Quote:
Originally Posted by dissentowner
Except it is. There is video evidence consent was given. That is submitted into evidence. You can debate if she was too intoxicated for it to matter but it is evidence none the less. You are letting your personal feelings about this get in the way. The defence has presented evidence that there was consent. What has the crown shown that there wasn't? The burden of proof is in the prosecution, they have not proven anything yet.
|
Uh, no, and you can cut that bolded #### out.
In Canadian law, consent cannot be given in advance, nor can it can be given retroactively. The video evidence is restricted to those two things, which is why it isn’t evidence of consent.
As I said, this has already been discussed and sourced so you can go back through if you want. But your position doesn’t even make logic sense. If there was video evidence of (valid) consent that was known to investigators and the representation of the victim and accused, there would be no charges and no trial.