Ghomeshi Trial Begins

968 posts / 0 new
Last post
lagatta

Debater

The Crown botched the case.

They didn't properly interview the witnesses before the trial, so they were taken by surprise by the Defense during cross-examination.

Paladin1

I had a feeling this would happen after reading about the witness's inconsistincies. When the defense successfully painted the witnesses  as deceptive and manipulative they won.

mark_alfred

Totally disappointing.  Sadly not surprising.  I used to believe that law/justice was a decent thing that potentially could help empower people.  I felt that what stood in the way of justice for the disenfranchised was not that the system was unfair, but rather that those who were disenfranchised were less likely to pursue their interests.  In pursuing this belief I encouraged various workers to seek justice against unfair employers through grievances or arbitrations, and also helped tenants seek justice against unfair landlords at the Landlord Tenant Board.  And many who did stand up rather than run away did receive justice.  But those were just some isolated cases where there was an unquestionable wrong.  But now, more and more, as I've seen a wider variety of cases and have noted general trends, I've seen how absolutely tilted the system is toward the more powerful.  Be it workers and bosses, tenants and landlords, victims and abusers (particularly if they're wealthy), the legal system is grossly inadequate.  Utterly disappointing. 

Here's the decision:  R. v. Ghomeshi

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
They didn't properly interview the witnesses before the trial, so they were taken by surprise by the Defense during cross-examination.

It was up to each of the witnesses to disclose everything.  It's not like the Crown could have compelled it out of them.

Read Horkins' decision, if you haven't already.  I think it makes it clear that the weight of all of the inconsistencies in testimony introduced a reasonable doubt that led to the acquittal.  Nothing to do with Ghomeshi being "rich and powerful", or the witnesses "not being perfect victims" or the Crown not doing their job or whatever. 

Unionist

The Crown was brain-dead, incompetent, or more likely, not really giving enough of a shit.

I can't count the number of times I've accompanied fellow workers to a disciplinary interview. I never agree to go with them, unless they agree to meet me beforehand and tell me everything. I grill them worse than any manager can. I challenge anything that sounds half-assed, self-serving, conveniently forgetful, etc. I ask for every document that could possibly bear on the situation. I decide (on a preliminary basis) if they're "guilty" or not. If not, we prepare our defence, look for witnesses, etc. If yes, I counsel them on the possibility of "falling on their sword", taking responsibility, showing remorse, etc. It's their choice.

But if we then go in to see management, and a "surprise" comes up - there's only one person to blame. Me. Didn't do my job defending my fellow worker to 100% and beyond.

No one becomes a crown attorney for the money. The money is [url=http://hhllp.ca/]elsewhere[/url]. That's why disproportionately many crowns are women - part of the gender gap, left over from generations of discrimination, harassment, just plain exclusion.

So no. I don't "blame" the overworked, under-resourced Crown for not doing its job. I blame our society for having one system of "justice" for the privileged, and another for the rest of us. That "us", in this case, is women.

 

bekayne

We must fight against the stereotype that all sexual assault complaints are truthful

So says Judge Horkins in his best Churchillian voice. Seems like the deck was already stacked.

mark_alfred
Mr. Magoo

Quote:
But if we then go in to see management, and a "surprise" comes up - there's only one person to blame. Me. Didn't do my job defending my fellow worker to 100% and beyond.

Not trying to be argumentative here, but if you demand that the worker tell you everything, and clearly they don't (hence the surprise) why do you blame yourself for that? 

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But if we then go in to see management, and a "surprise" comes up - there's only one person to blame. Me. Didn't do my job defending my fellow worker to 100% and beyond.

Not trying to be argumentative here, but if you demand that the worker tell you everything, and clearly they don't (hence the surprise) why do you blame yourself for that? 

Because I didn't do my job. I have more experience. I know the consequences. I've seen so many situations. I'm the one that members trust to represent them, defend them, guide them. When the worker doesn't tell me everything, it's because I haven't earned that trust, haven't worked hard enough, haven't put my knowledge to best use. It's my failure and a systemic failure. And yea, occasionally, it's because the worker is a dufus who thinks they don't need support, or thinks they can get away with murder if they just keep lying. But we're talking rare exceptions here, if we (the union) do our job properly.

But the analogy isn't perfect. In the real-life case here, it took three women more than a decade to step forward. They said nothing before - nada. And now, they're suddenly under the whole world's spotlight. The cops took their complaints at face value, and did no intensive investigation. The Crown? Incompetent fools.

How does Marie Henein get them to "admit" things that the Crown and the cops and (in at least one case) the complainant's own lawyer couldn't suss out? They "lie" to their allies and confess the truth to their adversaries? Please explain that to me.

Ay, there's the rub.

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
How does Marie Henein get them to "admit" things that the Crown and the cops and (in at least one case) the complainant's own lawyer couldn't suss out? They "lie" to their allies and confess the truth to their adversaries? Please explain that to me.

She didn't get them to admit to anything; she even gave them (theatrically, and a bit cruelly) an opportunity to, before presenting material evidence that was contrary to their sworn statements.  How could, just as one example, DeCouterre deny a love-letter in her own handwriting?

Rev Pesky

Debater wrote:

The Crown botched the case.

They didn't properly interview the witnesses before the trial, so they were taken by surprise by the Defense during cross-examination.

I don't agree the Crown botched the case. Let's put the blame where it belongs. On the shoulders of the witnesses who did not reveal to the prosecution significant events.

At the same time, if they had revealed those events, the charge probably would never have been laid. Those witnesses should consider themselves lucky they haven't been charged with perjury.

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

How does Marie Henein get them to "admit" things that the Crown and the cops and (in at least one case) the complainant's own lawyer couldn't suss out? They "lie" to their allies and confess the truth to their adversaries? Please explain that to me.

Ay, there's the rub.

I haven't read the decision.  But from what I gather, they did not "confess the truth to their adversaries".  Apparently Henein specifically gave them the opportunity in questioning to state that they were mistaken about not having had and/or sought out further contact after the alleged assaults, and they declined.  Upon which Henein confronted them with evidence (generally emails) that contradicted their testimony, to allow the basis for reasonable doubt about other aspects of their testimony.

To me it's beside the point.  If someone is clear about an assault I don't think it's relevant or useful to consider what transpired after.  Granted, I suppose behaviour after could raise issues of whether it was consensual or not.  I dunno.  I should likely read the decision before commenting further.  Not that that will change my mind, since I'm sorta of the opinion that the whole system is fucked from the get go.  But, I likely will read the decision anyway.

ETA:  cross-posted with MM

Rev Pesky

mark_alfred wrote:
... Granted, I suppose behaviour after could raise issues of whether it was consensual or not.  I dunno.  I should likely read the decision before commenting further.  Not that that will change my mind, since I'm sorta of the opinion that the whole system is fucked from the get go.  But, I likely will read the decision anyway...

It wasn't just about what the complainants did with Jian Gomeshi after the fact. It was also shown that at least two of the complainants had exteneded contact with each other before the trial. Witnesses are often told not to discuss their testimony, for a good reason.  

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Not that that will change my mind, since I'm sorta of the opinion that the whole system is fucked from the get go.  But, I likely will read the decision anyway.

If you're perhaps thinking that the system is biased, it most surely is biased -- intentionally, and in favour of the accused.  Everything from the right to the presumption of innocence, to disclosure rules to the right to choose not to take the stand is biased in favour of the accused.

But if the accused is a man, that doesn't mean that the system is biased in favour of "men".  The 85% of the prison population who are male can tell you that.

As for the "rich" and the "powerful", while I'm sure that being able to pay a good lawyer does help, I'd also love to hear how Conrad Black ended up making licence plates.  Surely he didn't get all cheapskate when it came to his counsel?

And this might be as good a time as any for me to note that while I acknowledge that Ghomeshi was acquitted, and can see some reasonable logic in the judge's decision, I don't for a moment doubt that he struck and/or choked the witnesses as alleged.  I won't call him "guilty", since that could be libellous, but I believe I'm allowed to say that in my opinion, he cheated the noose.

kropotkin1951

The only thing I would like to see now is for this misogynist asshole to be sued. Given the difference between guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the balance of probabilities plus the full disclosure required from both sides he would lose. That is likely what it will take to shut him and his supporters up. Squeeze like he was OJ until he goes back into the shadows.

brookmere

mark_alfred wrote:
  Granted, I suppose behaviour after could raise issues of whether it was consensual or not.

Consent for punching or choking is not the norm or anywhere near it. The defense did not claim consensuality, nor was the aquittal based on it.The defense questioned the credibility of the witnesses on their claims that punching and choking happened in the first place.

Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:
If someone is clear about an assault I don't think it's relevant or useful to consider what transpired after.

Agreed - of course - but the decision wasn't about that. It was about how they concealed, or shifted, or deceived, events that happened during and after. So it was about their overall credibility. You should read the decision. It's infuriating - but it clearly shows how the complainants were betrayed by the police and the Crown. That's my take anyway.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The only thing I would like to see now is for this misogynist asshole to be sued. Given the difference between guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the balance of probabilities plus the full disclosure required from both sides he would lose. That is likely what it will take to shut him and his supporters up. Squeeze like he was OJ until he goes back into the shadows.

Under all the circumstances, civil proceedings were the way to go right from the start, given the different burden of proof. I agree with you. But today, after the "discrediting" of the only available witnesses? It'll never happen. Mark my words. And women will be more hesitant to come forward than before. All in all, a total fuck-up.

 

Unionist

Slumberjack wrote:

I don't know how you are able to conclude that the witnesses were betrayed by crown and police interviewers.

Ok, other than repeat everything I've said about the duty of the police and the Crown to leave no stone unturned, I'm not sure how to convince you of my conclusion.

 

Pondering

Unqualified kudos for his response.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
the duty of the police and the Crown to leave no stone unturned, I'm not sure how to convince you of my conclusion.

This still seems vague.

Do you believe that neither the Crown, nor any witness' counsel, ever asked them something like "are you SURE that you never had anything but distant and professionally related contact with Ghomeshi after the incident?" or "is there ANYTHING that you know, and that you haven't talked about, but that might be presented at trial and might f**k everything over when it does?"

I guess I'm just not convinced that every stone is turnable (if only you can be bothered to turn it).  Do you feel that the witnesses had any duty to disclose everything, frankly and completely?  Or was the only onus on the Crown, to somehow force them to, and if they failed, then they weren't doing their job?

Pondering
Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
The Crown was brain-dead, incompetent, or more likely, not really giving enough of a shit.

Views that I subscribe to in a general, governmental sort of way.

Quote:
I can't count the number of times I've accompanied fellow workers to a disciplinary interview. I never agree to go with them, unless they agree to meet me beforehand and tell me everything. I grill them worse than any manager can. I challenge anything that sounds half-assed, self-serving, conveniently forgetful, etc.

So basically, in mentioning this example, your method in the case at hand would have been to subject the complainants to a potentially triggering interview technique, intended to tease out most if not all of the information relevant to the case.  Memories being what they are and all.  And when they think for a minute that they've given you everything you need, that's when you'd really shove their heads under a tap?

Quote:
I ask for every document that could possibly bear on the situation. I decide (on a preliminary basis) if they're "guilty" or not. If not, we prepare our defence, look for witnesses, etc. If yes, I counsel them on the possibility of "falling on their sword", taking responsibility, showing remorse, etc. It's their choice.  But if we then go in to see management, and a "surprise" comes up - there's only one person to blame. Me.

Are you any good at doing taxes?

Quote:
No one becomes a crown attorney for the money. The money is [url=http://hhllp.ca/]elsewhere[/url]. That's why disproportionately many crowns are women - part of the gender gap, left over from generations of discrimination, harassment, just plain exclusion.  So no. I don't "blame" the overworked, under-resourced Crown for not doing its job. 

My understanding is that both sides agreed on a time-frame for the trial, presumably set after everyone indicated that they were content with the time that they had available to proceed to trial.  If it turned out that there wasn't enough time allocated for the prosecution to adequately prepare it's case after all, and subsequently, they did not see fit to present a request for an extension to the court, why couldn't the Crown be blamed for that at least?

Quote:
I blame our society for having one system of "justice" for the privileged, and another for the rest of us. That "us", in this case, is women.

I agree.

But what follows is an additional example of having the sincerity of one statement depend on additional input, particularly when it's being articulated in the same context.

Quote:
The Crown was brain-dead, incompetent, or more likely, not really giving enough of a shit.

Quote:
That's why disproportionately many crowns are women.  So no. I don't "blame" the overworked, under-resourced Crown for not doing its job.

Slumberjack

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Quote:
the duty of the police and the Crown to leave no stone unturned, I'm not sure how to convince you of my conclusion.

Quote:
This still seems vague.

Also left vague is an explanation of what is being implied by the statement 'leave no stone unturned.'  What sort of coercive. truth gathering techniques are we talking about here, aside from opportunities for the complainants to describe, to the best that recollection has to offer, the nature of their interactions with the accused?

mark_alfred

Lucy and the first witness give an interview in Chatelaine magazine.  They've started a website to help other women who may wish to come forward (comingforward.ca).

What I wish I’d known before testifying in the Ghomeshi trial

Quote:
The first witness opens up about being afraid, that bikini photo and how she plans to make coming forward better for other women.

In November of 2014, a Toronto mother of two walked into a police station to tell officers that Jian Ghomeshi had assaulted her.

“I just went on and on,” says the woman, one of three complainants in the criminal trial against Ghomeshi, whose name is protected under publication ban. “When I later saw the excerpts of that interview in court, I was horrified,” she says now. “I didn’t recognize myself.”

She didn’t know her rambling police interview would be her official statement and later used in court.  And she didn’t know a photo she’d emailed to Ghomeshi of herself in a red string bikini would leave her testimony in tatters.

Still, she insists speaking out “was the right thing to do.” Now, with the launch of the website comingforward.ca, she wants to help other women navigate the system if they decide to report a sexual assault.

milo204

Whether or not you think he did it, the idea that the trial itself was somehow an "insult to women" or that the women were not given a fair shake by the justice system is pushing it...

They didn't lose the case because of love letters or because they saw him again, or any other stereotype of how victims react.  they lost because they blatantly and repeatedly lied in court and on public record, and the judge explained that quite clearly in the verdict.

and really, the feigned shock and melodramatic reaction of people after the trial, and the insinuation that somehow complainants should be able to lie repeatedly and on purpose and still be taken seriously makes us all sound like idiots, as does the shame and hate immediately directed towards ghomeshis sister: for sharing her experience , Heinen: for simply doing her job the way every lawyer does. the judge: for doing what we would otherwise support if it were a case against someone who's cause we thought was "our side". 

the inability to modify our position, even slightly, is about as strange to me as when people defended that person was the head of the NAACP and was lying about being black.  it's the conspiracy theory effect, the wingnuts make the legitimate political dissidents look like just another quack to most people and it really is just helping maintain the status quo even longer.

and before you call me an apologist, i DO think he assaulted them in some way.  I do think he's a total jackass and i know women personally who have had creepy encounters with him.  I'm glad he lost his high-paying public forum and has been outed as a shitty person and we won't have to hear his phony BS anymore.   and moxy fruvous was shiite.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:

Unqualified kudos for his response.

 

How does he know the complainants in this case are 'survivors'?

Circa
RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

milo204 wrote:

we're thinking of two different things.

i know on the narrow point of corroboration that she "told someone", the letter (as opposed to the originally intended testimony) was their best effort at that, although the original plan (until a snowstorm) was for this person to be at the trial.  All i'm saying is that would have been better, for the reasons above, then what actually happened.  i mean why was she going to come in the first place then if writing a letter would accomplish the same thing?

 

I agree milo. History is based on timing.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Unionist wrote:

The Crown should be put on trial. They will harm far more women, and other victims, than a single offender ever could.

 

WE are the Crown. We're all guilty.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
They didn't properly interview the witnesses before the trial, so they were taken by surprise by the Defense during cross-examination.

It was up to each of the witnesses to disclose everything.  It's not like the Crown could have compelled it out of them.

Read Horkins' decision, if you haven't already.  I think it makes it clear that the weight of all of the inconsistencies in testimony introduced a reasonable doubt that led to the acquittal.  Nothing to do with Ghomeshi being "rich and powerful", or the witnesses "not being perfect victims" or the Crown not doing their job or whatever. 

 

No, it was up to the witnesses to disclose the assault. Full stop. In the absence of a denial by Ghomeshi i think this Horkins' dude is a neanderthal, what a joke as a lawyer. And actually, if you take off the coloured glasses Magoo, it does read "not being perfect victims"

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

bekayne wrote:

We must fight against the stereotype that all sexual assault complaints are truthful

So says Judge Horkins in his best Churchillian voice. Seems like the deck was already stacked.

 

Wow, I don't have the time to search but did a justice of our courts write that? That's disbarment in my eyes. Wow

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Unionist wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But if we then go in to see management, and a "surprise" comes up - there's only one person to blame. Me. Didn't do my job defending my fellow worker to 100% and beyond.

Not trying to be argumentative here, but if you demand that the worker tell you everything, and clearly they don't (hence the surprise) why do you blame yourself for that? 

Because I didn't do my job. I have more experience. I know the consequences. I've seen so many situations. I'm the one that members trust to represent them, defend them, guide them. When the worker doesn't tell me everything, it's because I haven't earned that trust, haven't worked hard enough, haven't put my knowledge to best use. It's my failure and a systemic failure. And yea, occasionally, it's because the worker is a dufus who thinks they don't need support, or thinks they can get away with murder if they just keep lying. But we're talking rare exceptions here, if we (the union) do our job properly.

But the analogy isn't perfect. In the real-life case here, it took three women more than a decade to step forward. They said nothing before - nada. And now, they're suddenly under the whole world's spotlight. The cops took their complaints at face value, and did no intensive investigation. The Crown? Incompetent fools.

How does Marie Henein get them to "admit" things that the Crown and the cops and (in at least one case) the complainant's own lawyer couldn't suss out? They "lie" to their allies and confess the truth to their adversaries? Please explain that to me.

Ay, there's the rub.

 

 

I'd want U in my foxhole.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
How does Marie Henein get them to "admit" things that the Crown and the cops and (in at least one case) the complainant's own lawyer couldn't suss out? They "lie" to their allies and confess the truth to their adversaries? Please explain that to me.

She didn't get them to admit to anything; she even gave them (theatrically, and a bit cruelly) an opportunity to, before presenting material evidence that was contrary to their sworn statements.  How could, just as one example, DeCouterre deny a love-letter in her own handwriting?

 

I'm still unclear how that clears an alleged assault that someone doesn't have to deny?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

Debater wrote:

The Crown botched the case.

They didn't properly interview the witnesses before the trial, so they were taken by surprise by the Defense during cross-examination.

I don't agree the Crown botched the case. Let's put the blame where it belongs. On the shoulders of the witnesses who did not reveal to the prosecution significant events.

At the same time, if they had revealed those events, the charge probably would never have been laid. Those witnesses should consider themselves lucky they haven't been charged with perjury.

 

What was more significant than being assaulted? What are these significant events that somehow make like Houdini and make those assaults magically disappear? Fuck you

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Not that that will change my mind, since I'm sorta of the opinion that the whole system is fucked from the get go.  But, I likely will read the decision anyway.

If you're perhaps thinking that the system is biased, it most surely is biased -- intentionally, and in favour of the accused.  Everything from the right to the presumption of innocence, to disclosure rules to the right to choose not to take the stand is biased in favour of the accused.

 

Agreed.

Quote:
But if the accused is a man, that doesn't mean that the system is biased in favour of "men".  The 85% of the prison population who are male can tell you that.

Strawman

 

Quote:
As for the "rich" and the "powerful", while I'm sure that being able to pay a good lawyer does help, I'd also love to hear how Conrad Black ended up making licence plates.  Surely he didn't get all cheapskate when it came to his counsel?

 

Big money lawyers make all the difference, good luck with a certificate. Sometimes, dudes like CONrad Black cant be saved.

Quote:
And this might be as good a time as any for me to note that while I acknowledge that Ghomeshi was acquitted, and can see some reasonable logic in the judge's decision, I don't for a moment doubt that he struck and/or choked the witnesses as alleged.  I won't call him "guilty", since that could be libellous, but I believe I'm allowed to say that in my opinion, he cheated the noose.

 

Well reasoned

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

milo204 wrote:

Whether or not you think he did it, the idea that the trial itself was somehow an "insult to women" or that the women were not given a fair shake by the justice system is pushing it...

They didn't lose the case because of love letters or because they saw him again, or any other stereotype of how victims react.  they lost because they blatantly and repeatedly lied in court and on public record, and the judge explained that quite clearly in the verdict.

and really, the feigned shock and melodramatic reaction of people after the trial, and the insinuation that somehow complainants should be able to lie repeatedly and on purpose and still be taken seriously makes us all sound like idiots, as does the shame and hate immediately directed towards ghomeshis sister: for sharing her experience , Heinen: for simply doing her job the way every lawyer does. the judge: for doing what we would otherwise support if it were a case against someone who's cause we thought was "our side". 

the inability to modify our position, even slightly, is about as strange to me as when people defended that person was the head of the NAACP and was lying about being black.  it's the conspiracy theory effect, the wingnuts make the legitimate political dissidents look like just another quack to most people and it really is just helping maintain the status quo even longer.

and before you call me an apologist, i DO think he assaulted them in some way.  I do think he's a total jackass and i know women personally who have had creepy encounters with him.  I'm glad he lost his high-paying public forum and has been outed as a shitty person and we won't have to hear his phony BS anymore.   and moxy fruvous was shiite.

 

no milo, he didn't even to show his slimy face. if you DO think he did it, then i'm disappointed u don't have the courage of ur convictions

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Unqualified kudos for his response.

 

How does he know the complainants in this case are 'survivors'?

 

It's 2016, grow up

Pondering

To those of you so eagar to defend the ignorant judge:

For those of us who work with women who have been sexually assaulted, the wording of the Ghomeshi decision reveals the significant gap between women’s realities and how their behaviour is judged.

We do not take issue with the court’s determination that based on the evidence before it, the Crown had not proven the alleged sexual assaults beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet the court goes on to say that the complainants engaged in conduct with Mr. Ghomeshi “which seems out of harmony with the assaultive behavior ascribed to him.”

Out of harmony to whom? To someone who has never been sexually assaulted? Or to someone who has?

In our experience of providing both legal and counselling support to women, it is typical for women to initially respond to violence in dating or spousal relationships by denying, minimizing, or attempting to care for the abuser. They want to bring back the nice guy, to appease, to be friendly, or to otherwise continue whatever pre-existing “normal” dynamic there was between them.

If you haven’t been raped, this might be difficult to understand. Women are still fundamentally socialized to wonder, “Was this my fault?” and “Can I fix this?” In our practice, it would be absolutely typical for a woman who had been choked to write a loving letter about the abuser’s hands that had choked her.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/can-the-ghomeshi-trial-lead-to-ch...

and

http://www.metronews.ca/views/metro-views/2016/03/23/a-jian-ghomeshi-acq...

It’s been 40 years since rape-shield laws were introduced, and yet, still, only about 10 per cent of sexual assaults are reported to police, never mind adjudicated in the courts....

In past years, and again since the start of this trial, various reforms have been batted around, including creating a courts for sexual assaults, inspired by those for mental health sufferers....

There could also be dedicated lawyers for complainants, to correct the imbalance that results when only the accused gets a lawyer in a he-said-she-said trial where physical evidence and third-party witnesses are in short supply.

Cody87

RevolutionPlease wrote:

bekayne wrote:

We must fight against the stereotype that all sexual assault complaints are truthful

So says Judge Horkins in his best Churchillian voice. Seems like the deck was already stacked.

Wow, I don't have the time to search but did a justice of our courts write that? That's disbarment in my eyes. Wow

I have no intention of debating anything to do with this issue on this forum, but for those who are actually interested in full context, here's the meat of the decision, with the emphasis mine, highlighting what was (and was not) behind the decision.

And, to be fair, he neither said we need to "fight" against anything, nor called it a "stereotype." Nice try though.

[131]There is no legal bar to convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness. However, one of the challenges for the prosecution in this case is that the allegations against Mr. Ghomeshi are supported by nothing in addition to the complainant’s word. There is no other evidence to look to determine the truth. There is no tangible evidence. There is no DNA. There is no "smoking gun". There is only the sworn evidence of each complainant, standing on its own, to be measured against a very exacting standard of proof. This highlights the importance of the assessment ofthe credibility andthe reliability and the overall quality,of that evidence.

[132]At trial, each complainant recounted their experience with Mr. Ghomeshi and was then subjected to extensive and revealing cross-examination. The cross-examination dramatically demonstrated that each complainant was less than full, frank and forthcoming in the information they provided to the media, to the police, to Crown counsel and to this Court.

[133]Ultimately my assessment of each of the counts against the accused turns entirely on the assessment of the reliability and credibility of the complainant, when measured against the Crown’s burden of proof. With respect to each charge, the only necessary determination is simply this: Does the evidence have sufficient quality and force to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

[134]Mr. Ghomeshi did not testify and he called no evidence in defence of the allegations. One of the most important organizing principles in our criminal law is the right of an accused not to be conscripted into building a case against oneself. Every accused facing criminal allegations is entitled to plead not guilty and put the Crown to the strict proof of the charges. An accused has every right to remain silent, call no evidence and seek an acquittal on the basis that the Crown’s case fails to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No adverse inference arises from his decision to do so in this case.

[135]As I have stated more than once, the courts must be very cautious in assessing the evidence of complainants in sexual assault and abuse cases. Courts must guard against applying false stereotypes concerning the expected conduct of complainants. I have a firm understanding that the reasonableness of reactive human behaviour in the dynamics of a relationship can be variable and unpredictable. However,the twists and turns of the complainants’ evidence in this trial, illustrate the need to be vigilant in avoiding the equally dangerous false assumption that sexual assault complainants are always truthful. Each individual and each unique factual scenario must be assessed according to their own particular circumstances.

[136]Each complainant in this case engaged in conduct regarding Mr. Ghomeshi, after the fact, which seems out of harmony with the assaultive behaviour ascribed to him. In many instances, their conduct and comments were even inconsistent with the level of animus exhibited by each of them, both at the time and then years later. In a case that is entirely dependent on the reliability of their evidence standing alone, these are factors that cause me considerable difficulty when asked to accept their evidence at full value.

[137]Each complainant was confronted with a volume of evidence that was contrary to their prior sworn statements and their evidence in-chief. Each complainant demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion. It is this aspect of their evidence that is most troubling to the Court.

[138]The success of this prosecution depended entirely on the Court being able to accept each complainant as a sincere, honest and accurate witness. Each complainant was revealed at trial to be lacking in these important attributes. The evidence of each complainant suffered not just from inconsistencies and questionable behaviour, but was tainted by outright deception.

[139]The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness can no longer expect the Court to consider them to be a trusted source of the truth. I am forced to conclude that it is impossible for the Court to have sufficient faith in the reliability or sincerity of these complainants. Put simply, the volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence leaves the Court with a reasonable doubt.

[140]My conclusion that the evidence in this case raises a reasonable doubt is not the same as deciding in any positive way that these events never happened. At the end of this trial, a reasonable doubt exists because it is impossible to determine, with any acceptable degree of certainty or comfort, what is true and what is false. The standard of proof in a criminal case requires sufficient clarity in the evidence to allow a confident acceptance of the essential facts. In these proceedings the bedrock foundation of the Crown’s case is tainted and incapable of supporting any clear determination of the truth.

[141]I have no hesitation in concluding that the quality of the evidence in this case is incapable of displacing the presumption of innocence. The evidence fails to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Cody87

Pondering wrote:

To those of you so eagar to defend the ignorant judge:

I am not defending the ignorant judge. I'm merely correcting the mischaracterization of his statements, and providing full context so the individual reader is free to come to their own conclusions.

Pondering

Cody87 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

To those of you so eagar to defend the ignorant judge:

I am not defending the ignorant judge. I'm merely correcting the mischaracterization of his statements, and providing full context so the individual reader is free to come to their own conclusions.

There were no quote marks. Everyone here is well able to find the judgement. Paraphrasing isn't necessarily mischaracterization. His statements as a whole discounted the women's testimony based on their interactions with him after the fact not being consistent with women who have been assaulted but his opinon was wrong on that. Had he been better informed on how women react to this type of assault his reasoning if not his decision may have been different. Not remembering is not the same thing as lying.

The judge's decision must be made on the basis of the law which bars consideration of general knowledge in the form of the many accounts of his inappropriate and generally abusive behavior as well as his filing away of all communications with women he dated once or twice keeping emails organized for decades. Judges have a lot of latitude in writing the decision. His comments concerning the women were unnecessarily harsh. They were not on trial yet his decision condemned them which will serve as fresh motivation for women to refrain from coming forward even when asked to by police.

The mistake the women made was being insufficiently calculating and guarded.

brookmere

Pondering wrote:
Not remembering is not the same thing as lying.

I don't find it credible that all three witnesses could forget about their post-incident interactions with Ghomeshi, but let's suppose they did.

Wouldn't that call into question the veracity of their testimony just as much as if they were lying?

And I want to make it abundantly clear that I don't think those interactions were a reason to acquit Ghomeshi, not did the judge think so.

Pondering

brookmere wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Not remembering is not the same thing as lying.

I don't find it credible that all three witnesses could forget about their post-incident interactions with Ghomeshi, but let's suppose they did.

Wouldn't that call into question the veracity of their testimony just as much as if they were lying?

And I want to make it abundantly clear that I don't think those interactions were a reason to acquit Ghomeshi, not did the judge think so.

No I don't which is why it takes specialists to understand reactions to this type of personalized intimate non-critical physical injury violence. None of the women needed to go to a doctor. They minimized and rationalized what happened to them. You even have to take into account the ages of the women when the events occurred and changing times. That is, young women today are less and less likely to accept mistreatment because although times are still changing far too slowly they are changing.

The events themselves were still easily recalled because being suddenly assaulted is something you remember. It's shocking. You ask yourself "did that just happen?" Afterwards they normalized it. Didn't even realize what had happened to them was illegal. What happened afterwards, as they had normalized the situation in their minds, they didn't have recall of letters or emails as those were not actions that were out of the ordinary at the time.

I have trouble remembering the order of events in my 20s and I'm sure I don't remember the details of telephone interactions with various boyfriends at the time. None of the women ended up in an ongoing relationship with him beyond a date or two so they would have no reason to remember events that they would have wanted to put out of their minds not dwell over. I've definitely had boyfriends that I dismissed from my mind years ago from choice. I would be hard put to remember the details of those I had only one or two dates with. I didn't even save all the crap from serious boyfriends never mind some guy I only dated a couple of times. Seriously what kind of guy does that?

This isn't the end. There is another case being tried separately. Hopefully they will nail him with that one.

 

Slumberjack

I thought of two captions for this picture:

Quote:
We'll fight upon the oceans, at the swimming pools, in the shower stalls.

and

Quote:
Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge of automatic and semi-automatic weapons among the people

Personally I'm more fond of the second one.

Pondering

Slumberjack wrote:

I thought of two captions for this picture:

Quote:
We'll fight upon the oceans, at the swimming pools, in the shower stalls.

and

Quote:
Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge of automatic and semi-automatic weapons among the people

Personally I'm more fond of the second one.

I prefer lets get em where it hurts.

lagatta

Yes, they were war workers testing out the weapons.

I was thinking of the time-honoured words "Up against the wall, mother-fuckers"...

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Cody87 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

To those of you so eagar to defend the ignorant judge:

I am not defending the ignorant judge. I'm merely correcting the mischaracterization of his statements, and providing full context so the individual reader is free to come to their own conclusions.

 

Come clean fuckwit, you're a sick mother fucker

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

brookmere wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Not remembering is not the same thing as lying.

I don't find it credible that all three witnesses could forget about their post-incident interactions with Ghomeshi, but let's suppose they did.

Wouldn't that call into question the veracity of their testimony just as much as if they were lying?

And I want to make it abundantly clear that I don't think those interactions were a reason to acquit Ghomeshi, not did the judge think so.

 

Who fucking cares what happened after. That's the whole herring I don't understand? These women were assaulted. Does anybody disagree with me? Why the fuck are we debating post-assault behaviour? 

Seriously, it's only us that can change this. We must act.

Pages

Topic locked