Quote:
Originally Posted by GFG#1
The judge saying that EMs testimony isn't credible because it was inconsistent from 7 years ago, but is fine with Hart, Howden testimony being hazy because they were intoxicated and the time that had lapsed. Both accuser and defendants should be held to the same standard.
|
I don't think that was the only reason why she thought the complainant lacked credibility. Inconsistent statements from the original police report, then the HC, investigation, then during the trial were part of it, but there were other things.
Her original statement didn't match the video evidence, like that they were buying her drinks all night and they knew how much she drank. Or when she admitted to acting in a way that communicated consent, or when she admitted that she wanted to stay in the room with McLeod after the events and was upset when he asked her to leave. The judge also had to advise her multiple times not to colour her testimony and that her "feelings" about what happened after aren't the same same as facts about what happened in the present. There were other things too that came up in the live chat, but the end of the day summaries always seemed to leave that stuff out.