Ghomeshi Trial Begins

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.

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. 

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.

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? 

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

mark_alfred wrote:

Tom Mulcair: I believe survivors

Unqualified kudos for his response.

Huffington Post headline:

I BELIEVE SURVIVORS
'If Everyone Stays Quiet, It’s Never Going To Change.'
'I Am Disappointed By How [The Judge] Presented His Judgement. I Was Insulted. I Never Thought He Would Be Convicted But This Was An Insult To Women.'
'There Is No One Way Of Reacting To Abuse'
'I Learned That It Was Not Only The Rules That Needed To Be Strengthened, But Also That Culture That Needed To Change, And Drastically.'
'RAPE IS RAPE'
'It's The Fear Not Being Believed That Stops Women From Coming Forward.'
'Being A Survivor Of Sexual Violence Can At Times Feel Like Walking Through A Never-Ending Minefield Of Triggers, Trauma, Shame, And Self-Loathing.'
'Nobody Said The Law Was Perfect, Or That The System Always Produces Justice.'
'I Can Promise You That As Devastated As These Women Felt With The Verdict, It Doesn't Even Begin To Compare With The Powerlessness And Isolation They Have Been Living With For Many Years Now.'
'Violence Against Women Is Not About The Behaviour Of The Women.'

'You Are The Textbook Definition Of Strong.
You Are Powerful And Unassailable.'

We Hear You.
We Believe You.
We Stand With You.

• Comments
• | Lucy Decoutere

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?

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.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ghomeshi-verdict-judge-neil-macdonald-1.35...

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.

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

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?

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

Rev Pesky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Tom Mulcair: I believe survivors

Unqualified kudos for his response.

 

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

It's 2016, grow up

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 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 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 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.

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