Sadly, another ABDL in the news

He was the victim, just to clear any questions about who was who.

Bit of a misleading thread title. With a title like "Sadly, Another ABDL in the News" one would think it's another negative instance of an AB or DL forcing their fetish onto others in a creepy way and being caught, instead what we are faced with is a man who was murdered and possibly had a diaper fetish. Although, I guess the thread title could be alluding to the fact that it is sad that a person with a fetish was murdered. As Cuddlewoozle points out, the supposed diaper fetishist is the victim of the crime not the perpetrator. I say possibly and supposed in reference to the victim because it's hard to judge if the victim actually had these fetishes or if he was just curious. There's no smoking gun or diaper in this case, just conjecture and hearsay, diaper fetish websites that the victim supposedly visited. I would say that on the surface, this appears to be a very cut and dry, love triangle gone wrong/jealous lover scenario with fetishes being thrown into the mix as part of the actual perpetrators self-guided defence.

I think it's clear that the defendants are guilty. Anyone who choses to forgo an actual lawyer and opts to defend/represent themself is guilty as sin. I have never heard of a defendant winning when they represented themselves in cases such as these, such a move speaks volumes about the defendants arrogance and narcissism. Also gotta love how the defendant tries to bring the fetish subculture/interests into the case despite the fact that the judge doesn't want to hear it. Even more absurd, the defendant tries to suggest that the victim was likely killed by someone frequenting the same fetish circles... it's possible, I guess, but highly unlikely as most fetishists belonging to a mutual or similar community are supportive of one another, they'd be less likely to commit a criminal offence against the victim.

Gotta admire the trial and the article for not treating this in a salacious manner and for veering away from sensationalism. Apart from the article's title, which was deliberately eye-catching, this was a very matter of fact, no frills read. Hopefully, justice will be served.

Poofybutt said:

I think it's clear that the defendants are guilty. Anyone who choses to forgo an actual lawyer and opts to defend/represent themself is guilty as sin. I have never heard of a defendant winning when they represented themselves in cases such as these,

Click to expand...

I don't think it's fair to say that anyone that chooses to defend themselves must be guilty. In small claims court, they require you to represent yourself. (you can have a lawyer on retainer of course, but they're not speaking on your behalf at the trial)

But that being said, there's a popular saying among lawyers, where the temptation to self-represent can occasionally be great: "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."

In that case it comes down to you need someone making legal decisions for you from an unbiased position, and self-representing makes you biased by definition. Making decisions based on what you want to do, rather than what's best for you, can have devastating consequences when one's freedoms are on the line.

I suspect the reason there's a lot more self-representation "in cases like this" is because the defendants are often legally naive, they believe they're in the right, and they think it's just a "simple matter" of describing their point of view. They don't fully comprehend the fact that the court doesn't care what you think or what you can demonstrate to be logically or morally correct - it only cares about whether or not you broke the laws as written.

bambinod said:

I don't think it's fair to say that anyone that chooses to defend themselves must be guilty. In small claims court, they require you to represent yourself. (you can have a lawyer on retainer of course, but they're not speaking on your behalf at the trial)

But that being said, there's a popular saying among lawyers, where the temptation to self-represent can occasionally be great: "A man who represents himself has a fool for a client."

In that case it comes down to you need someone making legal decisions for you from an unbiased position, and self-representing makes you biased by definition. Making decisions based on what you want to do, rather than what's best for you, can have devastating consequences when one's freedoms are on the line.

I suspect the reason there's a lot more self-representation "in cases like this" is because the defendants are often legally naive, they believe they're in the right, and they think it's just a "simple matter" of describing their point of view. They don't fully comprehend the fact that the court doesn't care what you think or what you can demonstrate to be logically or morally correct - it only cares about whether or not you broke the laws as written.

Click to expand...

You bring up some really great points, especially the idea that self-representing is innately biased.

I still hold firm, choosing to defend oneself in a murder case speaks of self-delusion and egotistical overconfidence, I mean at that point you are so confident in your side of the story, that you believe your own, unvalidated, highly subjective, highly biased testimony outweighs all real evidence and cross-examination and will ultimately compel the jury to find in your favour. Many blatantly guilty people represented themselves; Ted Bundy, Nidal Hasan and Dylan Roof to name a few... the track record of people defending themselves in murder trials and finding success speaks for itself, it's not very good and rightfully so. Even if someone could find one instance of someone representing themselves in a murder case and getting away with it, which would be very difficult I assume, my opinion on self-representation in a murder trial would remain unchanged, it's practically admitting guilt before an argument can be presented. Bottom line, in any major case or courtroom setting, if you want even a remote chance of being represented in a fair and impartial manner with a well-constructed argument or case for innocence, find a good lawyer.

I admit, I did not mention small court cases/claims, I felt that there's no overlap between a small court case and a murder trial and I am well aware that many, nearly all, small court cases/claims are self-represented.

I also agree with you on this point as well; that perhaps the decision to self-represent stems from ignorance and naivety. I feel it could kind of go either way in this case. From what I read, the defendant doesn't seem to be very bright and he seemed overconfident that the whole "the victim had a fetish" thing would take suspicion off of himself or be taken as valid evidence, even though it was partially unsubstantiated and largely conjecture.

In any case, I'm sure the jury will make the right decision regarding this case.

Poofybutt said:

You bring up some really great points, especially the idea that self-representing is innately biased.

I still hold firm, choosing to defend oneself in a murder case speaks of self-delusion and egotistical overconfidence, I mean at that point you are so confident in your side of the story, that you believe your own, unvalidated, highly subjective, highly biased testimony outweighs all real evidence and cross-examination and will ultimately compel the jury to find in your favour. Many blatantly guilty people represented themselves; Ted Bundy, Nidal Hasan and Dylan Roof to name a few... the track record of people defending themselves in murder trials and finding success speaks for itself, it's not very good and rightfully so. Even if someone could find one instance of someone representing themselves in a murder case and getting away with it, which would be very difficult I assume, my opinion on self-representation in a murder trial would remain unchanged, it's practically admitting guilt before an argument can be presented. Bottom line, in any major case or courtroom setting, if you want even a remote chance of being represented in a fair and impartial manner with a well-constructed argument or case for innocence, find a good lawyer.

I admit, I did not mention small court cases/claims, I felt that there's no overlap between a small court case and a murder trial and I am well aware that many, nearly all, small court cases/claims are self-represented.

I also agree with you on this point as well; that perhaps the decision to self-represent stems from ignorance and naivety. I feel it could kind of go either way in this case. From what I read, the defendant doesn't seem to be very bright and he seemed overconfident that the whole "the victim had a fetish" thing would take suspicion off of himself or be taken as valid evidence, even though it was partially unsubstantiated and largely conjecture.

In any case, I'm sure the jury will make the right decision regarding this case.

Click to expand...

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/...e-murder-in-death-of-former-u-of-t-clerk.html They did. Also I'm glad that the Judge knew how to handle the fetish situation

hex000f said:

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/...e-murder-in-death-of-former-u-of-t-clerk.html They did. Also I'm glad that the Judge knew how to handle the fetish situation

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the proper outcome. Gotta love the Canadian justice system

I agree, the judge wanted to treat this as a case not as salacious gossip, he saw right through the defendants ploy of bringing up the victims fetishes as a means of deflecting suspicion and defaming the victims character. I commend the judge for preventing the trial from becoming tabloid fodder and for keeping things on the right track towards justice.

?

I'm not sure my thread title is all that misleading, simply stating that the victim in this case would appear to have been ABDL. I agree the judge handled the more salacious suggestions by the defendant with dignity and that they outcome of the trial was most likely the correct one.

As for the Toronto Star headline, that's pretty standard procedure for them. They are fairly left leaning but have a tendency to clutch at their pearls when it comes to anything to do with sex, fetishes, etc....