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

Discussion in 'Trials' started by mikkismom, Oct 12, 2017.

  1. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    30,908
    Likes Received:
    21,409
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think she did testify about their sex practices, and photos of the bondage equipment that she collected from around their house were photographed and entered as evidence. The defense has the right to cross-examine, presumably with the goal to argue that he did not know that she did not consent on the night in question. That would require asking the witness more detailed questions about who said what, what happened, how that was different from other consensual times. The defense most likely wants to demonstrate that what happened on the night in question was no different than other nights when the ropes and so on were not a problem. I'm just speculating on why the questioning will be allowed.

    I'm not 100% clear on what happened last week, but I think Coleman expressed discomfort with the questioning, suggesting that it was too similar to her time in captivity, even though it was done outside a courtroom and with a support person. I'm unclear on whether the questioning was scaled back again, perhaps allowing her to testify from her home, or whether there was a voir dire to determine whether the questioning violated other law. Maybe someone else understood this better.

    There was no news for a few days, and then the decision that she could be questioned about the history of their consensual sex practices was delivered. That came with an announcement that the trial could be delayed for a long time because of an appeal by her lawyer and the prosecutor regarding the decision.

    Boyle is facing very serious charges, and is entitled to defend himself. Coleman has told her story, and now Boyle probably wants to ensure that she told the whole story.
     
    Intermezzo, MsFacetious and cody22 like this.
  2. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    30,908
    Likes Received:
    21,409
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suspect that if defence counsel is prevented from cross-examining the witness about her claims about their sexual history, any verdict of guilt will result in a quick and successful appeal, and this will drag on for years. No one benefits if that happens. This couple and their children need to heal and move forward, not dwell on a time when their lives were completely broken.
     
    Intermezzo, MsFacetious and cody22 like this.
  3. Willow Knight

    Willow Knight Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    1,413
    Trophy Points:
    93
    The way I understand this present situation is due to action of JB after their release. Caitlan ran from her home and phoned for help, she explained why she ran. Because of JB's actions LE felt crimes have been committed. I do not believe Caitlan wants JB to spend time in prison because he deteriorated while in captivity. I believe she wants JB accountable for continuing to abuse her.
     
    kimpage, lucy_lou, JaneEyre and 6 others like this.
  4. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    30,908
    Likes Received:
    21,409
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One of the issues that has my attention is: when did he first treat her inappropriately during consensual bondage? Was it prior to captivity, during captivity, or after release?

    In Feb 2018, Coleman said that Boyle was not abusive prior to the 5 years captivity. After filing charges, she says that he was abusive in the same way prior to captivity.

    If Boyle was always like this, and it was a problem, why did Coleman spend several months in South America with him prior to their adventure to save the world (so to speak) in Afghanistan?

    This is not an offence against a victim, but rather a question of whether her memory serves her well if she told her sister after their return that this happened because of captivity, and she told the court that he was always like this. It makes a big difference.

    "In February, Coleman wrote an email to Boyle’s sister, Heather, saying she was “sorry that your brother has deteriorated like this,” that he “always had mental health problems, but he was not a violent person before captivity.”​

    Caitlan Coleman says Joshua Boyle’s violence got worse as Afghanistan captivity wore on
     
    Intermezzo, human and cody22 like this.
  5. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    30,908
    Likes Received:
    21,409
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Accountable, yes. If he was not like this prior to captivity, but went off the deep end during or after captivity, then psychiatric help is what he needs, not prison.
     
    Willow Knight and cody22 like this.
  6. Willow Knight

    Willow Knight Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    1,413
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Snip for focus, with respect.

    Those are good questions, and know that I in no way know the details for certain. I can tell you in many cases/situations domestic abuse increases with time. It usually starts out with a partner that is controlling. As the couple spends more time together, the abuse get worse. There are other signs of abuse than their sex life. Detailing her duties, if she failed she would be physically punished is one. I am glad she is getting out of this situation.

    I also understand what you are saying, if JB became abusive due to his hostage situation that he will get the help he needs.
     
  7. human

    human Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    22,413
    Likes Received:
    21,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think their whole relationship always was a nightmare.

    Two people that should have had big time marriage counseling before they got together.
     
  8. Forest_Wood

    Forest_Wood Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How do you know that one wants the other to spend time in prison? You make it sound as though CC conjured up this entire situation. It was JB who phoned the police and allegedly made a false report about his wife. Upon investigation to his call, the police charged him with numerous serious crimes.
     
    kimpage, lucy_lou, JaneEyre and 4 others like this.
  9. Gunslinging Granny

    Gunslinging Granny Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,435
    Likes Received:
    13,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, but the assault and battery episodes which Caitlan experienced by Josh upon her return from Afghanistan weren't consensual. Josh held Caitlan as an unwilling prisoner, tried to sodomize her against her will, hit her in the face, bit her, gaslighted her and forced her to take an overdose of his medication contraindicated for her and her unborn child.
     
    kimpage, lucy_lou, JaneEyre and 6 others like this.
  10. Gunslinging Granny

    Gunslinging Granny Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,435
    Likes Received:
    13,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or Josh wants to spin an entirely different story. He's a talented liar. He convinced Caitlan they wouldn't enter into Afghanistan if she went on the Asian trip, but he took her there. He also lied to the police when Caitlan tried to escape him and seek help from her mom.
     
    kimpage, lucy_lou, JaneEyre and 4 others like this.
  11. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    30,908
    Likes Received:
    21,409
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a cycle of abuse such that there is abuse, the victim figures out a way to protect from that abuse, and the abuser finds a different way to abuse. Therefore, abuse always escalates. For example, in a marriage, when either spouse crosses the line to slapping, that line cannot be uncrossed. Another line is soon crossed.

    It is good that she was finally able to extricate herself from an abusive marriage. The question remains: was he abusive in the same way prior to their trip to Peru (??) yet she still went to Afghanistan with him? Or was he not abusive in the same way, and that happened during captivity? All we have from the trial so far is a lot of dirty laundry and no clear answers.

    If he was always like this, his five years of torture in captivity are still a factor. It's an aggravating factor that cannot be over looked. I don't understand why this has resulted in charges rather than treatment, except if the verdict alters time that they each can be with their children (international custody situation). Something about two PTSD torture victims trying to imprison each other seems over the top unbelievable - if they ever loved each other - c'est la vie.
     
    Intermezzo, Willow Knight and cody22 like this.
  12. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    30,908
    Likes Received:
    21,409
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The last paragraph (see below) is difficult to understand. She gave birth to her first child in captivity, maybe two months in, but "couldn't forgive what he'd done to the children in his blind exuberance for the group at the start." At the "start" is presumably when they were first captured, but she didn't have any children at the start. What does this mean? At the start of Boyle's friendship with this man? If so, when was that - how many children did they have?

    I'm assuming the Kafkaesque reference is to being falsely accused (Franz Kafka: The Trial). Were their captors repeatedly separating them, questioning them, beating them, and falsely accusing them?

    "Family and friends have described Boyle and Coleman as naive idealists - a couple with strong convictions and humanitarian inclinations. ... He called himself a "pilgrim" on a mission. He told reporters he went to help "the most neglected minority group in the world."
    ...

    Coleman described their situation as a "Kafkaesque nightmare". The family was subject to mistreatment and violence during their captivity. ... There were times Boyle and Coleman were separated and beaten.
    ...

    "I offered [one captor he got to know] my fullest forgiveness, and Caitlan said she would forgive him all his minor sins against her, but she couldn't forgive what he'd done to the children in his blind exuberance for the group at the start," Boyle wrote."​

    The story behind this couple's kidnapping
     
    Intermezzo and cody22 like this.
  13. MsFacetious

    MsFacetious What a Kerfuffle...

    Messages:
    20,026
    Likes Received:
    18,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is my thought too, which is why I say ONLY Caitlan should be allowed to testify about their sex life. Because the charges are somewhat supported by witnesses and evidence.

    While Boyle has made false claims about Caitlan in the past and should not have an opportunity to do so in court. I'm not sure if that even makes sense.

    I totally understand he has a right to a defense. That's the side I work on. I just think there is a line and here having Caitlan testify about it allows it to come in, without allowing her to be smeared unfairly by false claims.

    I'm sure this issue is similar to the rape shield law we have in the states. It's a great protection but it does sometimes impede a defense. If you can't introduce the convicted rapist that resided with the accuser and abused other family members for example. Even though that isn't the accusers sexual history, it's just another suspect in the rape which would explain injuries. It still isn't permitted most of the time.
     
  14. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    30,908
    Likes Received:
    21,409
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Judge has said that there can be limited questioning about the history of their consensual sex. There are no other witnesses to their sex life, other than perhaps their captors, and the question of when the abuse began is in dispute due to Coleman's own statements.

    If Boyle has also made false statements, then they have both made false statements. The question is consent and whether there could have been any misunderstanding. Boyle has a right to present evidence, and the testimony of the eye witness should put an end to this line of questioning, very likely in favour of one or the other, depending on limited questioning about their (and no one else's) consensual sexual history.

    The prosecutor put her on the stand, so if anyone encouraged her to air the dirty laundry and the smear unfairly, it was because she filed charges. It was not a choice. Her husband did not cause her to discuss the details of their sex life, the prosecutor did.
     
    cody22 likes this.
  15. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    30,908
    Likes Received:
    21,409
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is a rape shield law in Canada stating that women cannot be asked about their sexual history in a rape trial.

    Boyle faces allegations / charges of threats to use a rope and use of a rope, except the couple normally engages in horseplay with ropes. That complicates the issue. On top of that, they are both suffering PTSD from 5 years of torture and captivity.

    Is this your every day rapist, like Ted Bundy, or is this a man who went nuts in captivity? This is not just another rapist, this is a man who had B-Movie sex with his wife. One day his wife reported to her sister, then the FBI and then the RCMP, that she did not consent. Here we are.
     
    cody22 likes this.
  16. MsFacetious

    MsFacetious What a Kerfuffle...

    Messages:
    20,026
    Likes Received:
    18,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I could see Caitlan blaming the captivity for his behavior once the sister realized he had an issue. She was still defending him and staying with him for a long time. Many spouses cover up what is going on at home or how bad things really are. That isn't on the same level for me.

    I think though that Boyle calling the police to make a false report about her, is way different than her softening his behavior for his own sister. She wasn't likely to tell his sister how horrid he always was.

    I've seen it A LOT. Just did a trial where the defendants father learned tons of things he didn't know. Nothing to do with guilt or innocence, just general information like when a relationship/job/living situation/vehicle changed or a vacation happened. He didn't know these things because the defendant didn't want him to, didn't trust him, whatever.

    Maybe I'm not making sense. I just feel like their "false statements" are on different levels with different motives. He was trying to hurt her by making things up and she was trying to protect him by making him appear better to his family.
     
    kimpage, JaneEyre, Dymphna and 6 others like this.
  17. Intermezzo

    Intermezzo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,452
    Likes Received:
    844
    Trophy Points:
    113

    WOW. Just catching up on this news.
    I believe Lawrence Greenspon is putting on a vigorous defense of his client.

    BBM

    The trial has continued for 1.5 weeks without any media reports.
    A reporter did notify me that the lawyers have been arguing procedure and evidence
    We don't have the details of the arguments and evidence presented the past 1.5 weeks by the Defense or the Crown but something was enough for the Judge to rule that limited questioning about their sexual activity was allowed as it pertained to this case.

    Now on to the appeal of that ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada , we wait.
     
    Willow Knight, otto and cody22 like this.
  18. Intermezzo

    Intermezzo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,452
    Likes Received:
    844
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think the defense may be thinking along these lines as well.
    The Defense did ask the Global Affairs consular during cross examination about her knowledge this family prior to this flight

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/joshua-boyle-trial-ottawa-witnesses-1.5084729
    "During cross-examination, defence lawyer Eric Granger asked Unger if she knew the family prior to meeting them for the flight, or whether she was aware that they had just spent five years in captivity.
    Unger said she didn't know them but was aware of their captivity.
    She agreed that she had no personal awareness of what the family dynamics had been during their time as hostages."
     
    Willow Knight, otto and cody22 like this.
  19. Intermezzo

    Intermezzo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,452
    Likes Received:
    844
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have been reading up on rape shield laws and I thought that there was NO questioning or submitting evidence of the victims sexual past, I was incorrect in thinking that.

    Now I see where the lawyers are going in regards to mounting a defense for JB

    What I have read (not only in Canada but in other countries as well) is that a rape shield law can allow questioning if it pertains to the case but that it restricts or limits those questions or evidence of the victims sexual history.
    The law shields the victim(s) from improper use of their sexual history but a judge rules that the sexual history is admissible it is limited to case specific situations.

    So since this case is in Canada I will post the sections of the Canadian Criminal Code that pertain here
    Section 276(1) and 276(2)

    Evidence of complainant’s sexual activity
    276. (1) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 151 [sexual interference], 152 [invitation to sexual touching], 153 [sexual exploitation], 153.1 [sexual exploitation of a person with a disability], 155 [incest] or 159 [anal intercourse], subsection 160(2) or (3) [bestiality] or section 170 [Parent or guardian procuring sexual activity], 171 [Householder permitting sexual activity], 172 [corrupting children], 173 [indecent act], 271 [sexual assault], 272 [sexual assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon] or 273 [aggravated sexual assault], evidence that the complainant has engaged in sexual activity, whether with the accused or with any other person, is not admissible to support an inference that, by reason of the sexual nature of that activity, the complainant

    (a) is more likely to have consented to the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge; or
    (b) is less worthy of belief.
    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 276; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 12; 1992, c. 38, s. 2; 2002, c. 13, s. 13; 2018, c. 29, s. 21.

    Reputation evidence

    277. In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 151 [sexual interference], 152 [invitation to sexual touching], 153 [sexual exploitation], 153.1 [sexual exploitation of a person with a disability], 155 [incest] or 159 [anal intercourse], subsection 160(2) or (3) [bestiality] or section 170 [Parent or guardian procuring sexual activity], 171 [Householder permitting sexual activity], 172 [corrupting children], 173 [indecent act], 271 [sexual assault], 272 [sexual assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon] or 273 [aggravated sexual assault], evidence of sexual reputation, whether general or specific, is not admissible for the purpose of challenging or supporting the credibility of the complainant.
    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 277; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 13; 2002, c. 13, s. 14.

    EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION (THIS , IT SEEMS, IS WHERE JB'S DEFENSE IS GOING)

    276 ...
    Conditions for admissibility
    (2) In proceedings in respect of an offence referred to in subsection (1), evidence shall not be adduced by or on behalf of the accused that the complainant has engaged in sexual activity other than the sexual activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, whether with the accused or with any other person, unless the judge, provincial court judge or justice determines, in accordance with the procedures set out in sections 278.93 and 278.94 [Production of Records for Sexual Offences], that the evidence

    (a) is not being adduced for the purpose of supporting an inference described in subsection (1);
    (b) is relevant to an issue at trial; and
    (c) is of specific instances of sexual activity; and
    (d) has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.
    ... R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 276; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 12; 1992, c. 38, s. 2; 2002, c. 13, s. 13; 2018, c. 29, s. 21.

    Standard of Proof

    The applicant must satisfy the requirements of admission on a balance of probabilities.[1]

    1. Jump up ↑ R v Darrach, [2000] 2 SCR 443, 2000 SCC 46 (CanLII), per Gonthier J, at para 46
    276...

    Factors that judge must consider
    (3) In determining whether evidence is admissible under subsection (2), the judge, provincial court judge or justice shall take into account

    (a) the interests of justice, including the right of the accused to make a full answer and defence;
    (b) society’s interest in encouraging the reporting of sexual assault offences;
    (c) whether there is a reasonable prospect that the evidence will assist in arriving at a just determination in the case;
    (d) the need to remove from the fact-finding process any discriminatory belief or bias;
    (e) the risk that the evidence may unduly arouse sentiments of prejudice, sympathy or hostility in the jury;
    (f) the potential prejudice to the complainant’s personal dignity and right of privacy;
    (g) the right of the complainant and of every individual to personal security and to the full protection and benefit of the law; and
    (h) any other factor that the judge, provincial court judge or justice considers relevant.
    ...
    R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 276; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 12; 1992, c. 38, s. 2; 2002, c. 13, s. 13; 2018, c. 29, s. 21.
     
    lucy_lou, otto, cody22 and 1 other person like this.
  20. Gunslinging Granny

    Gunslinging Granny Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,435
    Likes Received:
    13,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    His attempt to sodomize Caitlan against her will is rape. Spousal rape has been illegal in Canada for 34 years. Joshua Boyle is an intelligent man and not insane. He knew the law and broke the law. He should be sentenced for his crimes like other rapists. He shouldn't receive special treatment from a Canadian court because he was a Taliban-want-to-be and accidentally became their prisoner for 5 years.
    Ontario ruling shines spotlight on misconceptions about marital rape

    Josh also wanted Caitlan to go onto Skellington forums and find teenagers for him to sexually exploit. He's dangerous and needs to be removed from society.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2019

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice