Exactly- phoney as hell from the get go. (That's not saying Ghomeshi is a nice boy, particularly)
Ghomeshi's trial will begin next week
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Exactly- phoney as hell from the get go. (That's not saying Ghomeshi is a nice boy, particularly)
I guess that being broke and unemployable beats the hell out of being on a sex offenders list.
...and marked for the rest of his life with being a sex offender. That must be a hell of a burden to drag around and it would limit your ability to do all sorts of things, forever. It could, conceivably limit your ability to even travel. I would imagine that all sorts of countries won't let sex offenders in.
A felony conviction of any sort would eliminate the ability to enter the United States.
no,the legal council was weak for the offense,those women should have had reasonable due dillengence council and they did not,
the Prosecutors office is to blame,and of course kudos to the defence,the Courts and Canadians were the real losers,as was the proceeding Judge,
who some day may get a letter from me reminding him he was wh ored,he was used andthe design of the case is not his fault,and of course the case was designed for reasonable doubt.
as indicated all over this country sexual assault cases are presenting themselves in designer packages,strange but true.
do you think the Judge is old?does he mind being whor ed?what type of recipical agreements are in place for him.
this is a case which should be open for information auditing,the handling of sexual assault cases could be entered into the the upcoming aboriginal women inquiry,particularly the handling of information,along with the design of information within front line workers intake protocol such as the RCMP.
Congratulations Mr.Ghomeshi,
maybe the crown is saving the best for last,maybe it will not be soon over as suspected,maybe the weak witness's will be the first,then bang......the prosecutors do the right thing,
this would be a progressive and one would like to think this is not the prosecutors best trump card,will better things be coming down the pipe.
i don't know if the smell of money was the motivation,
if those girls were smart they should sue the prosecutors office for incorrect council.
One of my clear objectives if I was information audiiting this case,is have an understanding on how the Crown built confidence in these women,(knowing all along they were going to lead them to slaughter).Building confidence of the victim within sexual assault cases by the Crown and RCMP is of interest,from previous auditing experience their is a :tag team"mentality which is shared between the Prosecutor Office and the RCMP,this tag team has many influences.
why did these women believe they were being led into clear waters?
Okay, let's clarify something before proceeding any further. Do you think Ghomeshi did not do what his accusers said he did, that he did not slap, punch, bite, or choke anyone into submission?
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..
I really don't know. I only know that his accusers were not credible and the evidence brought forth was questionable. What I think is irrelevant, the court of public opinion is irrelevant, the evidence was not there.
No, the issue of consent is not that simple. Can a woman give consent when she's shocked and frightened?
I know the courts ruled on being drunk and being coerced. but I don't think any ruling had indicated that consent would be invalid if shocked or frightened. Assuming these women were indeed that of course.
The judge absolutely made the right ruling. You cannot convict someone based on lies and collusion. We will never know the truth of what happened because the accusers are now unbelievable in anything they say.
The issue of consent favors women. For example....
John and Jane go out for the night. They both get drunk and have sex. Next day Jane decides she didn't want to have sex and John gets charged with rape because Jane, being drunk, could not form consent. Sounds about right so far??
The thing is if John was drunk too so by the courts logic he could not form consent yet it is highly unlikely that Jane would ever be charged even if John wanted to press charges.
So how do we deal with this double standard? How should a case like this be dealt with? Do we charge both with rape and send both to jail?
The issue of consent favors women. For example....
John and Jane go out for the night. They both get drunk and have sex. Next day Jane decides she didn't want to have sex and John gets charged with rape because Jane, being drunk, could not form consent. Sounds about right so far??
The thing is if John was drunk too so by the courts logic he could not form consent yet it is highly unlikely that Jane would ever be charged even if John wanted to press charges.
So how do we deal with this double standard? How should a case like this be dealt with? Do we charge both with rape and send both to jail?
What you do, is make sure you teach your son to keep his pecker in his pants when she is drunk.
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 an authentic romantic relationship still existed.
Ghomeshi is still a scummy little bully. Hopefully his career is permanently deep sixed.
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 an authentic romantic relationship still existed.
Ghomeshi is still a scummy little bully. Hopefully his career is permanently deep sixed.
Last edited: