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

[otto]

Why wouldn’t she have a lawyer? She’s not only the victim of domestic violence, there are other issues involved such as international custody and likely divorce. Also, she is in PA, so having an attorney in Canada to communicate with the court seems like it’d be helpful imo. Oh and JBs father is a judge. That alone is good reason for her to have an attorney to help protect her and her children from the abuser.

<modsnip: snarky>

The judge has decided that defence questions about consensual "biting, bondage and anal sex" are relevant to the complaint. It seems quite monstrous or "abusive" that Boyle would treat his wife that way, but when you know that they are both into the "abuse", the picture looks quite different.

The role of the crown is to rely on the witness, Coleman, in the prosecution of Boyle. As long as she is truthful, she doesn't need a lawyer.

The law prohibits irrelevant evidence about a complainant’s sexual history, but it is relevant that "biting, bondage and anal sex" is their normal sexual relationship.

 

[bears10]

I’ll quote a medical foundation website <modsnip: rude> All emphasis is mine.

—-

Consent & Consensual Sex | Sexual Definition for Teens

Consent means that both people in a sexual encounter must agree to it, and either person may decide at any time that they no longer consent and want to stop the activity.

Consenting to one behavior does not obligate you to consent to any other behaviors. Consenting on one occasion also does not obligate you to consent on any other occasion.

Consenting means only that at this particular time, you would like to engage in this particular sexual behavior.

—-

Just wanted to especially emphasize the last two sentences <modsnip: rude>

 

[otto]

That does not change the fact that their "normal" sexual relationship includes behavior that many would consider abuse, or that the Judge has decided that their sexual relationship and history is relevant to allegations related to their sexual behavior.

 

[bears10]

That does not change the fact that their "normal" sexual relationship includes behavior that many would consider abuse, or that the Judge has decided that their sexual relationship and history is relevant to allegations related to their sexual behavior.

<modsnip: rude>

Wonder if JBs judge dad knows this judge. Or maybe the judge teleported from 1892 if he believes previous consent gives someone the right to sexually assault someone. Or maybe Canada just generally views domestic violence and sexual assault differently than the US.

 

[bears10]

Duplicate post

 

[human]

Inflicting pain on someone else.

 

[human]

Inflicting pain on someone else. Why is there joy in this?

 

[Inthedetails]

I’ll quote a medical foundation website <modsnip: rude> All emphasis is mine.

—-

Consent & Consensual Sex | Sexual Definition for Teens

Consent means that both people in a sexual encounter must agree to it, and either person may decide at any time that they no longer consent and want to stop the activity.

Consenting to one behavior does not obligate you to consent to any other behaviors. Consenting on one occasion also does not obligate you to consent on any other occasion.

Consenting means only that at this particular time, you would like to engage in this particular sexual behavior.

—-

Just wanted to especially emphasize the last two sentences <modsnip: rude>

Perhaps BSDM was acceptable to her at some point, but after being imprisoned and mistreated for years she might not want to do that anymore. Certainly that is understandable.

Or, has only Boyle earned sympathy for being imprisoned?

jmo

 

[otto]

<modsnip: rude>

Wonder if JBs judge dad knows this judge. Or maybe the judge teleported from 1892 if he believes previous consent gives someone the right to sexually assault someone. Or maybe Canada just generally views domestic violence and sexual assault differently than the US.

My mistake. I assumed that the word 'abuse' referred to their preferred sexual behavior.

The judge has decided that defence questions about consensual "biting, bondage and anal sex" are relevant to the complaint, not that prior consent implies future consent. If biting each other is not their normal behavior, then allegations of biting are outrageous. If biting is what they normally do and like, and indeed this is the case, then it has to be viewed as normal. Biting is not rape, so where does consent to biting fall in terms of consent? Must it be explicitly agreed to before each bite, or is it implied that after the first bite that the second is okay? If the bite is unpleasant, is consent withdrawn on the basis that the consent had an implied pain level?

 

[Willow Knight]

Here is one of the early videos/interviews ( I will post more as I find them)

I take it being pagan is a bad thing?

 

[Forest_Wood]

Here is one of the early videos/interviews ( I will post more as I find them)

Thanks for posting this! It makes me wonder if a person’s accent changes dramatically when surrounded by others who speak like that.

 

[Forest_Wood]

Interesting interview with Jere Van Dyk (former Taliban prisoner) reporting with his experience

The image I have of captivity is being held in secluded places out of sight and hidden away. What’s interesting in this interview is that Mr. Van Dyk speaks of them most likely having been connected to the wider community of women, as in the spouses of the captors.

 

[otto]

I don't think there's any doubt that the couple and their children suffered greatly during their 5 years of captivity. What surprises me is that one victim of the severely damaged family wants another victim to spend time in prison for deteriorating so severely. Was there no other way to solve this? Was this step necessary to prevent Boyle from having contact with his children? Sadly, because of this decision to have this sorted through criminal prosecution, we are all aware of their sexual preferences.

The trial is now delayed because the prosecution wants to appeal the decision to allow questioning of a witness about the couple's sexual practices. Boyle is entitled to a defense, and if that defense relies on assumptions he made based on previous behaviors and practices, such as biting and the use of ropes during sex, he has that right. If all information about prior biting and ropes during sex is excluded, then those practices appear to be far more outrageous. The prior sexual practices of this couple are relevant to the defendants right to defend his thinking and reasoning in relation to bondage and sadomasochism during sex. For example, if roll play was part of the bondage, how could Boyle know that saying no was not part of the roll play? Maybe Coleman didn't say no because she was so traumatized by captivity that she was afraid to say anything.

 

[otto]

This is just the facts of the case, unrelated to how we feel about victims:

"The trial of former Afghanistan hostage Joshua Boyle could be put on hold for months so that the Supreme Court of Canada can decide whether to hear an appeal of a judge’s ruling in the case.
...

Doody ruled that defence lawyer Lawrence Greenspon could ask questions about Coleman’s history of consensual sex with Boyle, including ones that touched on biting, bondage and anal sex."​

Joshua Boyle's criminal trial could be put on hold for months

 

[Sillybilly]

Dropping in at random, totally uninvited here

Discussing victim behaviour is fine when it is directly related to the case:

excerpt from The Rules: Etiquette & Information

VICTIM FRIENDLY

Websleuths is a victim friendly forum. Attacking or bashing a victim is not allowed. Discussing victim behavior, good or bad is fine, but do so in a civil and constructive way, and only when such behavior is relevant to the case.

The "victim friendly" rule extends to the family members of victims and suspects. Sleuthing family members, friends, and others who have not been designated as suspects is not allowed. Don't make random accusations, suggest their involvement, nor bash and attack them. Posting their personal information, including names, addresses, and background data -- even if it is public -- is not allowed. That does not mean, however, that statements made by family members and other third parties cannot come into discussion as the facts of the case are reported in the media.

The defence is obviously considering the victim's past behaviour, therefore reasonable speculation on the same is allowed as long as it is done in the most respectful manner possible. If you feel a post is disrespectful toward the victim, as always ... do not respond. Just use the Report feature and let WS staff review it and make a decision.

 

[Gunslinging Granny]

Defence delays trial. I think the defence lawyer will lose simply because bondage and consent is one of the charges, and there was prior consent to that practice. It's interesting that Coleman has a lawyer when typically the only lawyers would be the Crown and the defence lawyer. I wonder why she needs a lawyer in addition to the Crown Prosecutor's office.

"The trial of former Afghanistan hostage Joshua Boyle could be put on hold for months so that the Supreme Court of Canada can decide whether to hear an appeal of a judge’s ruling in the case.

That ruling, issued Wednesday by Ontario Court Justice Peter K. Doody, opened the door to a limited number of defence questions about the sexual history of Caitlan Coleman, Boyle’s estranged wife, and the key Crown witness in the case.

Doody ruled that defence lawyer Lawrence Greenspon could ask questions about Coleman’s history of consensual sex with Boyle, including ones that touched on biting, bondage and anal sex.

Coleman’s lawyer, Ian Carter, and Crown counsel had objected to that line of questioning. They said allowing the questions would render meaningless Sect. 276 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits irrelevant evidence about a complainant’s sexual history."​

Joshua Boyle's criminal trial could be put on hold for months

Her lawyer may be working pro bono from a domestic abuse center. This is common in my state.

 

[otto]

Her lawyer may be working pro bono from a domestic abuse center. This is common in my state.

I suppose that's possible, although a lawyer from the USA cannot practice law in Canada without passing the bar exam. She most likely has a Canadian lawyer. We know that a social worker who specializes in domestic abuse testified earlier in the trial, so perhaps a team from a domestic abuse organization is providing advice.

At the same time, although it is an option for a witness to have a lawyer, it is unusual simply because the prosecutor's office provides legal advice and guidance during trial. Witnesses typically don't need lawyers.

 

[nuff]

The law prohibits irrelevant evidence about a complainant’s sexual history, but it is relevant that "biting, bondage and anal sex" is their normal sexual relationship.

A) Just because a past practice may have been consensual - or perceived as such by one party with the other being coerced into consent - does not mean it was their "normal" relationship.

<modsnip: personalizing>

 

[otto]

A) Just because a past practice may have been consensual - or perceived as such by one party with the other being coerced into consent - does not mean it was their "normal" relationship.

<modsnip: personalizing>

The court has issued a ruling that the witness can be questioned about the history of their consensual sexual habits, including habits that some would view as abusive behavior. There must be a reason that this information is important for the defendant to have a fair trial, or alternatively, excluding the evidence opens the door for an appeal and retrial.

<modsnip: referenced info was removed>

 

[MsFacetious]

If they only want to question Caitlan about their sex life I think they will win that. I don't think anyone else should be able to testify about it however. Didn't Caitlan already testify about the bondage and admit it occurred before?