YET ANOTHER POSSIBLE SCENARIO?

Yesterday I speculated as to various reasons, rationales, excuses etc. as to why the Crown Prosecuter made the decision to go ahead, charge, convict and agree with the defence (female victim) on a total $2,600 worth of fines not to mention the criminal record. Today I am adding one more possible scenario as to what the heck is going on. Keep in mind that this is speculation; that is an attempt to find a theory or series of facts that might explain the Crown's, on the surface, bizarre behaviour. ............................................................................................................................... What if after the conviction and sentencing of the accused (victim's ex-husband), new evidence came to light indicating that the alleged victim had been untruthful regarding events. For whatever reason she had decided that her ex-husband needed a serious comeuppance. Perhaps after an episode of intimacy she decided to gild the lily somewhat. Maybe she had given consent only for certain sexual behaviour and he in the heat of the moment added to the agenda somewhat, without agreement or permission. I repeat this speculation is simply trying to understand what appears to be ridiculous and asinine behaviour on the part of the Crown in going after the victim of a sexual assault. ............................................................................................................................. So perhaps the Crown heard (hypothetically) from a second hand witness that the victim had confessed after the fact that she had consented to sexual activity but after the event was unhappy or changed her mind or whatever. Also what if that witness was not available to give her statement/evidence at trial. THis could be due to an unexpected death or travel outside the country (destination unknown) or perhaps the witness merely disappeared locally. So, and I grant you this is really giving the Crown the benefit of the doubt, if the Crown were positive that a miscarriage of justice had occurred and the ex-husband was not guilty but they or the defence couldn't prove it, they then decided to teach the ex-wife a lesson. In other words to ensure that she did not get off scot free. For example they couldn't charge her with perjury without the second hand witness's legal testimony and the only thing they had was the charge of breaking the publication ban. Meanwhile perhaps the Crown advised the defence lawyer of the ex-husband that they were certain that an appeal would exonerate the former husband. This theory is convoluted I agree but that is what occurs when our authorities decide not to be transparent and honest with the public. Perhaps the Crown bluffed/intimidated the woman who they rightly or wrongly believe misled them and was thus able to get her consent to the negotiated fine. ................................................................................................................................ I want to be very clear here. I do NOT have any private information or knowledge regarding this recent case as written about in the Waterloo Region Record. At the same time I am wondering outloud exactly what kind of issues/facts/circumstantial evidence/unconfirmed but credible testimony etc. could possibly induce the Crown to legally go after the apparent victim of a criminal assault. If there isn't some honest and appropriate reason for the Crown's behaviour then my God have they ever publicly made asses out of themselves and out of the administration of justice.