[bromgeksan]

Dino, you don't appear to be following the discussion very well. I've already stated that the Crown is not going to have an easy time of it here. My point is that your statements about false reports have no basis in what we've read so far.

[Timoxari]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
My point is that your statements about false reports have no basis in what we've read so far. False report was a misstatement on my part. I was responding to Imran's posty that she hadn't recanted.

[incizarry]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
False report was a misstatement on my part. I was responding to Imran's posty that she hadn't recanted. Quite frankly it is understandable. The news reports on this issue have been terrible. Significant details are omitted in the rush to talk about a pregnant teen behind bars. Sadly, it is the state of journalism these days.

I don't know if a proper statement was taken or not. I suspect if she were to land in legal difficulty herself it would be along the lines of contempt of court. She is unlikely to be very cooperative today.

[jstizzle]

Originally posted by Wezil


Quite frankly it is understandable. The news reports on this issue have been terrible. Significant details are omitted in the rush to talk about a pregnant teen behind bars. Sadly, it is the state of journalism these days.

I don't know if a proper statement was taken or not. I suspect if she were to land in legal difficulty herself it would be along the lines of contempt of court. She is unlikely to be very cooperative today. As long as she keeps control of her emotions and gets some sound legal advice she can probably get away with not providing any meaningful testimony AND not getting prosecuted herself.

[attractiveweb]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


As long as she keeps control of her emotions and gets some sound legal advice she can probably get away with not providing any meaningful testimony AND not getting prosecuted herself. I agree. I just can't see a Crown pursuing a charge against her in view of the backlash.

[DoctoNilsonDen]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's vey difficult to conduct research on small countries who are so much like a big country, but from what I can tell the laws regarding this issue are very much the same. a) Canada is not a particularly small country. #36 in the world by population. #9 by GDP.

b) Again, the laws are pretty different in the details...

[new-nickname-zanovo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


a) Canada is not a particularly small country. #36 in the world by population. #9 by GDP.

b) Again, the laws are pretty different in the details... Due to the nature of information often provided in 911 communications, it is highly
recommended that all domestic violence calls be taped and disclosed to the investigating officer
and Crown prosecutor. 911 recordings will often obtain the following types of valuable evidence:
���� Spontaneous utterances made by the suspect, victim or a child witness
���� Name and address of an independent witness so police can interview and obtain a statement
���� Confession by suspect (any statement against interest)
���� Recording of crime in progress (threats, shouting, furniture breaking)
���� Evidence of victim who was strangled/choked (hoarseness, loss of voice).
45
911 audio recordings can be admissible as original evidence – simply to prove the call was made.
It discloses what was said, by whom, and the full dramatic effect of certain spoken words. It can
also be used simply to refresh the witness’ memory; in either case, the hearsay rule is not
offended.
More importantly, a 911 recording can be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule for proof
of the truth of its content. In which case the evidence can be admitted as a spontaneous utterance
or Res Gestae – a traditional exception to the hearsay rule - as proof of the truth of the contents
(and not merely to attack the witness’ credibility), or pursuant to R. v. B. (K.G.), a principled
exception to the hearsay rule - as proof of the truth of the contents (and not merely to attack the
witness’ credibility).26
To ensure that the proper information http://www.justice.gov.ab.ca/crimina...V_Handbook.pdf

[lidersontop]

Okay, Kid, I give up. Keep pretending you know better than the lawyers and folks with strong knowledge and background in law and domestic violence prosecution. Clearly you know everything there is to know far better than anyone else, so there's little point in disagreeing with you.

[Fvmfrctt]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Okay, Kid, I give up. Keep pretending you know better than the lawyers and folks with strong knowledge and background in law and domestic violence prosecution. Clearly you know everything there is to know far better than anyone else, so there's little point in disagreeing with you. Try addressing the evidence.

[Aswdwdfg]

Originally posted by TheStinger
However in the abscence of any suggestion that the complaint is made up the victim is not compelled to go on the witness stand. I have an issue with this. If you are going to demand the use of my tax money to summon the police and involve the courts b/c you have been assaulted, I damn well expect you to testify.

[BqTyG9eS]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Thats because you haven't been subjected to domestic abuse for years and don't understand the courage it takes to go to court But you see that is the conundrum the women's groups have created. They pushed for "zero tolerance" wrt the laying of charges but are now saying "Go ahead and lay the charge every time just don't expect the victim to assist". It is absurd.

[ultramDoctoo]

I'd like to get both of them in jail. They're menaces to society.

[Dreqsqse]

I understand WHY she's in jail, but I don't agree with the reasoning. Given that she did not commit any crime, I don't think it is reasonable in a liberal society to hold her in jail. Order her to testify, yes. Hold her in contempt if she doesn't show and THEN jail her, yes. But until that occurs, I don't think this case is at the level of importance to the State to justify pre-emptive imprisonment for a witness ...

[saturninus.ribb]

So you disagree with the entire concept of material witness warrants?

[Gabbavnf]

A material witness warrant is a wrrant for the detention of a material witness to a crime.

She's a material witness, and is obviously demonstrating a proclivity toward non-cooperation with the Crown. The Crown visited a judge and he granted them the right to detain her. I don't see the problem here. She's being detained for a well-defined period of time (until the guy's trial) on a legal warrant obtained through proper means.

[LarryRda]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
She's a material witness, and is obviously demonstrating a proclivity toward non-cooperation with the Crown. The Crown visited a judge and he granted them the right to detain her. It looks like this was the case.

Riva [Mowatt's lawyer] said Mowatt never received a subpoena before she was detained by police. But she conceded that the Criminal Code allows warrants to be issued when there's evidence that someone is evading a subpoena or that they might not respond to a subpoena if it were to be issued.

I don't know what that "evidence" was but it was strong enough to convince a judge.

[kathy]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
A material witness warrant is a wrrant for the detention of a material witness to a crime.

She's a material witness, and is obviously demonstrating a proclivity toward non-cooperation with the Crown. The Crown visited a judge and he granted them the right to detain her. I don't see the problem here. She's being detained for a well-defined period of time (until the guy's trial) on a legal warrant obtained through proper means. I'm saying that, if it weren't for Wezil's above posts, I would disagree with the detention of a witness in this particular instance because it is not an adequately serious crime to justify the detention. If this were a murder trial or a Mob trial or something like that, then I'd agree - but a simple domestic violence charge is inadequate. Certainly you'd agree that holding someone in jail because they need to testify at a case regarding someone smoking weed would be excessive, yes? I have the same opinion here... for me the line is higher than simple domestic violence.

In any event, this argument is moot because she clearly violated various actual laws and therefore belongs in jail