Court jury that he had nothing to do with the murders.

Bontkes and Lamoureux were both shot dead within five days of each other in March, 2009.

In the trial, it was learned that both murder victims had robbed the drug lines Bradshaw and Thielen worked for.

There is also evidence that Motola accused Bontkes and Lamoureux of kidnapping and torturing her before the murders. That accusation has not been proven.

Bradshaw, an admitted drug dealer who worked for a dial-a-dope line at the time, was taped by police in an undercover operation talking about the murders and offering details about his role in the two killings during a conversation with Thielen in a hotel room and again at a park bench in July 2010.

Thielen has already pleaded guilty to the murders and is serving a life sentence. He refused to testify at Bradshaw鈥檚 trial and a show cause hearing for contempt of court was expected to take place. At the time of the killings, Motola was dating and living with Bradshaw. They were together around six weeks.

Police had set up Thielen in an undercover sting, during which they made him believe he was joining an organized gang. Police taped a conversation between Thielen and Bradshaw going over what roles the two had played in the murders and whether they had covered their tracks well enough to make sure police couldn鈥檛 implicate them.

Bradshaw speaks of various details, reassuring Thielen that  during Bontkes鈥� murder (which took place in Hi Knoll Park) they both wore gloves.

However, Lamoureux鈥� murder happened in a residential neighbourhood, so someone may have witnessed it, Bradshaw tells Thielen.

鈥淭here were houses around us,鈥� Bradshaw can be heard in the video surveillance.

In a complicated defence, Bradshaw claims that Thielen asked him to go along with 鈥渁 story鈥� that implicated him in the murders. The story Thielen gave him about how both murders happened was to be relayed to the gang crime boss to give Thielen credits with the gang and to show Thielen had tied up all loose ends. The story was relayed to Bradshaw in an eight minute conversation in a hotel bathroom, Bradshaw claims.

鈥淚f you didn鈥檛 have any involvement why agree to implicate yourself?鈥� asked McMurray.

鈥淚 was more concerned of the repercussions if I didn鈥檛. It was less harmful to just agree,鈥� said Bradshaw. While on the stand, Bradshaw said he didn鈥檛 do drugs himself, just marijuana. As a drug dealer for two years in 91原创, he sold a lot but never took part, saying he did around 200 to 300 deals a day.

He said he never stashed the gun used to murder both victims.

He also said he knew nothing about Bontkes, nor had he ever met him. He said he barely had a relationship with Thielen.

鈥淒o you admit to killing Marc Bontkes?鈥� McMurray asked Bradshaw.

鈥淣o. I was giving him (Thielen) an out to exclude Michelle and include myself. It was part of the story,鈥� he said.

In cross examining Bradshaw, the Crown questioned why Bradshaw would allow himself to take the fall for two murders he didn鈥檛 commit.

鈥淭hielen is someone you said you saw about once a month selling dope to or giving a ride to and at some point he said, 鈥榦h by the way I implicated you in two murders?鈥� asked Crown Chris McPherson.

鈥淗e wanted me as backup,鈥� Bradshaw responded.

Crown asked the jury to reject Bradshaw鈥檚 evidence because he is making it up to make it fit with the evidence the jury has already been presented. McPherson told the jury that Bradshaw鈥檚 evidence that he was just going along with a story of murders that Thielen told him makes no sense at all.

鈥淎s for the defence arguing that Thielen was just trying to minimize his role, that also doesn鈥檛 make sense.

鈥淏y implicating Bradshaw it makes him a rat in jail and he knows he is already serving a life sentence. Why would he do that to himself?鈥�

鈥淭his man (Bradshaw) admitted to being involved in the killing of Lamoureux and Bontkes in a hotel room and again at a park bench,鈥� he said of the police taped conversations the two had that was brought into evidence in the trial.

Bradshaw鈥檚 claims that he was just going along with a story he was told by Thielen to implicate himself in the murders 鈥渕akes no sense.鈥�

McPherson tells the jury to reject Bradshaw鈥檚 evidence because 鈥渉e鈥檚 making it up to make it fit with the evidence you have before you.鈥�

鈥淏radshaw confesses to details of the murder. Thielen gets details from a man who was there, from someone who wasn鈥檛 a heavy drug user and remembered 鈥渁s clear as f* day.鈥�

He went on to say Bradshaw had intimate details of the murders, and refreshed Thielen鈥檚 memory of those details when Thielen couldn鈥檛 remember.鈥�

Judge Bryan Greyell will instruct the jury Tuesday morning (today) and then they will deliberate and come back with a verdict.