Police officers meticulously collected evidence to document a complicated investigation in a rigorous, professional manner.
Here's an interesting series of posts, following the release of her accused killer - presumed innocent as the legal system goes, and this feminist agrees - on bail after he was charged.
The Crown proceeded with skill, compassion and due diligence.
The defendant's lawyer attempted to impugn the integrity and the objectivity of the prosecutor.
Outside court, defense lawyer Michael Nolin took issue with how the texts presented to the jury portray David Woods as a racist. "I'm very disappointed that this is the line that the prosecution has chosen to draw in the sand," he said. "I find it interesting that the only prosecutor of colour in the Saskatoon provincial prosecution office has been drawn to try this case. And he's been on it from the beginning."Nolin concluded his case for the defence by stating Dorothy engaged in a high-risk lifestyle with several strange (code for black) men*, and exhorted the jurors to "vote with their conscience". Oddly that doesn't sound at all like a closing argument to me though it does seem to be a judgement.
The judge carefully presided over the trial and instructed the jury members.
The attentive jury reviewed the details of evidence that was gathered and presented.
After a finding of first degree murder, the prosecutor Michael Segu was able to offer observations to the media in his measured, thoughtful manner.
Oh. Was it racism, the "the elephant in the room" that Woods' lawyer Michael Nolin kept tripping over?
Nonetheless David Woods refused to take responsibility for the aggrieved male honour and patriarchal privilege that motivated him to plan and execute the vengeful murder of his wife. He appealed his conviction.
*The testimony of Dorothy's friend was challenged by Woods' lawyer; the judge allowed it.
ADDED: to provide a context for this post. There have been many confrontations after the Ghomeshi decision, particularly with regard to those who seem compelled to police what can be properly criticized. On both sides of the divide, many have descended into use of hyperbole.
These screen caps indicate how most criticism of Justice Horkins' judgement is met with hostile screeching of SO YOU WANT TO ABOLISH THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE!
When those accused of being "anti-presumption of innocence" attempt to clarify - they're then accused of being in league with some RWNJ advocacy for victims, such as the useful con job Pierre-Hughes Boisvenu. Err, no.