Drive-by at the Grand

[MAPearce]

Don , my comment is a retort to yours about cops NOT being corrupt because this is Canada...

I would think that you ,of all people would know better by now ...

Corruption is EVERYWHERE in society....

Even Canadian.

[Donald G]

To A_Britishcolumbian ...

I am not in any way suggesting that there is any kind of conspiracy on the part of anyone to assist criminals or criminal gangs.

What I am saying is that thoser responsible to protect society from crime and criminals have, through rewriting and reinterpreting the charter as it applies to the rules of evidence, seriously weakened the ability of the police to legally investigate serious crimes by refusing to let ALL evidence that tends to prove guilt or innocence into court AS WAS PREVIOUSLY THE CASE.

The remand problems are IMO the result of our criminal court judges not holding individual lawyers to account when they go off on their individual Fairy Stories about their clients. You can tell when such stories are coming since they are preceeded by "I would suggest ...; I am instructed ...; my client informs me ...". What it boils down to is that the accused is getting evidence admitted into court without anyone testifying.

"Reasonable search and seizure", "unreasonable detainment" and what "brings the system of justice into disrepute" are particulary interpreted to the benefit of the accused, rather than the victim or society.

[Donald G]

To flamingfingers ...

The best possible defense? Yes. By all means.

A dishonest defense, not directly associated to guilt or innocence? Not on your life.

[Donald G]

To MAPearce ...

Individual cops have been convicted of criminal offenses.
Individual judges have been convicted of criminal offenses.
Individual lawyers have been convicted of criminal offenses.


Fully guilty people have been let off as a result of all three crimes.

Lawyers and judges have the right to examine all police officers while they are testifying.
Who ROUTINELY checks on lawyers and judges?

[A_Britishcolumbian]

in my opinion, these people, or someone, came into our community to terrorize us and commit these inexcusable acts, and they should have to face us, the people of kelowna, in their/our trial.

i can think of no reason, not even medical as may be argued, that this trial should be held anywhere else other than here.

[flamingfingers]

To flamingfingers ...

The best possible defense? Yes. By all means.

A dishonest defense, not directly associated to guilt or innocence? Not on your life.

If there is deemed to be a 'dishonest' defense, do you not think that the prosecutor would object strenuously, or the judge would see through the ploy?

I would be very interested if you provided some court decisions based on a 'dishonest defense'. Please and thanks.

[MAPearce]

Individual cops have been convicted of criminal offenses.
Individual judges have been convicted of criminal offenses.
Individual lawyers have been convicted of criminal offenses.

Individual cops have been charged.
Individual judges have been charged.
Individual lawyers have been charged.

Indeed they have Don.....

Power corrupts......

[goatboy]

i

i can think of no reason, not even medical as may be argued, that this trial should be held anywhere else other than here.

Well, I guess if you don't want to worry about a fair trial by an impartial jury. Hard to be impartial when it happened in your back yard. I would have thought you of all people would want impartiality in the courtroom.

However, one good thing about a change in venue is that means one less reason for appeal by the defense if they are convicted.

[Donald G]

In a nutshell, I consider a dishonest defense to be one that is based on anything not directly relating to the accused being given a fair trial. That includes effort on the part of the defense lawyer and/or anything done by the defense lawyer to eliminate witness evidence of guilt or innocence and/or to have real evidence of guilt or innocence excluded from the trial.

The largest heroin seizure in Saskatchewans history and the illegal gun shipment that the VPD seized some while ago are two of the more widely known ones. The guns and heroin were not permitted to be entered.

Before you try installing your usual "trip wire" make sure that you understand what the rules of evidence were both before and after the Bill of Rights was rewritten as the Charter which was also reinterpreted. And keep in mind that this is the third or fourth change in the rules of evidence since Canada came into being.

[flamingfingers]

Before you try installing your usual "trip wire" make sure that you understand what the rules of evidence were both before and after the Bill of Rights was rewritten as the Charter which was also reinterpreted.

You seem to have a real problem which is manifest in what YOU consider 'interpretation.' Why are you arguing that respected jurists are errant in their 'interpretation?'

[normaM]

they, imo opinion are just playing for time.
Watch how many times they change lawyers
Quite sure they know every trick to pull
besides, given the fact that so many hate the gangsters here..
how much time should someone get for taking care of someone so many loathe?
Just call me Judge Dredd... don;t care what they get for time, figure someone already has marked them

[Donald G]

To flamingfingers ...

Psych major? Or just a passing fancy?

The reason that I routinely bring up the INTERPRETATION of the charter is that the INTERPRETATION of the charter by the higher court judges that PET selected and appointed, now form the basis for judging refusing to admit evidence such as the heroin and guns into evidence.

The fact that judges have differing personal opinions as to what "reasonable" and "unreasonable" mean within the contest of the various trials means that an accused may be let off in front of one judge but not another depending on whether they choose to admit the evidence or not ... a moving target for the police. While I do not have statistics I would expect that judges choosing to admit or not admit evidence is the number one reason for charges being dismissed FOR THEORETICAL REASONS OTHER THAN GUILT OR INNOCENCE.

It has given criminals and criminal gangs a huge advantage as compared to what the rules of evidence used to be under the
Bill of Rights; "all evidence that goes to prove guilt or innocence WAS admitted at trial".

"Respected Jurists" are no smarter and no dumber than any other reasonably intelligent Canadian citizen. They are more knowledgeable than most people regarding the law but given some of the decisions that have come and gone over the years I seriously doubt that they are equally knowledgeable concerning the effects of their various decisions. Their most recent interpretation of the most recent Bill of Rights/Charter is one of those areas.

[GasTownDreams]

Half the comments on here are very humorous, Regular 9-5 people trying to be investigators.

[Queen K]

Trial is going ahead despite the long time between crime and time.

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#198709

I note that there was a call to say "too much time went by to even have a trial."
But sincerely, this was too big NOT to have a trial.
And why is so much time being used?

So it's about time, right?

[the truth]

yup, about time,you can thank the far left way of thinking for these cases taking to long