Hal 9000

Trump is an example - he's incidental. I used many examples, but that's all they are - examples to show a point. The point that obviously you not getting is this...OK, This is the point; The right wing politicians are always blamed for using fear tactics, however the democrats, media (and in Canada the NDP and Liberals) are using fear tactics to garner votes for their side also. You just don't see it. And, in reading your posts, you really don't see it - not even a tiny bit.

The defence was willing to wait for her.

C'mon dude. The Crown tried having her Skype in her testimony, the defence said no so they basically used a written statement from her. The Crown wanted her nowhere close to that defence lawyer. At least try to understand the game.

Nope, not even close!

You really are not understanding the situation are you? I always thought you acted like this to illicit some negative response, but no! You're really out there aren't you?

First off, they were proven to be lying about several things during the alleged assaults, they were proven to be lying about nearly everything post incident including contact, letters, email, sex...whatever, they were caught lying in their statements and omitting very pertinent information. They lied about every single aspect of this case - and were caught, in fact there was not one thing they said that they could back-up. The fourth complainant was smart enough (or maybe the Crown wised up) and din't even bother. I suspect that if you really believe what they say, then there is literally nothing they could've said that you would't believe - and that's sad!

Who says? I just told you who - WoW! And, BTW - If that stat is true, it makes it even stranger that the media and lefties are pushing the fear card in regards to Trump's statements about muslims. Whatever way you try to spin it, the fact is; these people are campaigning on the fear of muslims through Trump.

When you learn how to comprehend words that are strung together in a certain order, you'll see that I have never at any time expressed fear in what Trump has said. To the contrary, I'm arguing that if we aren't afraid of the mexicans, when will tell them no or deport them, then there seems to be no reason to fear the muslims, but the press and the left wing politicians are doing just that - campaigning on fear. Here's a quote from "eyeball" - I don't know where he go such a silly idea but...."It seems pretty clear to me that Trump's policies will actually make the US more dangerous not less safe."

Lol!

Exactly, but for some reason, the media and the left politicians have addressed both groups differently. I never made a distinction between what the mexicans might think/do and what the muslims might think or do - the media did, the leftie politicians did and you repeated it. So, I ask again; are the politicians and media manipulating you with fear, or do they really believe muslims are a threat when told "no"?

OK, it's a little early but I'm calling it now, "Race" will win best picture next year. I haven't seen any movies yet, but I have seen the trailer so....

But, nobody said anything about Trump (and his words) making the US less safe when he was saying those things about mexicans. The fear mongering from the left only starting when he spoke of closing the border to muslims. Why was that?

^^^^^^^ good point!

The entire media is saying it, everyone from MSNBC to The View to SNL...and even you - yes, you have said it. We've had every president and every presidential candidate discuss immigration - specifically, how to stem the flow. And, we've never feared addressing it before, so why the fear mongering? Why do you believe that Trump saying the same things as presidents back to the 60's and 70's said, (and many other world leaders of today have said) makes the US less safe

Well then, I'll ask you the same question that I asked WCR; With all the evidence in, would you return a guilty verdict for Ghomeshi?

Something tells me that if he were to call any of accusers, there's a pretty good chance they'd come a runnin'.

I think what cyber is suggesting is that jail people based on suspicion.

...If the accusations are true.

I know what you're saying, but what we don't know is whether Crown might have been complicit or willfully unaware that this info was out there. Or, they may have just been unable to convince these people just how important the truth is. I agree that these women (who seem none to bright) probably went rogue and sent the Crown into salvage mode, Or maybe the Crown rolled the dice in the hopes that these emails and letters were long gone.

On at least 2 occasions in closing, the Crown tried putting the onus on the defence to prove innocence. And, insults the judge a time or two. I like the term "delayed disclosure" and the word "animus".

If the women fessed up from the beginning, the Crown could've brought in other witnesses to testify as to their actions...then they might have stood a chance, instead they all - to a person, lied and were caught lying.

What if the guy "slipped"?

Good Grief, This woman is actually teaching people. WTF does she think, what do you people even think? That guilt should be assumed and innocence proven? You want to talk about 19th century thinking, yeah, lets just throw a person in jail because a woman says so. Why even bother with a trial if we take a woman's word at 100%? What evidence shows any amount of guilt here, do you people even care about evidence? And, If she has a problem with the defendant not having his character brought into question, she can blame the Crown and the accusers for that. Personally, by all accounts the accusers seem to think he's charming.

I guess if call proving that they have lied and colluded..."besmirching". From everything I've read, it seems that the defence didn't actually have to besmirch them, in fact she was smart enough to raise the suggestion of what these women are and leave it at that. I'm sure if these complainants weren't so easy to disprove, that it may have had to come to "besmirching", but it didn't. As for the Judge, sure he knows the strategy - we all do, problem is; unlike you people, he has to follow the law and clearly the case is far from proven.

No, it puts the Crown in the position of proving a positive...That the person they're accusing is positively guilty. If the accusers can not be questioned, where does that our our legal system? How else can a person defend themselves?