REASONS for SENTENCE
RUSSELL SILVERSTEIN, J.:
A. INTRODUCTION
1On December 18, 2024, Ms. Mohammed pleaded guilty before me to one count of being an accessory after the crime of manslaughter contrary to s. 463(a) of the Criminal Code.
B. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE
2An agreed statement of fact (ASF) setting out the details of the offence was filed as an exhibit on the sentencing hearing. A somewhat edited version is set out in Appendix “A” to these reasons. The full ASF should be consulted for the full text messages referred to in the ASF.
3A victim impact statement was read to the court by Adrian Makurat, the husband of the deceased, Karoline Huebner-Makurat. He and she are the father and mother of their two children. That victim impact statement is also an exhibit.
C. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER
4Ms. Mohammed is now 25 years old. She was 23 years old when she committed this offence. She has no prior criminal record. She is currently living with her parents who are her sureties on a relatively strict release order.
5Ten letters of support on her behalf were filed as exhibits. They are from family, friends, and associates. These letters describe Ms. Mohammed as kind, generous and selfless. Her supporters all say that the offence is very much out of character for her. This is further evidenced by her work history at the South Riverdale Community Health Centre.
6Her family has been immensely supportive as she struggled with ADHD and anxiety as a young girl and with alcoholism as an adult.
7Upon her release after her arrest, she sought professional counseling and has committed herself to Alcoholics Anonymous and a rigorous fitness regime. She hopes to return to school and obtain a graduate degree in psychology.
D. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
8Mr. Spare, for the Crown, seeks a custodial sentence of two years less some credit for presentence custody and strict bail conditions. He opposes the imposition of a conditional sentence.
9Mr. Greenspan and Ms. Zhang, for Ms. Mohammed, argue that a notional sentence of 18 months less presentence custody and bail credit is appropriate. They argue for a net non-custodial conditional sentence of nine months.
E. THE PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING
10The principles of sentencing are set out in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code.
11According to s. 718 of the Criminal Code, the "fundamental purpose" of sentencing is to contribute to "respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society" by imposing "just sanctions" that have one or more of the following objectives, namely: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and others from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and the community.
12Further, according to s. 718.1 of the Code, the "fundamental principle" of sentencing is that a sentence "must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender."
13Section 718.2 of the Code also dictates that, in imposing sentence, the court must also apply a number of principles including the following:
- A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender;
- A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
- Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
- An offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and,
- All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
F. THE MOST RELEVANT PRECEDENTS
14As stated above, it is a well settled principle of criminal law that similar sentences should be imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances. Criminal Code, s. 718.2(b); R. v. Lacasse, supra at para 2.
15The most definitive statement concerning the application of the principles of sentencing to the crime of being an accessory after the fact to an offence is found in R. v. Wisdom, [1992] O.J. No. 3110 (Gen. Div.) at paras. 27-30, an accessory to murder case, where Watt J. (as he then was) explains:
Accessoryship after the fact to a crime is an offence which constitutes an interference with the administration of justice. An offence has been committed by a principal offender, in this case the crime of murder. It is the purpose of the accessory, as it was of this accused, to enable, indeed to facilitate, the principal offender to escape detection and/or punishment for his or her criminal conduct. By the means adopted, whatever they may be, the accessory interferes with the investigation of crime and the detection of offenders. Serious crimes may go unsolved and dangerous criminals left at liberty only to re-offend. The resourceful accessory stifles the investigation and deflects attention from the true principal, as much as the suborned witness' perjury seeks to avoid successful prosecution. The due administration of justice is defeated in the event of success, as much in the one case as it is in the other.
Accessoryship after the fact frustrates the legitimate investigation of crime. It is as much a part of such investigation to clear the innocent, as it is to convict the guilty. To the extent that accessories deflect the investigation and investigators from their proper or true course, the attendant risks are obvious.
As it would appear to me, it is of the utmost public importance that all who are knowingly in touch with criminals and who might be minded, for whatever reason, to offer or furnish their assistance, ought to be alive to and fully cognizant of the fact that should they receive, comfort or assist them in order to enable the or a principal to escape, then they, the accessories, themselves run a substantial risk of losing their own liberty for a very significant period of time.
The factor or principle of superordinate importance in cases such as at present, in my respectful view, is that of general deterrence. The courts, whose task it is to ensure the due administration of justice, must devoutly set their face against and display their denunciation of any conduct, whether during the investigation or upon the trial of alleged offenders, that seeks to or does interfere with it. Put shortly, we shall brook no interference, actual or attempted, with the proper investigation of crime, as well the proper trial of alleged offenders. Those who set out with such a purpose shall be punished, and severely.
16According to Watt J., these are some of the relevant factors or considerations in determining the appropriate sentence for an accessory:
- the nature, extent, and duration of the accessory's involvement
- the presence or absence of any coercion of or threat to the accessory or others to obtain the accessory's participation
- the age and experience of the accessory
- the nature, extent, and duration of the relationship, if any, between the accessory and the relevant principal
- the nature of the accessory's assistance; and,
- the antecedents, present status, and realistic prospects of the accessory
17Counsel supplied several accessory cases for my consideration. They present a varying array of fact scenarios. Some are accessory to murder, some are obstruct justice cases and some are accessory to manslaughter cases.
18Perhaps the most similar and recent is the case of R. v. Johnson and Smith, 2022 ONSC 5689. Johnson was convicted after trial of manslaughter and Smith was convicted after trial of accessory after the fact to manslaughter.
19Smith was a 21-year-old first offender who witnessed the homicide committed by Mr. Johnson and then helped him dispose of evidence including the firearm used in the homicide. She also helped Johnson change his appearance. Kelly J. found that a notional sentence of 27 months would have been appropriate.
20My review of the caselaw leads me to conclude that the general range of sentence for accessory after the fact to the crime of manslaughter is extremely broad, yet for cases that are somewhat like Ms. Mohammed’s case the range is between 18 months and 3.5 years. See too R. v. Nordman, 2004 BCSC 1295; R. v. D.M.G., [2006] N.S.J. No. 614; R. v. Armstrong, 2024 ONSC 631; R. v. Chouinard, [2005] O.J. No. 3143; R. v. A.J., 2016 ONSC 7890.
21Although the principles of denunciation and deterrence remain paramount in sentencing accessoryship cases, the fact that Ms. Mohammed is a youthful first offender requires me to temper that paramountcy and heed the principles of rehabilitation and restraint. R. v. Habib, 2024 ONCA 830, at para. 31; R. v. Ali, 2022 ONCA 736 at para. 40; R. v. Armstrong, supra, at para. 57; R. v. Crawford, 2018 ONSC 7582 at para. 30.
G. THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
22Ms. Mohammed’s actions, while they came after the death of Karoline Huebner-Makurat, nonetheless extended the anguish of her husband, children, and other loved ones.
23Her assistance to the principal offender persisted for several weeks and involved many significant steps all clearly intended to shield him from the police, most significantly, lying to the police on more than one occasion.
24There is a marked absence of coercion on the part of the principal offender.
H. THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
25Ms. Mohammed has pleaded guilty and has expressed remorse to the family of the deceased and to the Court. I have no doubt that it is heartfelt and genuine.
26Ms. Mohammed is a youthful first offender.
27As explained in some of the letters of support filed with the court, Ms. Mohammed’s alcoholism has contributed to a lack of judgment which certainly played a role in her relationship with Mr. Ibrahim and the steps she took on his behalf.
28Ms. Mohammed is now cooperating in the prosecution of the alleged principal offenders, giving full and frank testimony at their preliminary inquiry.
I. WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE NOTIONAL SENTENCE
29After consideration of all the relevant circumstances and having regard to the caselaw, I believe that the appropriate notional sentence in this case is two years less one day, or 729 days.
J. CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED AND STRICT BAIL CONDITIONS
30Ms. Mohammed spent nine days in custody before being released on bail and has now spent approximately 22 months on a very strict bail involving house arrest with few exceptions. The caselaw makes clear that she is entitled to some sentence deduction as a result. I will deduct 14 days from her notional sentence per R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, and a further 186 days per R. v. Downes, 2006 ONCA 3957, [2006] O.J. No. 555.
31Her effective net sentence is thus 529 days.
K. IS A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE APPROPRIATE
32The parties agree that a conditional sentence is a legal and available sentence in the circumstances.
33Section 742.1 sets out the conditions allowing for the imposition of a conditional sentence. There are five (5) prerequisites for the imposition of a conditional sentence:
- The offender must be convicted of an offence that is not specifically excluded.
- The offender must be convicted of an offence that is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment.
- The court must impose a sentence of imprisonment that is less than two years.
- The safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving the sentence in the community.
- The conditional sentence must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Code.
34The offence here in question is not specifically excluded from the imposition of a conditional sentence, nor does it attract a minimum sentence.
35As I explained above, applying the principles of sentencing to Ms. Mohammed’s circumstances and the crime she has committed, I believe that a sentence of 529 days (less than two years) is called for. I must, however, look at the notional sentence and be satisfied that it too is below two years before I can consider a conditional sentence. See R. v. Fice, 2005 SCC 32. As articulated above, I am imposing a notional sentence of 729 days, i.e. a sentence of less than two years. A conditional sentence is thus available.
36Ms. Mohammed has no history of violence and has been well-behaved and is on a strong rehabilitative track since the commission of the offence. I find that she presents a very low risk of re-offending, and I am thus satisfied that service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community.
37The final test I must apply to the circumstances of this case poses the greatest challenge. Ms. Mohammed’s crime is a serious one and the sentence imposed must deliver a strong message of denunciation and general deterrence.
38Most often, when denunciation and general deterrence are paramount in a serious crime, incarceration is generally called for. Yet, in Ms. Mohammed’s case, I believe that the principle of restraint, as articulated in s. 718.2, and in the Court of Appeal’s directions in R. v. Priest, (1996), 1996 ONCA 1381, 110 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.) dictates the imposition of a non-custodial sentence and I am satisfied that a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. Even though a conditional sentence does not involve incarceration, it can nonetheless be sufficiently strict that it satisfies all the objectives of sentencing in this case, including denunciation and deterrence, while also satisfying the need to demonstrate restraint: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61 at paras. 21-22, 36, 41, 102, 127.
L. CONCLUSION
39The details of the sentence are as follows:
- Conditional sentence of 529 days, the first 300 days to be under house arrest with exceptions to be addressed by counsel, the remaining 229 days with a curfew;
- 100 hours of community service to be performed during the conditional sentence;
- A prohibition pursuant to s. 109 for life.
- A DNA order will issue.
Released on June 16, 2025
Justice Russell Silverstein
APPENDIX “A”
July 7, 2023 was a sunny day in Toronto. Karoline Huebner-Makurat, wife and mother of two young girls, was walking on Queen Street on her way to lunch with a friend when a bullet went into her back and through her liver, kidney and aorta, killing her.
The Leslieville neighbourhood, where this occurred, is a bustling part of downtown Toronto with many shops and restaurants.
The South Riverdale Community Health Centre is located at 955 Queen Street East. Among other things, the Health Centre operates as a ‘harm reduction’ or ‘supervised injection site’, offering a safe place for drug users to use drugs.
Damian Hudson, Ahmed Ibrahim and Ahmed Ali were drug dealers. In the summer of 2023, they frequented the parkette next to the Health Centre where they would sell drugs to drug users.
On July 5 and 6, 2023, Hudson and Ibrahim had a text conversation that appeared to reference an earlier in person conversation near the Health Centre about Hudson being robbed by someone from ‘Teesdale.’ Ibrahim warned Hudson that he should not have talked about guns in front of the workers and that “there cameras all over the that area so you wouldn’t even go far with what your planning to do.” Hudson responded: “I dont care about jail or cameras buddy robbed me” and “I don't need to plan ill up it on site anywhere.” Khalila Mohammed knew that Hudson and Ibrahim were communicating, but was not aware of the details of their conversations.
On July 7, 2023, Hudson and Ibrahim met up at the parkette by the Health Centre. There is a somewhat grainy video camera from the Health Centre that shows them chatting by a bench. Mohammed had gone inside and was not present at this point. Suddenly, a man dressed in dark clothing runs up to Hudson and attacks him.
Ibrahim and the man in dark clothing (Ali) then chase Hudson west along Queen Street. The men are then more clearly visible on other surveillance cameras. Ali pistol whips Hudson while Ibrahim grabs his satchel.
Ibrahim manages to take Hudson’s satchel and he then runs away west. After a brief struggle with Hudson, Ali also runs away west. Hudson pursues them.
The men then run past the parkette and out of camera view. A civilian standing on the sidewalk starts filming with his cell phone. On that video, one can see Hudson struggling with Ibrahim. Ali runs back to help Ibrahim and again strikes Hudson in the head. The video-taker then moves to his right and a tree obscures his view. We then hear “The other guys got a gun” and a series of gunshots.
Khalila Mohammed only saw Hudson with a gun – she did not see what was going on with the other two males.
Six cartridge casings are found. Four from a .40 calibre handgun and two from a .22 calibre handgun. Based on where the casings are found, it appears that Hudson fired two .22 bullets in a west direction and Ali fired four .40 calibre bullets in an east direction. It appears that Hudson fired the shot that killed Karoline Huebner-Makurat.
Khalila Mohammed was aware shots had been fired.
Ibrahim flees into the parkette and appears to be injured. A nurse at the Health Centre named John Barr provided wound care to Ibrahim. Khalila Mohammed assisted. She also provided Ibrahim new clothes because his clothes were bloody. Ibrahim changed from a grey hoody into a red hoody. Khalila Mohammed then took Ibrahim and “Leila” out of the Centre because her manager told her to get everyone out and they did not want to leave on their own with police surrounding the building. Khalila Mohamed takes him out of the Health Centre and gets him an Uber out of the area. Khalila Mohamed testified at the Preliminary Hearing and identified Ibrahim as the man in the grey hoody. Ibrahim also provided a statement to the police admitting his involvement.
Hudson was captured on video surveillance walking through the neighbourhood and entering a Lyft ride-sharing vehicle, which took him to the home of the mother of his child where he is easily identifiable on video surveillance.
Numerous blood drops were also collected at the scene which contained Hudson’s DNA.
At the time of the shooting, Khalila Mohammed was 23 years old. She worked in the South Riverdale Community Health Centre as a harm reduction community health worker in the supervised injection site, where she had worked for approximately two years. Her role included monitoring the clients of the Health Centre who had recently injected drugs to make sure that they did not need medical intervention.
Text messages located on Khalila Mohammed's phone show that she exchanged messages with Hudson on July 4, 2023 (3 days before the shooting). In that exchange, Hudson accused Khalila Mohammed of working with his “opps” – believed to be a reference to Ibrahim and Ahmed (referred to as ‘Wiz’). Hudson threatens to kill Khalila Mohammed if she works with his opps.
It is clear from Khalila Mohammed’s subsequent text messages with Ibrahim that she told Ibrahim about Hudson’s messages.
Text messages between Khalila Mohammed and Ibrahim obtained by police establish that the two had a close relationship that blossomed into a romance immediately after the shooting. Prior to the shooting, Khalila Mohammed would spend extensive periods of time in the courtyard at the Health Centre talking with Ibrahim, whom she referred to as ‘Ben’.
Video surveillance shows Khalila Mohammed exit the side door of the Health Centre immediately before the shooting starts. She runs towards where the men are involved in an altercation. It appears that Ibrahim runs away from the altercation immediately before the shots start. At the sound of the shots, Khalila Mohammed turns around and runs back into the side door of the Health Centre. John Barr, the nurse, was also there.
Video surveillance shows Ibrahim fleeing the shooting into the courtyard between the Health Centre and a church. He returns to the side door of the Health Centre with a sweater wrapped around his head. Khalila Mohammed, John Barr and a female (identified as “Leila”, a drug user who could not be located by the police) escort him into the Centre.
Video chronology (times are video time):
- 12:39:45 - Khalila and John walk out of the side door of the Centre
- 12:39:53 - Khalila and John walk to Queen Street
- 12:40:04 - Leila runs up from the back alley and enters the Centre via the side door
- 12:40:18 - Leila exits the Centre via the front door and approaches Khalila and John on Queen St
- 12:40:25 - Leila, John and Khalila walk toward the side door. Ibrahim walks up from the back alley with a grey sweater covering his head. Khalila opens the side door and together with John ushers Ibrahim inside. They enter in this order: Leila, Ibrahim, Khalila then John.
John Barr then provides medical assistance to Ibrahim. There is no video surveillance inside the Health Centre. John testified at the Preliminary Hearing about treating Ibrahim. Khalila Mohammed remained with Ibrahim while he was receiving treatment. A worker at the Centre named Paula entered and told John and Khalila, in the presence of Ibrahim, that someone had been shot. Paula requested assistance and John left to assist.
Ibrahim is next seen on the video surveillance being escorted out of the front door of the Health Centre by Khalila Mohammed with Leila. He has now changed from his grey hoody to a red hoody and has also changed his pants.
Khalila Mohammed, Leila and Ibrahim then walk through the nearby neighbourhood together. When they are near 27 Winnifred Avenue, Khalila Mohammed ordered an Uber with her personal account.
Ibrahim is visible on the video surveillance entering the Uber that Khalila Mohammed called for him. The Uber takes Ibrahim to near where he lives on Teesdale Place. Khalila Mohammed did not know where Ibrahim lived at this point. When she called the Uber, Ibrahim told her the address he asked her to enter was near where he was going.
Khalila Mohammed did not know where Ibrahim lived. She kept offering to "meet at his apartment", but he never told her where his apartment was. She did not directly ask him where his apartment was.
As part of their investigation police obtained a production order for the records for the accounts of Ibrahim and Khalila Mohammed held by TextNow, a communications company. Those records included the content of all text messages sent between the parties using TextNow from July 9, 2023 to August 4, 2023.
At the time of her arrest on August 14, 2023, police seized Khalila Mohammed’s cellular phone. Police performed an examination of that phone pursuant to a warrant and located text communications exchanged between Ibrahim and Khalila Mohammed from July 11 to August 13, 2023. They are prolific texters. The messages we have appear to be a complete record of their text communication between July 9 and August 13, 2023.
The first text conversation between Khalila Mohammed and Ibrahim following the shooting appears to have taken place on July 9, 2023. They have now commenced a romantic relationship. From her messages, it is clear that Khalila Mohammed is aware that Ibrahim was directly involved in the shooting of Karoline Huebner-Makurat. She suggests to him that he “stay away for a while” to avoid being arrested by police. She offers to provide him with Percocet pills. She offers to check the news media releases regarding the shooting. She says she is going to check surveillance footage to see if he is visible. There is no evidence that Khalila Mohammed actually checked the surveillance footage or that she even had access to it. She only said she would do it to calm Ibrahim.
In that same conversation, Khalila Mohammed also updates Ibrahim about her knowledge of the investigation as it is unfolding. She informs him that police want to speak with her because they have located the footage that showed her escorting him from the site following the shooting and expresses her belief that that they had made the connection to footage of them interacting before the shooting. She tells Ibrahim that police want to speak with her.
On the night of July 9, 2023, the two exchange messages discussing the release of three suspect images by police. They discuss the quality of the images. Khalila Mohammed again tells Ibrahim to “get out of the city” and “lay low”. She assures him she has his jeans and belt “tucked away” and that his hooded sweatshirt is “gone”.
In the early morning of July 10, the two discuss the public release of the cell phone video captured by Derek Venman. She assures him that the video does not identify him and again tells him to stay out of sight. She informs that a detective named Chris (DC Chris Skelton – HOM) wants to talk to her on Monday. She also cautions Ibrahim about discussing the matter over text – saying it is “too hot”.
She makes arrangements with Ibrahim to get Percocet pills to him.
Later in the day on July 10, Khalila Mohammed shares with Ibrahim the information about the shooting she received during a staff meeting. She tells him that people were scared of him and his friends, whom they identified as “new dealers in the area”. She tells him that the people from the site believed that “K” (Damian Hudson, a.k.a. “Kevin”) is the one fired the shot that killed Karoline Huebner-Makurat. It is clear from this exchange that Ibrahim is aware of Khalila Mohammed’s past issues with Hudson. She also tells him that the police are at the site conducting interviews.
Khalila Mohammed also assures Ibrahim that the way the cameras at the site are positioned, they would not have captured the shooting incident, showing an awareness on her part of Ibrahim’s involvement in the shooting. On the evening of July 10, 2023, Khalila Mohammed continues to check internet news sites for updates on the case on Ibrahim’s behalf.
On July 11, Khalila Mohammed confirms that she has met with Ibrahim’s friend to pass along the Percocets and offers to buy him a new Nike Tech hooded sweatshirt to replace the one that was thrown away following the shooting.
On July 12, Khalila Mohammed informs Ibrahim that two homicide detectives (DC Skelton and DC Turczyn) are at the Health Centre to speak with her.
On July 12, 2023, Officers Skelton and Turczyn interviewed Khalila Mohammed on video at the Health Centre. At the time, the police only knew that she was a worker at the Health Centre who had witnessed part of the shooting. She was interviewed qua witness like many other people. She was provided a KGB caution and warned of the consequences of lying to or misleading the police. As she told Ibrahim she would do in her text messages, she did not tell the police anything about him or identify him to the police. She told the officers: “Um, someone banged on the side door and said, I need wound care. And he was walking up by where the bike cages are and I do wound care all the time So let him in through the side door. And then I did wound care for him cuz the nurse who had the to go bag, I didn't know that the lady was shot across the street mm-…”
She was specifically asked if she knew any of the people who were outside. She referenced that she had “seen the suspect pictures and everything”, including a picture of the “guy in the grey hoodie [Ibrahim].” Khalila Mohammed indicated that the guy in the grey hoodie would often try to hit on her. She said she knew him as Ben. She said she did not know the person in the white shirt [Hudson]. When specifically asked: “Um, the guy who came in for wound care, do you know who he was?” “Um, no I don’t”.
Meanwhile, as the text messages reveal, she had been discussing the fact that the Homicide detectives wanted to speak to her with Ibrahim and had assured him she would say she knew nothing. She was further asked if she knew how to get in touch with Ben, who she was frequently texting and she said “I do not know.” Khalila Mohammed clearly lied to police about her relationship and knowledge of Ben [Ibrahim] in the course of a homicide investigation where she knew that Ben was a suspect.
Immediately following the interview with the Homicide detectives, Khalila Mohammed updated Ibrahim on what the police appeared to know and what she told them.
Ibrahim and Khalila Mohammed’s relationship continued in the weeks that followed. They continued to communicate primarily via text message. In those messages, Khalila Mohammed frequently talks to Ibrahim about avoiding the police and repeatedly cautioned him about discussing the case via text message. She continued to update him on the media reports about the shooting and information she had received about the investigation from her co-workers. She also continued to provide him with Percocet pills.
On July 13 they discussed the arrest of Damian Hudson. The discussion continues into the following day when they discuss whether Hudson might “rat” on Ibrahim.
On July 16 Khalila Mohammed told Ibrahim to let her conduct the web searches regarding the shooting for him “just to be safe” and chastised him for being near his own apartment, offering instead to rent him a place through Air BnB.
The following day, after they discuss a billboard posted regarding the case, Khalila Mohammed assured Ibrahim him he will not be identified: “No face, no case”.
On July 20 Khalila Mohammed rented an Air B n B in Pickering using her account. Ibrahim met her at the residence and the two spent the night together.
Khalila Mohammed was arrested on August 14, 2023. She was transported to the police station and put in touch with duty counsel. She then spoke to Homicide Detectives. Initially, she was unaware that she had been charged as an Accessory. She was advised of that and provided another opportunity to speak to counsel. She then provided a lengthy statement to the police, essentially denying any knowledge of Ibrahim, contrary to her text messages.
“Um, what can you tell me about, uh, the person you provided wound care to? What's their name?
I don't know that now.
Um, this person that you provided wound care to, you don't know their name?
We don't. It's a completely anonymous service. We don't ask people their names if they need gauze.”
“Who’s Ben? I dunno.”
- She also denied having travelled to an Air B&B with Ben, contrary to her text messages, Air B&B records and the surveillance of Khalila Mohammed and Ibrahim at the Air B&B.