After two and a half long years, my court date finally arrives on Tuesday October 9, 2013. On Monday October 8th, as I mentioned in previous blog entries, we had a preliminary hearing to assess what would and would not be allowed to be heard in front of the jury the next day. This is when all four cops were grilled about the evidence they collected (and destroyed) and the notes they took which were not consistent with their reports. We had to wait until the following day to hear the judges verdict with regards to the police's questionable behavior.
The next day the judge picks up where he left off and rules the police officers "less than credible". Meaning they could enter into the record that a 911 call was placed on the night of the alleged rape, and that these officers responded to it and arrested me but they were not allowed to offer anything else. The judge sighted several charter rights violations by severity, and the police officers very shoddy testimony to justify this ruling. Following this, the jury was brought in and sworn in and the official trial began.
They started by re-reading the charges against me. I plead not guilty to all charges, but I got the feeling they kept giving me chances to finally admit it. The first witness they called was (my accuser). Now recall that screen they put up to shield me and my deathly gaze from my poor poor accuser. By now the screen evolved into a full on wall, and both myself and the jury had to watch my accuser's testimony from mini TV screens! The crown prosecutor began asking my accuser questions, and my accuser answered most of them with "I can no longer remember". The judge then asks her if it would be helpful if she was permitted some time to re-read her original statement. She readily agreed and the judge recessed for about a half an hour.
Court resumed and the judge addressed the crown and my lawyer;
"I speak to you both because we have a serious situation here. Whereas I myself haven't spoken to his accuser [he isn't allowed to], madam clerk has informed me his accuser does not want to testify. In fact, she refuses to do so. Also, she says she is very hungry and tired. Right now his accuser is in a secure witness room next to my chambers, reviewing her statement. I am going to permit the crown prosecutor time to meet with his accuser in hopes of...wait, is that her!?" As the judge was speaking, he notices my accuser trying to come through the front doors of the court room! Not the witness room doors, the main doors! Now, to avoid perversion of statements, witnesses cannot be together until testimony from their personal perspective is given. Yet somehow my accuser managed to get out of the secured room, run around the outside of the courtroom and enter again through the courthouse's main lobby just outside the courtroom where her mother and the police were waiting. The same police who were deemed to be "less than credible" that same morning. The judge couldn't believe it!
"What the...I thought she was secured in the witness room? How did she possibly get back out and into the public area?!" The judge asked. He was very seriously concerned about whether or not my accuser was out there talking to her mother and the untrustworthy police officers. The judge orders madam clerk to deal with my accuser. She walked my accuser back through the front door of the courthouse and back into the witness room so my accuser could be brought back into court the proper way. He then asks my accuser how she got out of the secure witness room and who she spoke with afterwards. My accuser denied speaking to anyone, including her mother. (yeah right). The judge asked if my accuser was ready to proceed because she was expressing she did not want to just moments ago (after she spoke with her mother and the police officers no doubt). With a renewed cheer in her voice she answers loudly;
"Oh Yeah!"
What a mother fucking disgrace! I thought to myself, "what kind of dog and pony show is this"? My life is hanging in the balance and this is the best these clowns could do to ensure I get a fair trial? Well, should I get fucked over here, at least I'll have grounds for an immediate appeal. The crown resumes her examination of my accuser, and then we break for lunch. Now try to picture this:
-Tortured
The next day the judge picks up where he left off and rules the police officers "less than credible". Meaning they could enter into the record that a 911 call was placed on the night of the alleged rape, and that these officers responded to it and arrested me but they were not allowed to offer anything else. The judge sighted several charter rights violations by severity, and the police officers very shoddy testimony to justify this ruling. Following this, the jury was brought in and sworn in and the official trial began.
They started by re-reading the charges against me. I plead not guilty to all charges, but I got the feeling they kept giving me chances to finally admit it. The first witness they called was (my accuser). Now recall that screen they put up to shield me and my deathly gaze from my poor poor accuser. By now the screen evolved into a full on wall, and both myself and the jury had to watch my accuser's testimony from mini TV screens! The crown prosecutor began asking my accuser questions, and my accuser answered most of them with "I can no longer remember". The judge then asks her if it would be helpful if she was permitted some time to re-read her original statement. She readily agreed and the judge recessed for about a half an hour.
Court resumed and the judge addressed the crown and my lawyer;
"I speak to you both because we have a serious situation here. Whereas I myself haven't spoken to his accuser [he isn't allowed to], madam clerk has informed me his accuser does not want to testify. In fact, she refuses to do so. Also, she says she is very hungry and tired. Right now his accuser is in a secure witness room next to my chambers, reviewing her statement. I am going to permit the crown prosecutor time to meet with his accuser in hopes of...wait, is that her!?" As the judge was speaking, he notices my accuser trying to come through the front doors of the court room! Not the witness room doors, the main doors! Now, to avoid perversion of statements, witnesses cannot be together until testimony from their personal perspective is given. Yet somehow my accuser managed to get out of the secured room, run around the outside of the courtroom and enter again through the courthouse's main lobby just outside the courtroom where her mother and the police were waiting. The same police who were deemed to be "less than credible" that same morning. The judge couldn't believe it!
"What the...I thought she was secured in the witness room? How did she possibly get back out and into the public area?!" The judge asked. He was very seriously concerned about whether or not my accuser was out there talking to her mother and the untrustworthy police officers. The judge orders madam clerk to deal with my accuser. She walked my accuser back through the front door of the courthouse and back into the witness room so my accuser could be brought back into court the proper way. He then asks my accuser how she got out of the secure witness room and who she spoke with afterwards. My accuser denied speaking to anyone, including her mother. (yeah right). The judge asked if my accuser was ready to proceed because she was expressing she did not want to just moments ago (after she spoke with her mother and the police officers no doubt). With a renewed cheer in her voice she answers loudly;
"Oh Yeah!"
What a mother fucking disgrace! I thought to myself, "what kind of dog and pony show is this"? My life is hanging in the balance and this is the best these clowns could do to ensure I get a fair trial? Well, should I get fucked over here, at least I'll have grounds for an immediate appeal. The crown resumes her examination of my accuser, and then we break for lunch. Now try to picture this:
There I am eating lunch in the cafeteria. Sitting to my right and staring at me the whole time are the corrupt police officers. To my left, sitting beside me is my accuser and her mother! They took a lot of time to set up that stupid screen and the wall to make sure there was no possible angle in which my accuser would be able to see me because she supposedly could not bear to face me. But she and her mother (another witness whom my accuser is not supposed to be talking to) decide to sit together at the table next to me for lunch!? In fact, my accuser always seemed to make an extra effort to walk directly beside me, as close as one could possibly get without actually touching. How ridiculous is that? You can't make this shit up! That was the most uncomfortable lunch I've even had. I really have no idea how I got through that. I watched my accuser's mother get up and storm out of the cafeteria without her daughter. My accuser left about 10 minutes later which I found odd.
Anyways, this gong show re-adjourned and the crown announces to the judge that not only had she witnessed my accuser and her mother talking and eating together, but that my accuser actually tried to converse with herself as well (which is also not allowed). She assured the judge that she told my accuser she was not allowed to talk to her outside of the court and walked away. It was now my lawyers turn to cross examine my accuser. She first confirms that my accuser knows what perjury is. Then she asks my accuser flat out if she has ever committed perjury in court before. My accuser admits she has.
"About what?" My lawyer asks.
"oh, all kinds of things" she replies.
Then my lawyer asks my accuser about the day she was allegedly raped. According to her own statement, it rained very heavily that day and she had to change her clothes because she was soaked. My accuser confirmed this. Then my lawyer tells her that it didn't actually rain at all that day. My accuser sticks to her assertion that it did. So then my lawyer reveals that they have obtained the weather data for that town for the entire month and according to those reports, it didn't rain that day or either day before or after. In fact, it had only rained about 4mm the entire month. Still, my accuser claims it did rain. My lawyer asks her to explain how she could still claim it rained when official data from Environment Canada clearly says it did not. My accuser ponders that for a moment.
"Oh, I guess it didn't rain that day." She says quaintly. This examination goes on for a while longer, my accuser goes off on some diarrhea rant about me, then quickly declares;
"I have a confession to make. [Tortured] never raped me. I never wanted him to go to jail. I never had a father, Joseph has been nothing but good to me".....she then breaks down sobbing, her face in her hands trying to re compose herself.
My accuser admits in front of the entire court, the judge and the jury that the whole thing was a lie. My attorney, who should press her to elaborate on the police's involvement in this does not. She should ask my accuser if they did or said anything to encourage or force her to continue this lie, but again she doesn't. It was at this moment the judge stops the cross examination, dismisses my accuser and states that he is no longer comfortable with this in his court room, that in fact they either needed to call a miss trial, stay the charges but something HAD to be done. At that moment, while pondering what was on her desk, the crown simply said " no we will not stay the charges, anything less then a full acquittal at this point would be further unjust to this man".
My question to you is: why didn't the judge allow my accuser to finish her confession? Why did he interrupt her and give his ruling before she could elaborate on the role the police played in this escapade?
"About what?" My lawyer asks.
"oh, all kinds of things" she replies.
Then my lawyer asks my accuser about the day she was allegedly raped. According to her own statement, it rained very heavily that day and she had to change her clothes because she was soaked. My accuser confirmed this. Then my lawyer tells her that it didn't actually rain at all that day. My accuser sticks to her assertion that it did. So then my lawyer reveals that they have obtained the weather data for that town for the entire month and according to those reports, it didn't rain that day or either day before or after. In fact, it had only rained about 4mm the entire month. Still, my accuser claims it did rain. My lawyer asks her to explain how she could still claim it rained when official data from Environment Canada clearly says it did not. My accuser ponders that for a moment.
"Oh, I guess it didn't rain that day." She says quaintly. This examination goes on for a while longer, my accuser goes off on some diarrhea rant about me, then quickly declares;
"I have a confession to make. [Tortured] never raped me. I never wanted him to go to jail. I never had a father, Joseph has been nothing but good to me".....she then breaks down sobbing, her face in her hands trying to re compose herself.
My accuser admits in front of the entire court, the judge and the jury that the whole thing was a lie. My attorney, who should press her to elaborate on the police's involvement in this does not. She should ask my accuser if they did or said anything to encourage or force her to continue this lie, but again she doesn't. It was at this moment the judge stops the cross examination, dismisses my accuser and states that he is no longer comfortable with this in his court room, that in fact they either needed to call a miss trial, stay the charges but something HAD to be done. At that moment, while pondering what was on her desk, the crown simply said " no we will not stay the charges, anything less then a full acquittal at this point would be further unjust to this man".
My question to you is: why didn't the judge allow my accuser to finish her confession? Why did he interrupt her and give his ruling before she could elaborate on the role the police played in this escapade?
Allow me to reiterate a bit of information presented before, as it is vitally relevant here. The day before this trial, the police were all questioned. None of their stories matched. The lead investigator was asked how long he had been a police officer. He responds;
"6 years". My lawyer then asks;
"During that time, have you ever been investigated or brought in front of a review panel or committee because you abused your power or committed questionable acts? He says;
"Which one? There are two." My lawyer says;
"Well, we only knew of the one, would you care to elaborate to the court?" In his explanation, he reveals there was actually three instances where he was brought before the disciplinary committee (but the third time he was deemed justified). He could not remember anything about the day he arrested me and began his investigation on my case. He couldn't answer specific questions and had to rely heavily on his notes. Notes which completely contradicted what the other officers wrote in their notebooks, and even what he himself wrote in his own official reports!
The officer in charge of gathering evidence was then asked to talk about the evidence that was collected. He described crime scene photos, physical evidence, some clothes, and my finger nail clippings which were collected for DNA testing. They talked about some of the details, and then my attorney asked him about the video surveillance tapes from the booking station which included the interviews they conducted with me in which I supposedly "admitted to it all". When she asked if all that evidence was turned over to the crown, he says "no". So my lawyer asks "what happened to that evidence?" he replies;
"We destroyed it all"! "Destroyed it"?! I thought to myself.
[Tortured]: I'll take corrupt or stupid for a thousand, Alex.
[Trebek]: This country's attorneys and courts do not demand evidence from police investigators when undergoing rape trials.
[Tortured]: What is Canada?
[Trebek]: Canada is right!
Why is the hell would they destroy evidence before the case was even concluded?! I have my own theory: As soon as the DNA evidence results came out clearing me, these cops realized they would likely be implicated for violating the oaths they took to fairly and impartially uphold the law. One of those oaths being the oath of office which reads:
"I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will faithfully, diligently and impartially execute and perform the duties required of me as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and will well and truly obey and perform all lawful orders and instructions that I receive, without fear, favor or affection of or towards any person, so help me God"
What those dipsticks didn't realize is, I have full disclosure. I had been privy to exactly what kinds of evidence was collected and from where it was collected. I copied it into both paper and data formats. Why didn't my defense attorney ask why and by who's authority they destroyed this evidence? Why isn't that relevant to the judge? When it became unlikely that they would be able to get a conviction on me (in other words, when it became apparent that I was innocent), those officers destroyed that evidence is a last ditch effort to distance themselves from culpability. Up until that point they had lied and done everything they could to try to engineer a conviction. And they got away with it!
You would think I would be entitled to the transcripts of this trial, but...nope! Because the matter is now officially concluded, legal aid won't cover the costs. Legal aid was however kind enough to inform me that it would be wise for me to obtain those transcripts ASAP "before they went missing".I have since looked into it, and for a physical copy of the court transcripts, the Canadian government is telling me I need to pay $3069.00. How can they possibly justify such an outrageous amount of money for something so trivial?! Could it be because they know these transcripts give proof of the corruption in our justice system and they know I am financially ruined at this point and cannot possibly scrape together that kind of money? Or perhaps its the case that the paper they print these documents on is processed from some endangered species of tree. I'll leave that up for you to decide.
You would think I would be entitled to the transcripts of this trial, but...nope! Because the matter is now officially concluded, legal aid won't cover the costs. Legal aid was however kind enough to inform me that it would be wise for me to obtain those transcripts ASAP "before they went missing".I have since looked into it, and for a physical copy of the court transcripts, the Canadian government is telling me I need to pay $3069.00. How can they possibly justify such an outrageous amount of money for something so trivial?! Could it be because they know these transcripts give proof of the corruption in our justice system and they know I am financially ruined at this point and cannot possibly scrape together that kind of money? Or perhaps its the case that the paper they print these documents on is processed from some endangered species of tree. I'll leave that up for you to decide.
Its hard to get it out, but I believe that by doing this, I'm helping myself. This experience has left me with a feeling that I matter to no one. Especially my country's government. After the acquittal was ordered, I was told I could go. That was it. No consideration or compensation for the torture I endured, the loss of my savings, my personal effects, my pets, or my new home (completely furnished) which I worked so hard for the winter before. I've been reduced to a couple duffel bags and borderline homelessness with a mountain of debt to pay off! Not to mention the lost wages from not being able to work for 2 and a half years, and the psychological turmoil which has driven me to attempt (and briefly succeed at) suicide on Christmas of 2012. And all the while my accuser was referred to as nothing but "the victim", and was able to retain her freedom and even skip out on court appearances so she could go party and get high and drunk with her friends. I'm not even out of this yet. They're still going after me for the events detailed in my blog entry: "Tortured Vs Seal Team 6". I can only assume at this point that it's for no other reason than to try to save face and get me on SOMETHING.
IS THIS JUSTICE?!
My accuser was let go without any punishment to speak of. Presumably so she could go on to ruin some other poor bastards life. They have to be insane to believe she isn't going to lie about being abused or sexually assaulted ever again. I've known her since she was 9 years old. I was practically her father. Trust me when I tell you this girl is a menace to society. She's a habitual lier. An irresponsible little brat with no regard for others. She deserves to be locked up for a very long time. But instead, the government's victims advocacy branch is thinking of PAY HER and her mother a large sum of money from the taxpayer's coffers because of this incident. That's right. Money taken from YOUR pay cheque is going directly to my accuser. How's that make you feel? More on that in future blogs.
Anyways. Not a rapist. Thanks guys!
And yet while I awaited these papers, this trial, the police continued to charge me with additional offenses. In no less then an attempt to make me look bad, appear uncredible before this trial and those matters are still on going. I don't know what to tell you, the storey is as convoluted as it is long, nearly 4 years now and I simply don't know how I make it through each day. Of a firm belief,I pray this doesn't happen to another man. Of the same belief, I sincerely hope that people will wake up and start to question things that are going on but in the end...no one is interested in something you didn't do.
-Tortured
