21 April 2009

The Canadian Justice System

Apparently... it's not about truth...

Frank D'Angelo was found not guilty Tuesday of sexually assaulting a longtime friend's daughter by a judge who nevertheless said the former brewery owner is "probably" guilty.

Hamilton said there was little evidence for him to consider other than the two stories.

"I am faced with one witness against another," he said in delivering his verdict. "But the issue before me is not whose version of events is true," rather whether a reasonable doubt was raised.
**********

FROM THE COMMENTS: The Judge might think he's guilty...

...but CC lickspittle "Liberal Supporter" knows who's really to blame...
Yeah, you despicable scumbag... blame the victim.

And don't stop there, Libby... explain to us some more, how having sex with the child of a "longtime family friend" is just fine with you.

Unbelievable.

Or is it?

Remember "Liberal Supporter's shtick" before he had the stones to use his actual drive-by trolling identity?
Good grief... who are these freaks?

*


44 comments:

Neo Conservative said...

*
[full text follows]

Judge says former brewery owner 'probably guilty' of sexual assault, but acquits himThe Canadian Press

Frank D'Angelo was found not guilty Tuesday of sexually assaulting a longtime friend's daughter by a judge who nevertheless said the former brewery owner is "probably" guilty.

The now 22-year-old woman accused D'Angelo of grabbing her, stripping her and forcing her to have sex in a hotel room in June 2007.

D'Angelo, who turns 50 this week, maintained the sex was consensual.

On Tuesday, Justice John Hamilton said he found the evidence of both D'Angelo and his accuser credible. But in handing down his ruling, Hamilton added D'Angelo "may be" or is "probably" guilty of the crime.

Outside court, D'Angelo's lawyer, Gary Clewley, dismissed the judge's comment and stressed that his client had been acquitted.

"We're out here on the street … and that's what really matters," Clewley said.

"A guy was found not guilty and in this country it means he didn't do it."

D'Angelo, the former owner of Steelback Brewery who once employed disgraced Olympic sprinter Ben Johnson to pitch his juice company's Cheetah energy drinks, said it had been a long two years.

"I'm sorry to everybody that we all went through this and I'm glad that it's over and hopefully it's over for everybody," he told reporters outside court.

"I would appreciate you guys use a little decorum ; I'm a little emotional."

D'Angelo testified during the one-day trial that the sexual encounter with the woman less than half his age, whom he had known since she was a child, was the "biggest mistake" of his life. He maintained it was consensual.

"I told the truth and justice was served," D'Angelo said Tuesday.

Court heard that the woman, from Aurora, Ont., met D'Angelo for lunch that day in hopes of landing a job as an events co-ordinator at the Steelback Grand Prix, which the brewery was sponsoring.
Woman testified she asked D'Angelo to stop

Both she and D'Angelo testified that after lunch they went up to his hotel room. She said she went into the bathroom and when she came out he was on the bed. She alleged he positioned himself on top of her and raped her, even as she was pleading with him to stop.

It lasted about an hour, she testified, and afterward he masturbated and took a shower while she remained in the room and got dressed.

The only injury she testified she received was a bump on the head from D'Angelo allegedly pulling her hair.

D'Angelo, meanwhile, said the woman laid beside him on the bed and kissed him, then they had consensual sex. He testified he never forced her to have sex with him and didn't pull her hair.

Hamilton said there was little evidence for him to consider other than the two stories.

"I am faced with one witness against another," he said in delivering his verdict. "[But] the issue before me is not whose version of events is true," rather whether a reasonable doubt was raised.

Hamilton said he was left with reasonable doubt and therefore delivered a not guilty verdict.

D'Angelo has gained significant public exposure by appearing in ads for Steelback and D'Angelo Brands, a juice and energy-drink maker. Johnson appeared in ads with D'Angelo for Cheetah Power Surge, proclaiming: "I Cheetah all the time."

D'Angelo sold his majority stake in both companies in November 2007, and both companies have sought protection from creditors.

In February 2008, a judge approved a deal whereby a numbered Ontario company owned by D'Angelo's family would purchase D'Angelo Brands.
*

Anonymous said...

So what is your point Neo? You say it isn't about "the truth" so how do you determine which of these two people is really telling the truth, heck it is evtirely possible that both are not being coompletely truthful here too,...

I agree with the judge that the guy is most llikely guilty, but most likely guilty is only good in Civil Court when going after damages, and monitary damages is a motive for lying as well. Six of one or a half dozen of another.

Anonymous said...

sorry for the typos, Neo, typing on my micro kepboard

Anonymous said...

The justice system is not about truth; it's about proof.

If you can't prove it, the truth is irrelevant. I expect that is what the judge was referring to when he noted the lack of evidence to remove reasonable doubt.

JCK

Neo Conservative said...

*
so... you folks are good with what this judge just did?

here we have a case where the judge states he believes he is addressing a rape victim... but he then, in essence, publicly f@cks her over a second time.

absolutely no incentive here for any woman to report being raped... unless, perchance... her attacker provides her with video of the event.

think you might be a little less dispassionate here... if this was your own daughter?

*

Anonymous said...

'Probably' is not good enough to convict. However, I have a problem with the comment of the defense lawyer, "A guy was found not guilty and in this country it means he didn't do it."


If the guy did it, he did it. A guilty or not guilty verdict has no bearing on whether or not he actually did the deed, only on whether or not it can be and has been proven. A person is NOT 'innocent until proven guilty', they are 'presumed innocent until proven guilty'. There is a large difference, the first refers to objective reality, the second refers to attitudes.

rabbit said...

Anon:

You are correct. They don't bring down a verdict of "innocent" because they're not trying to determine if he's innocent. They are trying to determine if the evidence is strong enough to determine that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

But it's not about proof but evidence. Proofs are for mathematics.

langmann said...

I have to disagree, neo. It would not be the first time a woman has lied for some reason or other.

Heck, I have met people with mental diseases who can tell a completely plausible story of rape and abuse from either their father or brothers which turns out later to be completely impossible (ie: no contact due to divorce).

The whole thing sounds suspicious. That being said we need proof. Did she go to the police right away? I din't know all the details about this case.

Moral of the story: Do not go to some guy's hotel room alone.

Do not take women half your age to a hotel room if you are not planning on sex but working on business.

Both ask for trouble.

liberal supporter said...

think you might be a little less dispassionate here... if this was your own daughter?-
My own daughter would not have remained in the room while her rapist took a shower.

My own daughter would not have accompanied her rapist out of the hotel after the rape.

My own daughter would not have got in her rapist's car after the rape.

My own daughter would not have waited until a day later after talking with her friends to go to the police.

All these provide plenty of reasonable doubt, in a "he said-she said" situation with no other evidence.

Balbulican said...

The principle of "reasonable doubt" is actually not exclusive to the 'Canadian Justice System". It's the basis of pretty much every "justice system" in the Western world.

Patrick Ross said...

My own daughter would not have remained in the room while her rapist took a shower.

My own daughter would not have accompanied her rapist out of the hotel after the rape.

"My own daughter would not have got in her rapist's car after the rape.

My own daughter would not have waited until a day later after talking with her friends to go to the police.

All these provide plenty of reasonable doubt, in a 'he said-she said' situation with no other evidence.
"

See, that's the liberal supporter that we all know and have contempt for.

I guess no one ever taught ls that when a woman says "no", that means "no".

See kids, there's this thing called "date rape" that ls apparently needs to acquaint himself with, wherein a woman is raped by a man she knows -- as in this case. Often, if happens within the confines of a dating environment -- thus the name "date rape", but often occurs in the course of an otherwise ordinary interaction.

The psychological studies conducted of women subjected to date rapes generally find that afterward these women are confused about their experience. Often, they'll exhibit some behaviour uncharacteristic of other forms of sexual assault -- such as remaining in the same place with their assailant, or even seeing their assailant again at a later time.

This behaviour does not make any sex that happened within that context consensual. Generally, the law is quite clear: when the woman says no, that means no.

To suggest that behaviour afterward that is generally the result of confusion is proof that the woman in question was not raped should be considered offensive to nearly anyone in their right mind.

On top of that, Gary Clewley is wrong. A "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean that his client is innocent, it means that the crown apparently could not prove its case. That doesn't make D'Angelo any more innocent.

Or does ls suddenly think he's Johnny Cochrane?

liberal supporter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Neo Conservative said...

*
well, thank you "liberal supporter"... you're kind of the catmeat kinsella of the roaming troll posse aren't you?

hey, balbully... you forgot to tell us how you feel about having sex with the child of a "longtime family friend".

you're good with that too?

*

Neo Conservative said...

*
i can't actually believe you went there... oh champion of the compassionate, intellectual leftosphere.

yessiree... the mask just keeps on slipping... we learn everything we need to know about slimy, venom-filled, misogynistic "liberal supporter".

where's your hahahahahah now?

-- deleted, yet again --

*

*

Balbulican said...

'hey, balbully... you forgot to tell us how you feel about having sex with the child of a "longtime family friend". you're good with that too?"

Uh...no. Why on earth would you ask?

Patrick Ross said...

Come on, Neo, let liberal supporter speak.

I truly want to know what he has to say about the extent to which he's revealed what a worthless piece of human garbage he is.

In fact, I have a question for him:

liberal supporter, are you in favour of discrediting rape complainants based on past sexual behaviour? Yes or no?

Neo Conservative said...

*
why would i ask?

well, balbully... if you're fine schmoozin' with a guy who constantly refers to women as the "dumb cuntitude"... why wouldn't you be just as fine with the sentiments espoused by your shopworn fellow lefty "liberal supporter"?

and patrick... until libby decides to man up & apologise for constantly interrupting other people's conversations with his silly, little trolls... he is png here.

*

liberal supporter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Neo Conservative said...

*
sorry, libby... no apology, no go.

say hi to all the boys at "canadian cesspool" for me. i'm sure they feel your pain.

-- deleted, yet again --

*

liberal supporter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Patrick Ross said...

"You make yourself look sillier and sillier with your petulance"

This coming from a guy who just came down on the wrong side of a date rape verdict?

I believe you were asked a question, ls. Do you favour the use of rape complainants' past sexual behaviour against them in court? Yes or no?

liberal supporter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Neo Conservative said...

*
"liberal supporter says... waaaaaaaaaaahhhhh... i'm important too" --

yes, yes libby...

i guess, in actual fact, i should be flattered having you monitor my every single word.

from here, it seems to speak to a lack of purpose on your part... but maybe where you come from, that's what a real man does, right?

-- deleted, yet again --

*

Balbulican said...

"if you're fine schmoozin' with a guy who constantly refers to women as the "dumb cuntitude"..."

By "schmoozin'", do you mean, "occasionally posting on a blog operated by"?

In your view, does posting in comments mean endorsement?

You've noted, no doubt, that I'm posting in your comments? And in blogs by Right Girl, Sentinel, SDA, Louise, and others I loathe?

And of course, you've posted in MY comments?

Any further stupid mock-correspondences you want to posit as an alternative to actual grown-up discussion?

Neo Conservative said...

*
well, bully... if this vile piece of shit showed up at my house, i wouldn't sit there and talk with him... i'd toss him out on his ass.

you go ahead and make nice... it's a free country.

just not my style... sorry.

*

Patrick Ross said...

Vile is certainly the word for it. You should see this. He actually suggests that anyone who suggests that women are often confused in the wake of a date rape are merely being "sexist".

Too bad psychological research into date rape victims confirms that this confusion is quite often present in the wake of a date rape.

What an ignoramus.

Balbulican said...

Neo, sorry, but you're making less and less sense here.

"Make nice"??

I don't know who this person is. He/she has never commented on my site. I have never responded to him/her.

What in God's name are you talking about, "make nice"??

I raised ONE substantive point in this thread - the notion that you are characterizing the notion of acquittal on the basis of reasonable doubt as a failure of the Canadian judicial system. I pointed out that it's actual a core principle of virtually every western juridical system.

Your response since then has been a bizarre series of attempts to associate me with a blogger I don't know whose views you find distasteful.

If you have NO interest in actually discussing the ideas that you raise, tell me. If all this is simply an excuse to exercise an inclination to insult, tell me. I'll stop wasting both our times, seriously.

Neo Conservative said...

*"balbully says... a bizarre series of attempts to associate me with a blogger I don't know whose views you find distasteful." --

oh bully...

some obscure "distasteful blogger" that you have no knowledge of... that's how you're gonna play this?

you can't even take a position on a noted anti-semite... who constantly refers to women as "dumb cunts"?

really?

you're kidding, right?

*

Patrick Ross said...

My god this is too good to be true. First, ls suggests that the confusion many women experience after a date rape is the result of them being drunks or druggies.

Then, when it's pointed out to him that this is false, he tries to instead argue that the confusion is the result of dating.

This despite the fact that date rape isn't strictly related to dating. It's also known as acquaintance sexual assault. My dear lord what an ignorant... what's the word I'm looking for... oh, right.

Twatwaffle.

Balbulican said...

"you can't even take a position on a noted anti-semite... who constantly refers to women as "dumb cunts"? really? you're kidding, right?"

Sorry, you had a question about my position on a noted anti-semite that I missed? I thought you were interested in discussion the Canadian Justice System (as per the title of your post) - what did you want to know about my "position" on "noted antisemites"?

As for folks who refer to women as "cunts" - are you referring to Mahmood, who's the only person to use that term at Stageleft so far this month?

Neo Conservative said...

*
well, bully... you craven dissembler... asked and not answered... yet again. it's been pretty entertaining watching you frantically try to dance around it.

in the end, you just can't bring yourself to disavow cc, can you? yet another shining example of the compassionate, intellectual left.

thanks for playing.

*

Balbulican said...

So...you were talking about Mahmood when you referred to foul mouthed folks who refer to "cunts"? Because he's the only who's done it at Stageleft.

"well, bully... you craven dissembler... asked and not answered... yet again."

My dear friend: you've asked me ONE question. ONE. Here it is.

"you forgot to tell us how you feel about having sex with the child of a "longtime family friend". You're good with that too?"

I responded: "Uh...no. Why on earth would you ask?".

Sorry, what question, specifically, did I fail to answer?

Since, however, you hold with mandatory response, I'll ask you: does your posting on my blog indicate your agreement with everything I've posted?

Neo Conservative said...

*
yeah, sure bully... you just wanna have a conversation, right?

dance, dance, dance...

*

Balbulican said...

Summary:

I answer your question clearly and unequivocally, and you dodge mine.

I address the question of Canadian Justice, and you veer off into auto-trolling your own-thread.

Mahmood sprays my blog and yours with the word "cunt", but you're suggesting I'm "okay" with it.

Perhaps saddest of all: you can't point to a single thread on your entire blog that doesn't follow that pattern - a thread that provides an example of actual, reasoned discussion.

I like this. I used to hang out at Sentinel's because he exemplified so many of the things I enjoyed about - well, a certain kind of blogger. But I think you're my new fave.

Neo Conservative said...

*
sorry, bully... simply claiming you have answered my question doesn't make it so.

and, hey... i'm your "new fave"? i'm so flattered.

if you choose to join the exalted ranks of canadian cesspool, liberal supporter, ti-guy, zorpheus, kevron, etc... and become a full-time troll here... that is certainly up to you.

it's pretty amusing having all you gomers trying to refute my my every word... while simultaneously spinning how utterly inconsequential i am in your lives.

knock yourself out troll... it's what you dopes do best.

*

Balbulican said...

"simply claiming you have answered my question doesn't make it so."

Quite right. That's why I quoted the question, then quoted my answer. I guess you missed that. Here it is again.

"My dear friend: you've asked me ONE question. ONE. Here it is: "you forgot to tell us how you feel about having sex with the child of a "longtime family friend". You're good with that too?"

I responded: "Uh...no. Why on earth would you ask?".

And of course, I then asked which question, specifically you were looking for a response to. At that point you kind of wandered off in that weird CC free association abuse thing.

A small suggestion - don't repeat a lie you've already been caught on.

Neo Conservative said...

*
sorry, balbully... you're not driving the bus here...

quote on...

"well, balbully... if you're fine schmoozin' with a guy who constantly refers to women as the "dumb cuntitude"... why wouldn't you be just as fine with the sentiments espoused by your shopworn fellow lefty 'liberal supporter'?"

"if this vile piece of shit showed up at my house, i wouldn't sit there and talk with him... i'd toss him out on his ass."

"you go ahead and make nice... it's a free country."

"just not my style... sorry."
...quote off.

dance, dance, dance.

*

Balbulican said...

That was a "question? Wow. Sorry, I mistook it for a last ditch attempt at personal extrication from a thread you successfully led into inchoate drivel.

But since you ask:

"if you're fine schmoozin' with a guy who constantly refers to women as the "dumb cuntitude"...

(Sorry, need a bit of clarification. Since you and Mahmood are the ones talking about "cunts" here, and since Mahmood is the only person currently using the term on my blog, who are you talking to? And by "schmoozin" - sorry, are you using some personal definition of this word? (e.g., is Mahmood "shmoozin"' when he posts obscenties on my site? What exactly do you mean?)

"... why wouldn't you be just as fine with the sentiments espoused by your shopworn fellow lefty 'liberal supporter'?"

I've responded to that too, I think. I don't know Liberal Supporter, never met him/her, and since you're removed most of his/her posts, I'm not really sure what "sentiments" you're inquiring about.

Here's an idea. You want to know what I think about some idea? Ask. That's how grownups do it.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"balbully crows... I like this. I used to hang out at Sentinel's because he exemplified so many of the things I enjoyed about - well, a certain kind of blogger. But I think you're my new fave." --

yup... conversation... that's why you're here.

poor little lonely troll.

*

mahmood said...

Balbull, stuck on Mahmood, wails...

"since Mahmood is the only person currently using the term on my blog"

but Balbull, I plagiarized "it"..
maybe give-up another thread on Mahmood plagiarizing your BFF the CynicBoy's favorite term.

"my blog"...odd that, I was under the assumption that Stooge was the site owner of StoogeLeftBunker and you were just a contributor...musta missed the memo?

Balbulican said...

Heh. So...there WASN'T, in fact, a coherent question in all that?

No problem.

mahmood said...

Balbull, still stuck on Mahmood comments(I guess)...

"No problem."

No, of course there isn't a problem, no sireee, not a problem...heh.

Now about this StoogeLeftBunker ownership...you the silent partner?...heh heh.

Balbulican said...

'I was under the assumption that Stooge was the site owner of StoogeLeftBunker and you were just a contributor...musta missed the memo?"

Musta. Or maybe it was written in English?

mahmood said...

Musta, mustard, english, balbullshit?...you da owner?...of the site that is.