Jackie stated under oath that she called the police regarding the incident that she and her husband claimed happened. The only proof they have concerning the incident is their own fabricated lies. No other proof exists. There is significant evidence it did not occur and that Judge Hunter chose, for his own reasons, not to consider.

1. Mrs Young says that she phoned the police station. The OPP must have determined that there was not a credible threat since they chose to 'investigate' the Young's reported incident the next day according to Mrs Young's further testimony.

2. The Youngs stated in Court that Officer Moore attended the next day to investigate. Officer Moore stated under oath, he did not attend and investigate and that at that time he was unaware of any crossbow incident. No one had heard of a 'crossbow' incident prior to the night that Mr. Young had negligently set fire to my garage. We feel that the 'crossbow' incident was retalitory in nature because Mr. Young felt he would be arrested on the night of november 4 when the fire incident occurred.

3. Mrs Young stated that I was outside pointing a cocked and loaded crossbow at her. The crossbow cannot be cocked and loaded because it was broken and could not function.

4. My wife has a long bow that is not broken however neither Mr. or Mrs Young were aware of it's existence. Mr. Young was aware of my crossbows existence as he had seen it about a year before in my living room when he had sat down and had a drink with me. Had the Youngs been aware of my wife's long bow it would have been a better instrument to have used for their fabricated incident as at least it can be cocked and loaded.




Mrs Young's statement




Zegouras Questions Moore

OPP officer discounts Youngs claim



Witness giving contradictory evidence

136.(1) every one who, being a witness in a judicial proceeding, gives evidence with respect to any matter of fact or knowledge and who subsequently, in a judicial proceeding, gives evidence that is contrary to his previous evidence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, whether or not the prior or later evidence or either is true, but no person shall be convicted under this section unless the court, judge or provicial court judge, as the case may be, is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, in giving evidence in either of the judicial proceedings, intended to mislead.

Fabricating evidence

137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Obstructing justice.

139.(1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody, is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprison for a term not exceeding two years, or

(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Idem (2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.




Return to Home Page




View Selected Transcripts Section


Return to Time Line