Charges dropped against former NHLer Stan Jonathan in hunting death

[welsh]

i hope you can sleep at night Stan for having one hell of a lawyer who fabricated a total lie of events to clear your name.....

I know everyone likes to bash on lawyers, but whatever you might think, they don't make up lies for their clients. Coaching witnesses to lie on the stand is malpractice, and it isn't worth your career given you get paid regardless of the verdict.

This is Stan Jonathan's story.

[Dythbringer]

One could if they are walking AWAY from you.....

The point i was making was that i do not believe there was a deer involved at all and being sarcastic.....

Deerslayer99,

I was agreeing with you. I apologize if you think I was mocking you. I find it highly unlikely that a hunter who was out bow hunting for deer would be close enough to a deer to be hit by a pass through from another with his back turned to the deer which was between both hunters. And when I say highly unlikely, I mean I think the existence of bigfoot is more likely than the explanation of what happened here.

Dyth

[Deerslayer99]

NORTH BAY, Ont. — An Ontario hunter has been fined $1,500 after he shot his own big toe.
Court heard that on Oct. 23, Richard Chamberland of Sudbury, Ont., was hunting small game off South Pardo Road, off Hwy. 805.
After shooting unsuccessfully at a grouse, he returned to his brother's pickup and sat on the passenger side.
He did not unload his 12-gauge shotgun. It discharged in the vehicle, shooting through Chamberland's big toe and the floor of the truck.
Chamberland was required to have his big toe amputated.
He's been fined $750 for discharging a firearm without due care and attention for people or property and $750 for having a loaded firearm in a vehicle.
He is prohibited from hunting for five years and must successfully complete the Ontario Hunter Education Course before hunting in the province again.........


What about this.....kill a guy and nothing happens.....shoot your own toe off and look what happens......something is seriously wrong with our justice system

[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.

[Dythbringer]

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.

But agree, there are so many holes. 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.

While they do cross back trails a lot; however, this was in the middle of a field. Not in the bush where they can't see anything. If a person is close enough to a deer for a pass through, that deer isn't sticking around.

[Angus]

I know everyone likes to bash on lawyers, but whatever you might think, they don't make up lies for their clients. Coaching witnesses to lie on the stand is malpractice, and it isn't worth your career given you get paid regardless of the verdict.

This is Stan Jonathan's story.

Do you still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus?

[welsh]

Do you still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus?

No, but I don't believe that Stan Jonathan's lawyer thought it would be worth his career to concoct a story, to coach both Jonathan and another witness to repeat that story, and then to go out and recruit a third witness to corroborate it. Especially given that he has no real motive to do so.

[Angus]

No, but I don't believe that Stan Jonathan's lawyer thought it would be worth his career to concoct a story, to coach both Jonathan and another witness to repeat that story, and then to go out and recruit a third witness to corroborate it. Especially given that he has no real motive to do so.

Try to prove someone coached someone to say something. They were just asking questions and suggesting the consequences of certain answers. Lawyers wouldn't exist without "assisting" with fabricated testimony.

I wish ole Stan would man up and say he and his "witnesses" would take a poly. Not likely.

[trimmer21]

Try to prove someone coached someone to say something. They were just asking questions and suggesting the consequences of certain answers. Lawyers wouldn't exist without "assisting" with fabricated testimony.

I wish ole Stan would man up and say he and his "witnesses" would take a poly. Not likely.

I disagree with that premise. I'm with welsh on this one. No lawyer does that....ever,unless he wants to be disbarred and possibly charged with fabricating evidence. Given the severity of the events,I wouldn't submit to any "poly",either,because they are so notoriously inaccurate and subject to manipulation and interpretation. That's why they're inadmissable as evidence in Court.

[Angus]

There's no premise Trimmer. Ever done a wire? There's a reason you have to shut her down when a lawyer gets on the line.

And even if the poly was infallible, I suspect ole Stan would have good reason not to take it.