Ghomeshi Trial Begins

Gustave wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Gustav's post #240 confirms how some will twist the stats to redefine that women who are sexually assaulted lie about it. It simply did not happen.

Are you suggesting that I twisted anything in post #240? If so, could you please explain what the twist is? Maybe I misinterpreted the article. I'll be happy to make any required correction. 

I though I explained why the 5,9% figure is a misrepresentation and I provided the proof of it. Is there something wrong in the demonstration?

I do NOT provide any estimation of false accusations. I dont say they are high or low. I say they are impossible to estimate.

By the way, I would say the exact same thing in regards with the proportion of sexual assaults reported to the police. The WMCA figures given in a previous post do not make sense at face value (but I can't check them because no link is provided). Intuitively, I'd would think that the more violent the assault the higher the probability of it being reported. 

"that women who are sexually assaulted lie about it". It would be ridiculous to say such a thing that means all women lie about it. The truth is that some do. And that the recent high profile cases of some women who did lie, did tremendous damage to true victims of rape. 

How about you figure out it's not cool to speculate on women's right to use our judicial system

Sineed wrote:

Why did Jian Ghomeshi Keep Luci DeCoutere's Letter?

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

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.

Thanks.  That's interesting and illuminating.

Timebandit wrote:

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.

I would imagine for people used to 'fighting this fight' it would be frustrating and a piss off but personally I'm finding it interesting, informative and humbling.  The links opinions and explinations are really eye opening.

I volunteered at a rape crisis line and at a women's centre 30 years ago. Too little has changed. The questions, assumptions and expectations of behaviour are the same as they were then. Funny thing, trauma. It makes you react in a variety of ways, not all of them logical or even sensible. Even men aren't immune. That this isn't common knowledge by now is a failure to accept evidence contrary to our beliefs.

Timebandit wrote:

That this isn't common knowledge by now is a failure to accept evidence contrary to our beliefs.

Yup. The comment I left where I took that cartoon upthread from was that I hate that it is necessary to present ugly stuff like that to remind people of what should be obvious.

Problem is that those who most need to grasp it are the ones who won't get it, even though their reactions are the most non-rational of all.

And Paladin, yes it is frustrating, but although I am torn, I am no fan of arbitrary closure of discussion, even in a case like this where much of it is an endless attempt to derail. I am certainly glad to hear the new voices here.

(edit)

And of course men aren't immune. Despite where all the focus in this thread has been, the suspension of belief that has my jaw dropping is the convenient discounting of slaps, punches, choking, and cracked ribs.

Whatever incongruous things the victims in this case may have done (after experiencing those attacks) they pale in comparison to this faux-rational approach that totally ignores the violence at the centre of this.

Don't want to say it but my gut feeling throughout this conversation has been that some people might want to experience a punch in the head to understand what it really means. Sorry, but that is what I have been thinking.

Oh right, that was the other guy. Funny how it is hard to tell people apart sometimes.

Emma Sulkowicz was not found to have been lying. And the judge did find that Guthrie was harrassed. As for the Rolling Stone article, it was made pretty clear in the fallout from that that the responsibility lay primarily with the paper not doing its job. Had they done due diligence, that article would not have been published.

In any case, cute trick. We don;t know how many are lying and those who are are doing a disservice to the real vicims, so we'll treat them all as potential liars who are hurting themselves more than anything else.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Don't want to say it but my gut feeling throughout this conversation has been that some people might want to experience a punch in the head to understand what it really means. Sorry, but that is what I have been thinking.

I'm glad you mentioned this.  This is also part of the reason I was bringing up an anecdotal example of a sexual assault trial. I don't think many  people realize just how brutal invasive and degrading those courtrooms can get for victims of sexual assault.

Gustave wrote:

I think it is juvinile to say courts have to believe women because they never lie about rape or that the % of those who lie is insignificant.

I agree.

Quote:

As for the allegation in this specific case, Ghomeshi, I believe most of the allegations made by the three witnessess and that Ghomeshi is guilty of violence against them without clear consent. It appears that some witnessess made contradictory statements but that the assaults occured anyway.

Again I agree. Regardless of the contradictory statements after the fact I think he's guilty of violence against them without clear consent.  Even if one of the woman asked him to marry them afterwards it doesn't dismiss him committing violence against them without that consent.

You might also find it enlightening to do a quick scan through Gustave's babble posts. The vast majority involve arguing for sex for money and defending virulent misogyny (otherwise known as the MRA movement) as deeply misunderstood. The pattern seems to me to be someone very interesting interested in maintaining male sexual entitlement. And now claims of sexual abuse being very iffy. Just adds to the picture, doesn't it?

Beat the drum and hold the phone! There's more abuse of forum rules on the last two pages of this thread than I've been responsible for over all the time I've taken part on this forum.

And I thought that I was on dangerous ground for my behaviour!! LOL

There is still real hope that Ghomeshi will be convicted for the crimes he committed that are related to violence and doing bodily harm to those women.

I did not not bring this up, you did. If YOU want to bring your personal attacks elsewhere, decide it by yourself, don't ask me to decide for you.

Sometimes a Teddy Bear is just a Teddy Bear.

Timebandit wrote:

I volunteered at a rape crisis line and at a women's centre 30 years ago. Too little has changed. The questions, assumptions and expectations of behaviour are the same as they were then. Funny thing, trauma. It makes you react in a variety of ways, not all of them logical or even sensible. Even men aren't immune. That this isn't common knowledge by now is a failure to accept evidence contrary to our beliefs.

Yeah it's very triggering. I can't even read those posts and may have to stop reading the thread at all.

My mother's friend told her he can't understand why I am alone because I could get any man I want. The only man I have ever loved or will love is my late husband because he was the kindest most gentle man I could ever hope to meet but he didn't lack courage. He had a knife scar across his nose for stepping in to protect a woman from attack. I know good men exist, he isn't the only one, but it's not worth the risk because it isn't strangers I'm afraid of. It's all the "nice" men like Ghomeshi I fear. With him it was hitting and choking but with another it will be vanilla rape or just heavy pressure and anger for non-compliance and you have no idea what is coming until after the door is closed.

Meanwhile, the horror that is the Crown's imploding case continues.

And if he's acquitted, not even then.

I am also appalled at this thread.

Right from the start several (male, I presume?) babble members have been either using sly innuendo or outright gleeful gloating to attack the women who had the courage to testify against Ghomeshi.

I'm reminded of the Bill Cosby case: How many women have to come forward before their word counts as much as one man's? Yes, I know about judicial standards for conviction. And I also know that people at babble have never been shy when it comes to making conclusions. I'm willing to bet that if we pulled up a thread from one of Marie Heinen's famous other clients, Michael Bryant, few would be defending him, or for that matter, blaming his victim.

But no, when it's assaulted women, let's by all means dismiss them. "Some victim!" you say. I guess for women to experience justice they have to be a perfect victim. Who knows what that woman looks like.

Clearly Ghomeshi had a very useful strategy, which to me seems like total gaslighting. Many of his victims were much younger and insecure, probably easy to pick up and perhaps star struck. He attacks them. Then he engages in ongoing flirtation and bait-and-switch, which conveniently muddies the waters. Notice how we didn't hear his side of any email correspondence? Then, of course, he keeps emails and letters for years, and years, and years. Because they are proving to be very useful indeed.

And it's well known that victims of crime, particularly women who've been assaulted by men, do what we can to minimize or move past it, and also question ourselves and own judgement. Hell, we're taught to do that every day, and this trial is no exception. And women will often continue to engage with the man who assaulted them. We may not even realize at the time that what we experienced was assault, particularly if he's been grooming us.

That does not make it okay to assault women.

You'll notice that all Heinen is doing is attacking the credibility of the witnesses, in a vicious and demeaning way. She's not asking if Ghomeshi assaulted them. Funny, that. In what other criminal trial would a witness be questioned on her or his actions after the crime, rather than on whether or not it occurred? Well?

Decades of feminist work countering rape myths, flushed down the toilet by a creep and his lawyer.

And tell me, all you people who are revelling in being able to tear down the witnesses, can you describe what you were doing in detail fifteen years ago? Who you emailed? Even details about negative interactions you had with someone you dated or a partner? Bet you can't.

Then please ask yourself how well you would do when faced with hour after hour of gotcha grilling, after you've just testified about being assaulted. Grilling by the lawyer who got Michael Bryant off.

And then please go read this: http://canadalandshow.com/article/when-your-friend-stand-ghomeshi-trial about what actually happens when you testify in a sexual assault trial. Including this tidbit, which I didn't know, that even if you have your own lawyer she can't advise you once your testimony begins. And then ask yourself if you'd have the courage to testify, let alone put your name to it, when chances are good the majority of the country will be pruriently speculating on everything to do with your sex life, and blaming you for being assaulted.

And then after you've thought, and read, and thought again, please do shut the fuck up. Because right now I'd be willing to bet Free Dominion is having a more respectful discussion about this case than babble is.

From the article I linked to above, written by a friend of Lucy Decouture:

Quote:

... Henein’s cross-examination begins at 2:15 pm. Almost immediately, the tone is combative and unkind. From my perspective, this kind of scrutiny—a meticulous dissection of Lucy’s memory—is wholly painful, demoralizing, and anxiety-inducing.

Lucy’s media interviews. Lucy’s jokes about sex acts. Lucy’s details of the time period in question. Henein lays it out, making challenges at every turn. All the while, tweets detailing this personal information fly out of media hands and into the world. (It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that to testify, you must surrender your privacy, even if you don’t publicly attach your name to the complaint.) Henein is transparently intent on confusing Lucy, constructing her questions in backwards, misleading forms (“May I suggest to you...”), circling repeatedly around ideas, and theatrically revealing evidence in ways designed to rattle Lucy’s confidence. This is of course a defence attorney’s job, but it’s jarring to watch first-hand how combative Henein is, how aggressive is her approach and demeanour with someone vulnerable. As she rattles off the list of interviews Lucy gave throughout the preceding year, I think about how much we discourage victims of violence to tell their own stories, how much we demand their total silence lest they be labelled “media whores.” 

... Day two of Henein’s questions and Lucy’s answers confirm almost every fear survivors have about reporting sexual assault. Forever-ago emails are dredged up one by one, revealed in a deliberate and increasingly “damning way” for maximum rhetorical impact. Lucy remembers none of these messages, but is asked to field each one in the moment, and at some points is forced to read their content aloud.

The point of all of this heightened drama is to weaken Lucy’s reliability and credibility in the eyes of the judge. (By Ghomeshi’s choice, there is no jury in this trial.) But in the moment it just looks like base cruelty—a complex and very publicly orchestrated process of deeply shaming a victim who dared to come forward.

... My experience in the courtroom on this second day is a blur of increasingly emotional responses. (Again, how can anyone accurately recount the things they wrote thirteen years ago?) From where I sit the process looks entirely abusive and re-traumatizing, but Lucy’s resolve never wavers. “[She] is staying very calm and bright. It’s incredible...” Boesveld tweets that day.

Lucy’s testimony that she knew she would inevitably run into Ghomeshi in entertainment circles, and that she therefore only wanted to see him on her own terms, resonates so strongly with my own experiences—I was similarly terrified of running into my abuser after the fact. “Ghomeshi assaulted me and afterwards I tried to neutralize it and make it a friendship,” she tells the court, a sentiment that speaks directly to so many survivors who have done the same. As I watch her calmly and carefully explain every piece of email placed in front of her, I’m amazed by her resilience, her ability to articulate such complex emotions to people who may struggle to understand them.

... By the time Henein reveals the climax—a now-famous “love letter” that Lucy testifies she has no memory of writing—and asks her to read its closing line (“I love your hands”) to the court, I’m no longer strong enough to keep my personal feelings concealed. I hear Lucy’s words on the stand, “Women can be assaulted by someone and still have positive feelings for them afterwards,” and I start to cry in court. When Gillian turns to me and asks if I’m okay, I feel selfish that I’ve made such an upsetting moment for a friend about my own personal trauma.

... [After the testimony, back at the hotel] When Lucy comes down from her room, we talk about how she will manage social media now that she is allowed to access it again. She’s already on the receiving end of online harassment, with people creating Twitter accounts specifically to hurl abuse at her. Though I offer to deal with it on her behalf, she declines, saying it’ll be okay. ... This narrative, this connection to Ghomeshi—only a small part of who she is as a human being—will inevitably follow her everywhere she goes from now on. Her only motivation, she has now told me, was to relay the truth.

But in this moment, sitting at this hotel bar, it feels like she’s sacrificed herself to a system that could easily fail her, and in some ways it already has. Even with this reality, Lucy has no regrets that she decided to go through the process, always believing in the importance of speaking out, of having these vital conversations, and of talking about what it really means to seek justice, in order to enact real change.

Later, as I hug her goodbye for the night, I realize that she is likely the bravest person I have ever known.

And this got posted while I was writing. Case in point.

Northern PoV wrote:

pookie wrote:

Meanwhile, the horror that is the Crown's imploding case continues.

Incredible.  

And far from convincing me that we need 'special' courts to handle abuse cases, it has renewed my faith in the adversarial system.  MH has exposed what amounts to a conspiracy to use the police & courts to .... resolve  regrets about the weird relationships they had with a sicko? 

Tehanu wrote:

Decades of feminist work countering rape myths, flushed down the toilet by a creep and his lawyer.

I agree the trial will not help victims of abuse.  I would assign blame to the crown, police, Gillian Hnatiw and at least two of the complainants (It looks like witness 1 was simply confused and not part of the group effort.) 

As to Lucy friend's musings on Jesse Brown's site ... meh ... Jesse was a JG rival at CBC ... a bunch of media types throwing crap on each other. 

Tehanu wrote:

I am also appalled at this thread.

Right from the start several (male, I presume?) babble members have been either using sly innuendo or outright gleeful gloating to attack the women who had the courage to testify against Ghomeshi.

And then please go read this: http://canadalandshow.com/article/when-your-friend-stand-ghomeshi-trial about what actually happens when you testify in a sexual assault trial. Including this tidbit, which I didn't know, that even if you have your own lawyer she can't advise you once your testimony begins.

Thanks for the post and it is in fact true that once a witness begins cross examination their lawyer may not give them any instructions or talk about the case at all. The most painful thing to see is your witness breakdown and forget everything you tried to teach them about being cross examined.

[quote=mark_alfred] victims of trauma.[quote]

I did not follow the case close enough: is trauma at play here? Did the crown produce medical evidence showing victim trauma? Of  did they they talk about it otherwise?

It's not established that there was any form of conspiracy or "group effort" by any of the witnesses. This is pure speculation.

Northern PoV wrote:

Finally, in the light of all the evidence that has emerged from this trial, I find it hard to believe that folks are stilling using the 'victim-blaming' meme to describe this mess and that they are offended by my comments.  

None so blind than those that will not see.

Its that very surprise that makes it abundantly clear that we've got a very long road ahead of us before the casual misogyny in our culture goes away. If it ever does. Yeah, we know. You don't get it. You never wanted to. Or you may just be incapable of putting yourself in those shoes. Whatever the reason, whatever the issue, in the big picture it's guys like you who are the problem. ETA: Directed at POV in #295.

But still pure speculation - there are other simpler explanations. ETA: You're leaning hard on the diva bit. Not sure why that matters one way or the other. And you have to ask yourself what either woman would hope to gain vs the personal cost of putting yourself into the system. Consider those factors and what you're suggesting is utterly daft.

quizzical wrote:

i find it wildly interesting the same peeps here who are blatently on Ghomeshi's side and against women, in this thread, also support legalization of prostitution to keep women "safe" in the other threads on the topic......just sayin.........

It's kind of funny you say that because I was on opposite side to you on the public response to prostitution, and on you side here, in regards with the Gomeshi case.