So you went hiking in Afghanistan and you met the Taliban


Tecumsehsbones
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

A lot of bull shit happening in the justice system these days for two main reasons...………..very few people have the "balls" to make the tough decisions and defense lawyers getting away with "murder". The role of the lawyer should be limited to see the accused gets a FAIR trial, nothing more! The entire charade is bull shit!
JMHO

Old Abe is fantasising about hurling people off railroad trestles again.
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
JLM
-1
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Old Abe is fantasising about hurling people off railroad trestles again.


I think you fantasize about it much more than I do. If you don't recall all I did was relate the news report, although I have to admit I did kind of admire the guy who did it!
 
JLM
-1
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

That would interfere with lawyer paydays.

Next!

Maybe just amount on their pay cheque!
 
Hoid
#64
Are we talking Abe Simpson?
 
JLM
-1
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Are we talking Abe Simpson?


Any relation to Homer or Bart? One of my kids loved that program!
 
Tecumsehsbones
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I think you fantasize about it much more than I do. If you don't recall all I did was relate the news report, although I have to admit I did kind of admire the guy who did it!

And bragged that you'd do the same.
 
JLM
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

And bragged that you'd do the same.


If I recall correctly, I think "bragging" was your term. I don't recall all the details but I seem to recall saying if I was in "his boat" I might respond the same way. If you disagree with that, TOUGH! OR find the post and we'll take a look at it.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

If I recall correctly, I think "bragging" was your term. I don't recall all the details but I seem to recall saying if I was in "his boat" I might respond the same way. If you disagree with that, TOUGH! OR find the post and we'll take a look at it.

Yeah, you "don't recall," then in the same sentence you "seem to recall." And you'll stand on that.

Seriously, you need to get that looked at. Confusion and memory loss. Pretty classic symptoms.
 
JLM
#69
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Yeah, you "don't recall," then in the same sentence you "seem to recall." And you'll stand on that.

Seriously, you need to get that looked at. Confusion and memory loss. Pretty classic symptoms.


Hey, don't be a jerk all your life. This happened in 1983 and I only know the year because of where I was working at the time. Don't be stupid, there's aspects I recall and aspects I'm vague about. It MAY have happened near Port Coquitlam.
 
spaminator
#70
Joshua Boyle trial delayed by Supreme Court rulings on sexual-history evidence
Canadian Press
Published:
July 2, 2019
Updated:
July 2, 2019 6:50 PM EDT
In this Oct. 31, 2017 file photo, Joshua Boyle speaks to the media after arriving at the Pearson International Airport in Toronto. Nathan Denette / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
OTTAWA — The sexual-assault trial of former Afghanistan hostage Joshua Boyle is dealing with more concerns about admitting evidence of the alleged victim’s past sexual history.
Boyle, 35, has pleaded not guilty to offences allegedly committed against his wife, Caitlan Coleman, including assault, sexual assault and unlawful confinement.
The offences are alleged to have occurred in late 2017, after the couple returned to Canada following five years as captives of Taliban-linked extremists who seized them during a backpacking trip in Asia.
Boyle defence allowed to question Coleman about sexual history, judge rules
Coleman, who is now estranged from Boyle, was to be cross-examined Tuesday following a weeks-long delay over what evidence of their sexual history could be raised by the defence.
An Ontario Superior Court judge ruled in early June that Boyle’s lawyer could introduce some of that history, which is unusual in sexual-assault cases.
However the cross-examination was delayed at least a day and a half pending a hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence the court has already heard about certain consensual sexual activity between Boyle and Coleman. The Crown introduced that material during Coleman’s direct testimony in March.
Judge Peter Doody raised six specific circumstances the Crown asked Coleman about that are not the subject of the charges against Boyle. He said he’s concerned about the impact on the admissibility of that evidence of two decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada that have been delivered since Coleman testified.
In May, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Bradley Barton, an Ontario trucker acquitted of first-degree murder and manslaughter in the 2011 death of Cindy Gladue in Alberta. In that case the top court raised questions about information entered into evidence about the victim by both the Crown and the defence, which was said to be prejudicial against her.
And just last week, the high court ordered a new trial for Patrick John Goldfinch, who had been acquitted of a 2014 sexual assault. The Supreme Court said information about a past sexual relationship between the alleged victim and the accused should not have been entered into evidence and refined the rules for when such evidence is acceptable.
Defence lawyer Lawrence Greenspon argued that three of the six circumstances had been well covered by the Ontario Superior Court decision.
The remaining three, as well as one piece of physical evidence, will be the subject of a hearing before Doody Wednesday morning. He granted Coleman’s lawyer, Ian Carter, standing to present arguments as well. In doing so Doody is allowing Carter the unusual chance to consult with his client in the middle of her testimony but limiting him to only asking her whether she has any concerns for her personal dignity and privacy if the material remains in evidence.
Coleman will not be cross-examined until Doody makes a decision on the evidence. That could happen as early as Wednesday morning, paving the way for Coleman to return to testifying late Wednesday morning or in the afternoon.
Greenspon says he cannot cross-examine Coleman until the decision is made because some of his questions pertain to the evidence that’s now in question.
http://torontosun.com/news/crime/jos...story-evidence
 

Similar Threads

0
Hunting the Taliban in Afghanistan
by Blackleaf | Sep 2nd, 2007
0
20 Taliban Die in Afghanistan - NATO
by Curiosity | Nov 12th, 2006