Man Has Perfect Defence to Rape Allegation, Still Gets Charged

[ScottE]

You're forgetting the part where the crown needs to manage their resources responsibly and triage case files in order of fucking priority. And they aren't doing that because our radical feminist Government is undermining the court system in order to get rid of due process in sexual.assault cases. It's as simple as that.

Yeah it definitely doesn't have anything to do with the whole 32 year old guy getting two underaged girls drunk to try and have sex with them.

Nothing to do with the alibi witness flipping her story from well she said no to she didn't say no.

Yeah totally feminism fault.

You and the TS are some creepy fucks.

 

[EndlessCritic]

Jeezus. I can't believe that anyone thinks this is a questionable trial. From the reason for the decision:




That is a perfect defense to being tried? Some of you are caping for the wrong shit out there.

72] As noted above in paragraphs 35-6, KA adopted several prior statements as true, due to her prior inconsistent statements. Some of the adopted prior statements assisted the Crown, while others assisted the defence providing a counter-balance. The latter adopted statements included the following: LB consented and continued to consent to the sexual activity; LB’s “freak out” was merely “getting a little upset”; and, the reason LB was “a little upset” was because she was a virgin and felt some pain.

[73] KA clearly and repeatedly stated that LB consented to all of the sexual activity that occurred on the evening in question.

Full stop. This was not a close case.

The entire problem with this case is that people are viewing it through the moral lens that a 32 year old should not have a threesome with a couple of teenagers. That fact is completely irrelevant to the analysis. To give it any weight is to render your judgment suspect.

 

[HomerThompson]

Aside from an alibi or defence relating to identity, what is the most perfect defence you can imagine to an allegation of rape? One man's defence: It was a threesome, and the other girl who was present (KA) agreed that everything was consensual, and that the complainant (LB) was not raped. Keep in mind, the other girl present (KA) was originally friends with the complainant (LB), and had met the accused that night.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2018/2018onsc3739/2018onsc3739.html



Once KA gave evidence that the entire encounter was consensual, one would think that the crown would drop charges immediately and apologize to the accused? Nope. They completed the fucking trial.

There you have it folks. Having an independent witness who will testify that an entire sexual episode was consensual is not enough in this country to avoid being charged through to the end of trial.

#metoo

You're a disgusting buffoon.

Dude deserves some jail time.

 

[EndlessCritic]

After reading all 3 stories I completely believe LB.

Pretty crazy, considering the judge's actual conclusion:

[82] I mostly prefer KA’s narrative for the events that occurred before they entered Zach’s apartment. I find it likely that the two girls walked around, went dancing, and met Zach. I have difficulty accepting LB’s version for reasons previously stated.

[83] I mostly prefer KA’s and Zach’s narrative for the events occurring from meeting Zach outside Sin City and leading up to the sexual intercourse, including all preceding sexual activity. I again have difficulty accepting LB’s version for reasons previously stated.

 

[Leagon]

After reading all 3 stories I completely believe LB.

KAs story is similar but it seems like she tried to lesson how bad it was. Afterwards she realized that even her watered down version was bad.

She's probably been seeing this dude for a bit and he started trying to get her to bring a friend for a 3some. None of her friends would do it so she picked the more vulnerable chick thinking she would just go along with whatever she told her to do.

I'm still open to the possibility that she wanted to be a wild girl and party with grown folk and only after the fact did she feel brave enough to express the discomfort that she should have shown during the actual sexual act.

Realistically, few people are brave enough to tell someone to stop mid-sex if they don't like what's happening. It's got to be doubly hard when there's a spectator and triply hard when you're a teenager and care desperately about what others think of you. It's possible she never actually made her discomfort known.

 

[EndlessCritic]

You're a disgusting buffoon.

Dude deserves some jail time.

Deserves has got nothing to do with it. Here in Canada you only get convicted of things that are actually crimes.

Christ, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that a dog licking peanut butter off of a girl's vagina wasn't technically bestiality, as bestiality had never been properly defined:

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2016/2016scc22/2016scc22.html

 

[panamaican]

Full stop. This was not a close case.

After first saying that the younger girl did not consent. If you really think this didn't deserve a trial then you have no interest in finding justice. Is this just your chance to virtue signal to MGTOW or something?

 

[Leagon]

What you have stated is completely irrelevant to the actions of the crown in this case. To impose your own moral standards on someone else's completely legal behavior is inappropriate, and demonstrates extremely poor reasoning.

It is legal in this country for a 30 year old for have a threesome with two teenagers. Period.

You're delusional.

I can disagree with the actions of the Crown while also thinking you're a psycho for being as outraged as to start a thread over this.

 

[panamaican]

Full stop. This was not a close case.

The entire problem with this case is that people are viewing it through the moral lens that a 32 year old should not have a threesome with a couple of teenagers. That fact is completely irrelevant to the analysis. To give it any weight is to render your judgment suspect.

No, the thread title suggests that this should have not have completed trial.

Yet the statement from the court makes very clear that the alibi witness originally said that the 2nd girl withdrew consent. If you approach this from the perspective of the Crown then you're basically asking the Crown to ignore a witness who first claimed that a crime had been committed and only later retracted that position.

At that point, you expect the Crown to not put these witnesses in front of a judge to determine the proper conclusion? Any suggestion that this didn't deserve a trial cannot be based on understanding the point of a criminal justice system.

 

[Bacco]

A case of he said, she said, she said

More like he fucked, they fucked, she sued

 

[EndlessCritic]

No, the thread title suggests that this should have not have gone to trial.

Yet the statement from the court makes very clear that the alibi witness originally said that the 2nd girl withdrew consent. If you approach this from the perspective of the Crown then you're basically asking the Crown to ignore a witness who first claimed that a crime had been committed and only later retracted that position.

At that point, you expect the Crown to not put these witnesses in front of a judge to determine the proper conclusion? Any suggestion that this didn't deserve a trial cannot be based on understanding the point of a criminal justice system.

The problem is you're delusional if you think KA "changed" her evidence. Her evidence at trial was unequivocal: LB consented. The only explanation for this is that the police and crown never properly investigated her side of the story to begin with.

I agree, with the police statement, the crown had the right to proceed to trial. But the moment KA stated on the stand that LB consented, the crown ought to have withdrawn the charge. Instead, they doubled down, and brought a motion to cross-examine her. In doing this, the crown utterly failed to uphold its sacred duty of impartiality to the court.

The secondary issue is that at all times, KA's evidence was inconsistent with LB. LB's evidence was that she consented to nothing.

 

[Gervais]

Several things stand out which makes me think Zach and KA not only knew each other, but had sexual relationship and they planned the threesome.

Zach testified that he met LB and KA in the alleyway behind Sin City when he was leaving to go home

KA testified that she met Zach in the back alleyway to Sin City. She initially could not recall if she and LB entered the bar, but later acknowledged the truth of her prior statement that they indeed had been drinking and dancing inside the bar with Zach.

KA’s evidence at trial was inconsistent in several ways with her previous testimony. Due to these material inconsistencies, the Crown sought and obtained an application under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-5. As a result, KA adopted several prior statements as true for this trial, including the following: “LB was fine and then she was actually doing it and then she started to freak out and she [LB] was in tears at this point and then Zach wouldn’t stop”.

KA appeared somewhat aligned with Zach at the date of trial. She stated that she did not have sex with Zach on the night of the Incident. In 2015, however, they shared an intimate romantic relationship lasting several months
------------------------------------------

Like how do you say she was freaking out and was in tears and he refused to stop and then say oooh I take that back. That seems very detailed.

 

[EndlessCritic]

KA appeared somewhat aligned with Zach at the date of trial. She stated that she did not have sex with Zach on the night of the Incident..

You see, this is extremely relevant as LB testified that KA and Zach had sex on the night of the incident.

Why would KA need to lie about this corollary detail, when it was admitted that she had Zach had a subsequent relationship?

 

[panamaican]

The problem is you're delusional if you think LB "changed" her evidence. Her evidence at trial was unequivocal: KA consented. The only explanation for this is that the police and crown never properly investigated her side of the story to begin with.

I agree, with the police statement, the crown had the right to proceed to trial. But the moment LB stated on the stand that KA consented, the crown ought to have withdrawn the charge. Instead, they doubled down, and brought a motion to cross-examine her. In doing this, the crown utterly failed to uphold its sacred duty of impartiality to the court.

The secondary issue is that at all times, KA's evidence was inconsistent with LB. LB's evidence was that she consented to nothing.

You clearly don't understand how trials work. Prior to trial, the witness makes sworn statements about what they will say in court. These are made under oath and are admissible at trial. That is what "...evidence at trial was inconsistent with prior testimony..." is referring to.

The relevant Canadian law (cited by the judge in his reason for the determination):

Where the party producing a witness alleges that the witness made at other times a statement in writing, reduced to writing, or recorded on audio tape or video tape or otherwise, inconsistent with the witness’ present testimony, the court may, without proof that the witness is adverse, grant leave to that party to cross-examine the witness as to the statement and the court may consider the cross-examination in determining whether in the opinion of the court the witness is adverse.

Got it? Before trial, KA told the Crown, in writing or recorded in some fashion, that LB withdrew consent. Then KA went into court and said something different on the stand.

And you expect the Crown to drop the trial when their witness changes testimony in fucking court? Are you a moron?

 

[EndlessCritic]

You clearly don't understand how trials work. Prior to trial, the witness makes sworn statements about what they will say in court. These are made under oath and are admissible at trial. That is what it means when they say that "...evidence at trial was inconsistent with prior testimony..." is referring to.

The relevant Canadian law (cited by the judge in his reason for the determination):


Got it? Before trial, KA told the Crown, in writing or recorded in some fashion, that LB withdrew consent. Then KA went into court and said something different on the stand.

And you expect the Crown to drop the trial when their witness changes testimony in fucking court? Are you a moron?

I am a lawyer in Canada. Yes. That witness' evidence absolutely goes to the crown's duty to the court. The crown needed to reevaluate whether it could ethically proceed with the trial in light of her change in testimony. Whether this was done, I don't know.

The crown is not an ordinary litigant. It has a sacred duty to the court. Its goal is not to win. Its goal is to pursue justice.

In Canada, it is not unheard of for Crowns to admit in the middle of trial that the case should not be pursued further. Here's a perfect example: https://montrealgazette.com/news/lo...trial-of-ndg-man-as-it-enters-the-final-stage

"I have no argument to demonstrate he shot the victim. We believed we had good evidence but I have no argument to submit to the jury."

“As a prosecutor, I have to have, throughout the entire trial, the moral conviction that a crime was committed,” Dagenais told Di Salvo on Thursday about why he wanted to ask the jury to acquit Gero.

There's a crown attorney who understands his sacred role.

 

[Fawlty]

Everyone in this story and the TS are all off the babysitter list.

 

[panamaican]

I am a lawyer in Canada. Yes. That witness' evidence absolutely goes to the crown's duty to the court. The crown needed to reevaluate whether it could ethically proceed with the trial in light of her change in testimony. Whether this was done, I don't know.

You have to be bullshitting if you expect me to believe that the Crown is going to drop a trial when their witness falsifies testimony in court or prior to. Ethically, they're now dealing with the possibility that their witness is recanting to protect a rapist. They have to finish the trial.

As a lawyer, do you get into court much? I can't imagine any trial lawyer dropping their case because a witness changes some aspect of their story. You just power through and deal with it by going hostile on your own witness.

 

[EndlessCritic]

You have to be bullshitting if you expect me to believe that the Crown is going to drop a trial when their witness falsifies testimony in court or prior to. Ethically, they're now dealing with the possibility that their witness is recanting to protect a rapist. They have to finish the trial.

As a lawyer, do you get into court much? I can't imagine any trial lawyer dropping their case because a witness changes some aspect of their story. You just power through and deal with it by going hostile on your own witness.

Again, crown attorneys are not ordinary lawyers. A civil litigator would absolutely do what you have described, as would any criminal defence attorney. The crown prosecutor most certainly does not have to finish the trial. At all stages, they must act impartially. The crown's goal is not to seek a conviction.

 

[Seaside]

Let me guess the judge was a man who was jealous but pretends he is moral? If this was legit consenual but someone than regretted it shame then

 

[EndlessCritic]

Let me guess the judge was a man who was jealous but pretends he is moral? If this was legit consenual but someone than regretted it shame then

The judge was a woman you goof.

Her actual name is Justice SJW -- Susan J Woodley.