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

[Canuckistani]

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

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

I've fixed that. You said you found nothing on google - couldn't have looked too hard. What do you mean my quote isn't good enough? For what?

Edited January 24, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Michael Hardner]

I've fixed that. You said you found nothing on google - couldn't have looked too hard. What do you mean my quote isn't good enough? For what?

It's not corroborated, or even given under oath.

I'd like to find out what happened here too, but I won't take either party's word for it as it is.

[Argus]

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

Yes, I looked and didn't find it.

Here it is.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/21/nicole-ryan-michael-ryan/

[Argus]

It's not corroborated, or even given under oath.

I'd like to find out what happened here too, but I won't take either party's word for it as it is.

Gee, really? I mean... really?!

I think that was the whole point of my OP. The judges felt sorry for this 'poor little girl' and so ignored the fact they were only hearing uncontradicted testimony from her. Because the judges were too stupid to understand the law, and because they were being paternalistic morons, they let her off the hook on a BS defense. Then the Supreme Court made it even worse by openly deciding her defense was nonsense, but letting her go free because she was just a poor little girl who had been too stressed and traumatized. They didn't want to give the poor little thing more stress by, you know, trying her for attempted murder.

[Canuckistani]

It's not corroborated, or even given under oath.

I'd like to find out what happened here too, but I won't take either party's word for it as it is.

Neither am I, but he makes some good points. I didn't know they were not living together when the supposed abuse took place - to me that makes it harder to believe her. I was willing to accept the judges findings that she was abused, now I'm not so sure. An inquiry seems like a bit much - the case is dealt with. The inquiry will either find that the cops and justice system don't always protect women properly, or that women lie during custody disputes. (Hello sexual abuse allegations) We already know those things, doubt if any radical new solutions will be found. Just a lot of money spend to produce a boilerplate report.

[Michael Hardner]

The inquiry will either find that the cops and justice system don't always protect women properly, or that women lie during custody disputes.

If you have so little faith in the system anyway, why even complain ? If it's really that bad, why aren't you just accepting it ?

[Canuckistani]

If you have so little faith in the system anyway, why even complain ? If it's really that bad, why aren't you just accepting it ?

I have little faith in an inquiry - they often just seem like a waste of money to prove nothing. And how would it alter the outcome of this case? The highest court has spoken, there's nowhere to go from here.

Why complain if things are bad? Did you really say that?

Here's the video I saw: http://ca.news.yahoo...-213000495.html

Edited January 25, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Michael Hardner]

I have little faith in an inquiry - they often just seem like a waste of money to prove nothing. And how would it alter the outcome of this case? The highest court has spoken, there's nowhere to go from here.

Why complain if things are bad? Did you really say that?

Here's the video I saw: http://ca.news.yahoo...-213000495.html

Well, I don`t think anything can be done for this case but for future cases, try to figure out the strategy that led to this. How political is it, for example ?

And - yes - complain if you think things are bad but if you're at the point of not even using the process because you have no faith in it, then you're past complaining IMO.

[Canuckistani]

Well, I don`t think anything can be done for this case but for future cases, try to figure out the strategy that led to this. How political is it, for example ?

And - yes - complain if you think things are bad but if you're at the point of not even using the process because you have no faith in it, then you're past complaining IMO.

I don't have faith that an inquiry will do much. I don't think the Pickton inquiry did much to further things. Some gestures about how they're going to be more aware of vulnerable women, it's just hand waving. I think the inquiry served to cover up as much as it uncovered. The Ian Bush inquiry was a complete cover up. The BC fisheries inquiry had no smoking gun, so no concrete changes could be proposed, Etc. They mostly just seem to be feel good exercises to make us feel we're doing something or a way for the govt to defer the issue until the storm has passed.

And what strategy? The police are well aware by now of domestic violence. It's also a very tricky area - there doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence in this case, so what are the police to do? As for the prosecutors of this woman, they dropped the ball, I think they know that. I doubt the inquiry would shed any new light there.

[Michael Hardner]

And what strategy? ... As for the prosecutors of this woman, they dropped the ball, I think they know that. I doubt the inquiry would shed any new light there.

Right - but "dropped the ball" is a do-nothing response. Putting it on the individuals allows this to happen again and again and again. Plus, it doesn't allow them to defend their thinking, or someone to at least explain the rationale.

[Canuckistani]

No, this isn't a systemic failure as far as the prosecution is concerned. Different prosecutors, different strategy. This is departmental failure in this case, I assume they know it by now. The prosecutors would not be punished for this, hell they can act in bad faith and still never face consequences - they didn't in this case. I don't understand why the prosecution didn't change strategy in the second trial, but what do I know.

[Argus]

No, this isn't a systemic failure as far as the prosecution is concerned. Different prosecutors, different strategy. This is departmental failure in this case, I assume they know it by now. The prosecutors would not be punished for this, hell they can act in bad faith and still never face consequences - they didn't in this case. I don't understand why the prosecution didn't change strategy in the second trial, but what do I know.

There was no second trial. There was an appeal, but an appeal only judges the previous trial and the legal decisions made. It does not allow any new evidence to be introduced or any previous evidence to be challenged (other than the judge's decision on accepting or refusing that evidence).