A prominent defense lawyer has fiercely argued that billionaire Frank Stronach has been the victim of a rush to judgment, fueled by the prevailing sentiment of the #MeToo movement. She contends that police investigations into allegations of sexual assault against the 93-year-old businessman were shockingly inadequate, accepting accusations at face value without any substantial inquiry.
The lawyer asserted that Stronach was effectively branded a villain by the media before any evidence was presented or witnesses sworn in. She passionately warned that an overcorrection in advocating for victims risks eroding fundamental constitutional standards of justice, specifically the presumption of innocence.
The core of the defense’s argument rests on the claim that the burden of proof was improperly shifted to Stronach, forcing him to prove his innocence rather than the Crown establishing his guilt. He initially pleaded not guilty to twelve charges stemming from incidents dating back to the 1970s and 80s, but the Crown later narrowed its focus to allegations from four complainants.
The defense attorney directly challenged the credibility of several accusers, alleging that they fabricated or manipulated their stories. One complainant, who claimed a disturbing assault on a dance floor followed by waking up in Stronach’s bedroom, was particularly scrutinized for inconsistencies in her account.
Details surrounding the alleged incident were riddled with contradictions. The complainant initially stated the event occurred on her 21st birthday in 1980, mentioning flowers from a fiancé. However, evidence placed Stronach in Kentucky at the time, and the supposed fiancé testified they hadn’t even met then. Later, the date was changed to 1981.
Further undermining her testimony, witnesses stated she never worked at Stronach’s horse farm, and a photograph presented as evidence was identified as being taken at a different racetrack. Another witness refuted the existence of a mirrored ceiling in Stronach’s condo, a detail central to the complainant’s story.
The defense suggested a possible motive beyond seeking justice, pointing to the complainant’s social media posts expressing strong anti-wealth sentiments. This led to the suggestion that the accusations were an attempt to “eat the rich,” a politically motivated attack on Stronach’s success.
The presiding judge voiced significant concerns about the complainant’s reliability, describing her statements as “smoke and mirrors.” She also questioned the police investigation, asking why they simply accepted the allegations without attempting to corroborate them.
The judge directly asked whether the court should begin from the position of believing the complainant, acknowledging that would be “absolutely wrong.” She then pressed the Crown on the lack of investigative work, questioning why police simply “assume she’s telling the truth.”
The case now hinges on whether the defense has successfully reframed the narrative, portraying Stronach as the wronged party. The Crown is scheduled to deliver its closing arguments, offering a counterpoint to the compelling case presented by the defense.
