Wednesday, 30 December 2009

"Honour" killings and the murderer.

Last weekend I heard an interesting fact from a physician friend who works part-time as coroner in Toronto.

She told me the following: when police are called to the scene of an apparent death by hanging and the victim is a woman, they won't assume it was self-inflicted. The body will be removed with cord, rope, or materials seemingly used to cause death left intact so that the evidence can be examined by an expert. It appears that a high percentage of femicides by strangulation are covered up with evidence planted to suggest suicide. There are some knots that can't be tied by oneself. Post-mortem trauma is different, and a forensic scientist can identify the markers of physical injuries that distinguish a garroting inflicted by a second party.

Bad luck for Chris Little, then. His scheme to pin the "honour" killing of his estranged wife on someone else was doomed from the moment he started planning the double murders.

His defense lawyer John Rosen took an approach that required the demonstration that his client's estranged wife had "cheated" on him before they wed, during their marriage and after they separated. Rosen was hoping to show the jury that Little remained dispassionate about his partner's actions and to infer it was the "wronged" woman who had killed Julie Crocker.

The judge did not allow the prosecution to present character witnesses who would have countered Rosen's claims regarding Crocker and Menendez, nor evidence that would have revealed other aspect of Little's criminal behaviour, because the police obtained it in circumstances that violated Chris Little's Charter Rights.

... the jury didn't hear that Little apparently drugged and sexually assaulted Crocker while she was unconscious, something which was revealed in a court document obtained by The Star.

The jury also never saw the video of the attack, which police found hidden in a basement ceiling of the home where Crocker was murdered. Justice Michelle Fuerst ruled that York Regional Police violated Little's Charter rights in the search that unearthed the video and a pin-hole camera. Exactly when the apparent drugging and sexual assault occurred is not clear.

There are of course like-minded men who claim that Little was unjustly accused and unfairly held accountable for crimes that Crocker provoked with her "immoral" behaviour. That was the line of defense Little's lawyer pursued, and the comments posted wherever accounts of the trial were published are from men who believe that Little is innocent and/or justified in his actions. Those men probably wish Canada still had judeo-christian laws that would justify their particular sociopathic feelings towards women.


Mrs. Bitch said...

This mentality is so rampant in the US it's horrifying. Whenever I get into a crowded social area like a Meijer or Walmart, or anywhere there are a lot of people, I look around me and wonder how many of the women I pass have, at some point in their lives, either been physically assaulted or sexually abused by men they trusted. My guess is more of it goes on than anyone will ever know or would care to admit.

Of course, it also means I realize that I'm walking among men who have beaten and abused women - for every abusee, there is an abuser. Kinda makes your skin crawl knowing they can blend right in and appear normal.

The mouth-breathers who defend this kind of thing are the "women are property" morons and can usually be ferreted out as soon as they open their mouths and the stupid starts spilling out.

Bina said...

And these same mouth-breathers are the kind that then turn around and shriek about "Islamic" femicides, taking them as "proof" that "those people" are "barbarians". They would, of course, lynch Muslims in a heartbeat if they felt they could get away with it. That is, when they're not "praying for us".

They are sick, sick, sickety-sick sick. And they walk among us...

deBeauxOs said...

Yup. Dickheads like Maurice Vellacott.

Post a Comment