B.C. killings due to ‘botched robbery,’ defence lawyer says, as murder trial closes

The court heard two very different versions of what led to the brutal killing of two seniors in their Abbotsford home, as the trial for three accused wrapped.

A weeks-long trial of three men accused of murdering an Abbotsford, B.C., couple came to a close in B.C. Supreme Court on Tuesday, with defence lawyers painting a picture of a robbery gone wrong leading to the killings, rather than a premeditated case of first-degree murder.

Abhijeet Singh, Gurkaran Singh and Khushveer Toor were arrested in December 2022, after the bodies of Arnold and Joanne De Jong were found in their Abbotsford home in May 2022.

The men, all in their 20s, pleaded not guilty to two counts each of first-degree murder.

Crown prosecutors allege that the men were motivated by financial pressure and greed to invade the De Jongs’ home, where they’re accused of binding the couple with rope before killing them.

The court heard that Arnold De Jong, 77, died by asphyxiation, with his entire head and face wrapped in duct tape, while Joanne De Jong, 76, was bludgeoned and her throat was slashed.

Investigators uncovered a large trove of circumstantial evidence linking Singh, Singh and Toor to the deaths, which the Crown alleges makes the case for the high-level murder charges.

The trial by judge alone heard that the three men stole cheques, credit cards, Arnold De Jong’s driver’s licence and a power washer during the home invasion, using the credit cards to pay off cellphone bills and cashing cheques into their accounts shortly after the couple was killed.

The three men, prosecutors said, “hastily” fled from B.C. after the killings, with phone data evidence showing Abhijeet Singh had conducted “exceptionally damning” internet searches after reading news articles about the deaths, making queries about how murderers are punished in Canada.

The three worked together for a cleaning company owned by Abhijeet Singh, which had done work on the couples’ home on more than one occasion.

The trial heard that evidence recovered from their phones included videos captured of the De Jongs’ property from the roof of the home recorded during one of the cleaning jobs.

Prosecutors also laid out how the suspects’ DNA was found at the crime scene, on rope used to tie up Arnold De Jong and on a metal baseball bat found in the suspects’ vehicle, along with traces of Joanne De Jong’s DNA on the bat’s handle.

Crown prosecutor William Dorsey in his closing submissions on Friday told Justice Brenda Brown that the men acted collectively, planning the murders and moving at “breakneck speed” to steal their money.

But the defence lawyers dispute that the killings were planned, telling the court during closing submissions that began Monday that the circumstantial evidence doesn’t prove premeditated murder.

Andrew Cochrane, a lawyer for Abhijeet Singh, said Monday during his closing submission that the Crown is relying on a “single item” of physical evidence to prove his client’s involvement.

Cochrane said Abhijeet Singh admits a “degree of moral culpability,” given the evidence against him.

“He accepts that the evidence may establish that he had advanced knowledge of the planned home invasion, that he may be found to have been a party to the break-in and robbery, and that he received stolen property in his aftermath,” Cochrane said. “We don’t invite the court to ignore this evidence or the responsibility that it may attract.”

But, he said, the prosecution didn’t prove his client was at the home at the time of the killings, and told the judge that the “highest” available verdict would be manslaughter, not first-degree murder.

Lawyers for Gurkaran Singh and Toor made similar arguments Tuesday, disputing the prosecution’s claim that the killings were premeditated.

Donna Turko, a lawyer for Toor, told the court Tuesday that the “more likely scenario” was that of a “botched robbery.”

“Someone had an idea that went very, very wrong,” Turko said.

Turko outlined how DNA found on the bat allegedly used during the killings could’ve been deposited by “anyone swinging or touching the bat for innocent reasons.”

She said wooden baseball bats have surfaces that aren’t easy to clean, but the judge interjected to correct Turko, because the bat in evidence was metal.

Videos played in court by the Crown showed the men had recorded themselves displaying the bat, which prosecutor William Dorsey said showed them proudly displaying a weapon used in the killings.

One video showed Gurkaran Singh smiling with the bat, which Dorsey said was “the smile of a murderer.”

Bibhas Vaze, Gurkaran Singh’s lawyer told the judge Tuesday that it was more likely the “smile of someone who didn’t have a clue.”

Vaze said the evidence against Gurkaran Singh doesn’t prove he was in the bedrooms where the killings occurred, and doesn’t show anything other than knowledge of a planned robbery, rather than any intent to kill.

“This has indeed been an extraordinarily tragic case. There must be justice for the victims, but such justice includes, in our respectful submission, ensuring that those truly responsible … for crimes be convicted based on the evidence, and only that evidence.”

Brown reserved her decision until May 8.

Kimberley Coleman, one of the De Jongs’ three daughters, said after court on Friday that regardless of the verdict in the case, “nothing will bring our parents back.”

“I think our hearts are still broken in a million pieces,” she said. “Whether they get a life sentence or not, we’ve had the life sentence of losing our parents in this way and living that with daily reminders. So, they may not get a life sentence, but we sure will.”

This report by Darryl Greer, The Canadian Press, was first published March 10, 2026.