Quote:
Originally Posted by taxbuster
Prosecutors are going hard at the bro culture..and it appears, with good reason. 18 identified inconsistencies in Howden’s testimony.
The Defence absolutely barraged EM over inconsistencies…and it seems odd that the Crown has to make application to cross their own (apparently reluctant) witness.
Maybe Gio or MBates (or another trial lawyer) can clarify why this is necessary/seems unequal?
|
There was an article yesterday, I think it was TSN but not certain, that explained that the inconsistencies are with statements in the Hockey Canada investigation, and it did not involve lawyers, which is why those were deemed inadmissible in pretrial hearings. Sorry I can't find the link today.
I am having a hard time with the I don't recall responses, I get it was a long time ago, but When Hockey Canada reopened the investigation, the players were threatened with a lifetime ban. I suspect that would have made them remember and since that was something they had been working hard towards for their entire lives, the events of that evening could have cost them that goal.
I do think it's plausible that they don't remember every detail, but it's unlikely that they don't have a decent recollection of the events that transpired. It seems like the only parts they don't remember are the incriminating parts. They all seem to remember she was egging them on, and all even use the exact same words for what she was saying.
Edit found the link
https://www.tsn.ca/rick-westhead-202...rial-1.2309194