I’ll buy you a pizza if you get rid of the stupid podcast and make Drew go back to writing down his rantings instead.

It is bad when you’re just buying superdelegate votes, yes.

It absolutely should have been. And yet it wasn’t. And the reason it wasn’t is because people have complained and shamed so much it is taboo to question victims in sex assault cases.

Either you believe them or you’re victim shaming? This is the type of trial and result you’ll get with that attitude.

Right, so the Crown just decided not to do their due diligence in this case. Or in other sex assaults cases but still does it in any other type of case. Of course that makes more sense than what I said.

The name is Bond, James Rodriguez

Yes, talk to some of the crown prosecutors honestly. I know three of them in Ontario and one in Alberta. To be fair, they all work in drugs not sexual assault. However, they have all admitted privately that their colleagues who work in sex assault do not do the same type of due diligence as they do for other crimes…

No, the whole situation is terrible without a doubt.

Then please explain why the crown and police didn’t do the same level of questioning witnesses before the trial as they do for murder or assault or even trespassing cases?

Is it because they don’t care about sex assault victims? Or is it because they’re now in a climate where if you dare question a sex assault victim…

No, but that’s how the crown sees it. Why do you think that the crown is prepared for murder trials but not sex assaults? Is it because they care about murder and not sex assault? No.

But you can’t question a victim! If they did there would have been outrage. How dare the police and Crown not just believe what a victim said?!

The people who have pushed the “You have to believe the victim” movement to where it is now are to blame for a system that is terrified of dealing with victims.

The crown acted the way it did because of the stigma now attached to questioning a woman who says she’s been attacked.

Imagine if the police/crown had investigated her claims and then decided they couldn’t get a conviction. The outrage would be incredible.

She lies so much she’s even lying after the trial about when she talked to the police. There is no way the police never told her that her statement was under oath and could be used.

These women have let everyone down by lying under oath. And that fuck goes free.

The Crown did a piss poor job because of the stigma that comes with ever questioning a victim. Imagine the rage here if one of the victims came out and said the police had questioned her account. So they can’t investigate her account because “believe all victims” and then this is what happens.

Why do you think they dropped the ball on this? I imagine it has something to do with the calls to always believe victims. When the police and the crown can’t question the victims about what happened for fear of the stigma that will happen if the victim says out loud that someone in the system questioned her account…

She might be a “good enough victim” as you put it if she doesn’t lie about her encounters with him while on the witness stand.

Yeah, but it wasn’t just “minor inconsistencies” it was out right lying by the three women. If they hadn’t have lied there’s a chance this trial would have come out differently. Instead there were lies under oath. I’m not sure how you can find anything they said credible.

Maybe don’t lie during your testimony if you want to be believed.

Maybe if they hadn’t lied repeatedly to everyone, including the court.

Oh look an article about a man having a difficult time and all the commenters on jezebel call him a deadbeat. Way to defeat that stereotype jezzies.

>everyone knows this except Yale which is kind of funny.

LOL GO YALE!