-
February 10th, 2016, 01:10 PM
#121
Originally Posted by
Wahoo
And yes, his Union is not obligated to fight for him.
They're obligated to represent him by attending management/arbitration meetings with/for him. That's not to say they'll actually speak. I've seen union reps sit with their arms folded and mouths firmly slammed shut while the member gets sliced and diced for an indefensable violation. It's rare and it's usually a call from the national union office "ivory tower",but,it happens when the Union can be brought into a PR disaster and literally backed into a dark corner. This may be one of those times.
If a tree falls on your ex in the woods and nobody hears it,you should probably still get rid of your chainsaw. Just sayin'....
-
February 10th, 2016 01:10 PM
# ADS
-
March 24th, 2016, 11:17 AM
#122
Has too much time on their hands
-
March 24th, 2016, 11:24 AM
#123
"Ontario court Judge William Horkins said he simply could not rely on the three complainants given their changing and shifting memories and evidence that at times strayed into outright lies.
All he had to go on — as is usual in sexual-assault cases — was the complainants’ credibility, which he said cross-examination showed to be sorely lacking.
Read the full text of the judgement
“What is troubling is not the lack of clarity, but the shifting facts from one telling to the next,” Horkins said of one of the three complainants.
“In cross-examination, the value of her evidence suffered irreparable damage,” he said of another of the witnesses
"
-
March 24th, 2016, 11:35 AM
#124
We covered this during the trial. Will just sum up for me what it comes down to.
A blow for female victims of assault and while I'm sure what's her name is celebrating, not sure how she sleeps at night .
The judges ruling spells it out.
Despite being "illegal". It's clear the "alleged victims" were put on trial.
-
March 24th, 2016, 12:15 PM
#125
It was a rough trial. The crown choked, the defence had a stranglehold on the evidence
That rug really tied the room together
-
March 24th, 2016, 01:06 PM
#126
I think justice won. Witnesses' collaborating behind the scesnes is unacceptable. Many will say it's a blow against assaults on women being believed , but I don't see it that way.
" We are more than our gender, skin color, class, sexuality or age; we are unlimited potential, and can not be defined by one label." quote A. Bartlett
-
March 24th, 2016, 01:21 PM
#127
The judge also said that he doesn't believe the accusations the women made did not happen but the crown couldn't prove beyond reasnable doubt that they did. Followin along throughout the trial it was obvious there were credibility issues from the victims, crown and police.
-
March 24th, 2016, 01:22 PM
#128
Not surprised ! The credibility of the witnesses/victims was pretty much in doubt right from the start. The fact that the "alleged" victims would pursue him after being "assaulted", is not logical, nor is it reasonable. It's not a case where the women were on trial, but in cases of he said, she said, such as this, the court will weigh the credibility of all witness very carefully. Obviously the judge did not find their evidence credible, and rightly so in my opinion.
Last edited by rick_iles; March 24th, 2016 at 01:24 PM.
-
March 24th, 2016, 01:25 PM
#129
Originally Posted by
Sharon
I think justice won. Witnesses' collaborating behind the scesnes is unacceptable. Many will say it's a blow against assaults on women being believed , but I don't see it that way.
Agreed !!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
March 24th, 2016, 01:59 PM
#130
Reply With Quote
