Ghomeshi Trial Begins

Unionist wrote:

pookie wrote:

I am going to wait for the transcript of her exam in chief.  I would also like to see her police statement.

I know it doesn't rise to the quality of a transcript, but here's some very detailed live-tweeting of her exam in chief: [url=http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-trial-day-3101163... 3[/url].

And here's the cross: [url=http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-trial-day-4]Day 4[/url]

And question: Since DeCoutere didn't want a publication ban, would the police statement be available to someone who, say, ordered the transcript?

Quote:

But, to be clear, I have no problem with someone asking the Crown and police those questions.

Seems that no one has. I honestly don't get it.

I'll take a look at those.

I don't know what the process is for police - but normal ATIP takes years.  Shameful

Apparently it can be very difficult even for complainants to get copies of their own statements from the Crown.

 

Sorry, Unionist, I completely missed that aspect of your question so I'll respond. :)

Trial exhibits would not be available by ordering the transcript alone - pretty sure you would need to make a special request.  Not sure how that would work for Joe Blow as opposed to a lawyer pursuing an appeal.  The publication ban would not be in issue (that stuff can be redacted) - it would rather be a question of how documentary evidence is stored.

pookie wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

But, back to my main question, since the alleged perpetrator already seems to have access to this sort of information (unless I'm misunderstanding something), then what's the difference if it's disclosed by the Crown?

That's in this case.  I'm talking about information that would be disclosed to the Crown that the accused would have no way to get access to or, even, necessarily, know about.   

No accused is going to be able to subpoena all of the complainant's emails going back 13 years, at least, not easily.  In this case, though, the complainants actually revealed, in media interviews, that they had been in touch with each other in the months since coming forward.  That made alot of lawyers, me included, nervous. Not because it suggested shadiness on their part, but because it allowed the accused to get an order for any record of such communication to be disclosed and permitted an argument for collusion, especially when the volume was so large.    

Thanks for the clarification. That's a relief.

Agreed.

You wouldn't be able to explain it.  But is there case law or experts in psychology (expert witnesses) that could provide an explanation?  "While on the surface it seemingly makes no sense for Mr. Magoo to shave his head and later not recall doing so, this seemingly inexplicable behaviour in the face of victims who suffer the crimes that are alleged to have occurred against Mr. Magoo do actually happen with great frequency."  Of course, why an old already bald guy would go to the trouble of shaving his head anyway is another question.  Humans, however, often act in irrational ways.

Quote:

Bah.  Whatever.  As far as I'm concerned, Lucy is a hero and Ghomeshi is a creep.

I think that would be the general opinion of a lot of people.

I actually wonder whether people might think less of Ghomeshi after this verdict than they would have if he'd been convicted.  He could have done his community service, or his weekend jail time or whatever and emerged a triumphant changed man, ready for his second chance.  But now he's just sort of stuck.

Did she tell the police what the e-mails were, and why they could be relevant to the trial?

Because that sounds to me incompatible with saying she had no memory of them.  If she remembered them then she didn't even need the actual e-mails themselves.  She could have just disclosed what was in them -- that they were ever sent, or received, wouldn't be in dispute.

Quote:

Hey, it happens, apparently.  Though judge what's-his-name would declare me a liar.

Have you said any of this under oath?

Quote:

Why would she remember what was in them? What would be her reason for committing that to memory? As I understand it this all happened many years ago.

Over ten years ago, evidently.

But then why (or how) would she remember that she surely didn't have any contact with Ghomeshi outside of "business" in that same time frame?  I mean, why should she remember that (wth certainty) either then?

You know what's really amazing?  The less than exacting standards by which some are willing to toss people they don't like into prison.  A laisse faire approach as it were to the question of who belongs behind bars.  It's also amazing that people are inclined to believe that with DeCoutere and the others, unless their hands are being held by police and prosecutors so that they're being told exactly what to say and what to produce as evidence, that otherwise they're completely helpless and thoughtless as to what is being expected of them during their interviews and statements.  But you know, that amazement is becoming less so the more we're bearing witness to exchanges of opinion like this.

Pondering wrote:

...So your explanation is that all three women deliberately lied or deliberately withheld information. Why would they do that? Think women get off on being publically humiliated?

I don't remember every essay I wrote nevermind when I wrote each one. Why would I remember every letter I ever wrote if I was a letter writing person? 

I could accept that one person may have difficulty remembering specific events. It seems a bit strange to me that all three compainants had very good memories up to a point, and then all three forgot what happened after a certain point.

I should be clear about this. I agree absolutely that subsequent events don't necessarily reflect on the rightness of the complaint. Having said that, it's also true that the complainants lied to strengthen their testimony. As most people who lie do, they did it because they didn't think they would be caught. A very strong case could be made for perjury charges,

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Thanks, Pondering - I was sure I wasn't the only one asking myself these questions. But it appears DeCoutere is still on trial, even though Ghomeshi is "not guilty". Amazing.

Rev Pesky wrote:

I should be clear about this. I agree absolutely that subsequent events don't necessarily reflect on the rightness of the complaint. Having said that, it's also true that the complainants lied to strengthen their testimony. As most people who lie do, they did it because they didn't think they would be caught. A very strong case could be made for perjury charges,

RP I find this line of posting offensive and certainly not the actions of an ally of women in their struggle against this patriarchal rape culture that we live in.

Yes, unfortunately, I agree krop. Which is one reason why I think it's high time to move this thread to the feminism forum.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I find this line of posting offensive and certainly not the actions of an ally of women in their struggle against this patriarchal rape culture that we live in.

Unionist wrote:

Yes, unfortunately, I agree krop. Which is one reason why I think it's high time to move this thread to the feminism forum.

It's just as well if this is going to be your attitudes.

The idea of moving something as soon as opinions expressed don't match one's own opinion seems odd.  Presumably Babble Policy applies to all forums here, rather than just exclusively the feminist forum.  The idea of sanctity of legal concepts (like innocent until proven guilty) vs. supporting survivors has been an ongoing discussion regarding this, from what I've seen.  For instance, Antonia Zerbisias has received some flack for not being sufficiently critical of the decision in some people's eyes.  Anyway, I myself feel there may have been issues with how the police investigation was done.  I found the exchange between Unionist and pookie interesting.  I dunno.  Bottom line for me is that I'm convinced the assaults were out of the blue and shocking for all three complainants, regardless of any shortcomings in their testimonies, and thus feel somehow the system failed.  Nothing has shaken that conviction for me.

ETA:  cross-posted w/ MegB's post above.  Well, perhaps moving it is the right thing to do, in retrospect.

Thanks, Meg.

And by the way, for the "record", my views so far:

1. I agree with the verdict. The flaws in the evidence created a reasonable doubt, which necessarily requires a "not guilty" verdict. I haven't seen anyone convincingly argue the contrary.

2. I am more convinced than ever that the primary "blame" for this outcome lies with an indifferent and/or incompetent and/or under-resourced Crown, combined with police who didn't fully and properly investigate these serious allegations. Had both done their job, the very same evidence, brought forward transparently and in good time, might well have led to a "guilty" verdict. OR: it would have been so compelling and lacking in "shifting facts" that the defence might have been compelled to put the accused on the witness stand in order to counter the charges. We'll see what happens in June, but I confess to lacking much optimism.

3. The combination of these factors in this case will inevitably have a chilling effect on victims who are considering whether to share their stories with the "system" - even if the next trial unexpectedly has a different outcome. The system is badly broken and is failing women.

 

lol "true victims"

what fkn piece of work you are.

Just clarify a couple of things from upthread...
I have had Hotmail accounts, Live.ca accounts, and Outlook.com accounts. Nothing was wiped with a change to Outlook.com. I can still access my old accounts and all emails, and I can still use all of my accounts normally. If you deleted something it is available for recovery for some months, but eventually it is gone. That has nothing to do with any change to outlook.com. I don't expect any of the defendants to be experts at how online email works and I don't see this as affecting their credibility.

The defence may not bring anything forward at trial that has not been disclosed to the Crown, and vice versa. That said, these emails may have been buried in the middle of 20 bankers boxes of files and the Crown may not have looked as closely at them as the defence did. If there is fault, then the defendants should have disclosed to the Crown that there was communication and it may come up. If they stated that there was none, then they either lied or their recollection of the facts from that time is suspect.

On the whole I find it hard to believe that none of the three thought to mention that they had continuing contact with the accused. My feeling (not fact, but feeling) is that they kept this concealed because they believed it would reflect on their credibility, and they may have discussed this between themselves.

I don't believe we can use this case to show that "the system" is against women bringing forward charges. I think there was a lot wrong with the charges. That is not a statement about whether anything actually happened or did not happen.

The court found that the burden of proof, which is beyond a reasonable doubt was not met. They did not find that these women were not abused. It is apparent to me that if they had been sued in civil court for damages they would have won because the burden then would have been the balance of probabilities. Your posts are usually much better than the ones you have just posted on this issue. You have shown yourself to be one shitty feminist ally and I feel sorry for the women in your live who have suffered abuse and sexual assault. Whether or not you get it that is likely 3 or 4 out of every 5 women you know. Of course most women don't discuss anything like that with men they feel are judgemental or prone to calling them liars.

I said nothing about the abuse that happened to me for over 25 years and I continued to have contact with my abuser for a number of years after it happened. I sued instead of going to the police because I didn't want to go through the system that is in place. Another of the victims of my abuser did go to the police and they brushed him off and questioned his motivation and sent him away with a warning about false claims. He eventually committed suicide. That triggered a number of other people to come forward and the RCMP finally charged him criminally and he confessed and was found guilty.

Unionist wrote:

Slumberjack wrote:

They were found to be not victims by a competent tribunal.

Take a moment from your busy day to read the judge's decision. He never found they weren't victims. He never found they weren't assaulted. He never found they gave consent to the attacks on them.

But again, if reading the decision takes too much time away from riding your hobby horse here, by all means, don't forgo your exercise.

 

15 years ago I was riding my bike up Parliament Street in Toronto. A man stepped out from behind a mailbox and for no reason punched me in the throat. I got up and approached him, obviously angry, and demanded to know why he did that. The man backed off and said he was sorry.
The question is not "Did he assault me." The question is "Should I expect that if I laid charges today that I would get a conviction?"

Unionist wrote:

Take a moment from your busy day to read the judge's decision. He never found they weren't victims. He never found they weren't assaulted. He never found they gave consent to the attacks on them.

You didn't read a previous response to you where I said that I did read the decison.  It wasn't proven that they were subjected to attacks.  It wasn't proven that they were victims of sexual violence in the instances described.  So long as the charges have not been proven, there are not victims nor an abuser in the instances described.  Any talk of there being victims and an abuser is a false discussion in this instance.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

You have shown yourself to be one shitty feminist ally....

Shouldn't a feminist ally have an interest in setting the truth free?  You seem to think that feminist allies do their best work by lending credence to a conspiracy to 'get' someone at any cost, and then complain when the conspiracy doesn't quite work out as planned.

Quote:

and I feel sorry for the women in your live who have suffered abuse and sexual assault. Whether or not you get it that is likely 3 or 4 out of every 5 women you know. Of course most women don't discuss anything like that with men they feel are judgemental or prone to calling them liars.

Personal attacks.  You have no fucking idea of any details of my personal life, or the lives of the people around me.  The fact of the matter is that society often refers to people as liars when they're caught lying.  We have no problem saying it when we're talking about politicians who have been caught red handed.  Obviously such a description does not apply to everyone who comes forward with the details of a complaint.  That would be a ridiculous thing to infer....that because some liars will ply their craft and bear false witness, it means everyone who complains risks being similarly called a liar.  What kind of thick skulled logic would take up with such a view when every complaint should be assessed on its own.  If the evidence of liars is to be accepted at face value, what does that do for the integrity of any criminal trial anywhere?

Quote:

I said nothing about the abuse that happened to me for over 25 years and I continued to have contact with my abuser for a number of years after it happened. I sued instead of going to the police because I didn't want to go through the system that is in place. Another of the victims of my abuser did go to the police and they brushed him off and questioned his motivation and sent him away with a warning about false claims. He eventually committed suicide. That triggered a number of other people to come forward and the RCMP finally charged him criminally and he confessed and was found guilty.

So all of that means...discussions to the contrary that pertain to a completely different situation are over?

Steve N wrote:

15 years ago I was riding my bike up Parliament Street in Toronto. A man stepped out from behind a mailbox and for no reason punched me in the throat. I got up and approached him, obviously angry, and demanded to know why he did that. The man backed off and said he was sorry.
The question is not "Did he assault me." The question is "Should I expect that if I laid charges today that I would get a conviction?"

I think you might also benefit from reading the judge's decision:

Quote:

The Historical Nature of the Complaints

[125]The allegations before the Court in this case are legally referred to as "historical complaints" in the sense that they are complaints made now with respect to events that occurred many years ago. The courts recognize that trials of long past events can raise particular challenges due to the passage of time. Memories tend to fade, and time tends to erode the quality and availability of evidence.

[126]Each of the complainants in thiscase pointed to certain aspects of the publicity surrounding Mr. Ghomeshi's very public termination from the CBC in 2014 as the trigger for coming forward with their complaints more than a decade after the fact. The law is clear: there should be no presumptive adverse inference arising when a complainant in a sexual assault case fails to come forward at the time of the events. Each complainant articulated her own very valid reasons for not coming forward at the time of the events. The law also recognizes that there should be nothing presumptively suspect in incremental disclosure of sexual assaults or abuse. Each case must be assessed individually in light of its own unique set of circumstances.

[my emphasis]

Slumberjack wrote:

So they are victims?

That was neither determined nor denied by the court.  link

From the decision:

R. v. Ghomeshi wrote:

[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.

Slumberjack wrote:

They were found to be not victims by a competent tribunal.