Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

[WestCoastRunner]

Cite. I doubt it.

Read the analysis

[TimG]

Read the analysis

Give me a link and quote that supports your claim. I will read it to determine if it really says what you claim it says.

[WestCoastRunner]

Give me a link and quote that supports your claim. I will read it to determine if it really says what you claim it says.

I supplied a link earlier.

[TimG]

I supplied a link earlier.

From the link:

I think a lot has been made about the post-assault conduct of the witnesses. For me, the issue isn’t that the witnesses had contact with Mr. Ghomeshi after the alleged assault, but that they didn’t disclose the full context of their relationship with Mr. Ghomeshi to police and the Crown.

This supports my argument completely. If the police had not treated the accusers with kid gloves they would have found the inconsistencies and thereby eliminated them as an issue at trial. If Ghomeshi is acquitted part of the blame will rest on people who demanded that the police 'believe the victims'. Edited February 15, 2016 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually it does. These women were not trapped in an abusive relationship. They were free to walk away at any time. The fact that they continued to seek the company of someone they claim violated them is evidence that their claims may not actually be true or, at a minimum, the violation was no big deal to them at the time. No system that cares about justice could suppress that information.

No one is suggesting repressing that information, simply learning to disregard it as irrelevant. As stated, what is important is what happened at the time of the alleged assault. If Ghomeshi was choking someone and was asked to stop and didn't, that's assault. What happened the next day/week/month doesn't matter.

[TimG]

No one is suggesting repressing that information, simply learning to disregard it as irrelevant. As stated, what is important is what happened at the time of the alleged assault. If Ghomeshi was choking someone and was asked to stop and didn't, that's assault.

And if they had disclosed it to the police that is the argument that the crown could have made. But they didn't and, as a result, the case is going south.

[WestCoastRunner]

And if they had disclosed it to the police that is the argument that the crown could have made. But they didn't and, as a result, the case is going south.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you here.

[On Guard for Thee]

And if they had disclosed it to the police that is the argument that the crown could have made. But they didn't and, as a result, the case is going south.

So you don't think choking someone is assault?

[Hal 9000]

I have told you I don't believe they are lying. What more do you want?

Don't be coy, You know what I want.

[WestCoastRunner]

Don't be coy, You know what I want.

You sound messed up.

[Hal 9000]

You sound messed up.

I just don't have time for long responses, I'll get to that tomorrow.

[On Guard for Thee]

And if they had disclosed it to the police that is the argument that the crown could have made. But they didn't and, as a result, the case is going south.

Apparently they disclosed enough to police that when it got to the crown, charges were deemed appropriate. Which once again goes to the concept of lax pre trial preperation.

[TimG]

Apparently they disclosed enough to police that when it got to the crown, charges were deemed appropriate. Which once again goes to the concept of lax pre trial preperation.

Well that is the problem. The police failed to investigate properly before rushing to lay charges and put the taxpayers through the expense of trial that likely won't lead to a conviction because of information the police could have found out if they had no simple 'believed the victims'. Edited February 15, 2016 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Well that is the problem. The police failed to investigate properly before rushing to lay charges and put the taxpayers through the expense of trial that likely won't lead to a conviction because of information the police could have found out if they had no simple 'believed the victims'.

It's the crown that decides whether or not to proceed with charges, not the police. Once again, the crown decided there was sufficient evidence, but presenting it seems to have fallen short.

[TimG]

It's the crown that decides whether or not to proceed with charges, not the police. Once again, the crown decided there was sufficient evidence, but presenting it seems to have fallen short.

Based on the evidence collected by the police. Evidence that was seriously incomplete because the police were influenced by the 'believe the victim' mob.

[On Guard for Thee]

Based on the evidence collected by the police. Evidence that was seriously incomplete because the police were influenced by the 'believe the victim' mob.

You seem to want to keep blaming it on the police somehow. Pursuing charges is at the discretion of the crown. Apparently they thought there was sufficient evidence. Add to that the crown has ample opportunity to interview the complainants prior to trial, and you may get why you might conclude shoddy from them.

[TimG]

You seem to want to keep blaming it on the police somehow. Pursuing charges is at the discretion of the crown.

You are missing the point. Whether it is the crown or the police, they do not advance the cause of justice by simply accepting a witness story. Doing their job requires that they be skeptical and be willing to confront accusers if they find contradictory evidence. Edited February 15, 2016 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

You are missing the point. Whether it is the crown or the police, they do not advance the cause of justice by simply accepting a witness story. Doing their job requires that they be skeptical and be willing to confront accusers if they find contradictory evidence.

Actually that is fairly close to the point I have been trying to make. Had the crown done a proper job in prepping these women, they would have uncovered the discrepancies prior to going to court. A discrepancy doesn't automatically translate to a lie, but if you are aware they exist, you can deal with them much better when they appear under cross examination. And I don't know why you have come to the conclusion that the police automatically accept every witness' story.

[cybercoma]

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.

What kind of legal system does France have? How about Germany? How do they differ from ours and what lessons could we learn from the, when it comes to trials about sexual assault? There's a lot of legal scholars who've been debating what should be done in the judicial system when it comes to sexual violence. They don't have a solution yet and neither do I. But you want to simply ignore the glaring problem because someone hasn't solved it for you yet. I'd rather we address the problem and recognize that it's there.

[cybercoma]

I challenged you you tell me how (based on the evidence given) you would side on this case if you could; guilty or not guilty. And you won't answer, neither will cyber. Maybe OGFT will tell us how he'd vote.

I'm highlighting the problems in the system and you're asking me how I would act within that system. Pardon me if I don't humour such a stupid question.

[cybercoma]

In this case the police were clearly too concerned about being polite to victims (a.k.a the victim should be "believed" narrative). If they had taken a more adversarial/skeptical approach they could have uncovered the inconsistencies and dealt with them before trial.This case is a good example of how trying to 'fix' a problem often makes things worse. No justice can be served if the authorities don't investigate the possibility that accusers are lying.

A Conservative calling on cops to be "more adversarial" to victims, eh? That's new, but I shouldn't be surprised since the victims are women.

[cybercoma]

Actually it does. These women were not trapped in an abusive relationship. They were free to walk away at any time. The fact that they continued to seek the company of someone they claim violated them is evidence that their claims may not actually be true or, at a minimum, the violation was no big deal to them at the time. No system that cares about justice could suppress that information.

Why do you have to be trapped to be assaulted? Edited February 15, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

A Conservative calling on cops to be "more adversarial" to victims, eh?

I am just pointing out that this case went south precisely because the cops failed to investigate the victims claims. They just 'believed the victims'. You can, of course, insist that the 'believe the victim' mantra should be followed no matter what the cost in terms of bungled trials that let the likely guilty go free. Personally, I would rather see predators like Ghomeshi in jail. If offending the sensibilities of the complainants is necessary to get the entire truth out before trial then so be it. Edited February 15, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

Why do you have to be trapped to be assaulted?

The question at trial whether they were actually trapped and assaulted. This information is relevant to anyone who need to assess the evidence. If these women had been forthcoming and admitted this to police in their statements then the crown could have offered various explanations for such irrational behavior and it likely would not have affected the eventual verdict. But they didn't and that makes them liars and most people will be hesistent to convict based solely on the word of people willing to lie to the police. Edited February 15, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Youre arguing that people who act irrationally can't be assaulted.

You're also stepping away from your comment that explicitly said cops should be "more adversarial" to sexual assault victims.

Care to elaborate on these things?