Woman hires hitman to murder husband; Supreme Court of Canada lets her walk

[Bokanovsky]

For those of you Americans who think that you have a feminism problem, things could always get worse...and they probably will, as your country becomes more and more dominated by the feminist agenda. Canada is on one of the world's most feminist countries (second only to perhaps the Scandinavian nations) and this is what justice looks like here.

Coles notes:

Woman attempts to hire a hitman to murder her husband. The hitman turns out to be an undercover cop. She is arrested and charged. At trial, her lawyer advances the "battered woman syndrome" defence. Woman testifies and claims her husband was violent and abusive and would yell at her and punch holes through walls. Husband is not called to testify to challenge her credibility and the judge essentially accepts the woman's claims based on her say so. Acquittal is upheld by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The case ultimately makes it to the Supreme Court of Canada. What does the Supreme Court do? It overturns the acquittal (which means that the verdict of the trial judge is deemed to be invalid) but, instead of ordering a new trial (which is standard procedure), the court orders a stay of proceeding (which is practically unheard of). The court's justification? "This woman has been through a lot..." No, I'm not making this stuff up.

Here's the husband's statement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yq2WWsY8Rmc

and the article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/01/23/ns-hitman-michael-ryan.html

 

[BMX]

The husband was issued a subpoena to show up at each of the trials and not one of the judges was sold enough to call him to the stand. The judges were clearly in on it at each successive level. Due process has clearly been lost in Canada for ages now.

 

[betheman]

scary sh!t! leaves one feeling a bit cold, reason and logic has left the planet

 

[Upside]

Ohhhhhhhh Canada...

 

[AW1983]

Man oh man. I just watched the whole video. It's truly unbelievable and utterly reprehensible if the Canadian courts let this woman, nay, criminal walk. I applaud Michael Ryan for making that video though.

Would love to hear brad80 or one of the other resident attorney's opinion on this whole fiasco...

 

[Bokanovsky]

The husband was issued a subpoena to show up at each of the trials and not one of the judges was sold enough to call him to the stand. The judges were clearly in on it at each successive level. Due process has clearly been lost in Canada for ages now.

In fairness, it's the prosecution and the defence who call witnesses, not the judge. Why the crown prosecutor decided not to put him of the stand is a mystery to me.

 

[Trailboss]

Dudes probably still in love with her and asked them not to hammer her...he thinks he'll get brownie points with her and in the end, he'll probably end up dead....

 

[Bokanovsky]

Dudes probably still in love with her and asked them not to hammer her...he thinks he'll get brownie points with her and in the end, he'll probably end up dead....

I would help if you actually watched the video or read the story before commenting..

 

[BMX]

In fairness, it's the prosecution and the defence who call witnesses, not the judge. Why the crown prosecutor decided not to put him of the stand is a mystery to me.

Sorry about that, I was responding too quickly. It's still quite disturbing though that the crown prosecutor never called upon Mr. Ryan. The whole process was just them listening to her story. He even explained during his interview that he's been seeing someone else and they haven't lived together for a while now . I hope the prisons up there are just like the luxury hotels they house prisoners in over in Scandinavia for his sake.

 

[Boilermaker]

Facts before opinions, gents.

Just because the dad made a youTube video, doesn't mean she walks free even though she's guilty. Not saying she isn't either.

 

[Boilermaker]

http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/fac-mem-eng.aspx?cas=34272

Above are the court documents.

Snippet from the pdf's above:

[...] learned trial judge accepted the Respondent's evidence, finding that the Respondent had "all the characteristics of an abused person" and was ''justified in her fear of violence" from her husband. The trial judge then applied his factual findings to conclude that there was an air of reality to the defence of duress
and acquitted the Respondent. [...]

Another one, this is getting interesting
[...]
The outbursts and violence worsened after their daughter, Aimee, was born in 2000. On one occasion, Mr. Ryan put a gun to Ms. Ryan's head and referred to her as a ''weak soldier''. Over the course oftheir relationship, Mr. Ryan held a gun to Ms. Ryan's head on three occasions. His penchant for gun violence was demonstrated when he shot l their pet dog with a rifle as well as a neighbour's dog.
[...]

another one:

[...]Respondent had called 911 and the RCMP on 9 separate occasions. The RCMP infonned Ms. Ryan that "[they] don't get involved in civil matters". Ms. Ryan also sought intervention from Victim Services and spoke with them on approximately 11 occasions. They informed her that they could not take action until something happened.
[...]

from the article Bokanovsky posted:
[...]
Ryan said he had a tough upbringing with anger issues as a young soldier and admits he got into some bar scuffles around the military base and got anger management counselling in the 1980s.
[...]

final snippet from the court documents:
[...]
In March 2008, after failing in an attempt to hire someone to kill Mr. Ryan, she was contacted by an undercover R.C.M.P. officer. She accepted his offer to carry out the homicide and was arrested. At trial, Ms. Ryan described the relief and sense of safety she had felt to be incarcerated in pre-trial custody.
[...]


bottom-line: Her story could be real. She could be a cvnt too, I can't tell. There are many psychopaths. May not be a feminist conspiracy at all. It's obviously not her "say-so" there are facts like 911 calls, neighbor's, friends, and family. I am agnostic. I don't think I can reach a conclusion. We may need expert opinion, where's bradd?

 

[Bokanovsky]

Boilermaker:

What the guy is complaining about is the fact that the findings made by the trial judge were based exclusively on the defendant's testimony. She said that he shot the family dog. She said that he shot the neighbor's dog. She said that the RCMP refused to intervene when she complained about domestic assault.

As a Canadian, I find the above allegations highly improbable. Although gun ownership is legal here (with a proper license), there is massive paranoia surrounding anything gun-related. You can get jail time for improperly storing or transporting a firearm, let alone shooting a neighbor's dog.

Also, I personally know several men who were immediately arrested upon a woman calling the police and alleging domestic assault. Police departments in this country have a policy of automatically arresting the male whenever a female cohabitant alleges domestic assault. Her claim that she called the RCMP 9 times and they refused to do anything is simply not believable, unless she called about something other than domestic violence. She says that the cops told her that it was a civil matter. Domestic violence is assault, which makes it a criminal matter. Her story just doesn't add up.

 

[Bokanovsky]

By the way, Boilermaker, you are quoting form the respondent's factum, which was prepared by the wife's lawyer. That's hardly an impartial summary of the "facts". The actual text of the decision can be found here:

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...th=/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc3/2013scc3.html

Here's the critical part:

[7] The trial judge accepted the respondent’s evidence that the relationship and the events she had described relating to that relationship were true. For example, Mr. Ryan’s violent and threatening behaviour included outbursts at least once a week, where he would throw things at the respondent’s head, physically assault her and threaten to kill her (trial judgment, at para. 17). The respondent testified that Mr. Ryan often told her that he would kill her and their daughter if she ever tried to leave him (at para. 33), and that he would “burn the ****ing house down” while she and her daughter were inside (para. 45).

[8] The trial judge had no difficulty in concluding that Mr. Ryan was a manipulative, controlling and abusive husband who sought to control the actions of the respondent, be they social, familial or marital. The judge found that the respondent’s sole reason for her actions was her fear of her husband which arose from his threats of death and serious bodily harm to herself and their daughter: paras. 149-52. He also was satisfied that the respondent had led evidence to the requisite standard that she reasonably believed that Mr. Ryan would cause her and her daughter serious bodily injury and that there was no safe avenue of escape other than having him killed.

[9] The judge concluded that the respondent was in a very vulnerable state, had lost a considerable amount of weight, was dissociated and despondent. She had an intense and reasonable fear of Mr. Ryan, was feeling helpless, felt she had lost control and felt she was threatened with annihilation. While she had engaged the police and other agencies in an effort to assist her in the past, the evidence was that her problems were viewed as a “civil matter”. She felt so vulnerable that the phone call of the undercover police officer appeared to her as the solution to all her problems (para. 73). On the basis of these findings, the trial judge found that the common law defence of duress applied, and acquitted the accused.


All of these findings are based entirely on the woman's say so. Below is the original decision of the trial judge. No other witnesses testified to corroborate her story. If you read the orignal decision, it's clear that she invented a huge sob story and the judge bought it.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highli...ns/nssc/doc/2010/2010nssc114/2010nssc114.html

 

[Boilermaker]

Well, I don't care who you know personally, because we are not discussing who you know personally and how they got arrested. We are discussing this case, which is a good example of how extremely biased some of you people are, whenever you see mere glimpses of women coming on top of "men", you jump at conclusions like wolves....! It's amusing! But I am a scientist, and I don't buy shít just because I want to feel good about my belief system, (read stroke myself), I need to see evidence.

At the end of the day, reasonable people sat down, and by way of law, couldn't find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, right? (Or wrong? Maybe somebody who understands her defense and tells me what actually happened could clarify?)

I doubt that everything on the case is "based entirely on the woman's say so", you would want that, I get it. But I don't find it believable. You don't need other witnesses, there may be 911 calls, formal complaints, written documents and so on... There were psychiatric evaluations of her, she was diagnosed with severe depression, or are the shrinks in it as well?... After all, I am sure the judges at Canada know what you and I know, right? Wrong?

I am coming here impartially, and I am glad I urged you to look for facts this time rather than sketchy articles. That's an improvement!

Edit: And I definitely agree she may be guilty and she may have gotten away with "murder" as they say. I just don't see it as clearly and quickly as you "can" see. Looks like you have made up your mind that this is a sob story and you are looking for facts that support that theory.

 

[Bokanovsky]

I doubt that everything on the case is "based entirely on the woman's say so"
you would want that, I get it. But I don't see it clear as day. You don't need other witnesses, there may be 911 calls, formal complaints, written documents and so on... I am sure the judges at Canada know what you know as well.

You need to read the actual decisions that I cited, not the defence lawyer's factum. There were no formal complaints or written documents. 911 calls were responded to and no charges were laid because there was no crime committed. She called the cops and complained that the guy was driving her truck....which was actually registered in his name! The cops quite correctly said that it was not a criminal matter.

I am coming here impartially, and I am glad I urged you to LOOK AT FACTS rather than sketchy articles. That's an improvement!

Except you weren't even reading the right document

 

[Boilermaker]

In fact, I copied all that from the prosecutor's documents... Ah, you got me.

Here's a snippet from factum of the appellant:

28. Dr. Hucker was of the opinion that the Respondent had symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. In Dr. Hucker's view, the Respondent fit a pattern which would lead her to perceive that there was no way out other than the course which she chose to take.[...] (A.R., Vol. V, pp.52-53)

Shrinks are feminazis? PTSD doesn't exist? This doesn't count? The excuse this time?

This is something I found within 2 minutes. I don't bother to look more, I am not interested in finding the truth, I am interested in HOW YOU CAN BE DAMN SURE SO QUICKLY without reading all that shít. That's what's intriguing me.

 

[Bokanovsky]

Noce try, but it's a little misleading to stop where you did You have to read the whole thing:

29. Dr. Hucker acknowledged that his written report which was admitted in evidence did not disclose any inquiry by him concerning what was going through the Respondent's mind on March 27, 2008, the date of the commission of the offence. It appears that Dr. Hucker did not regard a focused examination of the Respondent's thought processes on that date as significant

...
Dr. Hucker never asked the Respondent about her insistence that Mr. Ryan be killed before April 1, 2008, the date of a Court hearing concerning the custody of her daughter.

...
Dr. Hucker also acknowledged that his diagnosis of PTSD was totally dependent on the history which the Respondent related to him and not on the symptoms which he observed with respect to the Respondent. (A.R., Vol. V, p.71) Dr. Hucker testified that when he interviewed the Respondent prior to writing his report, he was left with the impression that there was no contact between the Respondent and Mr. Ryan between December, 2007 and the end of March, 2008. He acknowledged that the Respondent's testimony at trial differed in this respect from what she had reported to him when he interviewed her.

So, a woman has no contact with the guy for several months and then, shortly before the custody hearing, she decides to whack him. But wait, let's not jump to any conclusions

 

[Boilermaker]

yeah so? So she had PTSD? Any comments on that?


This is supposed to prove you're right?

And everyone else's wrong?

Let's leave the facts aside for a while. You need a Scientific Method 101 lesson.

See, the onus is on you to show you actually have a wild miscarriage of injustice here, because you are the crackpot who's claiming that.

You can't refute me, because I am not claiming anything...!

I don't have to do a thing.

You have to entertain me and convince me with your theory assuming I am an objective party. That's the positive claim, here.

But, wait.

This is SoSuave Mature Men forum, so wait a few more hours before your buddies show, and you can all have a pity party, without knowing a thing.

You don't read the facts until after you are called out. You would've never dug this deep if I wasn't here. Kinda made me proud.

Let me repeat what you niftily avoided:

I am interested in HOW YOU CAN BE DAMN SURE SO QUICKLY without reading all that shít. That's what's intriguing me.

 

[Bokanovsky]

I am interested in HOW YOU CAN BE DAMN SURE SO QUICKLY without reading all that shít. That's what's intriguing me.

Hate to disappoint but there is nothing particularly intriguing about it. I've been following this case for some time and have actually read "all that sh*t". I suggest you do the same...you might actually stand a chance of making an intelligent argument then.

 

[Boilermaker]

Touché.

I can't stand against your genius.