Did anyone actually fall for this?

Agggggh I know it’s not worth $5500 but I gave him the vote just because he kept his stocks on/in immaculate condition for 16 years.

Be the change Lua

The party system at work ladies and gents. The better choice is obviously the person who puts taking care of their own above ethical conduct, reform and sustainability.

What’s the prosecution supposed to do, get a warrant and go through the witnesses’ correspondences? The witnesses withheld this information from the prosecution too. Seems like they had some really bad guidance from somewhere, but it wasn’t the prosecution.

Both are great ideas.

What? This isn’t what happened in this case at all.

Henien was the defence.

Actually it was, and they lied. The prosecution believed they had the full story until evidence to the contrary was presented during cross examination.

The judgement would seem to suggest that even the prosecution was surprised by all the late disclosures and the conflicting stories once cross-examination started. It’s not that the prosecution forgot to ask them things like “Did you have contact with him after the assault?”, it’s that the witnesses gave answers that…

Oh don’t even. The Crown thought they had an established case, only to see one of their witnesses credibility crumble during cross-ex when confronted with evidence of things she said (under oath) that she did not do. Then they received thousands of messages, among other disclosures, from the other witnesses that…

Considering that the witnesses didn’t disclose a lot of the inconsistencies to the Crown until Witness 1 was already being cross-examined, even though the Crown had given them multiple opportunities to do so, you can hardly blame the prosecution for this.

What made-up ideal, honesty? The judge said it best himself when one of the witnesses defended her inconsistencies by saying she was just “trying to navigate” her way through the proceedings. He replied “The best way to navigate your way through this is to tell the truth and nothing but the truth”.

So real human beings lie in a court of law so their story fits their narrative? Got ya.

...Morningside went off the air 20 years ago. Time flies doesn’t it?

No they wouldn’t have, as that’s illegal in Canada and would have opened the case up to appeal. Their credibility was undermined due to the fact that they lied under oath about their behaviour, not their behaviour itself.

In Canada, when you’re making a police statement, you’re advised that you are giving it under oath. Not only that, but it’s a criminal offence to provide misinformation relating to an investigation to a peace officer.

As long as that witness is honest in their disclosure, that trial should have a lot more to stand on. Hard to say what the outcome will be though, barring any damning physical evidence.

The behaviour isn’t taken into consideration for judgement, but must still be disclosed to establish credibility. The fact that they lied about it is what was taken into consideration. If the defence can’t test the credibility of witnesses, it’s not much of a trial.

You’ve never listened to the CBC, have you? People with failed shows get shifted all the time, it’s how they build up personality brands.