Charges dropped against former NHLer Stan Jonathan in hunting death

The reason you have to shut the wire down is that the conversation is privileged -- are you trying to imply that it's to protect the lawyer as he breaks the law? Because I think reasonable people understand that it's to protect the client's right to share information freely with his lawyer.

Someone may share something incriminating with his lawyer, and his lawyer is bound not to disclose it, but that's a far cry from the lawyer actually making up a story for the guy and coaching him to tell it. There is a big difference between saying "don't admit to that" and saying, "here's a lie I made up for you to tell," which is what was suggested.

I think Jonathan is clearly lying, but I'm with Trimmer on the polygraph. The polygraph is pseudo-science. A century from now, people will laugh at it as they now laugh at phrenology.

Better call Saul.

He is a dam good lawyer, But I call Bull. It's even sadder now then when it happened. Just a bad situation all around. Just goes to show justice is on a two tier system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Dyth.
Bucks do cross back trails a lot. I do a lot of ground hunting for them and I routinely check my six out of habit. I've learned that. So is it possible he was walking and the buck crossed behind? Happens to me a lot.

But agree, there are so many holes (including that). No police verification of a blood trail ( not the be all and end all but Im thinking crime scene and scouring the area)…and much more.

My gut is telling me why charges were dropped and Im thinking Queens Park and how McGuinty didn't do much during Caledonia and Im thinking a lot of press noise and other things if it goes to trial that someone may not want on her plate.

---

JB. Why for the..........., did you have to bring any/all liberals into this. Do you really , really, think any political party would get involved in this situation, = time for the tin foil hat.

Lol, omg are you ever naive.
How many examples would you like listed where the politicians have been afraid of things due to...

This is a very easy example of a potentially hot thing that can be avoided by not going to trial. If ti goes to trial "who knows". And if it does "blow up", do they really need it, given everything else? Hmmm, who might make those decisions?

How hard is it to say " Well if we drop the charges "no reasonable certainty of a conviction". We might avoid…. And if you need a refresher of a premiere too afraid…See McGuinty, the OPP and Caledonia for one just one recent example.

Honestly, why don't you back off and stop trying to start things where its not needed.
The fact he is, who he is and where. Im not the only person questioning if race, celebrity and "fear" of…might explain why the crown didn't go to trial. Nor am I the only person wondering if this is.

Politics…
So um who does the crown answer to?
Who does the MNR answer to G when they are too afraid to….

back off, or there will be trouble "here".

things are very simple G, that some can't seem to grasp on these forums
"to each their own"…."live and let live"
It's not hard..An easy way to live life (and these forums)..live as you please, think and do as you please…I do the same…Don't "f" with me.

In plain english I never start things, but I won't tolerate.
To each their own, until and unless "you step on my toes". its a good life code, try it.
Step on my toes, take weak swipes at me, try to start something and you won't like the outcome.

Back off G, I'm tired of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Someone may share something incriminating with his lawyer, and his lawyer is bound not to disclose it, but that's a far cry from the lawyer actually making up a story for the guy and coaching him to tell it. There is a big difference between saying "don't admit to that" and saying, "here's a lie I made up for you to tell," which is what was suggested.

---

I have listened to a lawyer make a story up for a criminal while actually in the commission of a crime and about to be stopped by police. Not saying it happens all the time or with all lawyers but I would wager it is more prevalent than most people imagine. And the privilege laws and other prohibitions against intercepting lawyers and Judges do much more than protect clients.

And nowhere did I say I suspect that the lawyer in this case made up Stans fairy tale. He might have tweaked it a bit ! :D
But even the police and crowns coach and assist witnesses with their testimony , so there is nothing controversial about it, unless it is outright perjury. And given the numbers of outright lies told in court every day , how often do you see a perjury charge.

The poly has come a long way, but advances in brain wave science ( brain fingerprinting ) have shown that they can now detect lies with close to 100% accuracy. We will never see it used much here in our time though, it would decimate the lawyer industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

There is a big difference between saying "don't admit to that" and saying, "here's a lie I made up for you to tell," which is what was suggested.

---

Hiding (or twisting) the truth is as bad as telling a lie..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

And nowhere did I say I suspect that the lawyer in this case made up Stans fairy tale.

---

Okay, but that was the contention made in the post I responded to, which prompted you to wade in and suggest I believe in fairy tales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Hiding (or twisting) the truth is as bad as telling a lie..

---

Except that a lawyer is legally and ethically bound not to spill the beans on his client. The moral failing here lies on the guy who broke the law, not his representative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Okay, but that was the contention made in the post I responded to, which prompted you to wade in and suggest I believe in fairy tales.



Except that a lawyer is legally and ethically bound not to spill the beans on his client. The moral failing here lies on the guy who broke the law, not his representative.

---

Some of the moral failing has to be shared with the Crown Attorney who has withdrawn the charges. Not that I am disagreeing with you welsh, just adding that to the conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Okay, but that was the contention made in the post I responded to, which prompted you to wade in and suggest I believe in fairy tales.

---

Your statement was lawyers generally. And generally I think they provide their wonderful clients with a great deal of assistance with shaping their testimony! :scream:

Morals, ethics and legality. Like 5-oh said, Better Call Saul !