[Thanos]

It sucks to see a guilty man walk free just because the victims turned out to be deplorable idiots themselves.

[xerxes]

Maybe not so much idiots, but women. Women, who like too many before them, went back to their abusers because they were "charming" or some other BS lie people tell themselves in that situation. We all like to think that in a similar situation we'd tell guys like Gomeshi to go fuck themselves and never speak to them again, but people don't always act rationally.

Hopefully the judge looks past the part where the women continued to have contaxt with Gomeshi and focuses on the part where he slapped and beat them when they didn't consent to that.

[Thanos]

The bikini pic and the detailed e-mail saying "please rag doll me again someday" kind of destroy the confused-and-traumatized argument apart though. I don't see how the judge can ignore those revelations because they were massive.

[Freakinoldguy]

I hope CBC had a morals clause in Ghomeshi's contract because if they didn't it looks like he'll be getting alot of money from the taxpayers.

[BeaverFever]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I hope CBC had a morals clause in Ghomeshi's contract because if they didn't it looks like he'll be getting alot of money from the taxpayers.

No he was unionized so he can't sue, he can only geieve. Grievance awards are much less and for wrongful dismissal usually the remedy is just to reinstate the employee or pay up to 8 weeks of severance. Employers can generally dismiss employees at will so long as it's not motivated by discrimination such as race, gender, disability, etc. and where the employee is public-facing such as a spokesperson or entertainment, which is what Ghomeshi was, the employer has even more leeway.

[BeaverFever]

Thanos Thanos:

It sucks to see a guilty man walk free just because the victims turned out to be deplorable idiots themselves.

Yep, but I think the judge won't have a choice if the other witnesses are going to be like these two.

[Fireworks]

Hmmmm Hmmmm:

peck420 peck420:

The really really sad part, is that regardless of his guilt or innocence ..... the entire case could potentially be lost.

Peck, why would you say that? Why would it be sad if the (prosecution) case was lost, if he was innocent? That would be justice, no? If - I say "IF" - the behaviours were consensual and not illegal why would we demand one of the parties be penalised?

Well said.

The "thinking" in some circles is that he is guilty and must be convicted of something.

[Fireworks]

Thanos Thanos:

It sucks to see a guilty man walk free just because the victims turned out to be deplorable idiots themselves.

Are you presuming that he is definitely guilty?

Is that coming from the fact that he was charged?

[Fireworks]

Thanos Thanos:

I don't doubt this little fucker is guilty as hell but it looks like the trial could be as huge a botch by the crown attorney as the OJ Simpson prosecution was.

It's not a botch if the crown didn't know that the first 2 accusers/witnesses were lying to them.

To get to this stage those 2 lied to the police, lied to the crown and lied to the judge when they were asked if they had any contact with JG after the alleged assaults.

The crown people must have asked them that question, and if both of them said "no" to the crown people then what were the crown people supposed to do? Press them hard on the question? That's the sort of thing that is then described as "the system traumatizing female victims all over again".

Both of them were caught on this - neither of them said "I don't know" or "I can't recall" when asked that question. They both said "no" and as we know "no means no". It's a definite answer. "No" doesn't mean "maybe" or "yes", does it?

[Thanos]

The third complainant apparently went to the police over the weekend to "supplement" the information she previously gave to them. There's also word that she made contact with Lucy Decouture before going to the media about Ghomeshi back in 2014. Don't see how the defense won't be able tear this apart because it made it about a thousand times easier for them to label it all as a conspiracy.

[ShepherdsDog]

She also saw a publicist... $$$$....and stated she didn't think what happened was charge worthy........and again the individual in question admits to having a sexual encounter after the alleged assault. The prosecution is on really shaky ground here.

[Fireworks]

Thanos Thanos:

The third complainant apparently went to the police over the weekend to "supplement" the information she previously gave to them. There's also word that she made contact with Lucy Decouture before going to the media about Ghomeshi back in 2014. Don't see how the defense won't be able tear this apart because it made it about a thousand times easier for them to label it all as a conspiracy.

Even if she did supplement her prior information, that will be subject to cross-examination by the defence in court.

The defence should have an easy time of it if what she says in court is different from what she originally stated.

Maybe she will claim that "no" now means "yes" if the same issue about post-alleged assault contact with JG comes up. Maybe the experiences of the other 2 accusers/witnesses will have magically jogged her memory. She can't escape from whatever she originally stated though.

[andyt]

$1:

The complainant told the court that she went out for dinner with Ghomeshi once after that, saying she's the sort of person to give people many chances.

The witness never told police or prosecutors about that date until Friday, and the new information was disclosed to the defence Sunday morning, Ghomeshi's lawyer Marie Henein said. It's the second time in the trial that a complainant has provided a new statement to police just before testifying in court.

"The constant late-breaking changes make me feel like I'm in the twilight zone," Henein told the court.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/g ... -1.3438245

[Hmmmm]

Fireworks Fireworks:

The crown people must have asked them that question, and if both of them said "no" to the crown people then what were the crown people supposed to do?

That's a question that interests me. If the emails existed before charges were laid (as they obviously did) shouldn't the police have found them? Why would it be up to the prosecution? Do they even have the power to seize or examine someone's electronic equipment? And how did Ghomeshi's defence come up with these emails while no one else did?

[andyt]

they were on Ghomeshi's server or computer, not shure which, and he kept the hand written letter as well, for twelve years. (Was he protecting himself because he knew he might be charged?) The police obviously didn't think to look for these e-mails, because the complainants told the police they had had no further contact with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault. And of course we know the police and prosecution can be blinded by wanting a conviction, and not look all that hard for exculpatory evidence.