Ghomeshi's trial will begin next week

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

The Crown did an absolutely abysmal job in investigating the case and vetting the accusers.

If the circumstances can be presented in such a way that there is a reasonable possibility than Ghomeshi choked, punched, kicked, bit these women as part of an accepted sexual ritual between consenting adults, it's not a proven crime.

He's got another trial coming up in June on similar charges. If the Defense can present a similar case that these women were willing to be treated like punching bags to get close to a celebrity then it'll have the same outcome.

It doesn't change the disgusting circumstances of the case.. or that in all liklihood none of these women invited the attacks.. they simply excused them in the hopes they were isolated and uncharacteristic behaviour.. and that some potential for authentic romance still existed.

Ghomeshi is still a scummy little bully. Hopefully his career is permanently deep sixed.

Funny how the term Presumption of Innocence falls flat when there is sex involved.

I'm not into the BDSM scene, but many people are.
Should we deep six all of their careers on unfounded accusations, simply because someone finds that behavior repugnant?

 

[petros]

Yes, had he lost, he would have been broke, unemployable and in prison.

He could have worked as a bottom.

 

[coldstream]

Funny how the term Presumption of Innocence falls flat when there is sex involved.

I'm not into the BDSM scene, but many people are.
Should we deep six all of their careers on unfounded accusations, simply because someone finds that behaviour repugnant?

This doesn't fit the model of sado masochism or bondage.. all of which involve adults consenting to agreed upon behaviour... often on the basis of a signed contract.. where there is full awareness of consequences and rules apply to prevent injury. It's essentially a controlled exercize in fantasy and role playing.

What Ghomeshi did was an act a spontaneous brutality, without consent, against a weaker party. For all of the ambiguities about the circumstances surrounding the episodes, there is agreement that these acts were unanticipated and habitually inflicted by Ghomeshi on a series of women. That's the act of a coward and bully.. and one sick little f*ck... and imho are criminal in character.

He deserves to spend the rest of his career vacuuming the turf at Skydome.. as the Moxi Fruvous lyrics go. I'm quite sure no one will hire him as talk show host again.

 

[Murphy]

I suppose what disturbed me about reading these posts were the presumptions that enough was known to determine Ghomeshi's guilt or innocence. This, from people that were not in court, or worse, who blindly trusted what was written in the media.

Perhaps there is someone here who was at the trial, sat through the entire proceeding and understood all the legalese that was spoken. I saw no evidence of that; just people reacting to what they read or saw in the news. As for me, I am always suspicious of the media and the third hand interpretations of others. Gossip and unfounded accusations are a hallmark of the human condition. How many innocent people have been jailed or hanged as the result of lies or baseless charges?

It's alright to be upset by the ruling, but suggesting that the Crown or the judge were at fault is without foundation. I read the judge's explanation of his verdict and accept that he was not disposed to render a guilty verdict. He said there was reasonable doubt, and because of that, he acquitted.

I trust his decision because he is trained and experienced in law. He was there every day, listened to every witness and the arguments of both sides. I have no reason to question his veracity.

I wasn't there and neither were you.

Still, people will continue to argue about that of which they know little or nothing. They will let their emotions overtake reason. That is what humans do. It's sad, but true.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

This doesn't fit the model of sado masochism or bondage.. all of which involve adults consenting to agreed upon behaviour... often on the basis of a signed contract.. where there is full awareness of consequences and rules apply to prevent injury. It's essentially a controlled exercize in fantasy and role playing.

What Ghomeshi did was an act a spontaneous brutality, without consent, against a weaker party. For all of the ambiguities about the circumstances surrounding the episodes, there is agreement that these acts were unanticipated and habitually inflicted by Ghomeshi on a series of women. That's the act of a coward and bully.. and one sick little f*ck... and imho are criminal in character.

He deserves to spend the rest of his career vacuuming the turf at Skydome.. as the Moxi Fruvous lyrics go. I'm quite sure no one will hire him as talk show host again.

Do you have proof that these woman were not active participants in this behavior? Because the court simply didn't see it that way and by their own actions the accusers have discredited themselves by lying and consorting with the bully after the so called sick f_ck did this.

I have a real issue with the court of public opinion and the media as well, because they don't count on evidence to draw a conclusion. There are plenty of examples of people who would have been wrongly accused. One that comes to mind is Tara McDonald whose daughter, 8 year-old Tori Stafford was snatched from school April 8, 2009 and her body was discovered July 19, 2009. Until arrests were made the media and general public began to pick apart Tara McDonald and focus on her as the suspect. There was no evidence to suggest that Tara McDonald had killed her daughter, but she appeared to be trailer trash, she had endured an addiction and she was out in front of the media every day holding news conferences about her missing daughter. The public turned on her, the media asked, "Do you have something to do with this." and even her ex husband became suspicious to the point of an all out confrontation. She was being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion without a shred of credible evidence.

It would be later learned that a woman (18 year-old Terri-Lynne McClintic) who was familiar to Tara McDonald procured Tori Stafford for her boyfriend (28 year-old Thomas Rafferty). He raped the little girl and then the two of them killed her with a claw hammer. Her mother, who had to endure the tragic loss of a young child to the worst kind of horror, had nothing to do with her daughters death, but if the court of public opinion had had its way she would have been tried and convicted.

Think what you will of Ghomeshi, but these two woman along with the prosecutor had no case. Perhaps the third accuser will be credible, but until then he should be presumed innocent.

That is why we don't allow lynching and have a judicial process, because the emotional public is often a very poor judge.

 

[JLM]

Do you have proof that these woman were not active participants in this behavior? Because the court simply didn't see it that way and by their own actions the accusers have discredited themselves by lying and consorting with the bully after the so called sick f_ck did this.

I have a real issue with the court of public opinion and the media as well, because they don't count on evidence to draw a conclusion. There are plenty of examples of people who would have been wrongly accused. One that comes to mind is Tara McDonald whose daughter, 8 year-old Tori Stafford was snatched from school April 8, 2009 and her body was discovered July 19, 2009. Until arrests were made the media and general public began to pick apart Tara McDonald and focus on her as the suspect. There was no evidence to suggest that Tara McDonald had killed her daughter, but she appeared to be trailer trash, she had endured an addiction and she was out in front of the media every day holding news conferences about her missing daughter. The public turned on her, the media asked, "Do you have something to do with this." and even her ex husband became suspicious to the point of an all out confrontation. She was being tried and convicted in the court of public opinion without a shred of credible evidence.

It would be later learned that a woman (18 year-old Terri-Lynne McClintic) who was familiar to Tara McDonald procured Tori Stafford for her boyfriend (28 year-old Thomas Rafferty). He raped the little girl and then the two of them killed her with a claw hammer. Her mother, who had to endure the tragic loss of a young child to the worst kind of horror, had nothing to do with her daughters death, but if the court of public opinion had had its way she would have been tried and convicted.

Think what you will of Ghomeshi, but these two woman along with the prosecutor had no case. Perhaps the third accuser will be credible, but until then he should be presumed innocent.

That is why we don't allow lynching and have a judicial process, because the emotional public is often a very poor judge.

That was one of the saddest cases I've heard about and it just reinforces my contention that anyone who f**ks around and or kills innocent children should be shot in the back of the head within 15 minutes of being proven guilty. There's no lower form of life than that pair.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I think some of you need a little consciousness raising. The trial wasn't about the assaults, it wasn't even about Ghomeshi, it was about the women's responses to the assaults, and because they didn't suit the narrative of how many of you think those should have unfolded, you're prepared to accept that the women may have fabricated all of it. Some light reading for you:

The legal system worked perfectly in the Ghomeshi trial. That's the problem. | rabble.ca

Lucy DeCoutere on the trauma of the Jian Ghomeshi trial: 'After everything I went through, Jian is free' | World news | The Guardian

Court not arbiter of truth, Lucy DeCoutere’s lawyer says - The Globe and Mail

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I think some of you need a little consciousness raising. The trial wasn't about the assaults, it wasn't even about Ghomeshi, it was about the women's responses to the assaults, and because they didn't suit the narrative of how many of you think those should have unfolded, you're prepared to accept that the women may have fabricated all of it. Some light reading for you:

The legal system worked perfectly in the Ghomeshi trial. That's the problem. | rabble.ca

Lucy DeCoutere on the trauma of the Jian Ghomeshi trial: 'After everything I went through, Jian is free' | World news | The Guardian

Court not arbiter of truth, Lucy DeCoutere’s lawyer says - The Globe and Mail

I don't think somebody not being convicted based upon hearsay is a problem. Regardless of the reasons, the prosecution witnesses were not good witnesses. I don't want a court system to convict somebody because of what the accused might have done and the mental space of the person accusing.

 

[personal touch]

Perhaps if the women pushing this case told the truth would have made a difference? But then this was all about money and not about assault.Face it the persecution was all about being PC and nothing to do with law or rights..

silly,but if an independent assessment regarding the handling of information and council of sexual assault allegations across Canada was put forth,I can tell you party policies will be identifiable through certain markers of concerns,where one lives will dictate how sexual assault cases are put forth.Upon the completion of this assessment all kinds of dysfunction would be evident,including delusional thinking.
If there are no expectations,guidelines,timelines,consistency on the handling of information of sexual assault cases,then this is what society receives,a bunch of turmoil and mistrust for Judicial dominance.
I will repeat myself,there is evidence which would suggest the handling of sexual assault information is a huge pit of dysfunctional management,the courts are playing games.
there is not a drop of evidence which indicates these women "did not tell the truth",there is alot of evidence which states these women received harsh punishment at the hands of the courts,how does this happen is my question,guilt and innocence is down the list of information important to an auditor,time wasted.
come on taxslave,you really don't beleive this trial is the Crowns Ace,this trial certainly was a blunder,I am hopeful this is a trial run on what is coming down for the the next trial,faith in my fellow man,good strategists save the best for last.
the psychology of this trial is interesting,at one time I did some information auditing on confident building of individuals,how this is done,mean while the confident builders know their intentions are not loyal,i audited some different groups who fall under the spell of the psychology expectations,my information conclusions led me to greater places.
where these women receive confidence in such garbage is of interest to myself,as I too have been tricked by confidence,led a stray,spun,demeaned,presented as the wrong,bad one,liar,set up,knocked down within adminisrative process's who I believed should have protected me,i was very wrong again.
Taking a good look at that confident building,"people and process's"make for great auditing,this would be a great case for auditing if prejustice behavior was evident upon the crown,I can't wait for the next case to be exposed,saving the best for last,wh oring a judge,cool shyte!

 

[JLM]

In a nutshell, I think if the testimony isn't consistent, the judge has no choice but to acquit!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

In principle I agree, the standards of evidence in a criminal trial are necessarily very high because the consequences of getting it wrong are so serious. Better a hundred of the guilty go free than a single innocent be condemned. I'd also argue that any accused person, regardlees of guilt or innocence or the ugliness of the offence, is entitled as a matter of right and principle to the best defence the law allows, and Ghomeshi certainly got that. But that also means that the system is often less about arriving at the truth than it is about who's the better lawyer.

 

[Curious Cdn]

In spite of our rules of evidence, the innocent still get convicted, especially when the investigators (police) will stop at nothing to prove their theories. The quality of one's council obviuosly has a huge bearing on your guilt or innocence (see: OJ Simpson)

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

In principle I agree, the standards of evidence in a criminal trial are necessarily very high because the consequences of getting it wrong are so serious. Better a hundred of the guilty go free than a single innocent be condemned. I'd also argue that any accused person, regardlees of guilt or innocence or the ugliness of the offence, is entitled as a matter of right and principle to the best defence the law allows, and Ghomeshi certainly got that. But that also means that the system is often less about arriving at the truth than it is about who's the better lawyer.

I don't think it is ever about truth. It is supposed to be about justice. Sometimes it even fails at that. In this case, I don't think the lawyers skills came into play aside from the incompetence of the prosecution. But if the prosecution had been competent, the case would not have gone to trial so the outcome would be the same.

Now if you look at the history of people being wrongly convicted, usually an inept defense lawyer is involved. Also usually some improper procedures by the prosecution.

 

[personal touch]

I don't think it is ever about truth. It is supposed to be about justice. Sometimes it even fails at that. In this case, I don't think the lawyers skills came into play aside from the incompetence of the prosecution. But if the prosecution had been competent, the case would not have gone to trial so the outcome would be the same.

Now if you look at the history of people being wrongly convicted, usually an inept defense lawyer is involved. Also usually some improper procedures by the prosecution.

do you agree,Canadians will be entertained by the "best to come"with the upcoming trial of Ghomeshi,do you agree this one was the weak showing of the Prosecution and the next trial will be or should be stronger.I would suspect it should not present itself as foolish/corrupt as this present trial.or do you think they are going to cancel the trial?for information auditors,assessing this upcoming trial is going to be fabulous.

 

[JLM]

do you agree,Canadians will be entertained by the "best to come"with the upcoming trial of Ghomeshi,do you agree this one was the weak showing of the Prosecution and the next trial will be or should be stronger.I would suspect it should not present itself as foolish/corrupt as this present trial.or do you think they are going to cancel the trial?for information auditors,assessing this upcoming trial is going to be fabulous.

I would think that both sides will have learned something from the previous four cases and perhaps adjustments will be made or perhaps further proceedings may be dropped ....................time will tell.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I don't think it is ever about truth. It is supposed to be about justice.

I really don't see how anyone can mete out justice without knowing the truth of a situation.

 

[JLM]

I don't think it is ever about truth. It is supposed to be about justice..

How can you possibly have justice if you don't have truth?
How concerned were the "victims" about getting justice. Isn't swiftness a key component of justice? Ten years isn't very swift!

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I really don't see how anyone can mete out justice without knowing the truth of a situation.

I don't see how the system failed here. The prosecution did not prove to the court beyond a reasonable doubt that that anything illegal had happened. Their witnesses were not reliable. No physical evidence was presented. No video tape or anything showing that anything illegal was done. Your perceptions of the truth are different than what was pursued in court. I don't know the truth of the situation as I was not there. I don't think you were there either. It is the prosecution's job to present the truth that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They failed at that. So the presumption must be not guilty.

How can you possibly have justice if you don't have truth?
How concerned were the "victims" about getting justice. Isn't swiftness a key component of justice? Ten years isn't very swift!

Its not a perfect system but there really isn't such a thing as truth. Truth is just perception of the witnesses of an event. Every observer will have his/her own truth.

There is no statute of limitations in Canada. Delay in accusations are not automatically rejected. It certainly would work against the prosecution in the weighing of the evidence by the judge or jury.

 

[personal touch]

I would think that both sides will have learned something from the previous four cases and perhaps adjustments will be made or perhaps further proceedings may be dropped ....................time will tell.

you sound like a lawyer,or something else along that line.

I don't see how the system failed here. The prosecution did not prove to the court beyond a reasonable doubt that that anything illegal had happened. Their witnesses were not reliable. No physical evidence was presented. No video tape or anything showing that anything illegal was done. Your perceptions of the truth are different than what was pursued in court. I don't know the truth of the situation as I was not there. I don't think you were there either. It is the prosecution's job to present the truth that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They failed at that. So the presumption must be not guilty.



Its not a perfect system but there really isn't such a thing as truth. Truth is just perception of the witnesses of an event. Every observer will have his/her own truth.

There is no statute of limitations in Canada. Delay in accusations are not automatically rejected. It certainly would work against the prosecution in the weighing of the evidence by the judge or jury.

there is truth,but if the design is meant to demoralize and uphold truth,then there is no truth,as in this case,what you say is only partial truths.

 

[Ludlow]

you sound like a lawyer,or something else along that line.


there is truth,but if the design is meant to demoralize and uphold truth,then there is no truth,as in this case,what you say is only partial truths.

uh,,,,,,,what?