The Dickson Medal for Best Oral Advocacy

Congrats to Paul Alexander - today's King of FAIL.

This story deals involves the death of a two-year old girl - so if you're not up to being depressed by the sorry state of the human condition, here's a link to the proper way to play the PENIS game.

It was exactly seven years ago when a two-year old girl died from the brain injuries she sustained during her beating.  There was a lengthy investigation including wiretapped phone coversations which produced the Crown's killer evidence - vaguely ambiguous confessions of guilt by a distraught woman who recently lost her two year old daughter.  They laid charges and went to trial.  Paul Alexander was on the Prosecution team.

Then they got an unambiguous confession.  From the boyfriend.  Ooops.  The same boyfriend who, in the wiretap recordings, asked the mother if she suspected him of doing anything to the girl.

But apparently in Prosecution Land, you aren't allowed to change your mind or ever admit mistakes - so the show went on.  The boyfriend's confession was declared phony and made-up.  Besides, the confession couldn't be used because of some legal stuff about self-incrimination which I don't understand.  Perhaps it was the system's self-awareness kicking in - I mean considering the quality of the investigation they had, any subsequent work focusing on a new suspect would probably be a waste of resources.

Don't get me wrong - the mother's no saint.  There's even a possibility that she's actually guilty and not merely Prosecution Land guilty.

One year ago, the jury came back deadlocked.  The Prosecution had the option of having the judge determine the verdict, but opted not to.  Probably because of the difference between how judges and juries understand "reasonable doubt" when looking into the murder of an infant.

So the Crown got a do-over, which was in the process of winding up when the jury sent a note to the judge.  The note asked if the annoyingly distracting man in the gallery could be removed.  Apparently there was this guy sitting immediately in the front row, who was making faces and rolling his eyes and acting like a total Dickson Medal winner.  Paul Alexander.  In civvies.  Sitting in the audience, as in not part of the Prosecution team.  Still trying to influence the trial by acting like an idiot and suceeding to the point where he managed, on his very own, to get another mistrial declared.

It's been half a decade since charges were laid and now we've had two mistrials.  Prosecution wants another do-over, which is pretty fucking rich considering they literally have no one to blame for this except for someone employed by the Crown.

In another case involving jury issues, Gillian Guess was convicted of obstructing justice for boinking the accused in a trial where she was on the jury.  In her conviction, the definition and meaning of obstruction of justice was discussed:

The offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice has been authoritatively defined, in this court and elsewhere, as "the doing of some act which has a tendency and is intended to pervert the administration of public justice".

There's certainly a whole lot less reasonable doubt about Paul Alexander's guilt of obstructing justice than there is in the case he's so desperate for a conviction on - but only one of these cases is ever going to trial.  Which is a shame because then we could expect some guidelines on proper behaviour for Crown attorneys in a court of law.

With regard to Mr. Alexander, I guess he should probably stick to fluffing what he's good at.  His oral skills may be exceptional, but his acting is so over-the-top and unbelievable that it distracts from the action.

UPDATED (bonus actually added - (update 2 and deleted from where it shouldn't have been)) BONUS for SMcG: Paul Alexander's VANOC blog.