Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Interestingly enough, it was mentioned in court today that Jonah Gadjovich was incorrectly named by the accuser in the Hockey Canada settlement and somehow he was unaware that he was even accused until after the settlement was paid out.
|
It's interesting from a tactics point of view. While 99% of the time if you can hurt an alleged victim or opposing witness' credibility it would work in favour of the defense.
But in this regard, the actions themselves don't appear to be readily contested. Maybe Dube's lawyer will say he didn't slap her butt and receive a blowjob, but it seems more like the argument will be that the actions were consensual or at least Dube believed them to be.
So her telling her lawyer she thinks the men in the room were Steel and Gadjovich, or her lawyer incorrectly identifying them as such, doesn't really change the fact that the defendants still did what they are accused of. It's just appears to be a matter of consent.
And from that point of view with the defense being like "look she can walk in heels therefore she wasn't drunk" while also pointing out "she was so drunk she didn't know who she had sex with" seems to be counter-intuitive.
I wonder if the attorneys had any disagreement. Yeah, it's probably the right move from the defense, hurt the credibility, and you only need one person on the jury to think "she was just throwing names on the wall hoping for a payday" but maybe there's some room of it backfiring.