Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Requiring our law enforcement officers to themselves follow the law is not a "technicality." Sorry, it just isn't.
I don't think you're understanding the point of my post above--the point is not to compare what happened here to what has happened in past instances in Canadian judicial history. It's to point out that when we consider whether to exclude evidence because of a violation of a Charter-protected right, we don't consider whether a guy was guilty, or whether the evidence shows that he's, as you put it, "sick."
There's absolutely no doubt that Rafferty WAS a sick, disgusting and evil human being. But that is absolutely not the point. The point is always the evidence in the abstract. The judge made a discretionary call that the way this evidence came to be in the hands of the police was not lawful, and that its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Saying that the justice system should ignore violations of the law (what you call "technicalities") is not the answer. The answer is for investigators to be more circumspect in obeying the law while they are enforcing it. In a free society, that's not that much to ask.
And I'll say again: this outcome is better. I'm not sure why you can't understand that a guilty verdict without the use of evidence that is of questionable admissibility is better than one that uses that evidence and gives the accused another argument on appeal for getting a new trial.
|
As a side note, there is no doubt in my mind that there will be an appeal. I can't help but think that the jury convicted more on the emotion and on Rafferty acting like an a$$ during the trial then on the actual evidence.
It just seems to me that some of the revisits during jury description were looking for reasons to convict as oppossed to looking at the evidence of it.
To be honest the concern is with the woman changing her story during her testimony. Little in the way of forensic evidence of an actual sexual assault due to the condition of Tori's body.
A lack of evidence, a lack of reason (Because of the laptop being excluded)
Poor witnesses.
I have little doubt that this will go through a re-trial, and I have little doubt that with the lack of the laptop evidence in front of a different jury that the conviction becomes a lot less different.
The jury got it right thank god, but reading back through what happened in the trial, I'm amazed that it happened.