Sexual Assault at Orchard Park

[Silverstarqueen]

Im not defending this creep sounds like he made an aggressive move but is it really a sexual assault? It seems the term "sexual assault" gets thrown out there all too often, and may take away from real victims of sexual assault.

A former employee said the alleged victim, a 28-year-old woman, was in the back room by herself when the owner, 55-year-old Gary Stajduhar, “grabbed her on either side by the arms, pushed her against a freezer and pressed himself against her.”

She doesn't have to be beaten half to death to be a "real victim of sexual assault".
Since we certainly don't know all the details, how can anyone of us decide if he did commit sexual assault (or not)?
Obviously the police seem to think her allegations meet the definition of sexual assault, and they (not we) have heard the full extent of the allegations, and whatever evidence there is.

[Gixxer]

She doesn't have to be beaten half to death to be a "real victim of sexual assault".
Since we certainly don't know all the details, how can anyone of us decide if he did commit sexual assault (or not)?
Obviously the police seem to think her allegations meet the definition of sexual assault, and they (not we) have heard the full extent of the allegations, and whatever evidence there is.

Right and a victim of sexual assault doesn't have to be beaten half to death to be a victim sexual assault.

[Even Steven]

Apparently this guy is known to be a creep for years.

[Silverstarqueen]

As opposed to some random opinion pulled out of someone's nether regions, a more objective serious look at the estimated (because NO ONE knows) rate of sexual assaults that result in a false report:

ONe study: " The
researchers therefore supplemented the
information contained in the police files by
collecting many different types of additional
data, including: reports from forensic examiners,
questionnaires completed by police
investigators, interviews with victims and
victim service providers, and content analyses
of the statements made by victims and
witnesses. They then proceeded to evaluate
each case using the official criteria for establishing
a false allegation, which was that
there must be either “a clear and credible
admission by the complainant” or “strong
evidential grounds” (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan,
2005). On the basis of this analysis, the percentage
of false reports dropped to 2.5%."

http://ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf

It's very easy to make sweeping unsubstantiated statements about false reporting, just to support some personal belief that a high percentage of women would lie about sexual assault. Of course the police and the courts should be taking each case on its own merit, based on evidence, and the testimony of the victim and the accused. The Ghomeshi case has very little in common with this one,( it does not appear that this woman had any personal or intimate relationship with the accused at all, was not dating, for instance). So whatever happened to Ghomeshi, it has absolutely no bearing on this instance.

[JollyGreenBully]

But regardless how any such trial ends up, his character will also suffer from the coverage.

http://www.castanet.net/news/Law-Matters/130167/Lying-about-rape-violence-drug-dealing

1- If you hear an accusation against someone, don’t blindly believe it. Some accusations can ruin innocent lives. And, remember: there are always at least two sides to every story.

2- If an accusation is made against you, get some legal advice/assistance. The consequences of having a false accusation ‘stick’ could be devastating.

[Silverstarqueen]

YEs, wouldn't it be great if we could have the benefit of the Other Side of the story. Perhaps that is what the police have, that we don't have, the story from the alleged perp.( In fact we don't even have the complete story from the alleged victim.) That's what the courts and investigation are for.

[Urban Cowboy]

The alleged victims aren't allowed to speak up because of the impending court case.

[my5cents]

Wow, what a lot of opinion and conjecture, some well thought out some from shot from the hip (or perhaps lower region)

Starts out, “the media should be sued, for tarnishing the accused’s name before he has been convicted”.

Comments continue to conjecture about the type of evidence the police have against the accused up to and including some posters questioning “how could the victim’s word without corroboration be used against the accused ?”

First off, IF the suspect has been charged, that fact is PUBLIC RECORD and the media is completely within their rights to report that the suspect has been charged. Note,,, the media DON’T say, “(so and so) was charged after he (the crime)”. All the media states “(so and so) was charged with (crime)”.

So NO, the media can’t be sued, they did nothing wrong reporting the accused was charged.

HAVING SAID THAT,,,,,,, (and here is the real story)……. Have I missed something ? What the heck caused the media to report that the accused was charged at this time ?

- Incident occurred 21 Aug 2015 (A YEAR & A HALF YEARS AGO)
- The first appearance for the accused in answer to the charge was 2 May 2016 (NINE MONTHS AGO)
- The trial is set to begin 15 March 2017

The bulk of the complaints and concerns of the posters has been the question of the reliability of the evidence.

Was the accused charged, simply on the verbal allegations of the victim ?

So the next REAL newsworthy item….. Why are so many people concerned that the police and or crown have charged a person without solid corroborated evidence against that person ?

Is there that much lack of confidence in our police and crown ?

Our system works, such…
The police investigate an alleged crime. They do so by gathering evidence, sometimes physical evidence, sometimes statements. Statements from victims, witnesses and possibly the accused (the accused is not obliged to provide a statement, may give one).

Having gathered the evidence and in the case of physical evidence, perhaps having it examined by an expert or experts, the statements and the nature of physical evidence and conclusions from experts is supplied to the crown in a comprehensive report.

Crown reviews the report and determines if there is a likelihood of conviction. NOT that there is evidence against the accused, BUT if the evidence is likely to lead to a conviction.

THEN if that is the case, crown approves the file for charges and it is sent back to the police, where someone, will swear an “information” that results in charges being laid.

Also, please note….. any past history of acts or actions of the accused can NOT be used to convict the accused, with certain exceptions. Thus, neither the police or crown can NOT use that history to assist them in preparing or approving charges.

My question is still. Did I miss something as to why this charge is now news ? Was it published by the media back in the summer of 2016 when charges were laid ? If it wasn't why is it now, news ? Yes, I know it is coming up for trial in another month, that really isn't news. It will be in mid March.

[Silverstarqueen]

I think it's news, if there is an upcoming trial to occur a month from now. Pretrial news on many other situations have been published on all sorts of things, several months in advance of actual trial dates. So why not this? I think some news hawk just happened to figure out this is coming up, and hasn't been reported on much yet, so they feel it is newsworthy.

[my5cents]

I think it's news, if there is an upcoming trial to occur a month from now. Pretrial news on many other situations have been published on all sorts of things, several months in advance of actual trial dates. So why not this? I think some news hawk just happened to figure out this is coming up, and hasn't been reported on much yet, so they feel it is newsworthy.

Yes, it's news, to what degree it is "newsworthy" or the importance of an upcoming trial in one month verses the value of news at the time charges were laid ?

No mention of the investigation, 1½ years ago, no mention of charges laid 9 months ago, but "Hey, in a month there's going to be a trial !"

Generally we see "updates" or perhaps "reminders" of upcoming trials for events that have already been reported by the media.

Just as it is my, I guess, right to find this strange. It's also yours to think this is completely normal.

[kgcayenne]

I think it's not a big deal enough to be featured in the news that there is sufficient evidence against the accused thus prompting the need for a trial. I'm sure there are hundreds of assault trials every year that we do not hear about.

However... it's newsworthy that a person charged with a crime of a predatory nature and is the president of Inland Lock Doctor. Am I the only person to be concerned that a person accused of carrying out a crime of such a personal/sexual nature is responsible for a company that has EVERYTHING to do with the security of homes and businesses?

Am I really?

[FreeRights]

I think it's not a big deal enough to be featured in the news that there is sufficient evidence against the accused thus prompting the need for a trial. I'm sure there are hundreds of assault trials every year that we do not hear about.

However... it's newsworthy that a person charged with a crime of a predatory nature and is the president of Inland Lock Doctor. Am I the only person to be concerned that a person accused of carrying out a crime of such a personal/sexual nature is responsible for a company that has EVERYTHING to do with the security of homes and businesses?

Am I really?

If he's convicted, I agree. I'm not overly concerned in the meantime.

[Gixxer]

The man hasnt been convicted of the allegations yet, but he's already been convicted by the public.

It seems innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply with this. He's name shouldn't be released until he is found guilty.

[Silverstarqueen]

I think it's not a big deal enough to be featured in the news that there is sufficient evidence against the accused thus prompting the need for a trial. I'm sure there are hundreds of assault trials every year that we do not hear about.

However... it's newsworthy that a person charged with a crime of a predatory nature and is the president of Inland Lock Doctor. Am I the only person to be concerned that a person accused of carrying out a crime of such a personal/sexual nature is responsible for a company that has EVERYTHING to do with the security of homes and businesses?

Am I really?

What I was thinking about this aspect was, if it turned out he was entering his tenants homes when he shouldn't be, and or tended toward illegal sexual behavior, then an occupation like that one would certainly be a recipe for disaster. Now whether he is found guilty , or whether his occupation is taken in to consideration in sentencing (if he is), well I hope it would be. Likely outcome (if guilty)? A slap on the wrist, a few conditions, which won't last forever, and he will just continue on his way.

[fvkasm2x]

However... it's newsworthy that a person charged with a crime of a predatory nature and is the president of Inland Lock Doctor. Am I the only person to be concerned that a person accused of carrying out a crime of such a personal/sexual nature is responsible for a company that has EVERYTHING to do with the security of homes and businesses?

Am I really?

A very valid point/concern