Hal 9000

I'm not attacking anybody! I'm saying the case (as we know it) is too week for anything other than a basic assault. For all the emotion in Reva Seth's story, the facts are simple; they dated a few times, went to his place and got drunk and stoned, started to get it on, he finger banged her, she didn't like it and left without having intercourse. As for Lucy DeCoutere, they went to his place, started getting it on, he slapped her 3 times moderately, she was surprised but never protested, they proceeded to have intercourse. The other woman was a girlfriend who I assume had the same type of sexual relations with him a number of times and only felt to mention it after being dumped. Sorry, but none of this sounds jail worthy...yet! BTW - Do it have to mention in every post that i think the guy is a scumbag creep or can I trust you people to remember it?

Quite relevant, WCR won't answer though.

No one is defending him and nobody is denying that he's a creep.

Let me ask you this; what would make you happier? 1) He sexually assaulted all these women and gets be arrested... or 2) This whole situation is blown out of proportion and he gets left alone.

What would you even respond to?

I do read the news, but then you make some grandiose statement and without knowing how much you're embellishing I start to second guess myself and I look for the info that your talking about, only to discover a bunch of half truths. The CBC statement deals with conduct leading to why he was fired, there is nothing (so far) about bruising. OGFT: According to CBC exec. it shows blows being delivered that actually caused bruising. You really have to stop the exaggerations. Also on Friday, the CBC told employees it had fired Mr. Ghomeshi as a result of seeing graphic evidence last week that he had caused "physical injury to a woman."......"After viewing this graphic evidence, we determined that Jian's conduct was a fundamental breach of CBC's standard of acceptable conduct for any employee. Treating all people with respect, dignity and fairness is fundamental to our relationship with the Canadian public and contributes to a safe and healthy work environment that promotes engagement, openness and transparency," Ms. Conway explained. "Jian's conduct in causing physical injury to a woman was inconsistent with the character of the public broadcaster."

I've fallen for your bait and switch comments before...so, do you know for a fact that it shows actual bruising?

Obviously Ghomeshi thought the video would exonerate him. So, who knows what's on it.

"none of it was consensual, there is now video to support that" In other words, you have no idea what if anything is on the video!

The Liberals will claim that Harper hates women's rights - abortion, prostitution, health care, they'll argue that marijuana is good for everyone (tax wise), and that Harper doesn't care about the climate. The Conservatives will argue that the economy is good, jobs are good and a strong foreign policy is important.

If there is video, that shows non-consensual sex, then he is in some trouble, where did you hear this? P.S - You think he's flee'd the country?

So, let's look at what we've got so far; He said, she said on a light slap or close fist side of the head, parties had sex afterwards, no physical damage afterwards, no forced intercourse, no police complaint, and in at least one case the relationship continued. The only thing provable is that he roughed up a woman (but no facial marks) - consent is also questionable. I'd say this looks like a run-of-the-mill assault at worst with suspended sentence...again at worst.

Sure, his career will be damaged, but look at Jacee and her expectations. Unless one of these women have real evidence, it'll be a slap on the wrist. His career is damaged, but not necessarily ruined. I thought that about Pat O'Brien, Marv Albert and Richard Quest too.

It concerns me that there is not enough evidence (so far) to actually damage the guy...beyond his reputation. I'm not happy about this, I'm concerned.

So, I ask you again, if you were on a jury, could you convict a person based on Lucy DeCoutere or Reva Seth's stories?

Well, it does sound as if Reva Seth wasn't thrilled with him...and did leave before intercourse. But she also states that he did not rape her. I'm not defending the guy, i'm simply looking at things as a prosecutor or juror might.

What I'm saying is that we really haven't heard anything conviction worthy, creepy and weird...sure, but that's about it. If a woman say's she told him "No" and he forced himself on her anyway, then there is something. When a woman says she though it was weird but proceeded to willingly fuck him anyway...or carry on a relationship with him, then there really is no case.

Would you convict a guy based on anything you've heard? If so, on what charge?

Right, I'm just pointing out that nothing we've heard yet is grounds for charges, let alone conviction. If I was getting it on with a woman and she slapped me and pulled out a dildo, what could I really say if I took off my clothes and bent over. Sure, as Lucy DeCoutere said, I could say I was surprised or gobsmacked, but If I don't say no, what can I really do.

So far we haven't heard a single thing that he could charged with. He can be accused (rightfully so) of being a jerk, misogynist, freak or whatever. But really, as far as what we've heard, nothing illegal. This is, as WCR pointed out a number of times, a jilted girlfriend getting even and a slew of other women admitting that Ghomeshi was rather rough. CBC says they have evidence of something, what that would be is unknown at this time.

Fair enough, but what do you do if you're a prosecutor and neither of your 2 witnesses (so far) ever told him to stop...and in fact continued on to having sex with the guy?

...and if he forced any one of those people, then he becomes more than a scumbag.

Of course they're relevant, depending on what you accusing or trying to prove. As of now, all we know is that Jian is a power tripper, misogynist who likes rough sex. If you're trying to accuse him of being a rapist or of sexual assault, that requires a whole new set of parameters - including force and consent...or lack there of.

Well, I mentioned some questions that a lawyer would ask, you disagreed vehemently. I said that establishing consent would be the first thing a lawyer will do, you disagreed again. Common sense prevailed and now you choose to change the topic.

Now, instead of rambling off, you should explain where i'm wrong.