Could it be or perhaps defense might suggest TLM changed her story to "take the fall" as she suggested she would to MTR but figured if she leaves in the rape part that would mess him up with other women, but she would still have sex with him as she was right along. Gets rid of the other women and MTR still has her and she gets him to herself. She said she told because she didn't want him doing that to other children. Yet, it didn't bother her to continue a romantic relationship with him afterwards as seen in the Genest video. JMO Maybe thought they could have CV in prison and he might get out as time served with the 2:1 for serving time in detention awaiting trial. And then when out he might continue visiting her as they had before. MOO
Sometimes a prisoner will get a 2 for 1 credit for time spent in detention awaiting trial because it is considered hard time and it takes so long to go to trial. MOO In the Don Jail some prisoners were give 3 to 1 credit for time spent in detention awaiting trial there. Not sure that would happen with such a serious crime; but not sure JMO It might not happen anymore but it used to for sure.
re credits for time served ie dead time:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliam...s=C25&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2&source=library_prb
"The bill amends the Criminal Code (the Code) to limit the credit a judge may allow for any time spent in pre-sentencing custody in order to reduce the punishment to be imposed at sentencing, commonly called “credit for time served.”(1) There are three scenarios:
■In general, a judge may allow a maximum credit of one day for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody (“custody” in the bill) (clause 3 of the bill, new section 719(3) of the Code). On 8 October 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs proposed to amend the bill to allow a maximum credit of one and one-half days for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody. However, the Senate defeated the amendment on 20 October 2009.
■However, if, and only if, the circumstances justify it, a judge may allow a maximum credit of one and one-half days for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody (clause 3 of the bill, new section 719(3.1) of the Code). On 8 October 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs proposed to amend the bill to allow a maximum credit of two days for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody. However, the Senate defeated the amendment on 20 October 2009.
■If the person’s criminal record or breach of conditions of release on bail was the reason for the pre-sentencing custody,(2) a judge may not allow more than one day’s credit for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody (clause 3 of the bill, new section 719(3.1) of the Code). On 8 October 2009, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs proposed to amend the bill to allow a maximum credit of one and one-half days for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody. However, the Senate defeated the amendment on 20 October 2009."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/02/23/nicholson-truth-sentencing.html
"New law ends 2-for-1 credit on jail sentencesJustice Minister Rob Nicholson announced on Tuesday that the Truth in Sentencing Act has now come into effect. (Chris Wattie/Reuters) Federal legislation limiting the amount of credit prisoners can get for time served in custody before and during their trial has become law, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced on Tuesday.
"The two-for-one credit is no longer an option. This will bring more truth in sentencing and give Canadians confidence that justice is being served," Nicholson told reporters in Ottawa .
The Truth in Sentencing Act was actually granted royal assent on Oct. 21, 2009, but came into effect on Monday."
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_sentencing"]Truth in sentencing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
"In Canada, the Truth in Sentencing act, or Bill C-25[1] came into effect on Monday, February 22, 2010.[2] This bill amends s.719 of the Criminal Code of Canada, limiting the discretion of a sentencing judges to give credit to individuals who have spent time incarcerated prior to conviction. Prior to this bill being implemented, as discussed by Justice Arbour in R v. Wust,[3] credit for pre-sentencing custody was not determined by a 'mathematical formula' but many judges have frequently granted a two-for-one credit. This is justified by the quantitative and qualitative differences between pre-and post-sentencing incarceration. Most individuals who are incarcerated will not serve the full length of their sentence, and because time spent incarcerated pre-sentence does not count towards remission time, where a lengthy pre-sentence incarceration is credited equally to post-sentencing incarceration the convicted individual will serve a longer sentence compared to an individual given the same sentence without a lengthy period of pre-sentencing incarceration. Arbour also points out that pre-sentence incarceration is typically served in detention, in harsher circumstances than the sentence will ultimately call for and without access to educational, rehabilitative and vocational programs.
Bill C-25 creates three changes in the Criminal Code;[4] now under s.719(3), generally the maximum credit a judge can give 1:1. Under s.719(3.1) and 719(3.2) a judge can only give a credit of 1.5:1 "if the circumstances justify it" and under s.719(3.1) the sentencing judge cannot give greater than 1:1 credit where the reason for pre-sentencing incarceration is either that person's criminal record or where that individual has breached their bail conditions.
The constitutionality of this bill was challenged under s.7, s.13 and s.15 of The Charter in the Ontario Court of Justice by Marvin Johnson.[5] The court found that the amendment will survive Charter scrutiny provided the phrase if the circumstances justify it is interpreted in a manner that doesn't limit the granting of a 1.5:1 credit to such a high standard "that mandates a level of exceptionality that goes well beyond the ordinary experience of “dead time” or the penal disparities that typically flow from such pre-sentence custody". In this case, Johnson who was sentenced to 18 months for the sale of $20 of cocaine to an undercover officer, was given a 1.5:1 credit for the 12 months he had spent in pre-sentence custody and was released two days after his sentencing hearing to a one year period of probation."
