Ghomeshi Trial Begins

Don’t dismiss Ghomeshi’s accusers over their after-the-fact behaviour

Quote:

This week saw two witnesses testify in the Jian Ghomeshi trial. Both witnesses are women who shared their descriptions of being romanced – and then suddenly, allegedly slapped, choked or otherwise assaulted − by the former radio host. The locus of the attention has been the women’s reactions and continued relationships with Mr. Ghomeshi after the alleged abusive incidents.

Whether or not Mr. Ghomeshi is innocent or guilty of these assaults, of course, remains to be seen. But it’s important not to dismiss the victims because of their behaviour after the alleged assaults occurred. In fact, their actions – dismissive reactions of the event, and a desire to maintain contact and continue a relationship – are common.

[..]

The witness in this case shared a poignant reflection that many survivors I’ve worked with, who are victimized by a highly-respected or loved offender could likely also relate to: that this was a redeemable relationship.

It’s not only the witnesses we’ve heard from who wanted to share this perspective: Many Canadians initially joined in the hope that these allegations were not all that serious.

“I was thinking maybe this assault was a one-off,” Ms. DeCoutere said. “Everyone makes gaffes.”

The entire cartoon is here:

https://thenib.com/trigger-warning-breakfast-c6cdeec070e6#.3tabl2t4s

mark_alfred wrote:

<snip>  Anyway, I'll await the judge's decision, who I assume is impartial and professional.

I myself am biased, I admit it.  I still have a crush on Lucy DeCoutere from her Trailer Park days, and I've always loathed Ghomeshi from his Q days. <snip> 

thank you

This blog is from a few years ago and completely applies.

Looks like I don't have to read the ignorant ramblings of the MSM trying to "explain" what this is all about, the motives of the victims and the oh, so complicated reality of sexual assualt (sacrcasm).

It's appalling to find many of the people listed below in this thread. How babble has changed. How the misogynist babblers are allowed to continue to post here is beyond me.

The People You Meet When You Talk About Rape

Quote:

Mr. Model Victims Only Please
"The victim was no angel herself. If you look at her record, she's been arrested several times, she's a single mother, and she's living on welfare. So it's not like she was some innocent little virgin beforehand. None of this makes it right, but I'm just saying, let's not overreact like a good woman got ruined."

Ms. Fashion Police
"Did you hear what she was wearing? I'm sorry but that's just not common sense. If you go out looking like a piece of meat, you have to expect you'll get treated like a piece of meat."

Mr. I'm Not Blaming Her But It's Her Fault
"Rape is never the victim's fault, of course. But I just want people to admit that she has some responsibility. That she maybe played a part in it. That in an alternate universe where she'd done things differently and she lived in a steel Battlemech wearing a chastity belt, she wouldn't have gotten raped, and she did make the choice to not use a Battlemech. I just need people to acknowledge that."

Ms. CSI
"If you put the pieces together, her story just doesn't wash. She claims that he ripped her pants off, but her pants have a button fly. Ha! And she waited a whole forty minutes after the supposed rape to call the police--who would do that?"

Ms. You Don't Just Get To Decide Whether You Consent
"She was seen earlier in the night drinking with this guy, talking to him, and even making out with him! And then she went up to his apartment! What did she think would happen? No one ever goes to a guy's apartment unless they're consenting to every sex act he could possibly want."

... and many more.

Men who don't take this trial and its implications very very seriously regarding what their "analysis" means for women and the rape culture that we live in everyday should be deeply ashamed of themselves. 

Maysie wrote:

Another reality check for those who need it.

For fuck's sake.

So this general statistical information cancels out all the actual evidence in the case!  Good to know.

Rev. Dr. Brent Leroy Hawkes will be pleased to know he is hereby convicted w/o due process...

Gillian Hnatiw

This is the lawyer LD refered to as a "diva" .... while promoting her to a fellow complainant. (The judge will look dimly on that contact.)

Whatever side you might take in this discussion I would suggest that Gillian Hnatiw has played a dismal part and destroyed her own reputation.

She is an 'expert' in this area... and she left LD totally exposed to the potential pitfalls of cross examination. 

Then, she trots outside (cause the courtroom case is lost) and trys to shout loud enough to cover uo her enourmous blunders.  And some of the media dutifully fall for it.

Re:  post #212

Hnatiw and DeCoutere have been fine, in my opinion.  Regarding due process, this is a good idea, but it must also be coupled with the idea of fairness.  The focus should be on Ghomeshi, the alleged perpetrator, not on outside factors concerning the victims. 

Good article on this topic in Macleans:  http://www.macleans.ca/society/whats-really-on-trial-in-the-ghomeshi-case/

Quote:

The trial is destined to expose the try-the-accuser prosecution of sexual assault, an area of criminal law in need of radical overhaul, according to those who work within it.

Sexual assault trials are unique in our justice system in that there is dispute over whether the crime happened at all—even though disappearance of money or a car can be just as difficult to prove. “Typically, there’s no question of whether somebody was injured or money was stolen,” Hnatiw tells Maclean’s. “The actus reus part—whether the crime occurred at all—is rarely in play, but that’s a common defence in sexual assault.”

Sex crimes continue to be treated singularly within the law. No one asks the victim of a mugging why they handed over their wallet, or what they were doing in that neighbourhood, or question whether the crime even took place. We know false claims are the anomaly (two to eight per cent, according to FBI studies). Yet disbelieving the complainant remains the norm. Conviction rates have not risen a whit: according to the 2012 study “Sexual Assault in Canadian Law” they stand at 0.3 per cent. And complainants are still on trial. Consider the defence lawyer slang for questioning those who dare come forward: “whacking.”

ETA:  oops, just noticed that 6079_Smith_W already linked to this article.

To Northern POV:

Remember that DC's lawyer only has access to what her client tells her and what the Crown chooses to disclose.  There is no process to compel the Crown to disclose anything to a witness.

And, of course, JG is entitled to keep all of his evidence secret to be rolled out as he sees fit.

If LCD either did not remember the details about the subsequent contact, or didn't think it important, that cannot be laid at the feet of her counsel.

pookie wrote:

To Northern POV:

Remember that DC's lawyer only has access to what her client tells her and what the Crown chooses to disclose.  There is no process to compel the Crown to disclose anything to a witness.

And, of course, JG is entitled to keep all of his evidence secret to be rolled out as he sees fit.

If LCD either did not remember the details about the subsequent contact, or didn't think it important, that cannot be laid at the feet of her counsel.

I think you meant: "There is no process to compel the defence to disclose anything to the crown."  The crown must dislose all.

And perhaps you don't see it but .... when you defend the diva lawyer you simply implicate LD as the main source of the problem.

It is what she did not tell her lawyer and the crown (and the judge when prompted) that has come back to haunt her. 

Given her recall of the other details of 13 years earlier, her ommision of the fawning post-incident pursuit of Ghomeshi destroys any credibility. 

Smitten, then scorned providing a motive  for revenge.

Maysie wrote:

Hey kropotkin, turns out I lost my mind and wanted to read the thread about JG on babble. Don't ask me why. I'm glad you, Smith, quiz and a few others are trying to fight back against opinions here that I can only describe as What The Fucking Hell Fuck. I don't need to read comments sections, I can just come here.

Thanks for your kind words. Years ago on this board I had some of my patriarchal views tuned up by BigCityGirl and am a better man for it.

Northern PoV wrote:

pookie wrote:

To Northern POV:

Remember that DC's lawyer only has access to what her client tells her and what the Crown chooses to disclose.  There is no process to compel the Crown to disclose anything to a witness.

And, of course, JG is entitled to keep all of his evidence secret to be rolled out as he sees fit.

If LCD either did not remember the details about the subsequent contact, or didn't think it important, that cannot be laid at the feet of her counsel.

I think you meant: "There is no process to compel the defence to disclose anything to the crown."  The crown must dislose all.

And perhaps you don't see it but .... when you defend the diva lawyer you simply implicate LD as the main source of the problem.

It is what she did not tell her lawyer and the crown (and the judge when prompted) that has come back to haunt her. 

Given her recall of the other details of 13 years earlier, her ommision of the fawning post-incident pursuit of Ghomeshi destroys any credibility. 

Smitten, then scorned providing a motive  for revenge.

No, I meant there is no process to compel the Crown to disclose anything to a witness.  Because you are talking about the witness' lawyer, so what that lawyer would have had access to is relevant.  Obviously the defence need not disclose anything to anyone.

I find the term "diva lawyer" disrespectful to a committed feminist advocate who has spent years fighting to promote justice and fairness re VAW. LCD used that term in a very different way than you are now.

Oh, and it is absolutely fair game to comment on LCD's testimony under cross-x.  That doesn't mean I disbelieve the guts of her story.  I tend to believe her. But, yup, the information put to her on cross was.....not helpful to the Crown's case.  

I posted this in the Hawkes thread but realized it properly belongs in this thread.

voice of the damned wrote:

As for the second point, well, if I say "We can't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant's statement is accurate", I am saying that there is a possibility that they are lying or delusional. Which might not be as absolute as saying that they ARE lying or delusional, but still not exactly flattering to the complainant's character.

The test for any single piece of evidence, even in a criminal case, is the preponderance of the probabilities. When one decides a criminal case all the evidence has to add up to beyond a reasonable doubt. I have quoted the following paragraph in numerous cases. I think that at this point we know nothing about the evidence in the case against Hawkes. In JG's case he says he hit and slapped them but they wanted it. Numerous women say he assaulted them prior to consent. I think the women's stories are far more reasonable than JG's.

Quote:

11]

The credibility of interested witness, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carried conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. Only thus can a Court satisfactorily appraise the testimony of quick-minded, experienced and confident witnesses, and of those shrewd persons adept in the half-lie and of long and successful experience in combining skilful exaggeration with partial suppression of the truth.

http://disinherited.com/legal-principles-affecting-judges-assessment-wit...

I think that's probably correct.

But let's pretend that in some topsy-turvey world, the CBC was compelled somehow to put him back at the helm of Q.

They could quite legitimately come to him two weeks later and say "sorry, we're replacing you because nobody's listening to your show now".  It's not like he's some factory worker whose job is to pack 1000 units per shift.  If listeners don't really want to listen to him any more then his employer would be well within their rights to turf him again.

Strictly speaking, he could launch it again even if he's convicted.

But if you mean "would it fly?" then my layperson's guess would be "no".

Remember when radio shock-jock Don Imus was fired for an odious and racist comment?  He wasn't "aquitted" of that because he wasn't even charged with it -- he didn't even break the law.  But his employer quite reasonably didn't wish to give him a microphone any more.

We discussed this a couple of years ago. He had no grounds to sue in the first place:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Ghomeshi+lawsuit+doomed+fail/10419157/story...

Quote:

It is arguable that, from an ethical standpoint, this suit should never have been launched because lawyers are not supposed to accept cases without merit, as this one clearly was from the start. The lawyer Mr. Ghomeshi hired was not even an employment lawyer, but one versed in insolvency. Perhaps that is propitious: With no income, no likely prospects for imminent employment, a celebrity-level lifestyle to maintain and now two legal bills to cover - his own and the CBC's - who knows if that may be the kind of legal advice he may one day come to need.

Mr. Ghomeshi is left now with only the ability to launch a grievance through his union.

But fickle fate may even deny him that possible remedy. Union employees are subject to their union's whims, and I predict, this union will simply refuse to take this case through to arbitration.

pookie wrote:

<snip> I find the term "diva lawyer" disrespectful to a committed feminist advocate who has spent years fighting to promote justice and fairness re VAW. LCD used that term in a very different way than you are now.  <snip>

How is LD using the term diva-lawyer?  How does my use differ?

PS: I viewed it in conjuction with LD's comment about 'looking forward to court as theatre' .

Quote:

No a union member cannot sue for wrongful dismissal. he obviously got really bad legal advice when he originally sued the CBC. It would appear that after getting good advice he not only dropped the suit but paid CBC its full costs, before those costs got any higher.

Fair enough.  That too.  But now I'm left wondering -- just as a sidebar -- whether he could at least sue whichever Lionel Hutz said to him "go for 50 mil, Jian!  We can win this!".

Maysie wrote:

I'm glad you, Smith, quiz and a few others are trying to fight back against opinions here that I can only describe as What The Fucking Hell Fuck.

Just dropping by to add my voice to the chorus of What The Fucking Hell Fuck :)

Why did Jian Ghomeshi Keep Luci DeCoutere's Letter?

http://canadalandshow.com/article/why-did-jian-ghomeshi-keep-lucy-decout...

Quote:

Jian Ghomeshi kept Lucy DeCoutere’s handwritten letter to him for 13 years. She was never his girlfriend. They never had sex. Given what we heard at trial last week, it's hard to imagine he was carrying a flame for her. So, why did he hold on to it for over a decade?

Ghomeshi kept files on women in case they would later accuse him of violence.

Jesse Brown goes on to describe the tale of a woman who was punched by JG, and what happened when she confronted him:

Quote:

That's when he reminded her in an aggressive tone that he had kept records: "i have text messages...you WANTED it..."

Three other women told me similar stories, supported by evidence, of manipulation and entrapment. Ghomeshi would establish an electronic paper trail before the alleged violence took place and would make efforts to continue a correspondence afterwards. It followed a pattern.

Ghomeshi encouraged women he was pursuing to engage in rough sex talk over text, Facebook message, or email. They told me that if they balked, he would assure them over the phone (verbally, no records) that it was just fantasy, and none of it would physically happen to them. He told them it was healthy to "experiment" and he taunted and challenged them, saying maybe they were "not ready" for a guy like him....

JG's obsessive sociopathy aside, there's also a matter of the behaviour of sexual assault survivors. Women who have been sexually attacked sometimes may be in denial, and continue to be friendly with their attackers. Add to this the power differential between the victims and the perpetrator, usually just a function of male privilege, but in this case also the fact that the attacker is rich and powerful, and it's not surprising you get a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.

The prosecution needs to get an expert witness on the psychology of sexual trauma and put them on the stand.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

http://www.macleans.ca/society/whats-really-on-trial-in-the-ghomeshi-case/

Quote:

Today, a “because it’s 2016” belief in female sexual agency can be used against complainants. That women freely go out at night, dress as they want, and enjoy sex outside of marriage has made it plausible to suggest a woman would consent to sex with five boys, one of them armed, in a public park or, in the case of Rehtaeh Parsons, consent to sex with two boys at a party while vomiting out a window. At the same time, the courts often uphold a Victorian model of prim womanhood in which women would experience such violation and shame after a consensual sexual encounter that they would fabricate a claim or seek revenge.

Really good information and link thanks for posting that.

Ghomeshi seems like a real scumbag.

nope nm no point wasted time

This thread is the most depressing thing I've read in quite a while. It's amazing (not in a good way) that the discussion of how victims of abuse react is or isn't "logical", the crap around presumption of innocence outside the court room, the casual misogyny of percolated rape stats. Peachy.

takeitslowly wrote:

but the fact is these women lied about having contact with him in court, so its hard to enter a conviction becasue their credibility is tainted. it is very confusing.

They did not lie, please link these assertions. They were not forthcoming. The fuck you expect from assaulted people???

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Maysie wrote:

Hey kropotkin, turns out I lost my mind and wanted to read the thread about JG on babble. Don't ask me why. I'm glad you, Smith, quiz and a few others are trying to fight back against opinions here that I can only describe as What The Fucking Hell Fuck. I don't need to read comments sections, I can just come here.

Likewise, sure glad you dropped in.

You know, I wouldn't even mind having this conversation with people I disagreed with if it was conducted with some honesty.

It is stuff like the comment just above this, and #210, and really a pattern of grabbing at any lie, smear, or manipulaiton to point this in any direction other than Jian Ghomeshi (or attackers generally beng able to do whatever they want) that is both insulting and surprising

Can't remember if I said it here; I know I did on facebook. But I think this line of attack is a direct result of these anti-women men's groups getting more organized and emboldened enough to crawl out from under their rocks and say outrageous shit in public that in the past they kept more private.

I certainly recognize all the talking points.

It isn't like there haven't been high-profile sexual assault cases before, and it isn't like Ghomeshi is all that well-liked, or that anyone is even arguing that he didn't do what he is accused of. But this whole line of dishonest burn-it-down nonsense, from portraying the victims as attackers, and liars, calling the trial baseless, to nonsense arguments like how far you can kick someone's balls into their throat before we consider it assault, is simply absurd.

There is no arguing with it except to call it the crap that it is.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PaoLy7PHwk

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I think that's probably correct.

But let's pretend that in some topsy-turvey world, the CBC was compelled somehow to put him back at the helm of Q.

They could quite legitimately come to him two weeks later and say "sorry, we're replacing you because nobody's listening to your show now".  It's not like he's some factory worker whose job is to pack 1000 units per shift.  If listeners don't really want to listen to him any more then his employer would be well within their rights to turf him again.

You a good dude magoo.

I've come to respect your importance. 

Anyone giving Ghomeshi a pass because of media:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JZom_gVfuw

Sineed wrote:

Maysie wrote:

I'm glad you, Smith, quiz and a few others are trying to fight back against opinions here that I can only describe as What The Fucking Hell Fuck.

Just dropping by to add my voice to the chorus of What The Fucking Hell Fuck :)

Why did Jian Ghomeshi Keep Luci DeCoutere's Letter?

http://canadalandshow.com/article/why-did-jian-ghomeshi-keep-lucy-decout...

Quote:

Jian Ghomeshi kept Lucy DeCoutere’s handwritten letter to him for 13 years. She was never his girlfriend. They never had sex. Given what we heard at trial last week, it's hard to imagine he was carrying a flame for her. So, why did he hold on to it for over a decade?

Ghomeshi kept files on women in case they would later accuse him of violence.

Jesse Brown goes on to describe the tale of a woman who was punched by JG, and what happened when she confronted him:

Quote:

That's when he reminded her in an aggressive tone that he had kept records: "i have text messages...you WANTED it..."

Three other women told me similar stories, supported by evidence, of manipulation and entrapment. Ghomeshi would establish an electronic paper trail before the alleged violence took place and would make efforts to continue a correspondence afterwards. It followed a pattern.

Ghomeshi encouraged women he was pursuing to engage in rough sex talk over text, Facebook message, or email. They told me that if they balked, he would assure them over the phone (verbally, no records) that it was just fantasy, and none of it would physically happen to them. He told them it was healthy to "experiment" and he taunted and challenged them, saying maybe they were "not ready" for a guy like him....

JG's obsessive sociopathy aside, there's also a matter of the behaviour of sexual assault survivors. Women who have been sexually attacked sometimes may be in denial, and continue to be friendly with their attackers. Add to this the power differential between the victims and the perpetrator, usually just a function of male privilege, but in this case also the fact that the attacker is rich and powerful, and it's not surprising you get a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.

The prosecution needs to get an expert witness on the psychology of sexual trauma and put them on the stand.

For real Sineed. Happy to see women speaking up. I should have thrown a few punches with the boys today. It's a tall glass of water.