A) You mentioned Juries and the US justice system in your post. This was heard in front of a judge in Canada. So if anyone digressed, it was you.

B) Well in Canada, it’s not seen negatively that you don’t testify. In fact, it can be seen more negatively when you do than when you don’t. Our protection is bona fide in…

I agree with you on that. I don’t agree that he should have been convicted based on the evidence that was produced during the trial. At a certain point, people need to realize that there isn’t some conspiracy or invisible force preventing these assholes from being convicted. A trial happened, it didn’t go well for the…

They are allowed and these alleged victims DID have counsel.

The witnesses weren’t on trial, their testimony was. They lied and got caught lying. End of story.

Ummm, they HAD independent legal counsel. Unfortunately, their legal counsel was either incompetent, or was hired after they decided to speak to the press and sink their entire case.

What part of “say the WHOLE truth, NOTHING BUT the truth” is difficult to understand? It’s so slimy to think you can get away with not disclosing things that paint you in a bad light and hoping you’ll get away with it.

A) There was no jury in this trial
B) Canada’s constitution is different than Norway’s constitution, and for the most part, I believe our legal systems are entirely different as well. We have a constitutional right against self-incrimination. No one is changing the constitution over this issue, ever.

So what? What’s your solution? Unfortunately, we don’t live in a police state (yet) that’s able to automatically police every human being and stop crimes from happening. If we want to convict someone, we have to use the processes that we have in place, and that is how criminal trials work for everyone. No one is…

This isn’t a “failing” of the Canadian legal system, this is common law tradition. We have a right against self-incrimination, a constitutional right I might add. In any criminal trial, whether it’s a sexual assault trial, or anything else, the defendant does not need to testify because it’s up to the prosecution to…

What else can the trial focus on? It implicitly HAS to focus on the credibility of the accusers. Their accusation is what is put on trial here. The prosecutor has to back up what they accused the defendant of doing. That is how the criminal justice system works. It is not up to the defense to prove that they are…

Who else but the alleged victims are able to say what happened? That’s why their memories are put to the test, because that’s the only information that matters here. They need to give their first hand account of what happened, so obviously their actions will be focused on. How else do you want this to work? Just say…

The Crown Prosecutors are not the lawyers of the alleged victims, nor are the alleged victims their client. Before acting snarky, learn about the stuff you are criticizing

No, the alleged victims are at fault, for a number of reasons. You don’t understand how the legal system works, so please stop spewing nonsense.

No, the women are entirely at fault. Their actions prevented the Crown from ever having a fighting chance. The Crown isn’t their lawyer, they are entitled to independent legal advice which may have helped them prepare better. How could the Crown prepare for something they were never made aware of? Next time, don’t lie…

It’s not up to the Crown to prepare them as witnesses. It’s up to the alleged victims to say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They also had a right to seek independent legal counsel. The Crown aren’t their lawyers. These women lied under oath and sunk their own case. This all could have been…

That’s how criminal trials work my friend. It’s the same for anyone else and for any other crime. That’s why we have a constitution to protect our rights. Or should men accused of committing sexual assault be stripped of their constitutional rights just to make you happy?

First of all, it’s stated in the article itself that the police did indeed warn witness #1. I don’t buy her explanation, and “not being informed” doesn’t excuse the fact that she blatantly lied under oath. In fact, nothing does. When will these women take responsibility for how horribly they dealt with this case from…

The alleged victims sunk their own case by keeping information from the prosecution. Don’t blame the prosecution for not reacting appropriately to information they were never given. Blame the alleged victims for lying under oath

I am also a Toronto lawyer, and let’s get one thing clear. The Crown could only work with what they had, and I think a significant portion of the blame lies with the police that didn’t investigate as thoroughly as they should have while taking statements from the alleged victims, and the by the alleged victims…

They were caught with their pants down BECAUSE THE ALLEGED VICTIMS LIED. The victims sunk their own case. It is THEIR fault for keeping the information a secret. If anything, you can say that the police should have been more thorough, but it was proven during trial that the police asked them point blank about this…