Monday, 26 May 2014

JUST THE FACTS they played out in court. (blog 65)

I have made complaint several times about Timothy Stonhouse A.K.A, MR Hamburgler both to the authorities that govern the conduct of attorneys in Alberta and even made reference to him several times throughout my blogs. I was content to leave it where it lies until what I found out today as i was requesting that my files to be preserved for future litigation and review upon the request of an attorney who is well versed and knowledgeable in cases of deep corruption within the system and his name we will leave out of this.
From court transcripts I will show the level of unethical behavior of this attorney, his outright lies to the judge, in fact judges and bringing in other attorneys to hide his actions and thus confusing the issues so that most didn't really know what was going on.
Timothy Stonhouse became my attorney after I was charged and much as to at his mercy as to anyone else s, I believed in this person that he would not only defend myself in a court of law but was also convinced he believed in my innocence and asked me to trust him and i gave it to him. What a god awful mistake but what choice did I have, I was in jail and he talked a good game. He told me that I needed to be willing to go to the psychiatric ward for a 30 day assessment to access my mental well being, thus to prove that mentally I was sane and incapable of such a heinous act that I was accused of.  I did as he requested and as far as I know through that and the future dealings with my "court appointed" psychiatrist, for the last three years I have passed all tests and in fact there is little doubt in his mind that I was innocent. See the following links.

Friday, 16 May 2014

Corporal Dozois of the RCMP and the boss of the other crooked minions. (blog 64)

This is the boss now and one would imagine that any and all evidence goes through him as well as making any decisions to destroy evidence, final say before any charges are laid. He is the Corporal and the other three's boss. As such, he is the only one trusted to represent the crown at a bail hearing in front of the justice of the peace. I did have that bail hearing right at the station over a TV screen.
 In that hearing he introduced the charges and the statements as well as field notes and general reports. Among all of that he also throws in a few other things to convince the Justice of the peace that I shouldn't be released and this is what he adds in. " I instructed constable Folk to conduct a cautioned interview with Mr Harms, Mr harms became agitated to the point that the interview was to be concluded, however he did admit to ripping off all of her clothes to teach her a lesson" He also adds that I had pointed a gun at the officer and stated that at the given time they cannot determine if it was real of not ( a gun that was also years later was  admittedly to have been destroyed!. No charges were laid and not so much as a photograph exists of said firearm) He also goes on to say that while I was in booking, that I had admitted ,confessed to a murder decades earlier!. I cannot imagine a more outlandish thing for him to say other than for the reason to convince the J.P not to grant me bail.  Yet he wrote this in a report as well and where I have never been charged nor investigated for murder, no single lawyer challenged his claims in court, let alone the presiding J.P.That being said, there is no small reason why I was denied bail and till this day he has been insulated and never had to answer for any of this. Additionally, where he makes his claim about the said interview with constable folk. Folk himself writes in  his general report, signed and dated and (we have them) constable folk says exactly this " I was instructed by Corporal Dozois to conduct a cautioned statement with Mr Harms, Harms became very upset and refused to answer any of the cautioned statement questions, no statement with any evidence was provided"!

As you can see, he purposely falsified statements to achieve his goal which was to have myself denied bail and prevent my release. I assure you that any claim I speak about his conduct is backed by His own paperwork, signed,dated,  all originals (from the disclosure package with their badge numbers). As I came by way of all this information having requested a full copy of the disclosure used amongst themselves and within the Law courts, egregiously against me. Additionally throughout the years, all these falsified statements were read into the record at court.
Let's hear what he has to say the day before my trial was to begin where his evidence was supposed to be filtered and questioned as to truthfulness, yet poorly done as it should have been much more thorough. Incidentally, The judge ruled his comments, statements not submissible due to his own lack of credibility, stemming from the outlandish claims that made no sense. ( Like I said though, they didn't go far enough).
The following is cut and copied from the transcripts, I posses the originals in full. Q stands for 'Question and A for answer.The side numbers are just their way of logging it by their determined timeline.

The other officer involved...Constable MC Donald. (blog62)

This is the other officer involved in the recovery of DNA samples taken from me, specifically fingernail clippings. Yet another Constable to give testimony full of "I can't remember", "don't recall". Even when reading from his own notes he would ad lib like "yet I didn't document that". His testimony as you will see often comes into direct contradiction with the others at key moments. Its clear that they were in collusion to subvert justice and it was a clear injected joint effort to show and continue to show bias towards myself even with the knowledge of just so many self admittingly false allegations by herself against a wide spectrum of persons.But don't take my word for it, let's listen to his words said by himself.

Q is for question and A is for answer

12 LARRY ANDREW McDONALD, Sworn, Examined by Ms. Joyce (Voir Dire)


14 Q MS. JOYCE: Officer, in 2011, in May, you were a constable. Are you

15 still at that rank?

16 A Yes.


18 Q And you were in the Athabasca detachment; is that right?

19 A Correct.


21 Q I understand on May 21st of that year you became involved in an investigation with

22 Mr. Harms; is that right?

23 A Yes.


25 Q Did you know Mr. Harms before that date?

26 A No.
See this is where the lies begin. I do firmly believe that this is the same officer that was involved with my accuser and I when we brought Angel to the RCMP because she had claimed that a boy had raped her. After one hour of interrogating her, he comes out and pulls me from her mother and privately asked "what is it you're seeking to accomplish here?" I said " she lies so much, I'm not sure what is true and what she says to be untrue anymore. If she has in fact been raped then I need to know that so I can get her the proper mental health help. If she wasn't then I need to know that as well so we can address the proper issues within mental health". He went back in and not long after that he came out and privately spoke with her mother and I . He says "I went back in and told her that I wanted her to come with me, she asked where?. He said to the next room for a lie detector test because your dad needs to know the truth". He goes on to say "she then readily admitted that she was lying and that She and her godmother's son were drinking while everyone was in bed (adults) and that they had agreed to have sexual intercourse, that it hurt and she asked him to stop and he did"

Thursday, 15 May 2014

Evidence officer Constable T.J Parker. (blog 61)

This constable was the one ordered by Corporal Dozios to gather all the items on the evidence seizure list as well as to take "crime scene photo's" and gather the DNA samples from myself and my accuser as well as to gather the DNA samples taken at the hospital, take charge and log it all. I find no real fault in this man other than he was sucked into an infused scene of corruption and undoubtedly had to side for his fellow officers and boss. However I seriously doubt that he was a full team player but a mere pawn caught in Corporal Dozios' machine.

It must be noted though that this man was the one designated to conduct all aspects of "the crime scene" and one should wonder just where all of that information, Photographic evidence, seized clothing, DNA swabs, Rape kit and My fingernails have gone? There are many questions left unanswered and I will address them however one question I fear will never be answered and I will reiterate this fear later at the end, the question is this. under what possible ethical, moral context could it be that such an important witness be only asked a handful of questions by the defense attorney? I have a very good memory and was physically present on this and every day. The questions put to him by my attorney DO NOT adequately reflect that of the transcripts. In fact there was a much larger dialogue and there was some very serious statements made by this officer, very damaging to the R.C.M.P. Yet somehow they magically disappeared from the transcripts. I attempted to obtain an audio version of said trial and that attempt was blocked by the presiding judge. I was told,"even if you get the audio version, unless we transcribe them they are not a legal reflection of what took place" Wrap your head around that. Q stands for question and A for answer.

1 THE COURT CLERK: Are you comfortable taking an oath on the

2 Bible.




6 THE COURT CLERK: Take the Bible in your hand and state your full

7 name for the Court spelling all your names, please.


9 THE WITNESS: It’s Thomas John Douglas

10 Parker. T-H-O-M-A-S, J-O-H-N, D-O-U-G-L-A-S, P-A-R-K-E-R.


12 THOMAS JOHN DOUGLAS PARKER, Sworn, Examined by Ms. Joyce (Voir Dire)


14 Q MS. JOYCE: Constable Parker, how long have you been a member of the

15 RCMP?

16 A Nearly five years.

Clearly another officer with some time under his belt.


18 Q Where have you been stationed during that period of time?

19 A The majority of my time in Athabasca and I’m currently stationed in Hinton, Alberta.

Deciphering the lead constables testimony....Constable Leo Folk. (blog 60)

In the end there are so many un reconcilable differences from his field notes or the lack there of, changing testimony, evidence not turned over to the crown, evidence destroyed, no interview tapes...nothing. One of the most amazing things is that as a society we are conditioned to believe authority figures such as a police officer and until I interjected into his testimony most people would have thought it all legit and that is a scary thing because how many people go to prison for this type of corruption. I just figured that I would play Captain obvious for those that cannot decipher his bull shit and I trust you were able to see it. In the end, on may 21,2011 while suffering a back injury yet preparing for a long weekend that was well deserved. Police came into my home, aided by my special needs step kid and arrested me for the unthinkable. They denied my rights on so many levels its unconscionable. They also aided my accuser and her mother to abscond with everything I own, including my home. I was removed from my long time community and friends, vilified and even court ordered to stay away from my home and town. All 4 police officers testimony is the same, this guys is just the worst and yet "He was or wasn't in charge" Till this day we still don't really know even though he testified he was, yet so does his boss. My accuser at the time of accusing me had done so to 7 others and in each and every time she has either admitted or was found untruthful. She went on to accuse 2 others after myself, Pauline and Ryan Gambler to which she didn't show for court but instead wrote a letter recanting and their charges were dropped.
Yet they proceeded against myself. A day after all 4 were questioned, a judge ruled them "not credible" and in the first day of trial I was granted an acquittal just shortly after lunch due to a confession in front of my 12 witnesses to the circus (the jury).
You would think that they would leave me alone but no and throughout all the time waiting to clear my name they hounded me, further falsely charged me only to drop nearly all of those charges that were made in order to harm my credibility before the trial. Till this very day March 18,2015 I still face battles in court and have went into hiding in yet another town and have had no police interactions since my acquittal.

Saturday, 3 May 2014


Even in the end they are extremely contradictory and prejudice towards a man accused of sexual assault. The entire reason why I elected to go in front of judge and jury and  NOT judge alone is because over the course of YEARS, judges clearly were ignoring the facts of this case and they acted in prejudicial ways towards myself. My accusers story changed under oath a total of four times! that from her original statement, to her examine in chief by the crown in the preliminary enquiry on June 2012, to her cross examination by defence at the continuance of the preliminary enquiry in December 2012!. That being said her story or, facts remembered, not remembered, or out right caught in lies, admission of lying more then a few times during past court dates and in fact at trial that day....all have lead and or proven to me that I needed witnesses to prevent what was being entertained by too many judges and with out those 12 witness I believe that I most definitely would have been found guilty, however wrongful it mattered not to them.
This whole matter is overwhelming to comment on but I'm going to cut and paste some highlights from trial transcripts from my accuser, the RCMP and the judge. Most important is the judges comments at the end, as far as i believe, they were prejudicial and un called for that has left a bad taste in my mouth. Here we go. the following is a direct line of questioning from my attorney to that of the constable who was lead in my arrest.(The possibility of a publicity ban is never been made clear to me...and it should never be illegal to talk about a crime that happened to you and false accusations, with holding evidence, perjury, falsifying evidence, destroying evidence, constitutional infringements and or blatant disregard ,and false imprisonment are all crimes! I would like to remind everyone that throughout this ordeal I am THE ONLY one NOT found telling lies, cleared by DNA and every other way, the Only one to attend every court date.)
the following is from constable Folk, and what he said at trial, of particular note is not so much that he acknowledges that I had a back injury but what is , is what he says in line 38 and 39. The man is such a lier, what" previous dealings" did he ever have with me? I challenge him to prove that I ever had any " previous dealings " with him!.  

13 Q Do you have a recollection of Mr. Harms complaining about the handcuffs?
14 A I’ll just check in my notes. I do have a recollection of him complaining about his
15 handcuffs. I did make note that the handcuffs were on the first notch and Mr Harms
16 had very large wrists.
18 Q So they were on there pretty tightly?
19 A Well, first notch would mean that they were on there as loose as they could possibly
20 be.
22 Q But on his wrists, that’s pretty tight; no?
23 A I do have here he has large wrists and there’s no other option than to be on the first
24 notch.
26 Q And you were aware -- and perhaps I’ll -- you were aware that he had had a back
27 injury shortly before that?
28 A Mr. Harms did -- I do recall him telling me, not on the day of this incident but in
29 previous dealings with him, that he did have a back injury, yes.
31 Q And certainly he told you he was on medication?
32 A Yes, he did.
34 Q And certainly he’s in handcuffs behind his back?
35 A Yes.
37 Q For someone that size that’s probably not particularly comfortable?
38 A No.

This was asked because if needed in future discussion at trial my medical file dated, signed and stamped that very day, would show that i was physically incapable of such a level of violence towards my accuser. And it was used to prove that I had been without my rights to contact a lawyer and remained in handcuffs for a few hours. As the Corporal in this case said in his field note book as well as official report and directly questioned about by my attorney.This is what Corporal Dozois had to say.

40 Q Now, one of the things that you had mentioned was a concern for Mr. Harms in light
41 of the fact that while he was at the station he was going to be handcuffed while he
1 was awaiting the further investigation, I guess, the forensic investigation. Is that
2 correct?
3 A Yes.
5 Q And one of the reasons is because -- and I’m going to put this to you -- that he was in
6 excruciating pain while he was cuffed given his size?
7 A He was in pain, yeah.
9 Q If I suggested to you that in your notes you used the term "excruciating pain", would
10 that assist you at all?
11 A It would.
13 Q So you would agree with me that at the time of the events, in your view, this situation
14 was such that Mr. Harms was in an incredible amount of pain which is why you
15 wanted to expedite the process as much as possible?
16 A Yes.
18 Q And to your knowledge, this stemmed from not only the fact that he was a large man
19 in handcuffs, but because he had a back injury?
20 A Yes, that’s correct.

Another I would like to show is this. My lawyer was asking about if the constable had ever been accused and or brought in front of the RCMP review board, we only knew of the one incident in which excessive taszering was involved but he lets us know of an additional two cases and yet cannot even remember the one to which we refer to by way of newspaper article, ruling of the court. Here is their exchange.

19 Q Now, in 2009 you were the subject of some disciplinary proceedings with the police;
20 that’s correct? There was an investigation into your conduct?
21 A I’m sorry, regarding?
23 Q My recollection is that it may have had something to do with a tasering incident?
24 A Yes, I believe in 2009.
26 Q And so as a result of that was there any findings made by the disciplinary board?
27 A I’m sorry. Just so that we’re clear, can you shed more light on the incident?
29 Q Pardon me?
30 A Which incident was this that I was --
32 Q I guess I should clarify. Has there been more than one incident where you’ve been
33 involved in disciplinary proceedings?
34 A I have been the subject of complaint on two different incidents, yes.
36 Q Can you advise us as to what those two occasions are.
37 A One of the incidents was an incident that happened at the multiplex in Athabasca
38 where I deployed pepper spray on a crowd of people. That was one. It went to the
39 review board and a use of force -- an RCMP use of force, they investigated that and
40 found that I was more than justified in that. And then I was -- I’m sorry. I don’t
41 recall the tasering incident you speak of.
2 Q Okay. Well, then what -- when you said there’s a second one, sorry. If it’s not the
3 tasering one, then what’s the second one?
4 A There was one where I was involved in taking an individual down to the ground as a
5 result of a police chase that ensued and he made a complaint that I used excessive
6 force, and that also was clear to the board that it was acceptable force.
8 Q Just give me one second. I might be able to give you some details that will refresh
9 your memory.
11 I will leave my questions at that, Officer. Thank you for your time today.
12 A Thank you.

So this is now the lead investigator, we now know of three complaints and yet he was cleared by his bosses, that being what it is and more then likely will be in my case as well because of the corrupt system in which they operate . I would like to bring another issue to light. Folks boss, Corporal Dozois and Folks " backup" that night. On May 20,2005, Corporal Dozois and another underling constable were involved in a situation that because of mishandling of an accident scene a bus load of oil workers were T- boned by a semi truck!. The results were tragic and ended in the deaths of 6 people, one left brain dead and comatose and another 20 plus seriously injured. It ended up becoming the largest joint venture lawsuit against the RCMP ever recorded in Alberta history. Dozois was a police man for 5 years at the time, in his testimony he blamed his underling, the transport truck driver, poor radio communication, faulty equipment. It is unsure if he himself was a general constable at the time but it is suggested and then we know for sure he was given a full Corporal position shortly there after to the detachment in the community i resided in. Being one of two officers at the scene of multiple fatalities, injuries because of your negligence, one would have to say there would be a certain level of stress, maybe PTSD? , although we have no way of knowing his medical file, or psychological file...i don't think it a reach to suggest that he was under particular duress on may 21,2011, just a day after the anniversary of a severe tragedy to which he was Keenly responsible and the fact that I too was an oil worker and had done quite well for myself at the time.Quoted from the news article regarding his testimony at that trial (incidentally, the trucker was fully acquitted)" there was bodies spread everywhere over a 25m radius, all I could do was take mental notes of the scene and call for as much help as possible" This sound like a man stressed to you? From his testimony I'll offer this.

 15 RICHARD DAVID DOZOIS, Sworn, Examined by Ms. Joyce (Voir Dire)
17 Q MS. JOYCE: Corporal Dozois -- and I apologize, I’m probably going to
18 butcher your name several times -- but how long have you been a member of the
19 RCMP?
20 A About 14 and a half years.
22 Q Where have you been stationed during that period of time?
23 A Eight and a half years in Morinville and the remainder of the time, 4 and a half years,
24 in Athabasca.

I don't know about the rest of you but i am sure someone who has been policing for 14.5 years should not only know how to add but should know how long they have been a police officer, let alone senior management, unless he lost a year and a half out of his memory, sub continuously blocking out say a serious incident in which 6 people were fatally wounded, another left brain dead and 20 plus more seriously injured, becoming the largest lawsuit in your provinces history?
This whole issue with police I'll continue on in a different blog, for now I will move on to some highlights of my accuser behaviour and actions.

 6 Q And do you recall what time of the day that would have been?
7 A 9:00’ish. I can’t remember.
9 Q And what happened after you woke up, Ms. s?
10 A I -- I don’t feel like answering this question.
12 Q Can you explain why you don’t feel like answering that question, Ms. ts?
13 A Because I can’t remember.
15 Q Ms. ts, do you remember speaking to a police officer in May of 2011?
16 A Yes.
18 Q Do you remember providing a statement to that police officer?
19 A Yes.
21 Q If you had an opportunity to look at that statement, might it refresh your memory as to
22 what happened?
23 A Yes, it would.
25 MS.JOYCE: I’mgoing to ask for -- make an application for
26 that opportunity, Sir.
28 MS.HAYES: Toreview her statement?
30 MS.JOYCE: Yes.
32 MS. HAYES: Certainly, Sir. If she wants to review her
30 MS.JOYCE: Yes.
32 MS. HAYES: Certainly, Sir. If she wants to review her
33 statement, the defence doesn’t object.
35 THECOURT: Thankyou. Please proceed.
37 MS.JOYCE: Thankyou.
39 A I’m -- I’m tired.
41 THECOURT: Pardonme?
2 A I’m tired.
4 MS. HAYES: Sir, perhaps if she’s going to review her
5 statement, I don’t think my friend is going to propose to lead her through line by line
6 through her statement or anything to that effect, so perhaps the appropriate thing to do
7 here is take a brief break to actually allow Ms. s to read the statement.
9 THE COURT: Any thoughts on that?
11 MS.JOYCE: Iwould --
13 THECOURT: Idon’t know how long it is. I can’t tell.
15 MS.JOYCE: It’s not very long, Sir, and I would appreciate
16 that opportunity for her to look at her -- at it right now without, I guess, the pressure of
17 the Court and the jury.
19 THECOURT: Well, we have only been here for a relatively
20 short time, but I think it does make sense at this juncture to adjourn briefly. If you’ll go
21 with the jury officer, we’ll invite you back in presently. Thank you.
25 THECOURT: Thankyou. So shall we adjourn briefly

So once again she claims she cannot remember, if it happened (and it didn't) you wouldn't forget. But you are now in a front seat to see her master manipulation begin and her taking control of the court room, leading people, adults by the bit in their mouths. Accept for those 12 witnesses ( the jury) like i said the outcome would have been different and as proof I offer the following straight from the transcripts....First though, did you catch line 39 and 2? "I'm hungry" Are you kidding me?
Moments into the start of a trial that was 28 months into the making, an 18 year old starts out by saying, " I can't remember and I'm hungry!", moments later complain "I'm tired". Unreal!

 1 Since Ms. s left us to review her statement, and I don’t have note of the exact time,
2 but the record will show, she has been given a room to sit in, and -- with the statement.
3 She has indicated some reluctance to read the entire statement. She’s indicated, more
4 fundamentally, a reluctance to come back into the courtroom, saying she’s tired, hungry,
5 words to that effect. I’m relying on the information I have been provided by Madam
6 Clerk on these points. Of course, I have had nothing to do with her personally. The --
7 and so the question is how we proceed in the face of this measure of reluctance.
9 MS. JOYCE: Yes.
11 THECOURT: It seems to me, Ms. Joyce, that while the
12 witness is in the midst of chief, and of course I’ll hear from Ms. Hayes on this point as
13 well, but it seems to me that you may well have an opportunity -- it may be appropriate
14 in these circumstances to give you an opportunity, if you wish to exercise it, to have a
15 conversation with your witness.
17 THE COURT CLERK: I’m sorry for interrupting, Sir. I see the witness
18 outside of the door. That’s her, I believe.
20 THECOURT: Unlessit’s her mother. Do they look alike?
22 MS.JOYCE: Yes,I believe that is her.
24 THECOURT: That’sthe witness?
26 MS.JOYCE: Yes.
28 THECOURT: Okay.
30 THE COURT CLERK: Should I bring her this way, or maybe she
31 wants to tell me something. I don’t know.
33 THECOURT: Ithink she should come around, Madam Clerk.
37 THECOURT: I’m going to -- let me just finish my train of
38 thought. It seems to me that there is at least a possibility that you could speak with the
39 witness -- not of course about her evidence, not about her -- the merits, but about her
40 apparent reluctance and what is it that’s -- that’s the problem. And then depending on
41 what you’re told, you could then consider your position. Now, I don’t know if that’s --
1 that’s my understanding based on not a lot of research or consideration, but it seems to
2 me that there is at least the possibility of that. There may be other --
4 All right. So for the record the witness has joined us in the courtroom absent the jury.

So this is what happened, why and how she got out of the secured witness room.

39 THECOURT: I have no doubt. Something just occurred to
40 me, though, that I do wish to address with counsel, and I wish to do so in the absence of
41 the witness. And so, Madam Clerk, thank you very much.
2 THE COURT CLERK: We’ll wait in the back, Sir.
4 THE COURT: Thank you. I don’t think it will take very long.
6 Imight have said something earlier. We know that apropos my earlier remarks before the
7 witness appeared in the foyer, I think of Courtroom 411, which is where we are, I was
8 surprised by that because I had the impression that she was in the back in a room, and I
9 frankly had thought it was a locked room, but apparently not. In any event, and I’m not
10 sure how she got out from the secure area into the public area, and what that made me
11 think or worry about is whether she spoke with anyone, and in particular, any other
12 witnesses who -- and in particular perhaps her mother, who may have been outside the
13 courtroom waiting to be called to give evidence. So that’s on my mind. It may have
14 already occurred to either one or both of you. What I don’t know is how to deal with it,
15 and it’s perhaps something that could come up in cross. That’s your call, Ms. Hayes. Or
16 it’s perhaps something that I could deal with directly with the witness. I’m just not sure,
17 frankly, but I wanted to make sure that you know what’s on my mind in terms of -- in my
18 role as trying to ensure trial fairness.
20 So whether or not you’ve thought about that, any thoughts now about how we might
21 ensure -- if you think it’s a concern at all, how we might ensure that this complainant
22 didn’t or wasn’t influenced in the evidence she is now giving by having any interaction
23 with anyone in the public while she was in the midst of examination-in-chief?
19 Q One question for you --
20 A Yeah.
22 Q -- before we bring the jury back. Before you came back into the courtroom this
23 morning to continue giving your evidence, I note that you moved from a room in the
24 secure area of the courthouse, in other words, the room that you have been coming in
25 from -- the hallway you have been coming in from, you managed to get from there out
26 back into the public area of the courthouse.
27 A What do you mean?
29 Q So my understanding is that you moved from the room that you -- where you had been
30 reviewing your statement? You recall being placed in a room and reviewing your
31 statement during a break?
32 A I didn’t leave the room. I asked for someone to bring me my purse.
34 THE COURT CLERK: But then the second time --
38 THE COURT CLERK: -- Ms. Roberts, you came out here before I
39 came to get you.
41 A Yeah, because I was done reading my statement.
2 Q THE COURT: Okay. So just bear with me for a moment. So
3 you did leave the room and you went back to the outside part of the courthouse in a --
4 what I’m calling the public area just outside this courtroom, correct?
5 A Yes.
7 Q Okay. Now, when you did that, and before Madam Clerk came to get you again, did
8 you have any dealings at all with your mother, Samantha Roberts?
9 A No.
11 Q Okay. Did you see her in the public area of the courthouse at that time?
12 A No.
14 THECOURT: Allright. Anything further, Counsel?
16 MS.HAYES: Nothing,Sir.
18 MS.JOYCE: No,thank you.
20 THECOURT: Thank you. Those are my only questions.
21 Thank you very much.
23 Madam Clerk, at your convenience.
25 THE COURT CLERK: Certainly, Sir.
29 THECOURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be

Masterfully not only dodges their questions but plays stupid as to "just how she did get out of a secure witness room next to the judges chambers and manage to get back into the public area where her mother and RCMP officers are awaiting to testify! Yet not forced to give direct answers, or explanations for her actions, nor is she admonished in any way but rather it seems they coddle her. Let me ask what any of you think would have happened to me if I had escaped a secure area or got into where the public had no access and thus in her escape, actually opened up the public area to that which was supposed to be secured.
Here are some additional highlights of this tyrannical person. 

1 Ms. Hayes Cross-examines the Witness
3 Q MS. HAYES: Ms. Roberts, before in your
4 examination-in-chief, you had indicated that you had -- or, sorry, that Mr. Harms had
5 sort of an up-and-down personality, correct?
6 A Yes.
8 Q That’s probably a good way to describe the relationship in general that you had with
9 Mr. Harms, right? It was sort of up and down?
10 A Yes, it was.
12 Q Because you two, particularly in perhaps, say, the last two years leading up to the
13 event that brings you to court, in those two years you had been fighting an awful lot,
14 hey?
15 A Yes, we have been.
17 Q And you had been fighting about a variety of things?
18 A Yes.
20 Q You were fighting --
21 A I’ll give you some examples. School, not doing chores, and those were the two I
22 can -- those are the two main ones that we mainly fought about. I was okay with
23 dealing with it when he was sober, but when he would get drunk, he took things to a
24 different level and --
26 Q So you have given us --
27 A -- punched me --
29 Q So you have given us some examples. School?
30 A Yeah.
32 Q And the problem with school is that you weren’t going, right? You were cutting class
33 and missing classes, and that was a problem?
34 A Yes, it was because --
36 Q Because he wanted you to go to class?
37 A Yes, he did.
39 Q And then you --
40 A But I was skipping school because I was finding it difficult dealing with a stepfather
41 who wouldn’t admit to nobody that he was an alcoholic, so I tried telling my teachers,
1 and many people looked at me like I was screwed in the head.
3 Q So there was some issues at school, not going to school. There was issues at home not
4 doing chores, correct?
5 A Yes.
7 Q Okay. The other thing that you would have fights about is some of the people you
8 hung around, hey?
9 A Yes, but that does not necessarily mean that they’re going to rub off on me, for
10 instance.
12 Q One of the things --
13 A I have made mistakes just like everybody else. Everyone is human, so. . .
15 Q One of the things that Mr. Harms didn’t like is that you were hanging out with people
16 what that were older than you, correct?
17 A Yes.
19 Q And so there was a couple of those people, there was Daylin (phonetic) --
20 A Yes.
22 Q -- a friend of your mom’s?
23 A Yes.
25 Q Yeah. And so he thought she was too old for you and would be frustrated when you
26 would hang out with her?
27 A Yes.
29 Q And then there was another boy, Jason Kramer, correct?
30 A Yes.
32 Q Okay. And Jason was 21 when you were 15, right?
33 A Correct.
35 Q And he lived next door to you?
36 A Correct.
38 Q And your -- or, sorry, and Mr. Harms didn’t like you hanging around with
39 Mr. Kramer?
40 A No.
1 Q He thought it was an inappropriate relationship?
2 A Yeah, but I was able to relate with him because he is living in the same situation that
3 I’m living in, very similar, but, you know, except his family publicly shows that
4 they’re drinking alcohol, that they are drunk; whereas, Joseph, to the regular person --
5 regular people would not say I’m drinking. I’m an alcoholic. But, no, would rather lie
6 about it, sweet-talk people.
8 Q But you would agree with me that was something that you guys fought about
9 sometimes?
10 A Yes.
12 Q Okay.
13 A I was living in an abusive household like Jason. Jason’s parents were alcoholics, too.
14 Joseph is an alcoholic.
16 Q So when you testified at the preliminary inquiry and said that you did not fight about
17 friends or boyfriends --
18 A He wasn’t my boyfriend.
20 Q -- you were mistaken. Okay. So when you said that you did not fight about friends,
21 you were mistaken in your testimony at the preliminary inquiry?
22 A Can you explain that again, please?
24 Q Okay. So you have testified before today, right, in other hearings about these matters?
25 A Yes, but I wasn’t dating him.
27 Q Okay.
28 A He just didn’t like the fact that I wanted to date.
30 Q No, and that’s fair --
31 A And I’m not necessarily meaning an older person. I was -- for a fact, Joseph knows
32 this, too, that I was wanting to date someone by the name of Nicolas Reid, not Jason
33 Kramer. And Nicolas went to school with me. He was a nice boy -- is a nice boy.
35 Q Okay. Well, why don’t -- why don’t we just focus on the question I’m asking you.
36 Okay? Let’s start with you have testified before at previous hearings about these
37 matters, correct?
38 A Yes.
40 Q Okay. And --
41 A But I was not dating Jason Kramer.
2 Q Okay. But that was my question, so I -- I listen when you were asking a question, so
3 when I ask you a question, you listen to me, too. Okay?
4 A Okay.
6 Q Okay. So you have testified on two previous occasions about these instances?
7 A M-hm.
9 Q And one of those occasions was in June of 2012? Does that sound about right in
10 terms of dates?
11 A June?
13 Q When you first testified at the preliminary inquiry when you were appearing in
14 Athabasca, that was in June of 2012?
15 A Yes.
17 Q Okay. And then the second time when you came back for another day of testimony,
18 that was in December of 2012; does that sound about right?
19 A I don’t remember.
21 Q Okay. Was there snow on the ground the last time you testified?
22 A Yes, there was.
24 Q Okay. So you would agree with me it was sometime in the winter?
25 A Yes.
27 Q Okay. So when you were at those hearings, you were cross-examined by another
28 lawyer; that’s correct?
29 A Correct.
31 Q And one of the questions she asked you was whether or not you had disagreements
32 with Mr. Harms about friends or boyfriends, correct?
33 A Correct.
35 Q And you answered to her, no, that wasn’t something you fought about?
36 A Well, he didn’t regularly bring it up. It wasn’t on a regular basis day-to-day thing, so
37 I thought we were -- we were talking about day-to-day things that I went through,
38 so. . .
40 Q But certainly today you’re prepared to concede that that was something that you used
41 to fight about is friends, who you hung around with?
1 A Yes.
3 Q And you were having a lot of issues at the time. There was problems at school.
4 Mr. Harms would have to go to school quite regularly to talk to your principal or to
5 talk to teachers because you were having a pretty hard time there?
6 A Well, if I’m not raised in a proper environment and there is alcohol available all the
7 time, then how am I supposed to act, like a fucking perfect kid?
9 Q Okay. So --
10 A It wasn’t easy --
12 Q -- to answer my --
13 A -- living with him.
15 Q To answer my question --
16 A Yes, we did.
18 Q -- you were having problems at school?
19 A We did.

Amazing that yet again, so many times she can dodge question, through back a blame of some sort on myself. accepting no responsibility for any negative actions, just blaming me, saying key things to which I believe she was coached on. She was able to get away with it at the preliminary hearing so why not now, and the court seems very relaxed in letter her do this.

17 Q Okay. So to your knowledge you were aware that Mr. Harms had a back injury,
18 correct?
19 A How does this relate to what happened to me?
21 Q I’m just going to ask you some questions. Okay? And then you’re going to answer
22 the questions. So to your knowledge he had a back injury, correct?
23 A Why do I have to answer this question?
25 Q Because I’m asking you the question, and unfortunately while some of these things are
26 not fun to talk about --
27 A Yeah --
29 Q -- you have to answer them.
30 A -- I guess, correct. And his name is actually Dr. Deutscher --
32 Q Pardon me?
33 A -- to be correct.
35 Q Okay.
38 Q So because of his back injury, sometimes Mr. Harms couldn’t do things around the
39 house, correct?
40 A No, that’s not correct. Joseph was the type of person to lift things, heavy, whether or
41 not he’s hurt. So he’s that kind of a person who even if he was hurt, he still did --
1 still went to work. He was that kind of a person.
3 Q So he never imposed upon you to ask you to do some stuff for him and bother you --
4 A No.
6 Q -- with things like lifting?
7 A Not at all.

Once again the back injury and yet as directed , my attorney never asked her "did you go with Mr ---to the doctors that morning because he had difficulty walking and needed your help down the steep hill" She was there that morning, the one and only time and she never knew my doctors name! this again is the coaching that went on before trial by either RCMP or the crown because there is no way she knew his name and I can imagine something like he is saying this, you say this...

9 Q So ultimately when you get into a fight with Joseph back at the residence, you decide
10 you’re going to go back to see your mom at work, correct?
11 A Yes.
13 Q Now, one of the reasons that you were staying either at work or at home is that your
14 mom and Mr. Harms didn’t like you out on your own for big -- or for long periods of
15 time, correct?
16 A Yes.
18 Q Because you got into trouble when you were out on your own?
19 A Yes, I did.
21 Q So that was essentially why you had the two options -- you’re either at home or you’re
22 at her work?
23 A Yes, correct.
25 Q And one of the things that became a problem was --
26 A What became a problem for me, to be honest, is staying around someone who is
27 drinking and getting mad at me and frustrated; whereas my mom dealt with things in
28 a -- not in a delicate way at all, she did raise her voice, and she went about things in a
29 proper manner; whereas Joseph had no mannerism at all --
31 Q All right. And --
32 A -- in dealing with me.
34 Q And certainly I’m not disagreeing with you. It sounds like it was tense at your house?
35 A It was.
37 Q Okay. No one is disagreeing about that. So that’s why you end up leaving, going to
38 work with your mom, and Joseph wants you to come home, correct?
39 A Yes.
41 Q And one of the things he wants you to do is chores and stuff around the house?
1 A M-hm.
3 Q He wanted you doing something productive with your time?
4 A Yes.
6 Q Because when you were at work with your mom, you would usually just sit in the
7 break room and read the newspaper?
8 A Correct.
10 Q So ultimately when you get called back to the residence, you indicate that this time
11 instead of taking a cab you walk when you --
12 A Correct.
14 Q -- return home after leaving a second time?
15 A Yes.

Yet again, she is just belligerent at times with my attorney, cuts her off, accuses me of some type of abusive behaviour and or just seems to be able to duck or dodge certain questions. And the cab issue is important because in her original statement to RCMP she stated that after we got stuff from the store, we called a cab "but I walked home". And during the preliminary hearing she states that she walked home each time,in all actuality it was only the one time. Additionally there is this whole thing about it raining, it never rained. Where and why she says this I don't know and I have to question whether or not if she was on drugs that day.But lets listen to this play out at my trial.

10 Q So ultimately when you get called back to the residence, you indicate that this time
11 instead of taking a cab you walk when you --
12 A Correct.
14 Q -- return home after leaving a second time?
15 A Yes.
17 Q And you had indicated it was raining?
18 A Correct.
20 Q And it was raining pretty hard, correct?
21 A M-hm.
23 Q And at preliminary inquiry you testified that it actually rained so hard that you were
24 soaked through to all of your clothes when you were walking home.
25 A Correct.
27 Q Right. Is this something you have a memory of of how hard it rained?
28 A Kind of, yeah.
30 Q Yeah?
31 A Yeah.
33 Q Certainly you testified to it raining under oath at preliminary inquiry?
34 A M-hm.
36 Q And you have testified to that today?
37 A M-hm.
39 Q Are you aware that people can keep track of things like what the weather is like on
40 any given day?
41 A Yeah.
2 Q And so people get paid to do that as a living, they keep track of what the weather
3 looks like and they record it places?
4 A Correct.
6 Q And some of the places they record it are places like on the internet so everyone can
7 see what the weather was like on a particular day?
8 A Correct.
10 Q And so what I’m going to do, Ms. Roberts, is I’m going to provide something to
11 Madam Clerk that I’m going to get her to hand to you.
12 A Okay.
14 Q I have brought another copy for my friend as well. So just so that we’re sure we’re
15 working off the same document here, at the top of this document that I gave you it
16 says, Daily data report for May 2011?
17 A M-hm.
19 Q M-hm. And then on the left -- far left-hand side, you can see things like what day of
20 the week it was?
21 A Correct.
23 Q And then eight columns in, you can see one that says total precipitation --
24 A Correct.
26 Q -- across the top.
27 A Yes.
29 Q Okay. And so on May 21st, can you tell me how much precipitation there was?
30 A It wasn’t raining.
32 Q Pardon me?
33 A It wasn’t raining.
35 Q There wasn’t any?
36 A No.
38 Q Does that change your memory with respect to whether or not it was raining that day?
39 A Yes.
41 Q So now you’re changing -- are you going to change your testimony and say it wasn’t
1 raining?
2 A Nope.
4 Q You maintain that it was raining?
5 A M-hm.
7 Q Okay.
9 THE COURT: Ms. Hayes, I apologize for interrupting, but
10 some of the answers you’re getting are m-hm. Could I ask that you make sure that you
11 elicit --
13 MS. HAYES: Certainly.
15 THECOURT: --a yes or a no or a maybe from the witness.
17 MS.HAYES: Okay.
19 THECOURT: Justfor the record.
21 Q MS. HAYES: And so -- so we can be clear on that, I think
22 the last question I had asked you was that you’re maintaining that it was raining, and
23 you said m-hm, and I took that to mean yes, but I stand to be corrected.
24 A Correct.
26 Q Okay. So you’re saying, yes, it rained?
27 A No, it wasn’t raining.
29 Q No --
30 A But it was a difference -- it was a different day that we also had a fight. Sorry if I
31 was flashing back to when I had horrible incidents with Joseph.
33 Q So you are saying it wasn’t raining?
34 A Correct.
36 Q Okay. So when you had testified to that before, you must have been mistaken?
37 A Yes.

Having been caught in a lie again, she lashes out to mitigate that she is lying and accuses me of some immoral wrong. Yet wish these accusations it ridiculous, she was always sent to school, had access to a school counsellor ( whom she later accused of wrongdoing and that teachers contract was not renewed but that's another story). When she accused another boy of rape, I'm the one that took her to RCMP! if she was ever being abused in any way, don't you think that social services, school, RCMP, counsellors would have known this?

16 Q Okay. And that incidence, according to your previous testimony, was essentially
17 unexplained to you; you had no idea why he was coming into your room?
18 A I did know why. I didn’t feel like answering the past lawyer’s questions. So, yeah, I
19 started lying.
21 Q You were lying under oath last time?
22 A Yes.
24 Q Okay. So you understood in the last hearing it was important to tell the truth?
25 A Yes. I was tired, and I was hungry. What was I supposed to do.
27 Q Okay. So when you were frustrated, you’re prepared to lie under oath?
28 A Yes.
30 Q You mentioned today that when you’re in your bedroom, Joseph came in and grabbed
31 you by the neck?
32 A M-hm.
34 Q I’m going to suggest to you that he never grabbed you by the neck. Is that true?
35 A No.
37 Q When -- let’s see. So when you were testifying at the preliminary inquiry that took
38 place on June 4th, you were asked some similar questions to the one I’m asking you
39 right now. That’s fair?
40 A Correct.
1 Q And one of the questions was they had asked you to describe to the best of what you
2 can -- the best of your ability, okay, and you responded, He had my hand -- his hand
3 on my throat, no, kind of -- not on my throat, but gripping really hard on my chin, my
4 jaw, and gripping me really hard, and it hurt a hell of a lot. Do you remember making
5 that statement?
6 A Correct.
8 Q So you would agree with me you very specifically said he didn’t have your throat --
9 his hand on your throat?
10 A He did also have -- he had his hand on my throat and then he had it on my neck and
11 then my chin.
13 Q So when the prosecutor was asking you this question, and you said -- because this
14 was -- do you remember Mr. Mahon who asked you the questions at the preliminary
15 inquiry?
16 A No, I don’t.
18 Q Okay. I can give you a copy of the transcript if you want to have a copy of it in your
19 hand. Would that assist you?
20 A No.
22 Q Okay. So you recall making that statement, though, to Mr. Mahon?
23 A Yes.
25 Q Yeah. So, again, this is a situation where your evidence today is different than it was
26 previously.
27 A Nope.
29 Q You would agree with me that memories generally don’t get better with time?
30 A I disagree.
32 Q You think memories get better over time?
33 A M-hm.
35 THECOURT: Isthat a yes or a no?
37 A Yes.
39 Q MS. HAYES: It appears she said -- you said yes?
40 A Yes.
1 Q Okay. So you don’t think that when something is fresher in your mind when it’s
2 closer to the incident that your memory would be better?
3 A No.
5 Q Now, you have also described an incident where when he has you by the neck he also
6 has the fist to your temple?
7 A Correct.
9 Q And you would agree with me that based on what I have read you from your
10 testimony at the preliminary inquiry that wasn’t something you said to Mr. Mahon
11 when he asked you?
12 A I’m fully remembering what happened to me, and he also did that.
14 Q But these are memories that you have had since that time?
15 A Correct.
17 Q Okay. So they’re things that you have recalled later?
18 A Yes.

So she has now openly admitted to perjury in past court cases regarding this matter and in fact lying in front of the jury, at times her excuse for such behaviour is nothing more then being tired, telling them what they want to hear ( proof of coaching) and or because she is tired. And finally that memories get better in time....seriously? but that's her justification for once again, changing the story. It's not her fault, she just remembered now what happened 2.5 years ago. Looking back, there was never any evidence I was in her room, DNA cleared me, She claims I was about to have sex with her ( see original statement ) no pubic hair, no finger prints on her clothes, no bruises or even a red mark on her, nothing. And yet in court none of this evidence was ever introduced, they didn't let it get that far.

26 Q And the other thing that you have indicated is that -- today, is that he took off your
27 bra?
28 A Correct.
30 Q And you made a comment I wanted you to explain to me. You said, And he didn’t
31 take it off fast either. What does that mean?
32 A It means he took off my bra slow.
34 Q Sorry?
35 A It means he took off my bra slow.
37 Q Okay.
38 A Once it was unclasped, he slowly took -- pulled the straps down.
40 Q And you would agree with me this is another one of those things that you’re just
41 remembering today, right?

1 A Correct.
3 Q Because before that your evidence was that you had taken off your bra yourself. Fair?
4 A Fair.
6 Q Yeah. So this is another one of those things that has just come to your memory
7 today?
8 A Correct.
10 Q Do you remember what type of pants you were wearing that day?
11 A No, I don’t.
13 Q So you can’t say when they were taken off how many zippers or buttons or --
14 A No.
16 Q -- belts or anything he had to undo?
17 A No.
19 Q All of that is just a blur in your mind?
20 A Yes.
22 Q No details at all?
23 A No.
25 Q And you also can’t remember how -- whether or not your underwear and pants came
26 off at the same time?
27 A No.
29 Q Also a bit of a blur?
30 A Yes.

Seriously? In the evidence seizure list you will see that she turned over a "black pair of guitar hero pyjamas". I've never heard of pyjamas containing "zippers, buckles (suggesting a belt) and or buttons"! this was something she had said now different from her original statement and at the preliminary hearing under cross examination, "what did you change into?" "a black pair of jeans" yet this too was taken out of the transcripts and replaced with " I can't remember" my only proof of that is why would am attorney be questioning about a" buckle, buttons and zippers?" as did my attorney question her at the preliminary trial and subsequently was brought forward in the trial questioning. I confronted this head on the day after that hearing, demanded the transcripts and it wasn't there! yet i have my notes from that day in court and it shows me writing "WTF, where did the black jeans come from?" Again proof of their prejudiced attitude towards me. One of the reasons "we destroyed all the evidence" that came out in trial but was removed again as i was rather please to hear about the "black jeans" they covered up for their client as i know as well as you do that "black jeans" hell any jeans have steel zippers, buttons, as does a buckle on a there would be partial fingers prints on those items, hence they disappeared!. As does much of the evidence that clears me, that which I don't have reports on. But I might add though that other then her say so, there wasn't a shred of evidence, no breathalyzer, no RCMP interview video's, not a "crime scene photo, no finger prints, No DNA, no bruising on her person, no rain....nothing! And my story has been the same since day one and she has accused 11 people in a 5 year period, including two after she accused myself and in each and every case she has been found lying or has now admitted.

32 Q Yeah. Now, one of the things you have indicated is that you were screaming when
33 this was going on?
34 A I wasn’t screaming. I was crying very loud.
36 Q You don’t remember in your examination-in-chief this morning saying I was screaming
37 and screaming?
38 A I cried and screamed at the same time.
40 Q So you’re -- the purpose of you making these sounds, though, is you wanted to attract
41 the attention of your neighbours; that is correct?
1 A So that they would call the cops.
3 Q Yeah. So you were trying to be as loud as you possibly could?
4 A Yes.
6 Q And you’ve indicated today --
7 A I was screaming stop, if anything, and crying at the same frickin’ time.
9 Q I’m sorry, I had a hard time hearing what you just said there.
10 A I was -- I was screaming stop, and I was crying at the same time.
12 Q And you indicated you were screaming so much that at some point he had to put his
13 hand over your mouth?
14 A Correct.
16 Q Now, you would agree with me that’s another one of the things on the list that just
17 came out today?
18 A Correct.
20 Q Okay. And I just want to make sure we’re clear here. So there has been the two
21 times that you have testified at preliminary inquiry, but there was also a statement you
22 made to the police, correct?
23 A Correct.
25 Q Okay. So when we talk about these details that are just coming out today, you have
26 had not one, but two -- not two, but three times to -- three opportunities to tell these
27 things, right?
28 A Correct.
30 Q And they were not mentioned before?
31 A Correct.
33 Q And in all of those incidences you understood how important it was to be truthful?
34 A M-hm.
36 Q And in all of those incidences -- sorry. That was a m-hm. So yes?
37 A Yes.
39 Q Yes. And in all of those instances you understood how important it was to give as
40 much detail as possible so that you could assist the investigators and the prosecutors
41 with their job, correct?
1 A Correct.
3 Q And these were details that were just missed?
4 A Yes.
6 Q Now, would it be fair to say you don’t recall what time your mother was supposed to
7 be off work that day?
8 A I didn’t remember at the time.
10 Q Now, Ms. Roberts, you knew -- or you expected your mom to be arriving home
11 shortly when you were in your bedroom with Mr. Harms. That’s fair?
12 A Yes.
14 Q And you thought she could be home at any minute?
15 A Yes.
17 Q And while you don’t remember what time she was supposed to be home today, you
18 can’t say this was the hour she was supposed to be off --
19 A No.
21 Q -- you knew that she was coming home straight after work?
22 A Yes.
24 Q Yeah. So this morning you had some difficulty remembering some of these events,
25 correct?
26 A Yes.
28 Q Yeah. You told the jurors that you didn’t feel like answering the questions because
29 you didn’t remember?
30 A Correct.
32 Q That was a lie, wasn’t it?
33 A No, it wasn’t. I didn’t --
35 Q Well, you --
36 A -- I don’t feel like talking about this.
38 Q Well, that’s okay. So -- but when you said to the jurors that you didn’t remember,
39 that was a lie?
40 A Yes, it was.
1 Q Because you did remember?
2 A Yes.
4 Q And I’m going to suggest to you -- I’m going to suggest to you that the reason you
5 said you didn’t remember was because you didn’t want to have to testify here today.
6 That’s correct?
7 A Yes, that is because I didn’t want to fucking see Joseph.
9 MS. HAYES: Perhaps we should take a break, Sir.
11 THECOURT: Thatwould be appropriate.
13 Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We’ll take the afternoon break at this time.

Like I told my lawyer n this break, if you keep her on the stand and get her to directly answer question, she will break and confess....ironic that i used those very words and so does my accuser coming up.

2 THE COURT: Thank you very much.
4 Ms. Hayes.
6 Iapologize. We were going to make you stand all afternoon.
8 Q MS. HAYES: Thank you, Ms. Roberts. I’m almost finished
9 here. What we were talking about prior to taking a break was the fact that you were a
10 little reluctant to testify, and I’m going to suggest to you that this has been ongoing
11 throughout the proceedings, correct?
12 A Correct.
14 Q Yes?
15 A Correct.
17 Q Okay. You knew that you were required because you were subpoenaed to attend at
18 preliminary inquiry, correct?
19 A Correct.
21 Q And you knew you were supposed to be there. You were supposed to appear in St.
22 Albert?
23 A Yes.
25 Q And on that day the Crown was there, the defence lawyer was there, Mr. Harms was
26 there, but you weren’t there, right?
27 A Correct.
29 Q And you have given various reasons as to why you weren’t there. Fair?
30 A Correct.
32 Q You told the prosecutor that the reason you didn’t come -- well, let me rephrase that.
33 So you initially called the RCMP complaint line and say you have an appointment so
34 you can’t be there, correct?
35 A Correct.
37 Q Yeah. And when that doesn’t work, you have simply just didn’t come to court, right?
38 A Correct.
40 Q And then when you came to court at the preliminary inquiry, you gave some evidence
41 as to why you weren’t there, right?
1 A Correct.
3 Q You talked about being at a party out of town?
4 A I was.
6 Q Yeah. And drinking with some friends?
7 A Yes.
9 Q And ultimately everyone being too hung-over to drive you to court?
10 A Yes.
12 Q You would agree with me that you left town simply so you didn’t have to testify?
13 A No. I didn’t know court was the next day.
15 Q You didn’t know court was the next day?
16 A No, I didn’t.
18 Q You would agree with me you were in -- you were in court on June 4th before Judge
19 Myers. Fair?
20 A Yes.
22 Q And --
23 A I forgot the date. I didn’t realize that it was yes -- that it was -- the night I was
24 drinking, it was the next day. I didn’t realize that.
26 Q Okay. I -- well, it wasn’t the next day. Judge Myers told you on the record that you
27 were to be there--
28 A No, the day I was drinking at a party, I didn’t realize it was the next day. I even
29 called my mother and asked her, and she said court was today. Like, when I called
30 her when I was --
32 Q So it --
33 A -- drinking.
35 Q -- would be a surprise to you if I told you that your mother had no idea where you
36 were or why you weren’t at court that day?
37 A Yes, because when I got home I called her.
39 Q Okay. I’m going to show you a document -- and I have a copy for my friend as well.
40 Actually, I might only have --
1 MS. HAYES: Will you share mine? It’s just a copy of the
2 transcript.
4 Q MS. HAYES: My friend has kindly pointed out to me that
5 perhaps you and I just have had a bit of a miscommunication here in terms of what
6 her evidence is -- or what your evidence is. What I’m suggesting to you is that before
7 you took off to the lake, you didn’t tell your mom where you were.
8 A No, because I was 17.
10 Q So you didn’t tell her where you were?
11 A No.
13 Q Okay.
14 A But then I called her -- once I got home, I called her from our land line and I asked
15 her where she was. And she said she was in court, and I said, oh, court was today.
16 And I didn’t know. I was uncertain which day court was.
18 Q Okay. And I just want to make sure that we’re all clear about the timeline. On June
19 4th you were in Athabasca court in front of Judge Myers when he ordered you to
20 come to the continuation date. Yes?
21 A Correct.
23 Q And the continuation date was June 7th?
24 A I guess.
26 Q So three days later?
27 A Yes.
29 Q So despite how significant this event was to you, you forgot that you had a court date
30 three days later?
31 A Yes, I did.
33 Q Okay. I just want to make sure we were on the same page. I’m going to suggest to
34 you that the reason that you have not come to court when you have been required to
35 do so and why you have been reluctant when you were in court is because you want --
36 you didn’t want to have to testify, correct?
37 A Nope.
39 Q That’s not why?
40 A No.
1 Q You wanted to testify?
2 A M-hm.
4 Q Okay.
5 A But now I don’t want to anymore. I totally don’t care where -- which way this goes.
6 Ireally don’t.
8 Q Well, if you --
9 A As long as he’s gone and I don’t have to see his frickin’ face, I’m peachy. My day --
10 my life has been going real great up until today. So now that I have to see that
11 fucking cocksucker’s face, yeah, no. He can rot in hell.
13 MS.HAYES: Iwill end my cross-examination with that, Sir.
14 Thank you.

She is unfolding, caught in so many lies. Not understanding that this was the trial, the crown that often covered and lied for her on her behalf, is no longer there and they actually brought in a "special female prosecutor for my trial" and the one who mercilessly pursued me and made my life hell was now distancing himself from the case.!( and yes i know what I'm saying and have the proof as does that of my friends) she is over her depth, trial is much different then all the other circus events and where she played the ring master....Now there are twelve witnesses, individuals not corrupt by the state who are hearing this as it plays out.

28 Q And Ms. Hayes asked you some questions, and you indicated that you had not talked
29 about that before, so you hadn’t talked before about the accused having his hand on
30 your neck and a fist against your head. Is that fair? And it probably sounded
31 convoluted, but you agreed with Ms. Hayes that you had not said that to anyone
32 before?
33 A Correct.
35 Q Okay. You also agreed with Ms. Hayes that you talked --
36 A May I state a confession?
38 Q If I could just finish --
39 A I’m going to state --
41 Q -- some questions.
1 A -- my confession first. When court started, I didn’t want to put Joseph in jail because
2 Ididn’t feel like deeming somebody for doing wrong. I just was hoping he would just
3 stay away from me and my mother. Because I have known him since I was nine years

5 father-figure in my life, and I didn’t want to put him in jail because -- because he
6 cared about me a lot.
8 THE COURT: Do you want to carry on with your question,
9 Ms. Joyce.
11 Q MS. JOYCE: Ms. Roberts, I’m going to continue with the
12 question I started before your confession. And you agreed with Ms. Hayes that you
13 spoke at a preliminary inquiry in December 3rd of 2012 -- or December of 2012; is
14 that right?
15 A Correct.
17 Q Okay. I’m going to read to you from a transcript questions and answers, and I would
18 like you to listen to them. The questions are from Ms. Boisvert, and the answers are
19 from you.
21 MS.HAYES: I-- I just want to be careful, and I -- and I have
22 an objection to register. I just want to be careful that my friend is not leading an answer
23 out of the complainant. Certainly she is entitled to ask broad open-ended questions, but if
24 she’s endeavouring to elicit a particular response or get her to adopt something she is
25 saying, I think that amounts to a leading question and is prohibited, even in redirect, Sir.
27 THECOURT: Are you -- let’s have this discussion in the
28 absence of the jury.
30 MS. HAYES: Certainly.
32 THECOURT: Thankyou.
34 MS.JOYCE: Andthe witness.
36 THECOURT: Andthe witness, yes. Thank you.
40 THEACCUSED: May I ask is it possible I step out for a wee
41 bit? Yeah, is it okay if I step out for a bit?

One of the very few times I was ever allowed to talk in court. We just got the confession, but true to form it has been altered! Notice it? " 4 old, and him and I never got along a lot, but when we did -- I never had a", we did--??? i remember her saying i was a great dad, that I was leaving and she never had a father other then me....I also don't remember her continuing to be questioned, there was a break as she had totally broke down in her hands sobbing, the I remember them releasing her and I asked for a break, I too was teary eyed as it finally came out! while I went to the bathroom to wash my face, my lawyer stood by the door because my accuser and her mother were fighting and arguing in the woman's bathroom, my ex was staring at my lawyer with a death look and my lawyers actually made the comment " oh we are gunna play that game huh?". Court resumed and the following questions were asked of my accuser.

26 ANGEL ROBERTS, Previously Sworn, Re-examined by Ms. Joyce
28 Q MS. HAYES: Ms. Roberts, just before we took a break, I
29 began talking to you about a preliminary inquiry transcript, and I’m going to provide it
30 to Madam Clerk to provide to you. Oh. Thank you. Ms. Hayes actually has another
31 copy of it, and I’m just going to locate the portion that I wish you to look at.
33 THECOURT: Thankyou.
35 THE COURT CLERK: Page 71, Sir.
37 THECOURT: Thankyou.
39 Q MS. JOYCE: Ms. Hayes (sic), if you can start looking just
40 about halfway down that page and read the questions and answers that are there,
41 please -- not out loud, but to yourself
2 Ms. Hayes (sic), did you read those questions and answers? Oh, sorry. Ms. Hayes -- I
3 keep saying Ms. Hayes. Ms. Roberts, did you read those questions and answers?
4 A Yes, I did.
6 Q Okay. So that was on page 71 and the bottom half of that page?
7 A Correct.
9 Q Does it refresh your memory as to what you may have talked about at the preliminary
10 inquiry?
11 A Yeah. Yes, it does.
13 Q Okay. And in the context of the questions you were asked about mentioning a fist to
14 the head and a hand on your neck?
15 A Correct.
17 Q What can you tell the Court then about whether or not you have said that before,
18 whether or not you have said that the accused had his hand on your neck and a fist to
19 your head?
20 A Can you restate your question?
22 Q Sure. Perhaps if you could put page 71 in front of you and look at the portion that I
23 asked you to look at.
24 A What would you like me to tell you?
26 Q Those are all my questions. Thank you.
28 THECOURT: Thank you very much. May this witness be
29 excused?
31 MS.JOYCE: Yes,she may

 Its over...for this I spent a great deal of time behind bars, treated as a piece of shit, my home,money,pets and all my worldly possessions gone. Badgered by police, set up on additional charges that were later dropped. Its been 3 years in a few days and my life as I knew it still hasn't remotely gone back to normal. I have been extorted to pay enormous rent, borrowed from friends to stay at places I didn't want to be at but the courts demanded, else I could return to jail and await trial they said. I couldn't even dress appropriately for court due to my house arrest, nor even a hair cut....completely disheveled I get told the following the next day.

7 MS. JOYCE: It’s a situation where unfortunately one can
8 only take as much -- or can offer as much assistance as I can to a person and only as
9 much as they will take, but in this instance, My Lord, I am not going to be asking you to
10 put to the jury that they convict upon the evidence of Angel Roberts. I’m not sure of the
11 exact procedure to go through with that, but I can indicate that the other evidence that
12 was to be called by the Crown, now that the statements are excluded, I don’t think would
13 rehabilitate what has happened here, and I don’t propose to have the matter of conviction
14 put to the jury.
18 THECOURT: Iunderstand. In terms of procedure, I have had
19 some -- and I don’t know if this is a case for a directed verdict or not. If it were, it
20 would be essentially -- and I -- and I’m not sure if it’s on a consent basis or not. I have
21 had some occasion to direct a verdict. That’s the only reason I mention it. There may be
22 another way of dealing with this.
24 Ms. Hayes, do you have any thoughts about what the next step is if the Crown is
25 essentially closing its case and not seeking a finding of guilt on any of the counts?
27 MS.HAYES: I actually am not familiar with what the
28 appropriate procedure would be. I am open to the Court’s suggestion. Then perhaps if
29 the Court has had experience with it and can advise us what has been done in the past, we
30 can perhaps discuss it and see if there is something we agree on.
32 MS.JOYCE: Ithink even though there has been evidence on
33 each of the specific counts, I think that by agreement we could say that it is not
34 evidence -- is not reliable evidence that the jury would be able to convict upon, and I
35 think that it might be, I guess, a close call, but I think that if by consent we could still
36 agree that it was a directed verdict that that could be the way to do this.
38 THECOURT: Okay. That may well be the way to go. My
39 memory on the law around directed verdict is that it’s an extraordinary finding and
40 direction to a jury. They are, after all, entitled to make the factual determinations, but
41 there are some cases where the evidence put to a -- the evidence is of such of a nature, if
1 Ican euphemise a little bit, that to put it to a jury reasonably instructed one could have no
2 confidence the jury could properly convict on that evidence. It’s essentially the test -- I’m
3 sure I’ve used some wrong words there, but I’ll come back to it and clean it up if I need
4 to. What I would like to do, though, is take a brief adjournment to inform myself that
5 that is the appropriate procedure or -- and to make sure there isn’t some other procedure
6 that is more compelling than that.
8 MS. JOYCE: Yes.
10 THECOURT: I suppose the only other thing that comes to
11 mind, Ms. Joyce, is -- is the Crown -- have you considered a stay or simply -- it’s not a
12 situation where you’re calling -- I guess you are calling no further evidence and inviting
13 the Court, but -- it would be an easy thing to do if it was a judge alone trial, but it’s not,
14 so we still -- it’s either directed verdict or something else. A stay may not be what you
15 think is appropriate in all of the circumstances. I don’t know.
17 MS.JOYCE: And-- and that is where I’m coming from. I
18 have considered a stay, but I think where the evidence has been heard, I think in this
19 instance that this accused -- that he has a right to an acquittal rather than a stay of the
20 proceedings in this instance.
22 THECOURT: AndI was thinking of that, too. I don’t want to
23 put anyone on edge. It wasn’t as though I was inviting you to stay the charges rather
24 than invite an acquittal because --
26 MS.JOYCE: Yes.
28 THECOURT: -- that doesn’t necessarily leave Mr. Harms
29 where he wants to be or, for that matter, where he’s entitled to be. Let’s take a few
30 minutes. I don’t expect it will be very long. We’ll find a way to deal with this in the
31 most appropriate fashion.
33 MS.JOYCE: Yes.
35 THECOURT: AndI don’t think in the end result the jury will
36 be ultimately inconvenienced by it. I’ll let Madam -- I’ll let Madam Clerk know
37 somehow when I am ready to come back.
39 MS.JOYCE: Yes,Sir.
41 THECOURT: Thankyou very much.
4 THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated.
6 So I hope you’re not looking at me for an answer. We have to have a further discussion.
7 When I had mentioned I had had some experience directing verdicts, it was in the context
8 of a case in which I concluded the Crown had failed to prove an essential element of the
9 offence. It had nothing to do with weight or credibility. In this case, it’s all about
10 credibility, it seems to me.
12 MS.JOYCE: Yes.
14 THECOURT: Notwhether or not there is absent evidence on
15 some essential element of each of the essential elements of the various offences that have
16 been charged. And so when I look at the law, and there are a number of cases from the
17 Supreme Court of Canada which have been applied in the trial courts, Court of Appeals,
18 on this point, the law appears to be that it’s inappropriate for a judge sitting with a jury to
19 direct a verdict when there is some evidence, which a jury properly instructed -- on which
20 a jury properly instructed could in their own good judgment put weight on and therefore
21 convict.
23 The -- what I couldn’t find in any of the cases in my ten minutes of research was what --
24 whether it makes any difference that the Crown is essentially consenting to that type of
25 directed verdict procedure. And the apprehension that we all have is whether if the -- if
26 this jury is directed by me to -- or if I take the case away on the basis of a directed
27 verdict and then direct for an acquittal, will that result in further proceedings. I doubt that
28 very much given the Crown’s position, but that’s only one consideration, what’s also
29 relevant is whether we’re doing the right thing here in accordance with the law
31 Now, there are -- something I considered but haven’t had a chance to get to the bottom of
32 at all is whether it’s possible to permit a re-election to occur at this time, which would
33 then -- if it’s possible, and I don’t know under the Code, haven’t looked, if it’s possible
34 once the jury has been sworn to -- the parties agree to re-elect, then the case is before a
35 judge alone and that straightens things out considerably.
37 The -- another option that I’m informed has been -- has occurred is that where there is
38 good reason to declare a mistrial, the jury is excused, and the parties agree to carry the
39 trial on before a judge alone, and then the result can unfold. I’m just not sure whether
40 there is any reason why a mistrial would be granted, even on a consent basis. I’m not
41 sure if I have jurisdiction to grant a mistrial on a consent basis. I haven’t looked at that
2 Another option exists, and I’ll -- I’ll outline it for you, but it’s not without, in my view, at
3 least a hypothetical risk, and it’s this. We bring the jury back. We tell the jury -- I --
4 we -- I tell the jury that the Crown intends to call no further evidence, and that it is the
5 Crown’s position that based upon the evidence they have heard a verdict of not guilty
6 should be entered on account of the Crown’s position that the jury could not find on this
7 evidence that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt on each and every one of the
8 offences on the indictment. I would also have to indicate, however, to the jury that the
9 defence at this stage of the trial intended to call no evidence, but, of course, that the
10 defence joined the Crown’s submission with respect to the outcome. I would also then
11 instruct the jury that while the case remains for the jury to decide on the facts, in my
12 view once they have taken into account the evidence they have heard, that I would also --
13 I can’t -- I would tell them I can’t tell them what to do, because I can’t, but I can instruct
14 them in no uncertain terms about the -- the difficulty of proof beyond a reasonable doubt
15 having been achieved when the evidence -- this evidence is of such a tenuous nature. I
16 haven’t drafted that. The difficulty, the hypothetical difficulty, and perhaps we all think
17 the jury will then go away and come back with a verdict of acquittal or a finding of not
18 guilty, but if they do convict on one or more of the offences, the question then is what
19 does one do. Some think that that would amount to -- in the circumstances would amount
20 to a perverse verdict, which would then enable me not to enter the verdict and direct an
21 acquittal. I’m not so sure about that. There is law in the Morgentaler case, for example,
22 which recognizes that while a jury has to be instructed to follow the law and to accept the
23 trial judge’s instructions on the law, the jury can ignore the law when they’re back in the
24 room deliberating, and they can come back with a perverse verdict that is inconsistent
25 with the law, and their fact findings are also obviously entirely within their domain. So
26 the notion that after all is said and done and a jury comes back with a verdict that no one
27 here perhaps thinks is appropriate, if they do that anyway in their own good judgment,
28 I’m not convinced that a -- that a -- that not entering that verdict would be appropriate, at
29 least Mr. Harms is in some way harm’s way potentially.
31 Those are the options that I have been able to explore in my own mind with the aid of a
32 handful of research assistants in red robes upstairs and a little bit of research on the
33 appropriateness of directing verdicts. So your thoughts?
35 One thing occurred to me, and I apologize, I should stop talking at some point, my
36 thoughts -- one thought I had is that counsel may wish to inform themselves about the --
37 in their -- as they see fit to do so about the appropriate way of proceeding, and that would
38 take us over to the morning, I expect, realistically.
40 I’m not overly concerned about letting the jury go and bringing them back tomorrow
41 morning. That’s frankly part of what the jury signed on for. But it’s just that this is a --
1 I’d say a unique, not inappropriate, but a unique situation, and I think I don’t -- to the
2 extent possible, I would like to handle it in a manner that is in keeping with good law and
3 procedure. So I am going to stop talking now and would welcome your thoughts.
5 MS. JOYCE: I don’t mind at all either if things are to be set
6 over. The only thing that comes to my mind, and I think I should say it before I forget it,
7 as you were speaking and your worry was that if we were to put it to the jury even with
8 an instruction that it’s dangerous to convict and that -- and with the expectation that they
9 would likely come back with a not guilty verdict, you indicate that the concern there is
10 that the jury would go against your instruction and would -- or might go against your
11 instruction. So but what we’re talking about with a directed verdict is that it is a jury
12 who’s -- a jury who was acting judiciously, and so I think we can still -- could still come
13 back to the directed verdict because -- and as you have said, for the worry that if we put
14 it to the jury is that the possibility of conviction would happen if they were acting outside
15 of your instructions. Where we have directed -- or the test for the directed verdict is a
16 jury could not reasonably convict if they were acting judicially with the proper instruction
17 on -- or judiciously with the proper instructions on the law. So I do think it can still
18 come back that they can do a directed verdict, and it wouldn’t necessarily have to be
19 based on consent of the Crown, but rather that the Crown will close its case, and the
20 argument and the instructions that you would have had to provide to the jury based on the
21 Crown closing its case on this point would have to essentially lead them to an acquittal.
22 And if it did not lead them to an acquittal, then they would not be acting judiciously. So
23 I think --
25 THECOURT: Okay.
27 MS.JOYCE: -- I’m just circling around and around and
28 around and. . .
30 THECOURT: No,and I understand -- I understand the thread
31 of your argument. I can tell you that from what I have read, the cases -- and I can
32 provide you with cites presently -- Monteleone is the core case, and there have been a
33 number of cases in the Supreme Court of Canada, at least two since that case was
34 decided, very clearly state and set aside directed verdicts. Now, there is a dissent in one
35 of the cases, but it’s a dissent. Whether I prefer that dissent or not is not -- is of no
36 moment. The case law is quite clear as far as I have been able to unearth it on short
37 notice that if there is any evidence that the jury is entitled to weigh, it’s their job to do so.
38 As I say, none of the cases deal with a consent situation. And -- and, Ms. Joyce, if I’m
39 unable to tell the jury that essentially the Crown is consenting to a directed verdict or the
40 Crown is consenting to my instruction to them --
1 MS. JOYCE: Yes.
3 THE COURT: -- that they acquit, for all intents and purposes,
4 Iwould have even more concern that they may -- they may bring back a verdict which is
5 inconsistent with the -- what we’re discussing here. Part of the problem with the scenario
6 that I set out where we do actually let the jury go back and deliberate is that they would
7 be doing so on the basis of a final outcome, so the defence would have no final
8 opportunity at that point to call a defence.
10 MS.JOYCE: Yes.
12 THECOURT: I don’t know if at this point you’ve already
13 made your mind up, Ms. Hayes, about whether you intend to call any evidence. That may
14 be an non-issue; I don’t know. But with -- to go back to directed verdict, I’m at this point
15 not persuaded that I -- that it is proper procedure to direct a verdict based on evidence
16 that has to be weighed. I may be argued out of that position, but right now I’m just
17 telling you what I have read in the case law --
19 MS.JOYCE: Yes.
21 THECOURT: -- on very high -- a very high authority and
22 quite recent, two thousand -- you know, late ’90s, 2000s cases. We’re not talking about
23 1950s. Nothing wrong with the 1950s.
25 Ms. Hayes.
27 MS.HAYES: Sir, I can advise that I would be extremely
28 uncomfortable with a third of the options that you have given, largely because in this
29 circumstance I think all of the parties here are of the view the -- an inappropriate
30 conviction, if that did come back, and in light of that I can’t possibly agree to that on --
31 even if it is only a hypothetical possibility that the jury may come back with that -- with
32 that verdict, so I can’t advise my client to accept that option. That being said, I don’t -- I
33 don’t have another solution at present.
35 What I would suggest we do, Sir, it sounds like all of us are trying to come up with a
36 way to get to the same end result, so perhaps what would be most productive, Sir, is to
37 adjourn for the day, allow the jury to leave, and then we can all continue our research this
38 evening and see if we can not come up with something that’s productive -- or another
39 possibility for the morning.

They go on and on, same stuff, look it up. The next day a jury was released and the judge says 

11 THECOURT: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen,
12 please be seated.
14 Ladies and gentlemen, this -- in some ways this has been a brief and somewhat unusual
15 case and so far as your involvement is concerned it’s about to get even briefer. The
16 reason for that is that, as the parties are entitled under the Criminal Code, a decision has
17 been made with the consent of the Crown that the accused wishes to re-elect to have this
18 case continue in the absence of a jury but in the presence of a Queen’s Bench judge
19 alone. And that is a procedure which is open to the defence upon the consent of the
20 Crown even at this stage of the trial. It is my duty, therefore, to thank you very much for
21 your attendance starting yesterday. The trial, of course, started Monday, but certain
22 matters had to be dealt with in your absence on Monday. I want to -- I’m grateful, and
23 the parties are grateful, for your attendance yesterday, and of course as well this morning,
24 and for your serving this important public function as jurors.
26 I hope you’re not too disappointed that you won’t have an opportunity to deliberate and
27 make a final decision on the evidence in this case, but as I say, this is an unusual, but not
28 unprecedented, development in jury trials. The case will, therefore, continue briefly this
29 morning before me, and I will make a decision as to the outcome.
31 And my last task, aside from once again thanking you for your attendance, is to formally
32 discharge you as the jury in this case. Thank you very much. You’re free to go.
18 Reasons for Judgment
20 THECOURT: Somy first observation is to express my -- on
21 my behalf, you can have your own conversation, Counsel, but the conduct of the Crown
22 in this case is admirable. I think it’s the right decision, but I’m not convinced that every
23 Crown would have taken what I think is an admirable approach to the case. There is
24 another scenario where the case is simply allowed to unfold, either before a jury or before
25 a judge, and a decision -- you know, other evidence is called and the matter is prolonged.
26 In my view, Ms. Joyce, you made the right decision. And I’m grateful for that, and I
27 admire your principled approach to the case.
29 With regard to the case itself, of course I made my findings with respect to certain
30 statements that were inadmissible for the reasons given. We heard the evidence of
31 Ms. Angel Roberts, which lacked credibility, certainly as a result of cross-examination.
32 And while I’m convinced that no jury reasonably instructed could convict on the basis of
33 that evidence on any of the counts, I’m certainly convinced that sitting on this matter now
34 in a judge alone context, I’m certainly convinced that the case, which hinges entirely on
35 Ms. Roberts’ testimony, has not been proved against Mr. Harms on any of the counts on
36 the indictment on a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That, of course, results
37 in a finding of not guilty. I am -- and an acquittal, Mr. Harms.All it
41 means is that on the basis of the evidence that was called and was admitted, the Crown
1 hasn’t proven its case against you, Mr. Harms, and you are, therefore, acquitted. You are
2 free to go your own way.

That was it, no apology nothing and yet I had to endure his throw in comments as if insult to injury.

"  That does not lead me to
38 the conclusion, nor should it lead anyone to the conclusion, that something didn’t happen
39 on May 21st, 2011. It simply leads to the conclusion that from my point of view sitting
40 on this matter without a jury, I don’t know what happened on May 21st, 2011."

Well maybe you guys shouldn't have released the jury and forced an acquittal, why didn't you let it play out unless you didn't want the jury to hear some things that were going to come up!

In the end your still treated prejudicial, guilty, and un constitutionally.

More to Come