Ghomeshi's trial will begin next week
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
My interpretation of the whole charade is that as soon as Ghomeshi reached the threshold of fame or infamy these women thought they could "smell" some money.
I predict the final charge might be withdrawn & I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ghomeshi goes after C.B.C. for a sh*tload of money for improper dismissal.
It wasn't the system that failed the women, it was the women themselves and they are darn lucky that they aren't being charged with perjury. Maybe you should read the judge's ruling before you make such stupid statements.
Give your head a shake or take your pills because what you just wrote is not only wrong it is lacking in credibility.
Actually it was a great day for the justice system because it showed that it works as it should.
Precisely.
If not, he should be.
The language used the thousands of emails two of the witnesses exchanged tend to make me think it was more of a women scorned and wanting revenge.
Ghomeshi all ready sued and lost. I doubt the final charge will be dropped, could be wrong but if it goes ahead let us hope that the witness knows the difference between truth and deception.
Ghomeshi may well be guilty of that he is accused, but these two individuals hardly reinforced that assumption.
I think the bugger is definitely guilty of something, but whatever it was wasn't proven & waiting 10 years to lay charges definitely doesn't help the case. Three separate complainants stepping up ten years later makes me very suspicious. The judge knew he was being ganged up on!
He admitted in his now infamous email when CBC fired him, that he liked rough sex. The problem lies in the fact that the lies the witnesses told in court leaves open the question did he tell them that prior to having relations with him and did they consent.
The judge stated that he wasn't saying that the incidents didn't happen JLM. He said that that the misleading information and lack of full disclosure left him no other choice then to acquit.
I hope this is a lesson to anyone who decides to bring charges against someone. Tell the truth and the whole truth leaving nothing out no matter how damaging it may appear.
"they are dam lucky that they aren't being charged with perjury"
The judge hinted at it but stopped short of saying the "p" word. It is entirely possible that assaults did occur but to then continue to send the assailant sexy, suggestive e-mails tells us that she didn't see it a dangerous, at the time and therefore, it became "assault" in her mind after the case broke.
The judge hinted at it but stopped short of saying the "p" word. It is entirely possible that assaults did occur but to then continue to send the assailant sexy, suggestive e-mails tells us that she didn't see it a dangerous, at the time and therefore, it became "assault" in her mind after the case broke.
I've never seen such abject denial in my life.
I would be the first to condemn an offender, but unless we can legitimately question the judge's authority in this case, Ghomeshi is an innocent man.
The legal system works on the balance of evidence, and for good reason.
Some people just can't accept justice.
I would be the first to condemn an offender, but unless we can legitimately question the judge's authority in this case, Ghomeshi is an innocent man.
The legal system works on the balance of evidence, and for good reason.
Some people just can't accept justice.
He clearly has nasty sexual habits but he was denied due process. The part that gets me is that the alleged victims communicated with each other a lot after he was charged, as if the were synchronizing their stories. Remember when tasering Mounties were caught doing that? The Crown Prosecutor should have stopped that, advised them to stop and explained to them that their testimony was worthless if this sort of scripting was found out (as it was).
Last edited:
One wise man said in words to the affect............"Better a thousand guilty men go free than to hang one innocent man". I probably got it f**ked up but that's the gist!
Quit blaming the victims guys.
I think what this tells us is that the criminal justice system is too blunt an instrument to deal intelligently with sexual assault. Ghomeshi's accusers behaved exactly as any psychologist knowledgeable about emotional trauma would have predicted, and in fact several of them did, I saw it on FB and other social media and then I saw it unfolding during the trial. They would be shocked, frightened, uncertain, angry, and in denial, their stories would be inconsistent or provably wrong about certain (irrelevant) details, they would attempt to continue a relationship with Ghomeshi on some level in an attempt to renormalize it, they would communicate among themselves for mutual support, they would feel anxiety about culpability, and so on--that's exactly how battered wives behave too--but the core claim, that he physically forced them into sexual activity against their will, would be true. But in the criminal justice system, inconsistencies damage a witness's credibility, continuing a relationship implies consent, communication among themselves points to collusion, and it adds up to a failure to meet the standard of evidence--"beyond a reasonable doubt"--required in a criminal trial, so Ghomeshi walks. The prosecution was remiss in not bringing a knowledgeable trauma therapist to testify about what is known of how women respond to such abuse; probably wouldn't have altered the outcome, but it might have tempered the impact of that savage and humiliating cross-examination the women endured.
I think what this tells us is that the criminal justice system is too blunt an instrument to deal intelligently with sexual assault. Ghomeshi's accusers behaved exactly as any psychologist knowledgeable about emotional trauma would have predicted, and in fact several of them did, I saw it on FB and other social media and then I saw it unfolding during the trial. They would be shocked, frightened, uncertain, angry, and in denial, their stories would be inconsistent or provably wrong about certain (irrelevant) details, they would attempt to continue a relationship with Ghomeshi on some level in an attempt to renormalize it, they would communicate among themselves for mutual support, they would feel anxiety about culpability, and so on--that's exactly how battered wives behave too--but the core claim, that he physically forced them into sexual activity against their will, would be true. But in the criminal justice system, inconsistencies damage a witness's credibility, continuing a relationship implies consent, communication among themselves points to collusion, and it adds up to a failure to meet the standard of evidence--"beyond a reasonable doubt"--required in a criminal trial, so Ghomeshi walks. The prosecution was remiss in not bringing a knowledgeable trauma therapist to testify about what is known of how women respond to such abuse; probably wouldn't have altered the outcome, but it might have tempered the impact of that savage and humiliating cross-examination the women endured.
I agree. Some just think they should get special consideration, regardless of the evidence.
Leveling an unproven allegation does not make you a victim.
It makes you an accuser.
It is the courts burden to prove guilt; it is the accuser's burden to provide evidence of that guilt.
In this case, both defendants failed to do that.
Claiming to be a victim does not give license to accuse without credible evidence.
I don't know if he was guilty or not and neither does anyone else who was not directly involved in the case, in the courtroom or is a legal expert.
The judge has rules according to the law and that's it! Suck it up!
Personally I am very suspicious of women who wait for years to come forward with these accusations. I think that in most cases they see a chance to get money from a wealthy defendant.
Public reports surrounding the case were too iffy from the start for people to draw conclusions.
The judge has rules according to the law and that's it! Suck it up!
Personally I am very suspicious of women who wait for years to come forward with these accusations. I think that in most cases they see a chance to get money from a wealthy defendant.
Public reports surrounding the case were too iffy from the start for people to draw conclusions.
