Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

Hal 9000 · February 13, 2016

Why is so important to you that I cast a vote? I have said that I don't believe they were lying.

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!

On Guard for Thee · February 13, 2016

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!

The fourth was a witness, not a complainant, and yes they did bother.

Hal 9000 · February 13, 2016

The fourth was a witness, not a complainant, and yes they did bother.

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.

On Guard for Thee · February 13, 2016

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.

There was a snowstorm in YHZ that prevented the witness from travelling. Her statement to police and the messages between the two have been filed with the court. At least try to keep up with the facts.

Hal 9000 · February 13, 2016

There was a snowstorm in YHZ that prevented the witness from travelling. Her statement to police and the messages between the two have been filed with the court. At least try to keep up with the facts.

The defence was willing to wait for her.

On Guard for Thee · February 13, 2016

The defence was willing to wait for her.

The court wasn't, hence the decision to accept the files.

Hal 9000 · February 13, 2016

The court wasn't, hence the decision to accept the files.

Just face it, the Crown didn't want her to testify - if they did, she would've testified. It was likely the only thing they won throughout the entire trial.

On Guard for Thee · February 13, 2016

Just face it, the Crown didn't want her to testify - if they did, she would've testified. It was likely the only thing they won throughout the entire trial.

You're not paying attention again. She couldn't get there, so they took her testimony as files rather than in person. The judge will have that file in front of him.

And of course they wanted her to testify dude, else why would they have petitioned the court to allow it, sheesh!

Edited February 13, 2016 by On Guard for Thee

Boges · February 13, 2016

The court wasn't, hence the decision to accept the files.

And that's grounds for appeal should a guilty verdict be found. So what's the likelihood of that happening?

On Guard for Thee · February 13, 2016

And that's grounds for appeal should a guilty verdict be found. So what's the likelihood of that happening?

I suspect he'll walk, as already stated, in large part due to how poorly the complainants were prepared for court. However since it is a judge only decision, he may take that into account more than a jury would.

cybercoma · February 13, 2016

I think the problem is you don't make it clear what you are saying and instead of explaining yourself you get into huff and throw insults.

That's not even remotely true. I'm sick and tired of people "reading" suggestions into what people say, instead of dealing with their actual arguments. There's so much BS strawman arguments on this site that it has become a chore to discuss things with all but a couple people. And it's hardly surprising that you jump into a conversation between me and HAL, since you're one of the single worst offenders who use this tactic.

cybercoma · February 13, 2016

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?

I didn't see all the evidence and neither did you. And besides, of all the things I've said here, I'm speaking to a larger issue with the way our judicial system operates. I'm talking about issues that go far beyond this trial and you want to keep changing the channel on that. Edited February 13, 2016 by cybercoma

Charles Anthony · February 13, 2016

Folks,

Please avoid thread drift.

Hal 9000 · February 14, 2016

That's not even remotely true. I'm sick and tired of people "reading" suggestions into what people say, instead of dealing with their actual arguments. There's so much BS strawman arguments on this site that it has become a chore to discuss things with all but a couple people. And it's hardly surprising that you jump into a conversation between me and HAL, since you're one of the single worst offenders who use this tactic.

Well then maybe explain this comment in a way we'll understand;

cybercoma - So you're pretty sure he did it, but you think he should go free due to procedural issues. Is it any wonder victims rarely come forward?

And, what do you consider "procedural Issues"?

On Guard for Thee · February 14, 2016

Well then maybe explain this comment in a way we'll understand;

cybercoma - So you're pretty sure he did it, but you think he should go free due to procedural issues. Is it any wonder victims rarely come forward?

And, what do you consider "procedural Issues"?

One of those procedural issues was the lack of preparation of the complainants by the crown. But that has already been pointed out to you, but you don't seem to understand it. No sense wasting more time on it.

jacee · February 14, 2016

But will also draw females who share his approach to sexual encounters to him. Perhaps we shall see him in the future with bruises and broken limbs.

That's fine. Lol

But he isn't interested in women who want him to assault them.

Consensual isn't his thing.

.

cybercoma · February 14, 2016

Well then maybe explain this comment in a way we'll understand;

cybercoma - So you're pretty sure he did it, but you think he should go free due to procedural issues. Is it any wonder victims rarely come forward?

And, what do you consider "procedural Issues"?

If I thought there was any chance your questions were an honest inquiry and you wanted to learn or have a discussion I might have humoured you. But if one thing is clear, it's that you've made up your mind and are just looking for a gotcha moment. Edited February 14, 2016 by cybercoma

The_Squid · February 14, 2016

One of those procedural issues was the lack of preparation of the complainants by the crown. But that has already been pointed out to you, but you don't seem to understand it. No sense wasting more time on it.

No one knows what the Crown asked the victims and whether the victims were completely forthright about all the things that came out in court. So to say that Crown was unprepared is speculation. Also, maybe Crown knew about these things.... (the emails after the assualts took place, and all the things that throw doubt over what actually happened)... what could they have done?

It could be that these victims/witnesses were simply going to make poor witnesses for the Crown, regardless.

Edited February 14, 2016 by The_Squid

On Guard for Thee · February 14, 2016

No one knows what the Crown asked the victims and whether the victims were completely forthright about all the things that came out in court. So to say that Crown was unprepared is speculation. Also, maybe Crown knew about these things.... (the emails after the assualts took place, and all the things that throw doubt over what actually happened)... what could they have done?

It could be that these victims/witnesses were simply going to make poor witnesses for the Crown, regardless.

It could well be the case that these complainants were bound to fail inevitably, however the reporting I heard of how they fell apart under very basic questioning under cross is what tells me that they weren't prepped very well. In other words, the discrepancies should have been discovered prior to trial. Not suggesting their testimony should have been somehow rigged, that's totally not allowed, but they could/should have been made aware what types of questions would be asked, and how to deal with things such as failure of memory, especially after such a long time lapse.

WestCoastRunner · February 14, 2016

A good analysis by three criminal defense lawyers in The Toronto Life. They all seem to be in agreement that Ghomeshi will be acquitted, however:

If the judge believes the three complainants enough to believe that their evidence was credible and reliable, then he can convict Mr. Ghomeshi.

I think beyond a reasonable doubt is a very, very high threshold, as it should be. If there was a gun to my head, I’d say he would be acquitted. But I think the best thing that could come out of this case has already happened. It has created a national discourse about violence against women, and about the experience of women in the justice system. I think whether Mr. Ghomeshi is convicted or acquitted, it won’t take away from that.

http://torontolife.com/city/crime/criminal-defence-lawyer-jian-ghomeshi-roundtable-part-two/

TimG · February 14, 2016

That's not even remotely true. I'm sick and tired of people "reading" suggestions into what people say, instead of dealing with their actual arguments.

Is it so hard to adding a line like: 'the system may be stacked against complainants but it is necessary evil given that we don't want to convict innocent people'?

If you did that no one would be inferring anything. The problem is you state a problem and imply you would like to see it fixed but say nothing about what you think should be done. When you do that you should expect people to presume that you want to change the system and start to guess at what change you are asking for.

Edited February 15, 2016 by TimG

WestCoastRunner · February 14, 2016

If I thought there was any chance your questions were an honest inquiry and you wanted to learn or have a discussion I might have humoured you. But if one thing is clear, it's that you've made up your mind and are just looking for a gotcha moment.

Hal loves those gotcha moments.

WestCoastRunner · February 14, 2016

That's fine. Lol

But he isn't interested in women who want him to assault them.

Consensual isn't his thing.

.

And he likes them young and impressionable. Luckily he's not a media darling any longer.

Hal 9000 · February 15, 2016

Hal loves those gotcha moments.

Sure I do, but seeing you guys have such certitude in the silliest of ideologies, makes it very easy. You, OGFT and cyber have really painted yourselves into the corner - I've merely pointed it out.

WestCoastRunner · February 15, 2016

Sure I do, but seeing you guys have such certitude in the silliest of ideologies, makes it very easy. You, OGFT and cyber have really painted yourselves into the corner - I've merely pointed it out.

How have I painted myself in a corner? Is this a gotcha moment?