You can't use anecdotal arguments like that about the behavior of some people and extrapolate it to all people. What happened to someone else is not evidence of what happened between these two people.
In terms of evidence, what is relevant is the credibility of the allegations (of events that happened a very long time ago). The nature of these subsequent social interactions is not consistent with an egregious assault having taken place a short time previously. That should be sufficient to put the credibility of the allegations into question.
Given the time lapse involved overall, the options are (A) there was no assault; (B) there was an assault; or (C) there was no assault, but over time as the long term relationship dissolved, the nature of the intimate relationship became perceived as assault (a revisionist recollection of events, in other words). Scenario C is VERY common, not just in sexual matters, but in all other social endeavors as well.
Based on what has been presented in trial, it would appear that (C) is the more likely scenario.
Exactly. Very well put.
Often, we conflate defense counsel's work with endorsement of misogyny and violence against women. Marie Henein is doing neither. She is doing her wok as a defense lawyer skillfully with just one goal and one goal alone: To raise a reasonable doubt and get acquittal for her client. She is not out to prevent the world from ending misogyny and sexual violence against women. And, therefore, we should refrain from conflating evidence related to a specific case with anecdotal evidences. Anecdotal evidences make for an interesting gossip material, but make for poor evidence or even inadmissible in court.
One point I want to make here, though, is with respect to the evidences (emails, letter, and photograph) presented by defense that, according to some media, apparently surprised the prosecution. Court proceedings rely heavily on a process called discovery. Any incriminating evidence discovered by prosecution must be shared with defense. This usually happens during the pre-trial phase. Traditionally, defense was not required to share evidence with prosecution; but increasingly for the fairness of the trial, judges often enforce reciprocal discovery, a process under which both sides have to share evidence. I don't know if the trial judge in this case made that ruling, but I would be surprises if the judge wasn't already aware of the evidences Marie Henein presented before the court. It is unclear if the prosecution was aware or was not. Regardless of whether prosecution was or was not aware of the damaging evidence, prosecution has so far displayed incompetency.
Plus, Lucy DeCoutere's lawyer, Gillian Hnatiw, read a statement to media yesterday after the proceedings, trying to undercut Marie Henein's evidence. Hnatiw said, "Violence against women is not about the behaviour of the women. It is not about how they cope with an assault or the details they commit to memory in the aftermath." That's interesting. Is she trying to turn this case into activism against violence against women? This case, any case, is about proving guilt or innocence.
When lawyers, media, public and Perberts start assuming that there is a "monster", a "slimeball", a "predator", a "pervert" or whatever because there is somebody who says she was victimized, then we are turning the fundamental basis of our legal system on its head--That you are innocent until somebody proves you guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Trials are fought in court of law, not in court of public perception or assumption.
