Finally, a reporter looked into the legal precedent regarding the original videotape confession. It's called a "K.G.B." application.
Thank-you, Christie Blatchford.
Some info here:
Finally, a reporter looked into the legal precedent regarding the original videotape confession.
Thank-you, Christie Blatchford.
Some info here:
Thanks for the info Wondergirl ... very interesting case - actually caused a change in law affecting court cases with recanting witnesses.
What is worthy of note here (whether good or bad - you may decide) is that nothwithstanding that TLM recanted mid-January 2012, the charges against MR were not amended by the Crown to a lesser charge (i.e. second degree, whatever), although there may have been discussions between the two sides during the time leading up to the trial (and last week, when a day was set aside for legal arguments).
Notwithstanding that the charges have not been amended to a lesser degree, the jury does have the option of findng MR guilty on a lesser charge if they find that his involvement was not with an evil intent ... which is where the defense is now headed.
I know that the charge Murder One when strictly applied is used in cases where a defendent was present at a kidnapping that results in murder, and under the letter of the law, his presence would make him as guility (if found so by a jury) as TLM ... HOWEVER there are now unforseen circumstances in the Crown's case against MR (ie TLM recanting, her creditability as a witness, a lack of forensic evidence as regards sexuall abuse of the victim on his part, and the change in law with respect to recanting witnesses, etc.)
Even though some of those following the case may be relying on the technical definition of Murder One to assess MR's guilt by reason of his being present with TM, does not mean that the jury has to go with all or nothing in their findings. They can at their option determine a verdict of other than Murder One which would net MR a lesser sentence than life. The Crown's position follows the strictest interpretation of the Charge, because they of course do not want the jury to allocate blame between the two - whereas the defense does want the jury to see an allocation.
I understand that some of you may not care about splitting hairs but in a trial it is always about a jury of twelve unanimously deciding on a verdict, so some jurors may feel in for a penny in for a pound, whilst others will be more likely to split the hairs. The defence wants all of the jurors to split hairs, and that why it is driving home an allocation of culpability. Some jurors may need it spelled out for them more than others. Can you imagine the discussions in the jury room once the jury is sequestered??? Oh my!
:truce: