Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

[On Guard for Thee]

Not at all. All the accuser needs to do is demonstrate that he/she did not consent by pointing to concrete actions that communicate the lack of consent (such as saying no or stop). Doing that does not require proving a negative. It requires proving that concrete actions took place. Your "proving a negative" narrative is nonsense.

Speaking of nonsense, how do you propose the accuser proof your so called "contrete actions? Whatever that means.

[TimG]

Speaking of nonsense, how do you propose the accuser proof your so called "contrete actions? Whatever that means.

It may come down to a he-said she-said which is tough to do on its own right. But other crimes have the same problem if there are no other witnesses.

But the point was there no requirement to 'prove a negative'. It is a false narrative dreamed up to exaggerate the problems faced by rape victims in the justice system (which is not to say that they don't face problems).

Edited February 11, 2016 by TimG

[kimmy]

I think something like this is very difficult to prove... but I also don't believe that the crown should take the attitude that "well, these charges almost never stick so there's no point trying."

I anticipate that in the post-mortem navel-gazing after this case there'll be somebody who brings a race angle into this.

"The only reason this ever went to trial is that Thewhiteman can't deal with the idea of a Brownman who is a sexual freak!" or words to that effect.

Also I don't see that Ghomeshi's career has been ruined. He finally has a chance to pursue that long-awaited Moxy Fruvous reunion.

-k

[On Guard for Thee]

It may come down to a he-said she-said which is tough to do on its own right. But other crimes have the same problem if there are no other witnesses.

But the point was there no requirement to 'prove a negative'. It is a false narrative dreamed up to exaggerate the problems faced by rape victims in the justice system.

It's never been anything but a he said, she said, as these things usually are. But sexual assault cases are typically not the same as other crimes that lack witnesses, in that defense lawyers have the latitude to try to besmirch the complainants character unfairly with silly shit like "how many boyfriends have you had, or how short a skirt were you wearing that night" and so on. The fact this case is a judge only may affect the outcome as a judge can see through that strategy better than a jury might.

[TimG]

that defense lawyers have the latitude to try to besmirch the complainants character unfairly with silly shit like

The rape shield law exists to prevent such abuses. In any case, defense lawyers besmirch other eye witnesses too by dredging up their drinking or medical history. Witnesses can have their credibility destroyed by facts that have nothing to do with the case but are used by a lawyer to paint a picture of someone as unreliable or untrustworthy.

[On Guard for Thee]

The rape shield law exists to prevent such abuses. In any case, defense lawyers besmirch other eye witnesses too by dredging up their drinking or medical history. Witnesses can have their credibility destroyed by facts that have nothing to do with the case but are used by a lawyer to paint a picture of someone as unreliable or untrustworthy.

The rape shield law (as per the name) applies only to rape cases, and even then is relatively ineffective. In most other types of cases if you try to hurt a witnesses credibility through unrelated aspects, the questioning will be overruled.

[BubberMiley]

I'm not really convinced by this whole story anymore. If it were up to me, he would walk.

How do you reconcile the cracked ribs that got him fired?

[Boges]

The rape shield law (as per the name) applies only to rape cases, and even then is relatively ineffective. In most other types of cases if you try to hurt a witnesses credibility through unrelated aspects, the questioning will be overruled.

The Rape Shield Laws also don't apply here because the behaviour after the alleged assault speaks to the credibility of the witnesses because of their honest, not because they may have come back for more after.

[cybercoma]

Ghomeshi trial reveals remnants of 19th century thinking in our judicial system http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/constance-backhouse-ghomeshi-trial-1.3441111?platform=hootsuite

[Smallc]

How do you reconcile the cracked ribs that got him fired?

I just think there's far too much doubt here to make a conviction based on conflicting evidence coming from unreliable witnesses.

[Hal 9000]

The distinction of consent is absolutely relevant because it puts the Crown in a position of proving a negative, I'm not sure why it's so tough for you to see the difference in these cases.

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?

[Hal 9000]

Also, I'm not going to go back and forth on your false equivalences. If you don't get it, I don't care. But know that you're not discussing any argument that I've made if you continue to ignore hiw consent plays into this.

It's never been anything but a he said, she said, as these things usually are. But sexual assault cases are typically not the same as other crimes that lack witnesses, in that defense lawyers have the latitude to try to besmirch the complainants character unfairly with silly shit like "how many boyfriends have you had, or how short a skirt were you wearing that night" and so on. The fact this case is a judge only may affect the outcome as a judge can see through that strategy better than a jury might.

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.

[Hal 9000]

Ghomeshi trial reveals remnants of 19th century thinking in our judicial system http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/constance-backhouse-ghomeshi-trial-1.3441111?platform=hootsuite

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.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Hal 9000

[Big Guy]

I would like to use the analogy of a hockey game. Both teams agree to the rules of the game which accept bodily contact. During the "game" one person wacks another over the head with his stick. It is contact but way beyond what is acceptable for that activity.

Each person has their own limitations on what is acceptable during sexual contact. Spanking would be a turn on for one and a major assault to another. The sex act assumes physical contact by both parties as long as the extent of that contact is agreed to by both.

I guess the question is how that line is established. I guess having a check list with you and then just before embarking on sex both parties check off the boxes that they agree to is one answer - but not very practical.

It will be interesting to evaluate and dissect the final verdict. It may set the precedent for legal contact between partners during a sex act.

[On Guard for Thee]

I would like to use the analogy of a hockey game. Both teams agree to the rules of the game which accept bodily contact. During the "game" one person wacks another over the head with his stick. It is contact but way beyond what is acceptable for that activity.

Each person has their own limitations on what is acceptable during sexual contact. Spanking would be a turn on for one and a major assault to another. The sex act assumes physical contact by both parties as long as the extent of that contact is agreed to by both.

I guess the question is how that line is established. I guess having a check list with you and then just before embarking on sex both parties check off the boxes that they agree to is one answer - but not very practical.

It will be interesting to evaluate and dissect the final verdict. It may set the precedent for legal contact between partners during a sex act.

No check list needed, but simply a verbal agreement between the parties. And the understanding that the agreement can be terminated at any time by one party by indicating they no longer wish the activity to continue. In other words if she says yes to start with, but later on says no, the activity must stop or it becomes assault.

[overthere]

No check list needed, but simply a verbal agreement between the parties. And the understanding that the agreement can be terminated at any time by one party by indicating they no longer wish the activity to continue. In other words if she says yes to start with, but later on says no, the activity must stop or it becomes assault.

'He said, she said.'

In this case, there has been no 'he said' in court, no testimony from Ghomeshi, and no defence witnesses.

There has been no need, since the Crown witnesses have been tainted with their own words and actions, and the case poisoned by the incompetence of the Crown.

[On Guard for Thee]

'He said, she said.'

In this case, there has been no 'he said' in court, no testimony from Ghomeshi, and no defence witnesses.

There has been no need, since the Crown witnesses have been tainted with their own words and actions, and the case poisoned by the incompetence of the Crown.

It's usually pretty easy in these type cases to tear up complainants, especially in this case due to the length of time lapse between the activities and court case. Defendants of course don't have to testify, and the only "he said" Ghomeshi has had to do was the "not guilty" parts.

[overthere]

It's usually pretty easy in these type cases to tear up complainants, especially in this case due to the length of time lapse between the activities and court case. Defendants of course don't have to testify, and the only "he said" Ghomeshi has had to do was the "not guilty" parts.

I'm not speaking in generic terms about these kinds of cases.

In this specific case, the Crown blew itself up with wholly incompetent vetting of the complainants and their complaints.

There is no need for you to repeat what I said about why Ghomeshi had no need in this case to defend himself directly. It's his right as a defendant to speak or not speak.

[TimG]

There has been no need, since the Crown witnesses have been tainted with their own words and actions, and the case poisoned by the incompetence of the Crown.

I am not sure I would blame the crown. Could you imagine the outrage if the crown had announced it was not pursuing charges because it did not feel there was a likely-hood of conviction? This was a mob mandated prosecution.

[On Guard for Thee]

I am not sure I would blame the crown. Could you imagine the outrage if the crown had announced it was not pursuing charges because it did not feel there was a likely-hood of conviction? This was a mob mandated prosecution.

Oh I would certainly blame a lot on the crown. These complainants were obviously quite ill prepared for cross examination that should have easily been anticipated by the prosecutor.

[overthere]

I am not sure I would blame the crown. Could you imagine the outrage if the crown had announced it was not pursuing charges because it did not feel there was a likely-hood of conviction? This was a mob mandated prosecution.

I do blame the Crown.

I recall that the first complainant had one police interview that listed 45 minutes. They did not ask her any of the questions that later caused so much problem for the Crown, like contact with Ghomeshi after the alleged incident etc. It was worse with the second complainant. Polcie failed, and the Crown should have noted that and made them ask those questions before charges were laid.

[TimG]

Oh I would certainly blame a lot on the crown. These complainants were obviously quite ill prepared for cross examination that should have easily been anticipated by the prosecutor.

You are assuming the crown knew about the after the fact actions of the accusers. The defense is not obligated to disclose evidence it intends to use to discredit witnesses and if the accusers did not think to inform the crown that such evidence might exist the crown could not have known.

[Hal 9000]

No check list needed, but simply a verbal agreement between the parties. And the understanding that the agreement can be terminated at any time by one party by indicating they no longer wish the activity to continue. In other words if she says yes to start with, but later on says no, the activity must stop or it becomes assault.

What if the guy "slipped"?

[TimG]

Polcie failed, and the Crown should have noted that and made them ask those questions before charges were laid.

Given the media coverage and the general mob mentality the police and crown did not really have any ability to engage in aggressive or confrontational questioning lest they be accused of blaming the victim.

If blame rests anywhere it is with the mob demanding 'accusers be believed without question'.

Edited February 11, 2016 by TimG

[overthere]

Given the media coverage and the general mob mentality the police and crown did not really have any ability to engage in aggressive or confrontational questioning lest they be accused of blaming the victim.

I can assure you that the cops spend far more time than 45 minutes interviewing witnesses and complainants in major cases. So does the Crown. They both failed miserably here.

This one played out in public like a 'Matlock' episode. It certainly did not have to.