Edgar Fruitier accused now!

[curly]

Someone is accusing this known quebec actor of molesting a teen in the 70s. The actor is now 88yo and his victim should be close to 60yo.

What's the deal on this? Should we at some point put a lid on this or are all accusations welcome? What is a decent time or should there be no limits?

 

[Red Paul]

Should we at some point put a lid on this or are all accusations welcome? What is a decent time or should there be no limits?

My view: no time limits. It's good that people learn about what kind of shit takes place, even if a given example of this shit took place a while ago.

 

[EagerBeaver]

A lot of jurisdictions have extended the civil statute of limitations from the time that the molested minor reaches the age of 18. In Connecticut I believe it is extended 17 years until age 35. Therefore a child molested at age 15 has 17 years from turning 18 or, effectively, 20 years to bring suit.

IMHO the civil statute of limitations only governs the amount of time to bring a lawsuit for money damages. There is a much shorter SOL for any criminal prosecution under CT law, unless kidnapping was also deemed committed. There is no SOL for kidnapping.

The Quebec Legal Beagles should look to relevant statutes of limitations to provide guides to answering Curly’s Question. In my mind because the law establishes deadlines for bringing a court action of some kind for the actionable wrong, that should serve as a guideline for answering Curly’s question. Otherwise the law is somewhat rendered meaningless and the press is allowed to trump any legal remedy that is established for a victim.

 

[curly]

EagerBeaver, thanks for your post. However I was not asking of legally it is ok. I was wondering what people thought should be allowed and if law is not such, then change it.

I have difficulty in my mind, maybe because I was never abused, understanding the intent and the redress someone can obtain something like over 40 years later. This is why I may need guidance/explanation from others, I will admit. From where I stand right now, if you've lived all your life with it and it was that painful, why reopen the wound. Because this is what will happen, the lawyers will grill you, forcing you to declare publicly the gory details, hoping you will contradict yourself which is likely to happen given the time distance from the event. And if you've lived all your life with it and you got over it, why again reopen it. You will note here I am not saying at all the events never occurred.

Only one reason comes to my mind: to get even and make the other pay. Because we know that as soon as you mention the word "molest" in any shape or form, the public opinion right now will take your word and crucify your alleged abuser. Is this ok? I don't think so. Like I've explained in other posts, I believe in the presumption of innocence that is the foundation of our legal system. That means it is up to the other to demonstrate you're guilty, rather than you having to defend your innocence when accused. The fact that today's alleged victim are able to get their alleged abuser to be crucified simply by mentioning "sex" somewhere in their declaration is wrong. We've seen cases alleged after the death of the abuser, which is also wrong because there is always to sides to a medal and the dead can't defend themselves. Allowing people to be crucified publicly and their reputation being stained simply by claiming an abuse is wrong. Talk to the NDP MP Christine Moore, recently accused and eventually cleared of sexual harassment. Interestingly she went through what generally men go through, and she didn't find it funny at all. So it does happen in the real world that people claim to be abused falsely after all. I believe claims of abuse should not be discussed publicly until they went through a thorough and confidential investigation, ensuring both the rights of the complainant and those of the accused are respected and the verdict is given.

So again, should we put a time limit on it or not, given the likelihood of not having exact facts after a long period of time, and the damage the mere accusation will do to the alleged abuser given the current climate of public sympathy for victims and instant tendency to blame and shame the still not proven guilty alleged abuser?

 

[EagerBeaver]

So again, should we put a time limit on it or not, given the likelihood of not having exact facts after a long period of time

I know you did not mean to ask about the legality of it, but statutes of limitation exist in the law for the very reason of your statement above: the dissipation of evidence over time. Statutes of limitations only legally control legal claims in Court. There is no statute of limitations for going to a newspaper with a story about something that happened many years ago. Unfortunately, the victims or alleged victims who do this put the accused person in a situation where it is impossible to defend against the accusation because of the deaths or other loss of witnesses, coworkers, diminished memories, diminished physical evidence. Newspapers and other media are not really equipped to weigh evidence and credibility like courts are, plus as we all know, a story means money to those who are in the media. So they end up running with it most of the time.

All this being said, I think Fruitier lived in a different era where these things happened with a lot of frequency and went unpunished. Now the pendulum has swung back towards protecting victims and we should hear less of this stuff in the future because the conduct is no longer being tolerated and everyone knows it.

 

[curly]

What I find really wrong though is that once accused, the defendant cannot defend himself/herself because they keep their arguments for the investigators or the court. It's an ideal situation for the media.

Since you seem to have a legal background, don't you think that 43 years later the evidence is quite dissipated?

I'm not saying Fruitier is innocent or that the victim is lying. I'm just doubting the usefulness and fairness of a trial at this point.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Since you seem to have a legal background, don't you think that 43 years later the evidence is quite dissipated?I'm just doubting the usefulness and fairness of a trial at this point.

I agree. That is why I mentioned statutes of limitations and witnesses being dead- 43 years is a long time. Although Courts are interested in fairness, the media is not. It's objective is and always will be to make money.

 

[FedEx]

The seed grows into a tree - a money tree.

We live in the "Me too world" now. It is a place where there are examples of sexual exploitation by famous and powerful people. There are also those that have tried to make it in this exclusive world and have failed. Now past their prime and bitter they may delude themselves into believing that they have been taken advantage of when in fact at the time they were willing to offer up sex for fame and money. Bitter and disappointed they will try to make a grab for what they believe they are owed.

 

[curly]

Indeed FedEx.

Patron, if one was cynical, they could say it's even easier accusing someone who is 88 years old. With the eventuality that they will not live past the legal procedures, it is opening the path for the victim to claim all the abuses they want without anyone denying it, and making good money for their story.

 

[EagerBeaver]

It's not any new development in our society that people try and take advantage of the elderly. You would not believe the number of potential Probate litigation matters my firm has turned away, involving sibling fights over the Estate of a dying, or recently deceased, elderly parent with little or no mental capacity or competence at the time of the making of the will. The usual situation is that the will leaves all or most of the estate to one sibling and the "disappointed sibling" then accuses the "to be enriched sibling" of shenanigans in getting the will so arranged so as to cheat the disappointed sibling out of what they are "rightfully owed." We have had to turn away a large number of such cases due to a plain and obvious lack of evidence that will allow the case to fly in Court. I am generally fond of Probate litigation, however, and I will take the case if there is merit and have done so in a few situations. One involved a Probate Court allowing a sibling to take an offset for living expenses and taxes paid on behalf of the parent to the detriment of my client sibling, going back 20 years. The law only allowed such offsets going back 6 years, and even for those 6 years, the evidence submitted was bullshit that would never have been allowed over my objection had I been involved in the case before the appellate stage. These cases can be lots of fun, when you have the evidence and/or the law favors the client.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Curly, yes, and if the civil lawsuit survives death, and the estate has ten beneficiaries, any settlement after death is viewed by each beneficiary as costing 10 cents on the dollar, not one dollar. So the beneficiaries will push for a quick settlement to get the bulk of their inheritance.

Any claimant that files a timely claim with the Probate Court has to be considered before any Estate is settled. If Fruitier's accuser files a timely claim with the Probate Court it likely would be dismissed if the underlying civil claim has expired due to the statute of limitations (likely the counsel for the beneficiaries would move to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). If on the other hand the claim is within the SOL, and a timely claim is filed with the Probate Court, it must be considered and the beneficiaries cannot push for a "quick settlement." It settles when the Probate court issues its order after evaluating all the claims. At least this is how it works in CT.

 

[EagerBeaver]

If any of the beneficiaries think their share will be threatened and the Execetor doesn’t object they can move to dismiss the claim and also seek removal of the Executor for breach of fiduciary duties. I have been involved with doing both. It depends on the size of the Estate and the share threatened. I remember a huge litigation by siblings against the surviving mistress who was left most of decedent’s Estate. Which was not much like $400,000. The children claimed shenanigans when in fact they had effectively abandoned the Decedent (my client) during the last 15 years of his life after he divorced their mother in favor of a relationship with the mistress. The mistress was the only person who looked after our client during his remaining life. The kids abandoned the dude. They sought removal of the mistress as Executrix. This failed. They sought to challenge the will on grounds of duress and incompetence. This failed because we got his personal physical to give us a medical report which pronounced him of sound mind the day before he signed the will (which is prudent legal practice in a situation like this where a will challlenge can be anticipated). Ultimately the case settled after a trial with the kids taking $20,000 each and the rest going to mistress after payment of fees. The kids shouldn’t have gotten anything but she didn’t want to roll the dice with a Probate Court decision. The whole case was fueled by gold digger wives of the destitute ne’er do well children.