Canadian hostage, wife & children freed from Afghanistan, husband arrested for abuse, Oct 2017 #2

[Intermezzo]

Are most trials in Canada tried by a Judge and not a jury?

The accused, in most charges, has the option of trial format, judge and jury or judge alone, with the exception of a murder trial
In a murder case, the Crown Prosecutors and Defense have to both agree to a Judge only trial. The Crown rarely consents to this.

Civil cases are usually Judge only

My guess is that JB and his defense team wanted a judge only trial for this case.

 

[Intermezzo]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/former-hostage-caitlin-coleman-questioned-list-1.5082164

Former hostage Caitlan Coleman's cross-examination on hold April 3, 2109

Former hostage Caitlan Coleman's cross-examination has been put on hold while lawyers deal with a number of procedural issues that could impact future questioning.

Judge Peter Doody advised Coleman that she can return home to the United States for the time being but invoked a witness exclusion order.

Coleman's cross-examination was put on hold so the court can decide whether a 276 application is necessary.
That section of the Criminal Code of Canada says that evidence of previous sexual activity cannot be used to prove the complainant consented to the sexual activity in question.

Late on Wednesday Crown prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham also objected to a line of questioning that she said could violate another section of the Criminal Code dealing with private records.

Counsel is expected to argue that point on Thursday.

 

[human]

Isn’t it special that Caitlin gets her private life broadcast to the world

 

[otto]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/former-hostage-caitlin-coleman-questioned-list-1.5082164

Former hostage Caitlan Coleman's cross-examination on hold April 3, 2109

Former hostage Caitlan Coleman's cross-examination has been put on hold while lawyers deal with a number of procedural issues that could impact future questioning.

Judge Peter Doody advised Coleman that she can return home to the United States for the time being but invoked a witness exclusion order.

Coleman's cross-examination was put on hold so the court can decide whether a 276 application is necessary.
That section of the Criminal Code of Canada says that evidence of previous sexual activity cannot be used to prove the complainant consented to the sexual activity in question.

Late on Wednesday Crown prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham also objected to a line of questioning that she said could violate another section of the Criminal Code dealing with private records.

Counsel is expected to argue that point on Thursday.

It sounds like it's getting a bit murky in terms of each of their perspectives about events. Setting aside whatever it is they typically do together, it sounds like her complaint is that there is at least one instance where she did not consent. The defence seems to want to present a case that because there was prior consent, the defendant had reason to believe that there was broad and general consent.

Does she want him to go to prison for his actions, or does she want sole custody of the children where he has no contact with them? Any thoughts? Is this what she had to do to take the children out of the country? She certainly can't be happy to have all this in the news.

The reason I ask is that all acrimonious divorce has these situations, where two people describe one situation differently. It must be nearly impossible to determine where the truth lies, and in divorce most of those disputes are set aside with focus on what is in the best interests of the children. I'm curious about what she sees as a good solution going forward.

 

[flute4peace]

The Boyle family are Christians. Joshua was homeschooled until high school and attended a Mennonite High School.

He is a Christian, not a Muslim. They were captured by Muslims during their 'camping trip'.

I’m Mennonite. This man is about as far from what we believe as someone can get.

 

[otto]

I’m Mennonite. This man is about as far from what we believe as someone can get.

Based on his actions, I would guess that he is agnostic. It's also my impression that he assumed that Islam women were subservient and therefore he was drawn to that religion, but he really doesn't know anything about it.

 

[Intermezzo]

Isn’t it special that Caitlin gets her private life broadcast to the world

She made that decision.
On the first day of the trial Caitlan herself asked that the court ordered publication ban protecting her be lifted.
The publication ban is still in effect for the 2nd victim.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/joshua-boyle-trial-1.5070074
Joshua Boyle's trial opens with estranged spouse electing to lift publication ban

 

[otto]

She made that decision.
On the first day of the trial Caitlan herself asked that the court ordered publication ban protecting her be lifted.
The publication ban is still in effect for the 2nd victim.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/joshua-boyle-trial-1.5070074
Joshua Boyle's trial opens with estranged spouse electing to lift publication ban

It's a bit of a curious choice. I don't really understand why she wanted all this to be publicly known. I don't see how it benefits her or changes the outcome. Perhaps she wanted to ensure that unethical questioning, such as what we see today regarding prior acts and consent, was made public?

 

[flute4peace]

Based on his actions, I would guess that he is agnostic. It's also my impression that he assumed that Islam women were subservient and therefore he was drawn to that religion, but he really doesn't know anything about it.

He’s evil, no matter what it’s based on. Your theory makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[nuff]

Does she want him to go to prison for his actions, or does she want sole custody of the children where he has no contact with them? Any thoughts? Is this what she had to do to take the children out of the country? She certainly can't be happy to have all this in the news.

The reason I ask is that all acrimonious divorce has these situations, where two people describe one situation differently. It must be nearly impossible to determine where the truth lies, and in divorce most of those disputes are set aside with focus on what is in the best interests of the children. I'm curious about what she sees as a good solution going forward.

Surely the point is that this is a criminal trial, not a civil action like a divorce hearing. I would imagine she is thinking beyond herself and her children. If he is guilty of the criminal charges brought against him (by the Crown, not by Coleman herself), he should be punished and the general public should be protected. We have not yet heard from other crown witnesses, but I expect there will be testimony that corroborates her version of events.

 

[Intermezzo]

It's a bit of a curious choice. I don't really understand why she wanted all this to be publicly known. I don't see how it benefits her or changes the outcome. Perhaps she wanted to ensure that unethical questioning, such as what we see today regarding prior acts and consent, was made public?

The ban was in place to protect her identity, her privacy and/or her safety. We don't know the reasons she gave the judge to lift the publication ban.
The publication ban remains in effect for the 2nd victim

Also, I am not sure how it relates to CC speaking out to others ie: the media

There was another sex assault case in Ottawa recently where the victim asked for the publication ban to be lifted so she can speak publicly. This woman said she had nothing to gain but wanted to give hope to other victims to come forward

Sex assault victim asks court to lift publication ban in her case

 

[Intermezzo]

April 4, 2019
Witnesses for the Crown today:
1) An consular officer with Global Affairs Canada who travelled back with the family
2) Caitlan's older sister

Both being cross-examined by the defense team

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/joshua-boyle-trial-ottawa-witnesses-1.5084729

Witnesses tell court about controlling character of Joshua Boyle
Unger testified Boyle did most of the talking for Coleman during the flight and didn't allow Unger or her colleagues to talk to Coleman for very long.
Unger also described an incident she witnessed on the plane that left her in tears while testifying.
CBC News can't provide further details of the incident to protect the identity of the second victim, whose identity is covered by a publication ban.

Rotenberry testified that Coleman was expected to continue to care for the children during her time in hospital.
"She was the one who was sick in the hospital, but her duty was to clothe them, feed them, entertain them," she said.
Rotenberry described Boyle as having a "shattered state of mind," during her visit, often in a bad mood and speaking demeaningly to Coleman.

 

[otto]

Surely the point is that this is a criminal trial, not a civil action like a divorce hearing. I would imagine she is thinking beyond herself and her children. If he is guilty of the criminal charges brought against him (by the Crown, not by Coleman herself), he should be punished and the general public should be protected. We have not yet heard from other crown witnesses, but I expect there will be testimony that corroborates her version of events.

I'm just a bit confused about the reason for the allegations and charges. The fact that he gave her a list of expectations is cruel, but it doesn't seem to be against the law. That he wants to take his children back to the Middle East is unwise, but not illegal. Spousal rape is very difficult to prove as it is one word against another. If he has a criminal conviction, it probably means that he cannot travel to the USA to visit his children. I feel like I'm getting lost in terms of understanding the decision to lay charges. There must be something that I'm missing.

 

[human]

She made that decision.
On the first day of the trial Caitlan herself asked that the court ordered publication ban protecting her be lifted.
The publication ban is still in effect for the 2nd victim.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/joshua-boyle-trial-1.5070074
Joshua Boyle's trial opens with estranged spouse electing to lift publication ban

Wow! Did she not know her life would be broadcast in an ugly light?

 

[Intermezzo]

April 4, 2019

Christie Blatchford: On his flight to freedom Joshua Boyle was rude and entitled, assault trial hears

Christie Blatchford: On his flight to freedom Joshua Boyle was rude and entitled, assault trial hears
on the day in October of 2017, when Joshua Boyle and Caitlan Coleman and their children were flown back to Canada after five years in captivity in Afghanistan, Boyle was high-handed and entitled, bossing around and “directing” Global Affairs Canada employees he had just met moments before

He decided where everyone would sit on the plane: “ ‘You sit over there, you beside us, you as far away as possible.’ I want to say he was very precise in how and where he put Caitlan and himself,” Unger told Ontario Court Judge Peter Doody Thursday.

 

[otto]

Wow! Did she not know her life would be broadcast in an ugly light?

The crown prosecutor would have spelled it out for her. She had the right to a publication ban on her name and had to specifically request that the ban be lifted. Could it have anything to do with ensuring that the US government is aware of what she experienced, and that evidence needed for a restraining order is readily available in all jurisdictions?

 

[Intermezzo]

Christie Blatchford: On his flight to freedom Joshua Boyle was rude and entitled, assault trial hears

JoAnn Rotenberry, a half-sister to Coleman..
Even though “she was the one who was sick in hospital,” Rotenberry said, “it was Caity’s job to keep the children quiet … her job at all times to take care of them.”

Boyle, she said, would come in infrequently, usually in a rage (often about his parents) and a bad mood.

“He would chastise Caity” for transgressions real or imagined, “he would talk demeaningly to her.” He would also complain frequently that while the hospital provided meal trays for Coleman and for the children, there wasn’t one for him.

Later that month, when Rotenberry had returned to the United States, Coleman texted her, saying she “needed to vent.”

What she told her so alarmed her, Rotenberry said, that she called a contact at the FBI and told her “I was very concerned for Caity’s safety … We needed a safety net. Things were going downhill really fast between Cait and Josh.”

 

[otto]

April 4, 2019

Christie Blatchford: On his flight to freedom Joshua Boyle was rude and entitled, assault trial hears

Christie Blatchford: On his flight to freedom Joshua Boyle was rude and entitled, assault trial hears
on the day in October of 2017, when Joshua Boyle and Caitlan Coleman and their children were flown back to Canada after five years in captivity in Afghanistan, Boyle was high-handed and entitled, bossing around and “directing” Global Affairs Canada employees he had just met moments before

He decided where everyone would sit on the plane: “ ‘You sit over there, you beside us, you as far away as possible.’ I want to say he was very precise in how and where he put Caitlan and himself,” Unger told Ontario Court Judge Peter Doody Thursday.

If indeed he was a kidnap victim for 5 years, it's not really surprising that he was a bit nuts when he was released. Being rude is not illegal, so I'm curious why the prosecution is introducing this evidence. It's not even illegal to be a controlling or domineering person.

 

[otto]

Christie Blatchford: On his flight to freedom Joshua Boyle was rude and entitled, assault trial hears

JoAnn Rotenberry, a half-sister to Coleman..
Even though “she was the one who was sick in hospital,” Rotenberry said, “it was Caity’s job to keep the children quiet … her job at all times to take care of them.”

Boyle, she said, would come in infrequently, usually in a rage (often about his parents) and a bad mood.

“He would chastise Caity” for transgressions real or imagined, “he would talk demeaningly to her.” He would also complain frequently that while the hospital provided meal trays for Coleman and for the children, there wasn’t one for him.

Later that month, when Rotenberry had returned to the United States, Coleman texted her, saying she “needed to vent.”

What she told her so alarmed her, Rotenberry said, that she called a contact at the FBI and told her “I was very concerned for Caity’s safety … We needed a safety net. Things were going downhill really fast between Cait and Josh.”

I'm surprised that the children were with their mother in her hospital room if they did not need medical care. There must have been a realistic concern that he would harm her and the children.

 

[human]

The crown prosecutor would have spelled it out for her. She had the right to a publication ban on her name and had to specifically request that the ban be lifted. Could it have anything to do with ensuring that the US government is aware of what she experienced, and that evidence needed for a restraining order is readily available in all jurisdictions?

I think she would have to get one in the US in her city