Everyone needs to look a this Poll: !
We are kicking out a US Military Deserter this week!
Thanks
The Poll
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
an email i sent to Microsoft about Barack Obama's name & a spell check error part 2 the Microsoft response
Thank you for writing to Windows Live Hotmail Technical Support. This is Ricky and based on the service request that you have provided, I gather that you have concern regarding spell check feature within your msdogfood@hotmail.com account. I understand the importance of having this addressed immediately.
I appreciate the message you have sent us and based on our simulation, the issue that you are inquiring about has been corrected now. If you still have concern regarding this issue, please feel free to write us back.
You are valuable at Windows Live and we look forward to providing you with consistent and effective service. We appreciate your input and involvement in our Windows Live products.
Sincerely,
Ricky
Windows Live Hotmail Technical Support
I appreciate the message you have sent us and based on our simulation, the issue that you are inquiring about has been corrected now. If you still have concern regarding this issue, please feel free to write us back.
You are valuable at Windows Live and we look forward to providing you with consistent and effective service. We appreciate your input and involvement in our Windows Live products.
Sincerely,
Ricky
Windows Live Hotmail Technical Support
Saturday, July 12, 2008
an email i sent to Microsoft about Barack Obama's name & a spell check error part 1
I am inquiring to see if Microsoft has corrected the rather embarrassing spell check error regarding Barack Obama's name. Apparently, one of the suggestions that appears is Osama or Osama bin Laden. If you haven't fixed the problem, why? Please don't tell me it is an honest mistake as you major email competitors, Google Mail and Yahoo Mail, do not attempt to spell check or associate variations on this proper name. I will be awaiting your response.Thanks
Friday, July 11, 2008
MD-80/83 problems!
-- Barack Obama's plane made an unscheduled landing in St. Louis Monday after "an emergency slide located in the tail cone of the plane deployed in flight," according to the airline that owns the chartered plane.
Sen. Barack Obama waves from the charter plane after it made an unscheduled landing in St. Louis, Missouri.
The plane is an MD-80/83 they have not Had a good service life !.
See why here
All of you can tell i am Not a fan of the McDonnell Douglas MD-80/MD-90.!!
Sen. Barack Obama waves from the charter plane after it made an unscheduled landing in St. Louis, Missouri.
The plane is an MD-80/83 they have not Had a good service life !.
See why here
All of you can tell i am Not a fan of the McDonnell Douglas MD-80/MD-90.!!
Thursday, July 10, 2008
I believe in this Cause! Make Canada Taser Free
Make Canada Taser Free
Prohibit the sale and use of TASERs in Canada
| Hide Extended Info | |
| Positions: |
|
|---|---|
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Google not Happy with Bell Canada this is good for us!
Bell's internet throttling illegal, Google says
Last Updated: Monday, July 7, 2008 4:56 PM ET
By Peter Nowak CBC News
Google says the internet is too important to allow Bell or other service providers to act as a 'gatekeeper.' (Jens Meyer/Associated Press)
Google Inc. says Bell Canada Inc. is breaking Canadian telecommunications law by slowing certain internet traffic, and is urging the CRTC to take action against the company.
"Bell claims its throttling of peer-to-peer applications is a reasonable form of network management. Google respectfully disagrees. Network management does not include Canadian carriers’ blocking or degrading lawful applications that consumers wish to use," the company wrote in a 15-page submission to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which was made public over the weekend.
See the detail's here.
Last Updated: Monday, July 7, 2008 4:56 PM ET
By Peter Nowak CBC News
Google says the internet is too important to allow Bell or other service providers to act as a 'gatekeeper.' (Jens Meyer/Associated Press)
Google Inc. says Bell Canada Inc. is breaking Canadian telecommunications law by slowing certain internet traffic, and is urging the CRTC to take action against the company.
"Bell claims its throttling of peer-to-peer applications is a reasonable form of network management. Google respectfully disagrees. Network management does not include Canadian carriers’ blocking or degrading lawful applications that consumers wish to use," the company wrote in a 15-page submission to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, which was made public over the weekend.
See the detail's here.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Steven Truscott gets compensation this is why!
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/search/en/OntarioCourtsSearch_VOpenFile.cfm?serverFilePath=D%3A%5CUsers%5COntario%20Courts%5Cwww%5Cdecisions%5C2007%5Caugust%5C2007ONCA0575%2Ehtm
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
MCMURTRY C.J.O., DOHERTY, WEILER, ROSENBERG and MOLDAVER JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 696.3 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, S.C. 2002, C. 13;
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR MINISTERIAL REVIEW (MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE) SUBMITTED BY STEVEN MURRAY TRUSCOTT IN RESPECT OF HIS CONVICTION AT GODERICH, ONTARIO, ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1959, FOR THE MURDER OF LYNNE HARPER;
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION OF THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE TO REFER THE SAID CONVICTION TO THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO FOR HEARING AND DETERMINATION AS IF IT WERE AN APPEAL BY STEVEN MURRAY TRUSCOTT ON THE ISSUE OF FRESH EVIDENCE, PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 696.3(3)(a)(ii) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN(Respondent)
James Lockyer, Philip Campbell, Marlys Edwardh, Hersh E. Wolch, Q.C. and Jenny Friedland, for the appellant
- and -
STEVEN MURRAY TRUSCOTT(Appellant)
Rosella Cornaviera, Gregory J. Tweney, Alexander Alvaro and Leanne Salel, for the respondent
HEARD: January 31, February 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14, 2007
PART I – INTRODUCTION.. 7
Overview of the Case. 7History of the Proceedings Involving the Appellant. 9Overview of the Case for the Crown and the Defence in the Prior Proceedings. 15(i) Outline of the Crown’s case at trial 15(ii) Outline of the defence case at trial 18(iii) Outline of the Crown’s evidence in reply at trial 20(iv) Outline of the additional evidence led by the Crown on the first Reference. 21(v) Outline of the additional evidence led by the defence on the first Reference. 21Summary of the Majority Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the First Reference 23
PART II – THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. 24
The Terms of this Reference. 24The Relevant Provisions of the Criminal Code. 30(i) The Reference is treated as an appeal 30(ii) Our approach to the fresh evidence analysis. 33(iii) Section 683(1) and the admissibility of evidence on appeal 34(iv) The legal principles governing the admissibility of the fresh evidence relevant to the time of death 38(v) Why we do not address the appellant’s unfairness claim.. 47
PART III – WHEN DID LYNNE HARPER DIE?. 51
The Medical Evidence on the Time of Death in the Prior Proceedings. 53(i) Trial testimony of the Crown and defence experts. 53(ii) Closing arguments at trial on the medical evidence on time of death. 56(iii) Trial judge’s charge to the jury on time of death. 58(iv) Evidence on time of death at the 1966 Reference and the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of this evidence. 59(v) The significance of Dr. Penistan’s evidence on time of death. 63The Fresh Evidence on the Present Reference. 65(i) Dr. Pollanen. 67(ii) Dr. Knight 72(iii) Dr. Diamant 74Admissibility of the Expert Evidence on Time of Death. 78Archival Material Relating to the Credibility and Reliability of Dr. Penistan’s Evidence as to the Time of Death. 84(i) The unofficial versions of Dr. Penistan’s autopsy report 85(ii) Dr. Penistan’s “agonizing reappraisal”. 87Admissibility of the Archival Material Relating to Dr. Penistan’s Evidence. 90
PART IV – THE COURT’S APPROACH TO REMEDY.. 95
PART V – A HYPOTHETICAL NEW TRIAL.. 107
A. MATERIAL THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THE CROWN’S CASE.. 108
B. THE FOUR PILLARS OF THE CROWN’S CASE.. 118
THE FIRST PILLAR OF THE CROWN’S CASE: THE TIME OF DEATH.. 1181. The Pathology Evidence. 1192. The Entomology Evidence. 120(i) Introduction to the entomology evidence. 120(ii) Credibility of the entomology experts. 121(iii) The theory of forensic entomology. 122(iv) The critical entomology issues: identification of type and stage. 126(v) Conclusions on the type and stage of development of the larvae that Dr. Penistan removed from the body. 133(vi) What does the evidence on type and stage mean?. 137(vii) Conclusion on the value of the entomology evidence. 145THE SECOND PILLAR OF THE CROWN’S CASE: THE COUNTY ROAD EVIDENCE 1471. The Evidence Underlying the Crown’s County Road Theory. 151(i) Summary of the Crown’s County Road evidence. 151(ii) The cornerstones of the Crown’s County Road theory. 1562. The Treatment of the County Road Evidence by the Majority of the Supreme Court on the First Reference. 1653. The Archival Material and its Impact on the County Road Evidence. 168(i) The nature of the archival material 168(ii) Difficulties inherent in the Crown’s County Road theory. 170(iii) The impact of the archival material on the cornerstones of the Crown’s County Road theory at a hypothetical new trial 176(iv) A credible alternative to the Crown’s County Road theory. 190THE THIRD PILLAR OF THE CROWN’S CASE: THE APPELLANT’S POST-OFFENCE CONDUCT.. 1971. Arnold George’s Evidence. 199(i) George’s trial testimony. 200(ii) The archival material relating to George’s evidence. 206(iii) Conclusion on the three statements of Arnold George. 2192. The Appellant’s Alleged Fabrication of a Story that he saw Lynne get into a Vehicle at the Highway. 220(i) Trial evidence. 220(ii) Closing arguments. 223(iii) Trial judge’s charge to the jury. 223(iv) Evidence on the first Reference. 223(v) Impact of the new and archival material on the visibility issue. 2253. The Appellant’s Alleged Admissions to George and Other Children Concerning Lynne and Lawson’s Bush. 229THE FOURTH PILLAR OF THE CROWN’S CASE: THE PENIS LESIONS EVIDENCE 230(i) Introduction. 230(ii) Trial evidence. 231(iii) Closing arguments. 233(iv) Trial judge’s charge to the jury. 234(v) Evidence at the 1966 Reference. 236(vi) Additional material on penis lesions relied on at this Reference. 237(vii) Penis lesions evidence at a hypothetical new trial 238C. THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE AT A HYPOTHETICAL NEW TRIAL.. 2391. Impact of the Additional Material on the Evidence of Gordon Logan and Doug Oates 241Gordon Logan. 241Doug Oates. 247(i) Oates’ evidence at trial 247(ii) Impact of the archival material on Oates’ testimony. 2522. Lynne Harper’s Mood and the Possibility that She Hitchhiked. 2573. Karen Daum... 262(i) The 1959 witness statement of Karen Daum.. 262(ii) Daum’s 1959 statement and her recent testimony. 263(iii) The hearsay analysis: admissibility of the 1959 statement 269(iv) The weight to be attached to Daum’s 1959 statement 279(v) The value of Daum’s 1959 statement 281
D. THE CRIME SCENE.. 283
E. WHAT IS LEFT OF THE CROWN’S CASE?. 289
PART VI – CONCLUSION.. 299
LIST OF APPENDICES (PDF only)
Appendix 1: Map of the County Road and Surrounding AreaAppendix 2: Aerial Photograph of the County Road and Surrounding AreaAppendix 3: Walking Reconstruction Performed by Philip BurnsAppendix 4: Cycling Reconstruction Performed by Paul DesjardineAppendix 5: An Alternative County Road Theory Consistent with the Defence PositionAppendix 6: Trial exhibits of a Car Located at the Intersection of the County Road and Highway No. 8Appendix 7: New Photographs of Vehicles Located at the Intersection of the County Road and Highway No. 8Appendix 8: O.P.P. Photographs Purporting to Depict Gordon Logan’s View of the Bridge Tendered at the Supreme Court of Canada Reference in 1966Appendix 9: New Photographs of the View of the Bridge from Gordon Logan’s Position on the Rock in the Bayfield River
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
MCMURTRY C.J.O., DOHERTY, WEILER, ROSENBERG and MOLDAVER JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 696.3 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE, S.C. 2002, C. 13;
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR MINISTERIAL REVIEW (MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE) SUBMITTED BY STEVEN MURRAY TRUSCOTT IN RESPECT OF HIS CONVICTION AT GODERICH, ONTARIO, ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1959, FOR THE MURDER OF LYNNE HARPER;
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION OF THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE TO REFER THE SAID CONVICTION TO THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO FOR HEARING AND DETERMINATION AS IF IT WERE AN APPEAL BY STEVEN MURRAY TRUSCOTT ON THE ISSUE OF FRESH EVIDENCE, PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 696.3(3)(a)(ii) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN(Respondent)
James Lockyer, Philip Campbell, Marlys Edwardh, Hersh E. Wolch, Q.C. and Jenny Friedland, for the appellant
- and -
STEVEN MURRAY TRUSCOTT(Appellant)
Rosella Cornaviera, Gregory J. Tweney, Alexander Alvaro and Leanne Salel, for the respondent
HEARD: January 31, February 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14, 2007
PART I – INTRODUCTION.. 7
Overview of the Case. 7History of the Proceedings Involving the Appellant. 9Overview of the Case for the Crown and the Defence in the Prior Proceedings. 15(i) Outline of the Crown’s case at trial 15(ii) Outline of the defence case at trial 18(iii) Outline of the Crown’s evidence in reply at trial 20(iv) Outline of the additional evidence led by the Crown on the first Reference. 21(v) Outline of the additional evidence led by the defence on the first Reference. 21Summary of the Majority Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the First Reference 23
PART II – THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS. 24
The Terms of this Reference. 24The Relevant Provisions of the Criminal Code. 30(i) The Reference is treated as an appeal 30(ii) Our approach to the fresh evidence analysis. 33(iii) Section 683(1) and the admissibility of evidence on appeal 34(iv) The legal principles governing the admissibility of the fresh evidence relevant to the time of death 38(v) Why we do not address the appellant’s unfairness claim.. 47
PART III – WHEN DID LYNNE HARPER DIE?. 51
The Medical Evidence on the Time of Death in the Prior Proceedings. 53(i) Trial testimony of the Crown and defence experts. 53(ii) Closing arguments at trial on the medical evidence on time of death. 56(iii) Trial judge’s charge to the jury on time of death. 58(iv) Evidence on time of death at the 1966 Reference and the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of this evidence. 59(v) The significance of Dr. Penistan’s evidence on time of death. 63The Fresh Evidence on the Present Reference. 65(i) Dr. Pollanen. 67(ii) Dr. Knight 72(iii) Dr. Diamant 74Admissibility of the Expert Evidence on Time of Death. 78Archival Material Relating to the Credibility and Reliability of Dr. Penistan’s Evidence as to the Time of Death. 84(i) The unofficial versions of Dr. Penistan’s autopsy report 85(ii) Dr. Penistan’s “agonizing reappraisal”. 87Admissibility of the Archival Material Relating to Dr. Penistan’s Evidence. 90
PART IV – THE COURT’S APPROACH TO REMEDY.. 95
PART V – A HYPOTHETICAL NEW TRIAL.. 107
A. MATERIAL THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THE CROWN’S CASE.. 108
B. THE FOUR PILLARS OF THE CROWN’S CASE.. 118
THE FIRST PILLAR OF THE CROWN’S CASE: THE TIME OF DEATH.. 1181. The Pathology Evidence. 1192. The Entomology Evidence. 120(i) Introduction to the entomology evidence. 120(ii) Credibility of the entomology experts. 121(iii) The theory of forensic entomology. 122(iv) The critical entomology issues: identification of type and stage. 126(v) Conclusions on the type and stage of development of the larvae that Dr. Penistan removed from the body. 133(vi) What does the evidence on type and stage mean?. 137(vii) Conclusion on the value of the entomology evidence. 145THE SECOND PILLAR OF THE CROWN’S CASE: THE COUNTY ROAD EVIDENCE 1471. The Evidence Underlying the Crown’s County Road Theory. 151(i) Summary of the Crown’s County Road evidence. 151(ii) The cornerstones of the Crown’s County Road theory. 1562. The Treatment of the County Road Evidence by the Majority of the Supreme Court on the First Reference. 1653. The Archival Material and its Impact on the County Road Evidence. 168(i) The nature of the archival material 168(ii) Difficulties inherent in the Crown’s County Road theory. 170(iii) The impact of the archival material on the cornerstones of the Crown’s County Road theory at a hypothetical new trial 176(iv) A credible alternative to the Crown’s County Road theory. 190THE THIRD PILLAR OF THE CROWN’S CASE: THE APPELLANT’S POST-OFFENCE CONDUCT.. 1971. Arnold George’s Evidence. 199(i) George’s trial testimony. 200(ii) The archival material relating to George’s evidence. 206(iii) Conclusion on the three statements of Arnold George. 2192. The Appellant’s Alleged Fabrication of a Story that he saw Lynne get into a Vehicle at the Highway. 220(i) Trial evidence. 220(ii) Closing arguments. 223(iii) Trial judge’s charge to the jury. 223(iv) Evidence on the first Reference. 223(v) Impact of the new and archival material on the visibility issue. 2253. The Appellant’s Alleged Admissions to George and Other Children Concerning Lynne and Lawson’s Bush. 229THE FOURTH PILLAR OF THE CROWN’S CASE: THE PENIS LESIONS EVIDENCE 230(i) Introduction. 230(ii) Trial evidence. 231(iii) Closing arguments. 233(iv) Trial judge’s charge to the jury. 234(v) Evidence at the 1966 Reference. 236(vi) Additional material on penis lesions relied on at this Reference. 237(vii) Penis lesions evidence at a hypothetical new trial 238C. THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE AT A HYPOTHETICAL NEW TRIAL.. 2391. Impact of the Additional Material on the Evidence of Gordon Logan and Doug Oates 241Gordon Logan. 241Doug Oates. 247(i) Oates’ evidence at trial 247(ii) Impact of the archival material on Oates’ testimony. 2522. Lynne Harper’s Mood and the Possibility that She Hitchhiked. 2573. Karen Daum... 262(i) The 1959 witness statement of Karen Daum.. 262(ii) Daum’s 1959 statement and her recent testimony. 263(iii) The hearsay analysis: admissibility of the 1959 statement 269(iv) The weight to be attached to Daum’s 1959 statement 279(v) The value of Daum’s 1959 statement 281
D. THE CRIME SCENE.. 283
E. WHAT IS LEFT OF THE CROWN’S CASE?. 289
PART VI – CONCLUSION.. 299
LIST OF APPENDICES (PDF only)
Appendix 1: Map of the County Road and Surrounding AreaAppendix 2: Aerial Photograph of the County Road and Surrounding AreaAppendix 3: Walking Reconstruction Performed by Philip BurnsAppendix 4: Cycling Reconstruction Performed by Paul DesjardineAppendix 5: An Alternative County Road Theory Consistent with the Defence PositionAppendix 6: Trial exhibits of a Car Located at the Intersection of the County Road and Highway No. 8Appendix 7: New Photographs of Vehicles Located at the Intersection of the County Road and Highway No. 8Appendix 8: O.P.P. Photographs Purporting to Depict Gordon Logan’s View of the Bridge Tendered at the Supreme Court of Canada Reference in 1966Appendix 9: New Photographs of the View of the Bridge from Gordon Logan’s Position on the Rock in the Bayfield River
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)