• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

Flawed Design said:

Im sure many of us can pick holes in both side's stories but since we arent privy to all the information its not a productive exercise - its enough to say that since he got a re-trial there must have been enough doubt to substantiate it...





 
Greymatters said:
Im sure many of us can pick holes in both side's stories but since we arent privy to all the information its not a productive exercise - its enough to say that since he got a re-trial there must have been enough doubt to substantiate it...

For sure.
You've been in a while. I'm sure you like many of us have seen lots of crazy stuff.
NCOs being inappropriate with recruits.
Recruits getting off on NCO attention then getting scared and crying rape.
Both NCO and recruit entering into a dumb situation both being at fault.

I'm just laughing at his line of defence
"tried to have sex with him when he was dazed after banging his head on the wall while helping her vomit."
Sounds pretty hokey.
 
Flawed Design said:
For sure.
You've been in a while. I'm sure you like many of us have seen lots of crazy stuff.
NCOs being inappropriate with recruits.
Recruits getting off on NCO attention then getting scared and crying rape.
Both NCO and recruit entering into a dumb situation both being at fault.

I'm just laughing at his line of defence
"tried to have sex with him when he was dazed after banging his head on the wall while helping her vomit."
Sounds pretty hokey.

Cant argue with any of those points...
 
Otto Fest said:
In all my decades instructing both RegF and Res I kept one simple rule - look but don't ever touch because nothing good can ever come of it.  And I have seen some strange sht.

I wouldn't be to sure about that "just look" policy.  ;D
 
Greymatters said:
Im sure many of us can pick holes in both side's stories but since we arent privy to all the information its not a productive exercise - its enough to say that since he got a re-trial there must have been enough doubt to substantiate it...

In most cases an appeal does not deal with the "facts" of the original conviction but rather the application of the law or the process of the original trial.  While there could have been some error in the conclusions reached by the trial judge (but without having access to all the evidence presented, we would just be making uninformed guesses) the issue that resulted in a new trial is well noted in the decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2009/2009abca139/2009abca139.html
[1]      The central legal issue in this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in law by defining the “main issue” at trial in the following terms:

“I think that the main issue is whether or not I accept your testimony as to what actually took place or whether I accept the complainant’s testimony, and as I have already indicated, I do choose to accept the testimony of the complainant. Hers is more rational. It is more reasonable to the point.”    (A.B. Digest, F2/43-47)


[2]      At A.B. Digest F3/14, the trial judge subsequently sets out the three pronged formulation in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (S.C.C.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. Is that sufficient to cure the impugned approach? We think not. The model instructions set out in W.(D.) do not require a formalistic incantation. They are intended, however, to ensure that the trier of fact does not adjudicate a credibility contest but, rather, engages in an appropriate reasoning process that, read as a whole, adheres to those instructions. The reasons here, in our view, betray a casuistic result-driven approach, further exacerbated by the trial judge’s comment early in his brief judgment that “there is nothing in [the complainant’s] evidence that would indicate to me that I have to somehow or other reject her testimony ...” (A.B. Digest, F2/19-21)

 
I know that there were a few problems with Instructor/Recruit liasons in St Jean when I was there, partly to blame on booze as well as bad decision by both parties. The school's solution was to restrict Instructors from comsuming alcohol during the recruits course parties at the Bistro. I have never seen Instructor's step over that line, however there was one guy from the Demo platoon that was charged with fraternization, he got something like 14 extras. It was not good. :cdn:
 
Wow, I have seen this all to well... somtimes the younger recruits don't even think that it's wrong when it happens.
They get so swept up in everything (course/lifestyle) that somtimes justice just passes by because they don't acknoledge that what's going on is wrong.
Mind you what i'm talking about comes short of rape but still the sexual exploitation exists. I feel it is just as sick and I hope that thoses classes about harassment (when they are on bmq) focus more on what to look out for so that more people do not become victims.  :'(

BTW...This MCpl has got exactly what was coming to him. I hope those 3 yrs are hell for him. >:(
 
IMO, the MCpl was out of line. Dazed and confused? She was in a drunken stupour? She was a recruit? He should have damn well known, hands off, end of story.

The other part that disturbs me is that the female says this happens more often and that the CF tries to cover it up. Umm, no, we don't. Ask the CF NIS how often this type of behaviour gets reported. As a recruit she is speaking out of turn. I would take her more seriously if say she had 10-15 years in the CF and something to base that remark on.
 
ArmyRick said:
I would take her more seriously if say she had 10-15 years in the CF and something to base that remark on.

The topic is recent claims of sexual harassment at recruit school; how would a comment be more credible, based solely upon 10-15 years' additional service since recruit school, when discussing current incidents?
 
ArmyRick said:
Ask the CF NIS how often this type of behaviour gets reported. As a recruit she is speaking out of turn. I would take her more seriously if say she had 10-15 years in the CF and something to base that remark on.

Are you saying that a new recruit wouldn't be taken seriously that the incident happened or that this behaviour gets hushed?

I agree, the NIS does take this very seriously. And by no means do they hush this behaviour
...but i don't think it takes 10-15 yrs experience to know that sometimes senarios get either played up or played down based on who is involved and the situation by those around (i.e. rumours...gossip...)
 
ArmyRick said:
IMO, the MCpl was out of line. Dazed and confused? She was in a drunken stupour? She was a recruit? He should have damn well known, hands off, end of story.

Michael O'Leary's signature quote of Meinertzhagen's "Leadership is the practical application of character" is particularly relevant here.  The MCpl, as an NCO responsible for the wellbeing of his people, displayed a lack of character, a lack of leadership, a lack of integrity, that defies everything that was drummed into us on the NCO courses that I am familiar with.  And no doubt that holds for many others who have earned a set of hooks.  Inexcusable.
 
BlueJingo said:
Are you saying that a new recruit wouldn't be taken seriously that the incident happened or that this behaviour gets hushed?

I agree, the NIS does take this very seriously. And by no means do they hush this behaviour
...but i don't think it takes 10-15 yrs experience to know that sometimes senarios get either played up or played down based on who is involved and the situation by those around (i.e. rumours...gossip...)

A recruit suggesting or implying that this happens often in the army is speaking out of their lanes.
If I have a grand total of 4 months in the military and I say officers are always screwed up and making dumb decisions then I am speaking out of my lane.  I'm making an accusation not based on personal experience but rumor and very likely second and third hand information.
if I say since I've been in the army I've only seen bad decisions from whomever... then thats another story.

A recruit talking about what the CF is covering up? Needs more time in to make that call.
 
Flawed Design said:
A recruit suggesting or implying that this happens often in the army is speaking out of their lanes.
If I have a grand total of 4 months in the military and I say officers are always screwed up and making dumb decisions then I am speaking out of my lane.  I'm making an accusation not based on personal experience but rumor and very likely second and third hand information.
if I say since I've been in the army I've only seen bad decisions from whomever... then thats another story.

A recruit talking about what the CF is covering up? Needs more time in to make that call.

Ah.... i see your point thank you.
 
Ex-soldier cleared in sex assault
By TONY BLAIS, SUN MEDIA
The Edmonton Sun
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/10/31/11589936-sun.html

EDMONTON - A jury yesterday found a former Edmonton reserve unit soldier not guilty of raping a female recruit, ending what he calls "almost five-and-a-half years of hell."

The acquittal of Orman Boyd Savage, 40, which resulted after just over an hour of deliberations by jurors, came following the second trial for the full-time electrician after the Court of Appeal of Alberta quashed a 2007 conviction earlier this year and ordered a retrial.

A smiling Savage, who spent five months and a week behind bars, said he was happy his ordeal is finally over.

"All I can say is that I am glad to see that this nightmare is over after five and a half years and to finally see justice actually be done," said Savage, a married father of two sons, adding the experience was "really tough" on both him and his family.

"It was a nightmare for me and a nightmare for my family," said Savage. "I knew I was innocent and I wasn't going to stop saying that no matter what happened."

The former reserve sergeant noted the acquittal came the day before Halloween, which is his wedding anniversary.

"I couldn't have hoped to give her a better anniversary present than this," said Savage, who is also hoping to be reinstated into the military. He was released in 2008.

Savage had been accused of sexually assaulting a then-21-year-old female recruit in a bathroom stall at the Debney Armoury on Roper Road after a July 30, 2004, party celebrating the end of a basic training course.

The woman, who can't be identified under a publication ban, testified Savage had raped her, but said there was a lot she couldn't remember due to blacking out and suffering a concussion when her head was slammed into a wall.

Savage told jurors it was the recruit who had come onto him after he had gone into the bathroom to help her because she was vomiting from having drunk too much.

Savage testified the woman had fallen backwards and when he picked her up, she threw her arms around his neck and tried to kiss him.

He said he tried to get away, but hit the toilet and fell backwards. He then saw stars and the next thing he knew, he was on top of the toilet and she was on top of him.

Savage was convicted in provincial court and sentenced to three years in prison after a judge rejected his version as "ludicrous" and accepted the woman's testimony.

However, an appeal court overturned the conviction and ordered a new trial after ruling the judge had failed to properly use the Supreme Court legal test used in cases where both the alleged victim and the accused give opposing versions in their testimony.
 
Absolutely ridiculous, the man's story has so many plot holes it's ridiculous.

By Canadian law even if she was intoxicated (and apparently under the effects of a concussion) she was not in the correct state of mind to deciding to have sex or not.

Why did Savage enter the ladies washroom to hold her hair? Why didn't someone else? Why didn't Savage feel it was part of his duty as a NCO to look out for his recruit rather than take advantage of their drunken stupor?

How many drinks were given to the recruit by Savage?


Now, here's more food for thought:

Savage said that the girl had been on top of him and was making sexual advances on him when they were both sitting on the toilet.

Let's say the worse thing she could be wearing was a dress and underwear and Savage was in jeans and a shirt.

If the girl was on top of him is someone actually ACTUALLY believing that she unbuttoned his jeans took them down and took off her underwear when she "fell down on him" and had already had a concussion and severely drunk to the point she probably couldn't even count the cash to pay for a drink.

The simple fact is it is very obvious that Savage was the one more in control of his situation and his state of being drunk. Savage most likely did the undressing for both people. Also, I doubt he was forced into it as it is most likely a small girl vs. him a guy.

The guy also played the fact that this court case took five years and details are forgotten especially after being in a drunken/concussed state.


People need to use their thinking caps here and understand what the testimonies really say. Key details are left out but you can still see what they are saying. "I was helping her puke by holding her hair and she knocked me over on the toilet" = I was in control of the situation, at the very least more so than her.

"She had a concussion and was very drunk to the point of puking and blacking out" =

How the hell did she initiate sex? She took off your pants and hers too after magically obtaining a 10 second sober period? No.

She probably kissed him but did not initiate sex.

Why was the cadet in the story previous on this thread sentenced to jail for kissing but this man isn't for sex with a woman who's out of her mind?


Clothing evidence has to be used I believe as well as each person's state of mind. I remember a case a while ago with 8 female Wendy's employees against the male manager saying he was putting his hand down their shirts while buttoned up and grabbing their breasts. However, it was proven that it's physically impossible to put your hand down the uniform to the breast and then one of the girls admitted all 8 of them had been in a devised lie.


As for the issue of the recruit saying "this happens a lot and it's hushed up".

How would she know? Maybe she felt it was hushed up because rumors can poison the evidence tree especially if so many people are talking about it was 3rd hand knowledge so it was better for her it was hushed up.

As for the comment of "this happens a lot".

She feels that way most likely because she has maybe heard someone say before that rape happens in the military (like the rest of the world holy crap!) and because it had happened to her she felt that she was part of a large group of women who were raped but she didn't know about them.

However, I must say that only 1/5 women who are raped actually report the offense.


And on the topic of military and rape:

I am not quite sure how it is in the Canadian Forces. I am sure the Canadian Forces is full of respectful individuals who can control their hormones and there are always the sour apples that are brought into the CF from the civy world.

Remember, these rapists, criminals, etc are all from the civilian world especially before the military. The military isn't perfect for recruiting and can't read minds or do full personality tests so some people that are bad do get in but I would say the CF is hugely better than the civilian world in terms of the amount of bad apples.


The CF at the very least is 10,000 times better than the US Navy. I don't mean to disrespect the service as a whole but I have read a book of a female in the US navy where gang bangs are apparently rampant and over 60% of her female peers participated in it consensual or not. This was more so proven by the study released at the same time by the US military about these percentages.


Anyways, that's my 2 cents. Savage should be in jail and not allowed back into the CF in my opinion.


It's a complicated issue that I feel he got off due to the length of the trial and the difficulty in remembering a trial that long ago in that state of mind.

Don't  :mg: me please >.<
 
geo said:
WRT ongoing problem & hushed-up allegations...

If there's one thing history has proven, it's that the only way to 100% solve a problem is sweep it under the rug and cross your fingers.

[/tongue-in-cheek]
 
Dean22 said:
Absolutely ridiculous, the man's story has so many plot holes it's ridiculous.

Wow. A court-instructed and monitored jury found him "not guilty." The case was not dismissed on technicalities; he was not merely acquitted because the prosecution failed to make its case; he was actually found not guilty.

Yet you weigh in here combining the factual credibility of Fox News and the in-depth analysis of Entertainment Tonight...hypothesizing on their state of mind, dress, activities, body size, assuming that she kissed him....and (WTF?) how things really are in the US Navy.

People need to use their thinking caps here....
Shame some insist on tinfoil.  ::)
 
Thanks for that reasoned and well thought out bit of legal conjecture, Dean22.  Clearly, you are more aware of what happened that night (and able to prove it) than seasoned investigators and the Crown.

Can you now tell us who killed Kennedy?

Mods, how about a change in the thread title to "Reservist found Not Guilty of raping recruit"?
 
Back
Top