Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

[overthere]

How a woman acts after an assault doesn't prove the assaults didn't happen. Ghomeshi's lawyer knew these assaults took place which is why she didn't question them on those specific details.

From the feedback I am reading, it sounds like women are becoming fed up with the lack of justice in these cases and most likely preventing women from coming forward in future assaults.

This judge has to examine this evidence regardless of the post actions. Considering there is consistency in all of the attacks there well could be a guilty verdict.

Wrong. Ghomeshis lawyer did not have to follow your script. There was no evidence of an assault, other than the womans account. No corroboration, no physical evidence, no hospital logs, no police logs.... nothing. And it is entirely reasonable in any trial for a defence lawyer to question the credibility of witnesses.

I don;t question the lack of justice in 'these cases'. A reasonable person would examine the merits or demerits of an individual offence. That is certainly what is expected of a Canadian court and expected of this judge.

It may astonish you to learn that all men are not on trial here. Just one man.

It is the Crowns duty to prove his guilt beyond a reasoanble doubt. Did they do that? In this case.

[WestCoastRunner]

There is no evidence - zilch! And, as far as consistency, that went out window when the women were found to exchange 5000 emails...some of which, directly involve details of the case.

In these cases the evidence is only their testimony. This is the problem with sexual assault cases. Of course we do have consistency in all 3 victims testimony.

The judge will need to take into account that women like to converse and support each other even if that means they shared details of their assaults. This is a human reaction for women that can't be dismissed.

[overthere]

In less you happened to have been sitting in the courtroom throughout the testimony, I think it's pretty hard to focus on a specific case such as this, without considering the broader issues of how the system may be biased against complainants. All things being equal, I suspect having this case being heard by a judge only may help to balance the field.

I think having a judge only helps to focus on the law and the adminstration of the law as it pertains to one person on trial.

There is no need to balance any fields. There is a need to present credible evidence from credible witnesses in support of the charge under consideration. If that does not happen, there is reasonable doubt.

The criminal justice system is not on trial.

[WestCoastRunner]

Wrong. Ghomeshis lawyer did not have to follow your script. There was no evidence of an assault, other than the womans account. No corroboration, no physical evidence, no hospital logs, no police logs.... nothing. And it is entirely reasonable in any trial for a defence lawyer to question the credibility of witnesses.

I don;t question the lack of justice in 'these cases'. A reasonable person would examine the merits or demerits of an individual offence. That is certainly what is expected of a Canadian court and expected of this judge.

It may astonish you to learn that all men are not on trial here. Just one man.

It is the Crowns duty to prove his guilt beyond a reasoanble doubt. Did they do that? In this case.

Yes, one man who preys on young, vulnerable women.

[WestCoastRunner]

I think some posters are using this case/thread to bring up issues with how the justice system deals with violence against women in general.

The miscarriage of justice in the Ghomeshi case would be a guilty verdict IMHO.

Any handwringing about broader issues is thread drift and has no bearing on the Ghomeshi case.

You can't possibly discuss this case without bringing up how sexual assault cases are handled.

[Hal 9000]

In less you happened to have been sitting in the courtroom throughout the testimony, I think it's pretty hard to focus on a specific case such as this, without considering the broader issues of how the system may be biased against complainants. All things being equal, I suspect having this case being heard by a judge only may help to balance the field.

I see it differently, I think Ghomeshi chose a judge because a judge would be obliged to follow the rule of law, whereas a jury could potentially exhibit people who will vote guilty based on nothing but pure emotion. We're seeing that here. I know that there are at least 3 active posters in this thread who would return a guilty verdict.

[Hal 9000]

Yes, one man who preys on young, vulnerable women.

These women were in their 30's - at least Lucy was. That's hardly young and naive..... or vulnerable.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Hal 9000

[On Guard for Thee]

I think having a judge only helps to focus on the law and the adminstration of the law as it pertains to one person on trial.

There is no need to balance any fields. There is a need to present credible evidence from credible witnesses in support of the charge under consideration. If that does not happen, there is reasonable doubt.

The criminal justice system is not on trial.

And which part of "he choked me without my consent" and "I plead not guilty" do you determine to be the most credible evidence?

[WestCoastRunner]

These women were in their 30's - at least Lucy was. That's hardly young and naive..... or vulnerable.

At least Lucy was? What about the other two?

And it sure sounds like Lucy had major security issues that ghomeshi honed in on.

[WestCoastRunner]

I see it differently, I think Ghomeshi chose a judge because a judge would be obliged to follow the rule of law, whereas a jury could potentially exhibit people who will vote guilty based on nothing but pure emotion. We're seeing that here. I know that there are at least 3 active posters in this thread who would return a guilty verdict.

it doesn't matter how many posters would return a guilty verdict. I'm not sure why you continue to fixate on obtaining a not guilty verdict from posters. We are not the jury. We can only provide our thoughts on the case.

Edited February 16, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[On Guard for Thee]

I see it differently, I think Ghomeshi chose a judge because a judge would be obliged to follow the rule of law, whereas a jury could potentially exhibit people who will vote guilty based on nothing but pure emotion. We're seeing that here. I know that there are at least 3 active posters in this thread who would return a guilty verdict.

That's exactly my point, the judge is very likely more familiar with what the law says i.e. what consent is vis a vis .721 etc in the code, than a jury would, and may therefore be less likely swayed by other discrepancies such as apparent inappropriate emails etc. which occurred after the fact.

[WestCoastRunner]

That's exactly my point, the judge is very likely more familiar with what the law says i.e. what consent is vis a vis .721 etc in the code, than a jury would, and may therefore be less likely swayed by other discrepancies such as apparent inappropriate emails etc. which occurred after the fact.

Correct. It is a given that behaviour of assault victims after the fact are to be treated as not relevant given the numerous studies on how victims engage with the perps. The judge knows this however the defence lawyer was playing up to the media with the general populations lack of knowledge on these issues. This could help the judge to bring forward a guilty verdict.

[The_Squid]

And which part of "he choked me without my consent" and "I plead not guilty" do you determine to be the most credible evidence?

The allegation itself is not evidence.

It is especially dubious when someone who makes the claim keeps a relationship going and emails the (alleged) perp about how much she cares for him and wants to be together again...

...Henein produced a racy email sent by Lucy DeCoutere mere hours after she alleges Ghomeshi choked and slapped her in 2003, as well as a handwritten letter sent a few days later in which DeCoutere wrote "I love your hands."

I think he probably did these things... but probably doesn't cut it.

[The_Squid]

Correct. It is a given that behaviour of assault victims after the fact are to be treated as not relevant given the numerous studies on how victims engage with the perps. The judge knows this however the defence lawyer was playing up to the media with the general populations lack of knowledge on these issues. This could help the judge to bring forward a guilty verdict.

Can you cite an example of this? How the actions of the victim of an assault aren't relevant? (other than Stockholm Syndrome, since that is clearly something completely different).

[WestCoastRunner]

The allegation itself is not evidence.

It is especially dubious when someone who makes the claim keeps a relationship going and emails the (alleged) perp about how much she cares for him and wants to be together again...

I think he probably did these things... but probably doesn't cut it.

Continuing the relationship is irrelevant. The judge knows this.

[The_Squid]

Continuing the relationship is irrelevant. The judge knows this.

You keep saying this...

Provide another example then... perhaps cite a criminology textbook or something.

In my view, something like that raises doubts about what actually took place.

[WestCoastRunner]

You keep saying this...

Provide another example then... perhaps cite a criminology textbook or something.

In my view, something like that raises doubts about what actually took place.

I have read this and I will find it again and post the link. I was wondering why the crown didn't pursue this and discovered that it is presumed knowledge in these assault cases. Especially when the case is presented in front of judge only.

[WestCoastRunner]

Can you cite an example of this? How the actions of the victim of an assault aren't relevant? (other than Stockholm Syndrome, since that is clearly something completely different).

.

Stockholm syndrome is not used much any longer. The more common explanation is that victims are looking for ways to survive.

[The_Squid]

I have read this and I will find it again and post the link. I was wondering why the crown didn't pursue this and discovered that it is presumed knowledge in these assault cases. Especially when the case is presented in front of judge only.

There is no such thing as "presumed knowledge"...

If you want to say that what someone did (sending racy emails right after the alleged assault) has no bearing, then you have to argue that in court. There is no blanket rule that says everything like that has no bearing! You made that up.

[WestCoastRunner]

There is no such thing as "presumed knowledge"...

If you want to say that what someone did (sending racy emails right after the alleged assault) has no bearing, then you have to argue that in court. There is no blanket rule that says everything like that has no bearing! You made that up.

I didn't make anything up! Shame on you for judging my posts. I always research my posts and give much thought to my responses

The reaction of many in this thread illustrates the fact that many do not understand why women go back to their perps and why we have such unfair justice against women.

[The_Squid]

I didn't make anything up! Shame on you for judging my posts. I always research my posts and give much thought to my responses

I judge everyone's posts based on their content.

This "presumed knowledge" is nonsense. there is no such thing. If defence brings up evidence (emails) then the Crown refutes their evidence. That's how it works. If it is irrelevant, then the judge excludes it as evidence.

The reaction of many in this thread illustrates the fact that many do not understand why women go back to their perps and why we have such unfair justice against women.

I understand completely. However, the fact that I understand and sympathize doesn't make it raise doubts about what happened any less.

[WestCoastRunner]

I judge everyone's posts based on their content.

This "presumed knowledge" is nonsense. there is no such thing. If defence brings up evidence (emails) then the Crown refutes their evidence. That's how it works. If it is irrelevant, then the judge excludes it as evidence.

I understand completely. However, the fact that I understand and sympathize doesn't make it raise doubts about what happened any less.

In any event, sadly, women will continue to be judged on their behaviour before and after a sexual assault takes place.

[Boges]

In these cases the evidence is only their testimony. This is the problem with sexual assault cases. Of course we do have consistency in all 3 victims testimony.

And it was discovered that they discussed the case with each other. So what's that worth?

[The_Squid]

And it was discovered that they discussed the case with each other. So what's that worth?

It raises doubts....

[Hal 9000]

In any event, sadly, women will continue to be judged on their behaviour before and after a sexual assault takes place.

It's not that easy.

But yeah, If these women went to the police, (at the time), talked to a grief or guidance counsellor, avoided Ghomeshi, avoided talking to each other or a publicist...anything, it would possibly change my mind.

We know he's a douche, but doing Karaoke to "hit me baby one more time", sending him flowers and stalking him does speak to a complicity between the parties.