record of the basement, while he described the alleged assaults
in “vivid” detail.
Page 59 (171), page 61 (173, 174, 175)
(by DRS’ father)
at the preliminary hearing confirmed our findingthat the basement and the TV room did not even exist until 1981 (six years after thetimeline of charges) when DRS was twenty years old.The Appeal Court wrote
that “the trial Judge failed to direct himself to a lie by the witness
which would taint his entire
Appeal Court ruled that in his testimony
demonstrated a marked disregard
for the truth
or was patentlyunreliable
Page 61 (175) & page 62 (176)
DRS also made a complaint of rape; and during the preliminary hearing he described (underoath) the alleged anal intercourse in scurrilous detail. However during the trial he admittedthat it never happened.Another complainant, JH (who is a cousin of DRS) also admitted under oath that he lied tothe RCMP about being sexually assaulted in Port Hawkesbury. The trial judge ignored thatimportant fact and entered a conviction. The conviction however was also overturned bythe Appeal Court.It should be noted that your prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, theentire decision of the Appeal Court of Nova Scotia, including the finding of collusion, thefinding of unreliable testimony of the complainants, and the finding of misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge.It should be emphasized that the entire appeal was unanimously dismissed by the SupremeCourt of Canada.Unfortunately, in their reporting of the case, the media organizations refer only to the issuesof delay (which are significant and extremely prejudicial) however the other issues such ascollusion among the complainants, credibility of the complainants, and misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge, are equally significant and prejudicial, albeit ignored by themedia.It should also be noted
that Justice Kennedy C.J.N.S ruled regarding complainant WR that “I
do not consider that he was a child at that
Kennedy decision page 35 (1-2)
Regarding complainant RM, The Chief Justice ruled “he was not a child at that time, he wasa young man”.
Kennedy decision page 51 (15)
Regarding complainants DRS and JH, Justice Kennedy ruled they were “young men”.
Kennedydecision page 59 (10
Despite these judicial rulings, your prosecutors (and the media organizations) consistentlyreferred to the complainants as children, even in arguments before the Supreme Court of Canada.