With respect, Unionist, this could only be argued by someone who was not following the trial itself, but, perhaps, relying on brief accounts of it in the media.
Actually, pookie, I base my argument on the judge's written decision. I didn't follow the trial (is there a transcript??) nor the media accounts. Did the judge misconstrue the evidence? Do you have sources of information about what went on that I'm missing?
The transcript is not yet available, but the trial was live-tweeted by numerous reporters in the courtroom.
I did not read the verdict in the same way that you did.
I don't see this verdict as "good".
But it is unreasonable to put all of the responsibility on the Crown. The complainants made pretty specific statements at various points, that were thrown into at least some doubt by letters and emails and photos involving them in Ghomeshi's possession. As far as I know, their participation in the creation of that documentary evidence was entirely voluntary. If it was forgotten, I fail to see how even vigorous questioning by the Crown of events they could not possibly know (ie., that Lucy Du Coutere spent time at a park with Ghomeshi after the incident and appeared in a photo with him) could have uncovered that.
If you are suggesting that the Crown should have subpoenaed their computers and accounts for forensic recovery, I think that is competely unrealistic, a huge invasion of privacy and, again, would open up all complainants to further abuse from the accused.
In this case, it turns out there was an astonishing amount of that documentary evidence and, yes, it would have been great for the Crown to know about it. But having the Crown do fishing expeditions into the personal lives of all complainants would be a gross overreaction. And that is why, IMO, the Crown cannot be faulted for failing to do that here.