[Fireworks]

Hmmmm Hmmmm:

Fireworks Fireworks:

Are you some sort of a prude?

I realize that wasn't addressed to me but it's offensive nevertheless. Please stick to the subject and don't get personal.

I thought it was fair game.

I think his view is that JG's sexual tastes are wrong, and deserving of being punished. I find that equally offensive.

I was just asking if he was some sort of a puritan who wants to see JG be convicted of something/anything on the basis that JG deserves it for having those sexual tastes.

[Fireworks]

martin14 martin14:

Hmmmm Hmmmm:

andyt andyt:

..... we know the police and prosecution can be blinded by wanting a conviction, and not look all that hard for exculpatory evidence.

That's my guess about what really went wrong here. Our police & judical system is too much focused on getting easy convictions rather than getting at the truth, which would be REAL justice.

Fireworks, I can't agree with your implying that it's OK if, to save resources, police/prosecution don't "spend much/any time on searching for things that would have the purpose of undermining the stories of the accusers." Surely they should be diligently searching for the facts. I think the key word in your phrase is "undermining." All too often (and here) I think the cops are more concerned with not having their case undermined than in digging for the truth.

Are you trying to say that the police should investigate the women before beleiving
their stories implicitly ?

The new 3rd wave SJW feminists would call that victim blaming, and be all over you for that.

The women all stated they had no contact after the 'incident'.
It would be a waste of time and money for the police or Crown to go through and try to disprove
their own witnesses.

That's for the defense.

Well said.

Of course the feminists would be howling with outrage if the personal histories of the 3 accusers/witnesses were deeply investigated.

A smart prosecutor would want their case to be bulletproof, but with the feminist chill that exists, some claims are just going to be taken at face value.

[Hmmmm]

$1:

to me the blame lies with the accusers/witnesses and their blatant lying.

I think there's probably no such thing as "the blame." Multiple factors & circumstances led up to the present situation. Plenty of blame to go around.

[Fireworks]

Hmmmm Hmmmm:

$1:

to me the blame lies with the accusers/witnesses and their blatant lying.

I think there's probably no such thing as "the blame." Multiple factors & circumstances led up to the present situation. Plenty of blame to go around.

My only point is that if you actually are the victim of an assault I doesn't help in any way to lie about events surrounding the situation.

In fact it may well mean that the person that assaulted you will get away with it, if the judge decides that your testimony can't be trusted.

With respect to "the blame" I meant the blame for either the charges being dismissed, or a not guilty verdict being returned. The root cause of either would be the lies told by the 3 accusers/witnesses.

I'm already seeing "the blame" being apportioned by certain people - people who believe that he is guilty but also realise that he may end up waking away a free man. The crown prosecutors are being blamed by those people so far, presumably because they can't bring themselves to apportion any blame to the accusers.

No doubt those people would never blame the accusers in any way, no matter what it is shown they have done.

[Hmmmm]

Fireworks Fireworks:

I thought it was fair game. I think his view is that JG's sexual tastes are wrong, and deserving of being punished.

I don't think it's fair game for you to air assumptions about another poster's views unless he/she has explicitly expressed them; and especially to ask whether he would therefore describe himself using a very pejorative label.

$1:

I find that equally offensive.

You're offended by your own assumptions about his views?

$1:

I was just asking if he was some sort of a puritan who wants to see JG be convicted of something/anything on the basis that JG deserves it for having those sexual tastes.

Oh well, then that's OK

[andyt]

Hmmmm Hmmmm:

andyt andyt:

Have you forgotten that Ghomeshi showed a video of his sexual activities to CBC brass that so shocked them they fired him on the spot?

Is this true? I know he admitted to rough sex but are you certain there was a video? Why wouldn't such a shocking thing, sufficient for a firing, be introduced as evidence by the prosecution?

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/11 ... d_rib.html Not with one of the three complainants.

Hmmmm Hmmmm:

andyt andyt:

there are plenty of other women out there who also say he assaulted them but did not come forward to file charges?

If so it shouldn't influence the trial or maybe our private judgements. These women too could be lying.

Sure, but it certainly influences me.

[andyt]

As for being a prude. Yes I find hard BDSM incomprehensible for both S and M. In this case, as I've said before, I don't believe Ghomeshi had explicit consent for the violence he perpetrated. So as I've said before, technically I think he's guilty. But the defendants, by their actions, don't seem very perturbed by what was done to them, so I don't think he deserves much of a sentence. But I think he's a weasel and scum.

[Hmmmm]

$1:

Sure, but it certainly influences me.

Your choice of course. To be accurate I shouldn't have referred to "it" as if it could exert influence. We decide for ourselves whether to be influenced by "it," which by itself has no power.

[Hmmmm]

Fireworks Fireworks:

I think his view is that JG's sexual tastes are wrong, and deserving of being punished. I find that equally offensive.

Was it yourself who said this? ...
"they make something outrageous up and then reply to it in mock responding outrage, as if someone did say the outrageous thing."

[andyt]

It just keeps coming:

$1:

A woman who claims Jian Ghomeshi squeezed her neck and covered her mouth so she couldn't breathe failed to disclose to police that she had a consensual sexual encounter with the former CBC host in the days after the alleged sexual assault, court heard today.

The complainant, who can't be identified because of a publication ban, told police just days ago that Ghomeshi had gone back to her home after a dinner date where they "messed around" and she masturbated him. The woman had not mentioned those details in her initial 2014 statement to police.

Henein accused the woman of lying to police in her initial statement, pointing out that she told police then she would only be in a public setting with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault.

"It was an omission," the woman said.

"You tell the police that the extent of it is we're going to be in public right," Henein countered.

"You do not say to them, 'he did come over to my house, we were not in public,' right?

"Right," the woman said.

"So that is a lie," Henein said.

"Sure," the woman said.

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

It just keeps coming:

And now a fourth witness coming up, with Henein objecting even before she arrives.

She must be the most tainted of the bunch.

This went downhill really fast.

[Thanos]

Yup, from an alleged slam-dunk into a prosecutor's nightmare within the space of a few days. If someone in the upper levels pushed these now-apparently flimsy charges just to scalp-hunt a minor Toronto celebrity then they fucked up pretty bad.

[DrCaleb]

andyt 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?)

Trophy taking is a predatory trait. I'm thinking he kept everything his 'women' gave him as a symbol of his conquests.

Thanos Thanos:

Yup, from an alleged slam-dunk into a prosecutor's nightmare within the space of a few days. If someone in the upper levels pushed these now-apparently flimsy charges just to scalp-hunt a minor Toronto celebrity then they fucked up pretty bad.

I think people are starting to miss the picture. Just because these women had relationships with him before and after he assaulted them, doesn't make the assault all right. There are things in our laws that you simply cannot consent to, and it's their credibility as witnesses that these women have torpedoed.

Women stay in abusive relationships for a long time, mistakenly believing the good outweighs the bad. But the bad still happened to them, and still needs to be dealt with.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I think people are starting to miss the picture. Just because these women had relationships with him before and after he assaulted them, doesn't make the assault all right. There are things in our laws that you simply cannot consent to, and it's their credibility as witnesses that these women have torpedoed.

Women stay in abusive relationships for a long time, mistakenly believing the good outweighs the bad. But the bad still happened to them, and still needs to be dealt with.

What about consensual BDSM? I very much doubt these women consented, but just saying. Also people do choke each other during orgasm to heighten the experience.

They weren't really in relationships with him, it seemed pretty casual all around. I don't think they can say they were in fear for their lives, or had to worry about the children, or got into that push pull dynamic where the abuser swears he's sorry and he'll never do it again - until next time.

I think they were willing to put up with this shit because he was famous and could help them with their careers. There is also a sense that they are happy to have the current publicity, at least Lucy decoutere. (Said she would be to sexual assault what David Beckham is to Armani) There is also a sense that the women colluded before testifying.

But, I very much doubt they gave explicit consent for him to do what I did. I don't know if all the other stuff is irrelevant, and that is enough to convict him.

Nobody is looking particularly brilliant here.

[BRAH]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I think people are starting to miss the picture. Just because these women had relationships with him before and after he assaulted them, doesn't make the assault all right. There are things in our laws that you simply cannot consent to, and it's their credibility as witnesses that these women have torpedoed.

Women stay in abusive relationships for a long time, mistakenly believing the good outweighs the bad. But the bad still happened to them, and still needs to be dealt with.

When the women / victims are put on trial the prosecution's case is lost.