How come confession under torture be a proof?

Post Reply New Topic

Among the Wikileaks leaks there has been some about the ancient chief of the canadian security services, Jim Judd having wrote against a dedcisions of the judge;

The purpose is to terrorise because such people celebrate terrorism in their lives and the other purpose is to convict all suspects and put them out of the way, better that 1,000 innocent be punished to catch one guilty than for that guilty person to escape.

I don't know if it was Thomas Friedman or someone who said that after Sept 11 the US must grab some Muslim country, any Muslim country and "throw them against the wall"... doesn't matter if they were involved or not, there must be a demonstration of force. This is the mentality. Just the other day the police built a fake bomb and spent six months talking this kid into pushing the button on the detonator and now that person is being accused of plotting to detonate a weapon of mass destruction. A similar case in Florida caused convictions even though the group in question had no weapons, no explosives, nothing, they just took some pictures of some alleged targets after months of pressure from policemen.

Evidence is whatever the law, both common law and statutory law, says it is.

If Parliament amends the Canada Evidence Act to say that a court must take judicial notice of certain evidence, then the court must do so, unless that is found to be contrary to the Charter and not saved by section 1.

It is always up to the trier of fact (either a jury or a judge trying a matter alone) to determine the credibility of evidence, and it is always open to a party to challenge the credibility of evidence on the basis that it is undermined by the method of its procurement.

Yes it is true!

I worship the Devil. I shot President Kennedy. I kidnapped the Lindbergh baby and I crucified Christ.

Now stop ripping my fingernails out!