Sunday, December 7, 2014



Judge J. Richie
A Toronto Judge who has been upbraided for his bias decisions.

The Prosecutor's two witnesses gave inconsistent testimonies. 

1. After taking the oath and when she was asked to give her name, the witness gave a name that was
different from the one in the police report of the alleged victim, regarding the alleged assault.  The court was now dealing with two witnesses.  The one in the police report and the one on the witness stand.

2.  When the defendant then pointed this out to the court, the Crown Attorney, John Flaherty also tried to pass it off as nothing.  Claiming that the witness who is of Chinese background tend to use a different version of her name for cultural reasons, so this should error should be overlooked by the court.  The defendant would not have it so and also asked the court for physical proof from the witness, in identifying herself legally, to the court.

3. The crown's main witness who has testified could also not provide any such identification, except for a so-called government issued health card.  Again the defendant also caught some anomalies with that piece of evidence, as with the name of the alleged victim in the police report.  Judge J. Richie was also leaning towards favoring the Crown Attorney John Flarherty's request to accept that document as legal proof of the witness identity, which also differs from the one of the alleged  victim in this case. In essence the Crown Attorney John Flaherty, was asking the court to do something illegal by accepting the health card as a valid piece of government issued document, for legal purposes, when it is not.

4. A health card is not a valid piece of document that is also used for identification purposes. In fact it is also illegal to accept a health, card from someone for that purpose.  And especially on its own, without any other corroborating documents, as proof of someone's legal identity. It is also forbidden under the law and it also seem as if in Judge J. Richie's courtroom, that piece of evidence, from that document, might also be accepted by the judge. So basically, Judge J. Richie, is also agreeing to disregarding the law, on the advice of the Crown Attorney, John Flaherty,

5. The other troubling fact about the case, is that Judge J. Richie also seem to want to overlook, the discrepancy in the trial, in regards to the different identities of the two witnesses.  The one in the police report, or disclosure and also the witness, who has taken the stand and also gave testimony under oath, regarding the same case. 

6. To give the witness the benefit of the doubt, the defendant, who also cross-examined the witness also asked that the witness provide a second piece of government issued identification, but the witness could not. Not even in either names. That is, the one in the police report, or the one that she gave on the witness stand. 

7.  The so-called government issued health card from the Prosecutor's witness also contained two sets of names. One that was printed at the top and the other the names that were written in ink at the bottom of the health card.  This also suggest that the health card was also not valid. A normal health cards does not show two different sets of names, on the front of the card.

8. The Prosecutor, John Flaherty also proceeded to a trial on the words of a single witness and with no other proof to back up its charge against the defendant, other than those words.  And whose identity has also never been established by the court. We have a police report that is also inconsistent with the testimony of the Prosecutor's main witness, and namely with the witness also identifying herself to the court, with a different name, and identity, from the one in the police report. 

9. Next came the Prosecutor's other witness, who is the police officer who also made the arrest and also was involved in the incident at the police station, in the "cell video", which was later given to the defendant and that was also the basis for the section 11B application violation, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,by the defendant. In fact there were two police officers involved, but the Crown Attorney John Flaherty, only considered one of the two officers, as a witness and who also testified under oath.  Because of his "lack of recollection" of the events, at the station, the police officer's partner, who the defendant also felt should have also been one of the Crown Attorney's witness at the trial, also made the request for that police officer to testify, but with the Crown Attorney, John Flaherty, vehemently refusing this request, to have that police officer testified.

10. The one officer's statement could also not be challenge, by the defendant, through the cross-examination of his partner, who was also a witness at the police station, regarding the "cell video", either, as the tactic of the Crown Attorney John Flaherty, was to not have the two officers testify under oath about the incident.

The question to be asked is whether or not Judge J. Richie can also properly deal with the legal issues before him and also without being bias? So far in this trial he has also given the Crown Attorney John Flaherty, every opportunity to get what he wanted, even when there are also serious concerns about those requests.

Will Judge J. Richie ignore the fact that the case is also built on the sole testimony of a witness, whose identity, has now been shown to be different from the one in the police report?. And based on the Prosecutor's own witness at the trial?. Will he also ignore the other discrepancies in the case, including the inconsistencies of the other witness, the police officer, during his testimony? Will he also accept an illegal document from the Prosecutor's main witness, as proof that she is who she claim to be, which is also different from the identity of the police alleged victim?.

No comments: