Mrs. Warman I Presume

One of the enduring mysteries surrounding the assorted Richard Warman defamation cases against assorted Canadian bloggers has been the assumption by the defendants that our hero only had access to a single computer the hard drive of which has now been independently examined.

After all, the Hate Sniffer was, at the time married to Lise Warman for a couple of years. In this modern world was it not possible that Lise had a computer at home as well? Up until quite recently that was merely a pretty good hunch. But I was poking about on an entirely unrelated subject and came across Richard and Lise’s testimony in the William White case (the odious White Supremacist who was convicted, on appeal, of soliciting the murder of the Hate-Sniffer in Chief.)

Let’s go to the transcript of Lise Warman’s testimony:

Q Good afternoon, Ms. Warman. Would you introduce yourself
2 to the jurors.
3 A Certainly. My name is Lise Warman, and I am Richard
4 Warman’s spouse.
5 Q You may want to pull that microphone a bit closer so
6 everyone can hear you.
7 Where do you live?
8 A I live in Ottawa, Canada.
9 Q And you’ve been married to Richard Warman since 2001?
10 A That’s correct.
11 Q What do you do for a living?
12 A I’m a lawyer. I am an assistant Crown attorney, which is
13 equivalent of assistant district attorney for you. So I’m a
14 criminal prosecutor and I prosecute offenders.
15 Q What type of cases do you prosecute?
16 A We have a criminal code in Canada, so we prosecute
17 everything that’s a criminal code, including theft, all the
18 way up to the murder cases. We don’t do drugs or federal
19 statutes.
20 Q What do you specialize in?
21 A I specialize in Internet child exploitation, sexual
22 assault. We do everything, but those are mostly my areas
23 of —

(you can find the reference here but I can’t get the link to the transcript to work. I have it if anyone wants it.)

So, now there is more than merely a hunch – Mrs. Warman specifically prosecuted cases of Internet Child Exploitation. In other words, the nature of her job meant that she did very much the same sort of thing as her husband except, of course, she was prosecuting actual internet criminals under the Criminal Code. (And good for her say I.)

However, it does raise some interesting and, I suspect, important questions. First, did Mrs. W. have a computer at home for work or simply because she was a wired up kinda gal? Second, did the Warmans trade tips on how best to engage their respective prey? Third, why have none of the defendants in the assorted Cools related defamation cases sought to examine Mrs. W’s computer (assuming, rather plausibly, she had one) to determine if hubby might have been using it as a back up/cut out machine? I am sure more computer savvy people than I will have further questions one of which might well be whether Mrs. W’s computer shared the same IP that Bernard Klatt swore the Cools post came from?

And, while we tease out these possibilities, let’s hope Connie and FreeDominion prevail tomorrow in motions court in the Do’s matter. Apparently Connie would like a jury trial. Which would be fascinating. (Oddly, I gather that the Hate Sniffer in Chief’s counsel are not so keen on letting the hoi polloi nobble the judge with messy findings of fact.

UPDATE: Free Dominion Wins a Round:

Connie writes,

Both sides said that they did. So, she basically said that she was going to accept our amended Statement of Defence as it was written. Then, on the issue of the jury notice, she said that the other side had not provided her with any evidence that they would be prejudiced if she allowed us to file a jury notice. Since there was nothing in their evidence that showed they would be prejudiced, it was clear she was going to allow our jury notice, too.

Then, she asked the lawyers if they wanted to take half an hour to talk and see if they could come to a resolution. Once we met, the other side immediately agreed to consent to the updated Statement of Defence and to us filing a jury notice. Costs will be awarded at the end of the trial. We agreed to allow them two more hours to cross-examine me since our Statement of Defence is now considerably longer and more detailed. We responded to that by asking for two more hours to cross-examine Richard Warman. They did not consent to that, and the judge didn’t think the law allowed for it, so we let it go. It’s not like he answers questions, anyway, so it’s not a big deal.

The big deal is that we got what we wanted in the motion. Exactly what we wanted. We now have a kick-ass Statement of Defence, and this trial is going to a jury! free dominion

I can think of nothing better for Freedom of Speech in general than to have the Witch Sniffer before a jury. Arrogance and self righteousness tend to go over rather badly with juries.