So there was this little girl, see, who was naughty...

[cybercoma]

I'm not even sure what part we disagree about other than her story. It just seems highly unlikely to me that two courts would find her situation so awful, based on evidence mind you, that they would seek to expand the definition of duress to apply to her if in fact she was not telling the truth about her situation.

[Guest American Woman]

cc: your narrative would have some validity if there was proof of the alleged abuse. However, based on everything I've read about the case, such proof does not exist, it is all just claims made by the woman. Given the woman's actions in this case and before, it does not seem unreasonable to doubt her word. Without proof or at least some evidence of the alleged abuse, said abuse should not be used as an excuse to not see justice served.

It's not all just claims made by the woman; according to the Judge:

I accept her evidence that the relationship she described and the events she has described relating to that relationship are true. Her evidence was corroborated, in certain respects, by other witnesses...

I have no difficulty in concluding that Michael Ryan was a manipulative,

controlling, and abusive husband, that sought at every turn to control the actions of

his wife, be they social, familial or marital.

The long standing history is also corroborated by ex. 3, the medical records

which were introduced by consent which indicates that Mr. Ryan, as of 2002, had

longstanding issues with anger, awareness and management.

I am further satisfied that evidence has not been introduced by any party

which would negative the defence. Again, I was struck by the fact that Mr. Ryan

did not take the stand to give evidence with respect to any of the assertions that

were made against him.

Ms. Ryan was seen by, and evaluated by, mental health professionals. Whether one agrees with the decision or not, it obviously wasn't a decision made lightly, solely on the evidence of Ms. Ryan - or a decision based on the idea that 'all women are just helpless little girls' - and obviously the judge in this case recognizes that sometimes men are the abused.

http://nicolemueller...t-decision1.pdf

[Argus]

I haven't opened my mouth. I'm typing on a keyboard.

You're still forgetting that the acquittal was overturned 9-0 by the Supreme Court. That's why I said the lower court judges seemed to be ignorant of the law.

[Argus]

The problem is that given the information in the article, it's clear to see that she felt that her and her daughter's lives were threatened and no one was helping her.

Really? Well, why do you think the Family Court awarded full custody of the daughter to HIM, and not her? BEFORE she tried to have him killed.

And it had been five months since any contact between them when she tried to hire the hit man, to kill her ex who was living 200km away in another town with a new girlfriend.

And no comment on her telling the hit man it was okay to kill the girlfriend too?

Would you have been happy with the Crown making the same argument--that they wouldn't be seeking another trial because it would be abusive to the woman who has been victimized by her husband, revictimized by the police w

I don't accept the almost entirely unsupported testimony of a would-be murderer as to her innocence and motivation.

[GostHacked]

Where does it say anything about her being a little girl?? - That she can't be judged harshly because she's a little girl? - That she doesn't have to be subjected to a re-trial because she's a little girl?

It's all about her being abused - not about her being a little girl.

I have no idea where you are getting that notion from, but it's not from anything in the article.

I guess if you can rub a couple brain cells together, one would surmise that this person is 'acting like a little girl'.

[cybercoma]

So the Supreme Court makes a decision and that means the woman is acting like a little girl? Why wouldn't the criticism be towards the Supreme Court for issuing a Stay of Proceedings, rather than on the woman for being a "little girl." It was a boneheaded misogynistic statement. Why is it misogyny? Because instead of blaming the Supreme Court for making a stupid decision (it should be up to the Crown Prosecutor to decide whether to pursue another trial or not), it places the criticism on the woman for something that's not even within her control. So she's apparently a "little girl" which is even more insulting than just being a child because it's not only a child, but evidently the gender of the child matters as well.

[Guest American Woman]

I guess if you can rub a couple brain cells together, one would surmise that this person is 'acting like a little girl'.

???

[Guest Manny]

Was she cute?

[Guest American Woman]

Really? Well, why do you think the Family Court awarded full custody of the daughter to HIM, and not her? BEFORE she tried to have him killed.

She tried to have him killed in 2008 and he was awarded full custody in 2009 - during her criminal case.

[Canuckistani]

Just saw an interview with him. She hired the hit man two years after he moved out and was in a new relationship. It does sound like she hired this hitman to prevent hubby from possibly getting custody. In which case, of course, any sympathy I might have for her is gone, and she should have been tried again.

[Michael Hardner]

Just saw an interview with him. She hired the hit man two years after he moved out and was in a new relationship. It does sound like she hired this hitman to prevent hubby from possibly getting custody. In which case, of course, any sympathy I might have for her is gone, and she should have been tried again.

That's an important piece of information - is it supported by a link ?

Also - the opposition wants an inquiry.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/01/23/ns-inquiry-hit-man-ryan.html?cmp=rss

[Canuckistani]

That's an important piece of information - is it supported by a link ?

Also - the opposition wants an inquiry.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...an.html?cmp=rss

No link. You should be able to google it pretty easily, unless you think I'm hallucinating.

[Guest American Woman]

Just saw an interview with him. She hired the hit man two years after he moved out and was in a new relationship. It does sound like she hired this hitman to prevent hubby from possibly getting custody. In which case, of course, any sympathy I might have for her is gone, and she should have been tried again.

You might want to read what the judge and psychiatrists who interviewed her have to say. I'm guessing the husband, who's not even under oath, might try to make things appear favorable to him. She, at least, was under oath, and cross examined, and seen by court ordered psychiatrists - while he didn't even testify in court.

[Michael Hardner]

No link. You should be able to google it pretty easily, unless you think I'm hallucinating.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=murder+nova+scotia+%22michael+Ryan%22+hired+%222+years%22&oq=murder+nova+scotia+%22michael+Ryan%22+hired+%222+years%22&gs_l=hp.3...4864.16341.1.16785.41.31.9.0.0.7.162.2969.21j10.31.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.XV0LykWTxMA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41524429,d.dmQ&fp=2133deba519e1bd2&biw=1366&bih=600

Yes, I looked and didn't find it.

[Canuckistani]

You might want to read what the judge and psychiatrists who interviewed her have to say. I'm guessing the husband, who's not even under oath, might try to make things appear favorable to him. She, at least, was under oath, and cross examined, and seen by court ordered psychiatrists - while he didn't even testify in court.

Actually he mad the same point - he was never called to testify about the allegations - his side should be heard too. Also he has a copy of her psych eval, and was reading from it. In it she says she chose the timing for the hit to be before the custody hearing, because she "didn't want to see him court." She had apparently been plotting this hit for about a year.

To me this raises serious doubts. There is no physical evidence of abuse, so we're left with a he said she said scenario. A woman making false allegations in a custody dispute is not beyond the realm of possibility, as is this man using psychological terror to make her afraid for her life. If she wasn't living with him for tow years before the hit was supposed to go down, that makes the psych terror less likely, IMO.

[Canuckistani]

https://www.google.c...iw=1366&bih=600

Yes, I looked and didn't find it.

You're not very good at it, are you?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-whose-ex-wife-tried-to-hire-hit-man-says-courts-got-it-wrong-1.1125724 the interview but a summation of it.

Ryan, who has copies of most of the public court documentation in his ex-wife's case and has obtained other documents through access-to-information requests, said Nicole Ryan told the doctor who performed her post-arrest psychiatric evaluation that her husband never abused her.

"She actually stated in there that she was thinking of having me killed back in September 2007 and the doctor had asked her about the conversation with the hit man, 'Why you wanted him killed before April 1st,' and she stated that she didn't want to look at me at the custody hearing."

Nicole Ryan did not make the same allegations of abuse during the child custody proceedings, which happened in the middle of her criminal case, Ryan said.

http://www.news957.c...eign-of-terror/ that's a youtube video, not the one I saw.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Guest American Woman]

Actually he mad the same point - he was never called to testify about the allegations - his side should be heard too.

You think he couldn't have been called if he had wanted to testify? What kind of a lawyer would not call on someone to refute such charges if it would have been to their advantage to do so? I've read that the excuse the husband gave is 'the lawyers said it was such a slam-dunk case that his testimony wasn't even necessary.' Can you imagine such incompetence on their part? Does that sound like something the prosecution would say?

Also he has a copy of her psych eval, and was reading from it. In it she says she chose the timing for the hit to be before the custody hearing, because she "didn't want to see him court." She had apparently been plotting this hit for about a year.

Again. You might want to read what the judge has to say about that, which was confirmed by the psychiatrists. She didn't choose the timing - that's when the undercover RCMP officer approached her. Again. Of course the husband is going to try to make his side appear favorable, but he's not under oath, isn't being cross examined, and hasn't been evaluted by psychiatrists.

To me this raises serious doubts. There is no physical evidence of abuse, so we're left with a he said she said scenario.

Again, the judge said that certain claims were verified by other witnesses. It's not just a "he said, she said." That's all it is on his part, but again - she was under oath, cross examined by the prosecution, evaluated by psychiatrists. The judge didn't simply take her word for it, and you would know that if you'd read the Supreme Court Decision on the case.

I'm not saying that there aren't reasons to doubt, I'm saying, however, that it's much more than a "she said" scenario - the Supreme Court obviously is above making their rulings on such criteria.

A woman making false allegations in a custody dispute is not beyond the realm of possibility, as is this man using psychological terror to make her afraid for her life. If she wasn't living with him for tow years before the hit was supposed to go down, that makes the psych terror less likely, IMO.

That is your opinion, and you have a right to it - that goes without saying, but the ruling was based on the Supreme Court's opinion, and their opinion is based on a lot of testimony, cross examination, witnesses, and psychological examinations - and of course, understanding of the law.

Edited January 24, 2013 by American Woman

[Canuckistani]

You think he couldn't have been called if he had wanted to testify? What kind of a lawyer would not call on someone to refute such charges if it would have been to their advantage to do so? I've read that the excuse the husband gave is 'the lawyers said it was such a slam-dunk case that his testimony wasn't even necessary.' Can you imagine such incompetence on their part? Does that sound like something the prosecution would say?

He wasn't charged, she was. He didn't have to refute any charges, and as has been stated here several times, the crown did not address allegations of duress because it did not deem it relevant - as the Supremes agreed in their judgement.

I'm not saying that there aren't reasons to doubt, I'm saying, however, that it's much more than a "she said" scenario - the Supreme Court obviously is above making their rulings on such criteria.

The Supreme court did make a ruling, they ruled that her defense of duress would not stand. They just chose not to have her tried again after being aquitted twice.

[Canuckistani]

Since we've never heard his side of the story before, probably good that we do:

The problem, as Ryan sees it, is that as the court considered whether Nicole Ryan was telling the truth about her husband punching holes in the walls and throwing things at her, no one asked him.

He was not called to testify at Nicole Ryan's trial. He had been subpoenaed, but never interviewed by the Crown. He was on the witness list so he arrived at the courthouse on the first day of her trial, but could not sit in the courtroom due to a standard witness exclusion order.

So, he says, he sat in the parking lot the whole week, never far from his cellphone, waiting for the call to take the stand, to refute what his ex-wife was saying. He wanted to tell the judge that Nicole Ryan was under no duress from him, that they were living apart and he was in a new relationship.

He was not the one on trial, but he wanted to defend himself and tell the court he believed his ex-wife had no valid reason for trying to hire a hit man.

The call never came.

The Crown, he says, told him they didn't need him because the case was a "slam dunk."

"She was arrested for trying to hire a hit man," Michael Ryan says the Crown told him. "She was on video, audio, excellent quality, we got her exchanging cash with the undercover RCMP officer. That's just simply illegal."

But the judge accepted Nicole Ryan's story and acquitted her, and so the narrative about Michael Ryan's "reign of terror" was born, getting recycled at each new level of court without ever hearing from the man himself.

Ryan says he just wants his side of the story to finally be heard.

"I've been painted a monster basically just because she's trying to get herself out of hot water," he said in an interview Tuesday with The Canadian Press. "The allegations are completely false. They're all lies."

None of Michael Ryan's claims have been proven in court

One of the Supreme Court justices disagreed with his colleagues, saying he would have ordered a new trial for Nicole Ryan. Justice Morris Fish noted Nicole Ryan's "uncontested evidence that (she) considered for seven months having her husband killed, paid a 'hit man' $25,000 to do the job and, when that failed, attempted twice more to arrange for her husband's demise."

Ryan was granted sole custody of his daughter after psychological assessments were done on both parents and the verdict was not favourable to Nicole Ryan.

"This psychologist is the only person that has investigated the whole situation between myself and Nicole," Michael Ryan said. "(She) basically reported that Nicole was exaggerating her concerns about me."

The RCMP said in a statement that it is looking at the court decision and Nicole Ryan's comments about contact with the police.

"Mrs. Ryan has made a lot of claims about what we did and did not do and we're reviewing that," Sgt. Alain Leblanc said.

Michael Ryan said the RCMP did contact him many times. When Nicole Ryan would call to say her husband was stalking her, the RCMP would find him in his living room, 200 kilometres away, he said.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-whose-ex-wife-tried-to-hire-hit-man-says-courts-got-it-wrong-1.1125724#ixzz2IvYzXVeh

[Guest American Woman]

He wasn't charged, she was. He didn't have to refute any charges, and as has been stated here several times, the crown did not address allegations of duress because it did not deem it relevant - as the Supremes agreed in their judgement.

Of course he wasn't under trial, but you don't think it would have helped the prosecution to be able to refute her claims of abuse?

The Supreme Court doesn't agree with his lack of testimony at all, as I previously posted.

The Supreme court did make a ruling, they ruled that her defense of duress would not stand. They just chose not to have her tried again after being aquitted twice.

I realize that. But the Supreme Court ruling and their ordered stay of proceedings was not based on "what she said;" it was based on a lot of testimony, cross examination, witnesses, and psychological examinations. The court accepted her claims of abuse based on a lot of testimony, cross examination, witnesses, and psychological examinations. The ruling wasn't about whether or not she was abused, but whether or not she acted under extreme duress when she hired the hit man.

Edited January 24, 2013 by American Woman

[Canuckistani]

The supreme court deemed that the defense of duress did not apply.

[Argus]

So the Supreme Court makes a decision and that means the woman is acting like a little girl? Why wouldn't the criticism be towards the Supreme Court

It was directed at the courts. I would have thought that was fairly clear...

[Argus]

That's an important piece of information - is it supported by a link ?

Also - the opposition wants an inquiry.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...an.html?cmp=rss

And unsurprisingly, her lawyer says she's not interested...

[Michael Hardner]

You're not very good at it, are you?

http://www.ctvnews.c...wrong-1.1125724 the interview but a summation of it.

I'm not good at what ? Providing a link ? Mine worked - here's yours:

Sorry, but the page you are looking for could not be found.

Try checking the URL for errors, make any corrections and then click your browser's Refresh button.

Your quote isn't quite good enough, anyway. Hopefully the inquiry will get to the bottom of this.

[Argus]

You might want to read what the judge and psychiatrists who interviewed her have to say.

About a man they've never even met?