Monday, 28 March 2016

When femicide is justified by men who feel their "honour" has been soiled.

The first post of an informal series, illustrating how and when all the elements of the legal system do work and justice is served.

Dorothy Woods.

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


Huh? said...

Let me get this straight: a conviction is secured in a horrific murder case, and the fact that the guilty party doesn't want to take the rap (people who commit vicious murders are sometimes like that, oddly enough) is somehow a damning indictment of our legal system and society at large?

deBeauxOs said...

Huh? indeed.

No. That's not what I said.

You have somehow discounted all the facts that I presented about the police work, the prosecution, the judge and the jury, and twisted it to fit your own interpretation.

Try reading my blogpost again. Do pay attention to the first sentence, as well as the respect I express with regard to the professionals who did their work well.

Your spin is wrong, as well as incorrect. You didn't "get this straight"; somehow you twisted it to suit your own agenda.

David Woods' appeal (AFAIK) was rejected. I couldn't find any follow-up news items.

Huh? said...

"Nonetheless David Woods refused to take responsibility for the aggrieved male honour and patriarchal privilege that motivated him"

Ever think that maybe it could have just been because he was a violent, murdering scum?

deBeauxOs said...

A jury found him guilty. He was convicted and sentenced.

Yet David Woods might disagree with your description of him. He was, after all, assumed innocent of the crime until the legal system, supported by a rigorous evidence collecting and prosecution, convinced the jury of his guilt beyond a doubt.

So he may believe that he is not guilty of a crime, no matter if he demonstrably murdered Dorothy, because it was her fault.

Post a Comment