Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
The walking in high heels business was contesting EM’s statement that she was too intoxicated to remember much of what happened that evening. The video footage of EM buying her own drinks and approaching the players was to contest her statements that they aggressively approached her and bought her the drinks.
These facts weren’t introduced as slut-shaming or to prove consent, but to challenge the credibility of EM’s statements and testimony.
If you read the full ruling (CTV has posted it), the judge ultimately ruled that EM’s credibility was undermined by the inconsistencies in her statements at different times, gaps in her memory, the frequency with which she referred to ‘her truth’*, and witness testimony and video evidence that challenged the version of events she offered.
* The Crown should be counselling witnesses to steer clear of that term. It reflects a sentiment around truth that’s common in some circles, but is unlikely to be persuasive with a judge in a court of law.
|
I've read the full ruling, and those little items were all shaded as behavioural cues. Because there's no way to assess impairment from someone walking in high heels, and any expert will admit that. So good on them for finding a way to introduce that otherwise irrelevant evidence I guess??