[andyt]

BRAH 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.

What does that mean? No cross examination? No testing of their allegations?

it just sounds like standard feminist cant.

[DrCaleb]

andyt 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.

It was discussed when these charges first came out - there are things you can't consent to under the law. Loss of consciousness, blood loss or breaking bones are the big three. Consent or not, they constitute a crime.

andyt andyt:

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.

Again, it doesn't matter if they had casual relationships with him. Assault is assault! Randomly deciding to smack a woman about is not acceptable in society. Dressing up in tight leather with whips and chains is acceptable - in private. Whether this line is crossed is a matter for the courts, not whether the assault even happened because they kissed and made up.

The problem I'm seeing isn't that these women stayed in relationships with him after the assault, it's that they didn't reveal the true nature of the relationships to the Crown before the trial, making them unbelievable as witnesses. But no matter what, Ghomeshi is still a dirtbag.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

BRAH 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.

What does that mean? No cross examination? No testing of their allegations?

it just sounds like standard feminist cant.

Exactly. A witness is still a witness, and is still subject to cross examination. Otherwise we end up with that 'Rolling Stone' bullshit.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It was discussed when these charges first came out - there are things you can't consent to under the law. Loss of consciousness, blood loss or breaking bones are the big three. Consent or not, they constitute a crime.

But no matter what, Ghomeshi is still a dirtbag.

I don't think they suffered any of those injuries. So no crime. Although I doubt you can consent to being choked to obtain consent, which is the most serious charge.

Agree with the last. Apparently that makes us prudes.

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The problem I'm seeing isn't that these women stayed in relationships with him after the assault, it's that they didn't reveal the true nature of the relationships to the Crown before the trial, making them unbelievable as witnesses.

Because if they had revealed they were still playing with him after the fact,
there would be no trial.

$1:

But no matter what, Ghomeshi is still a dirtbag.

Good for us being a dirtbag is an opinion.

For now.

[BRAH]

andyt andyt:

BRAH 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.

What does that mean? No cross examination? No testing of their allegations?

it just sounds like standard feminist cant.

What it means is it plants seeds of doubt in the jury and the witness starts to stumble on their account of events, something they forgot to mention before things like that.

[andyt]

Ok, but the way you put it is how women complain about women being cross examined in sexual assault trials. Any witness is grilled as to how believable they are, men or women. That's how our system works.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The problem I'm seeing isn't that these women stayed in relationships with him after the assault, it's that they didn't reveal the true nature of the relationships to the Crown before the trial, making them unbelievable as witnesses.

Because if they had revealed they were still playing with him after the fact,
there would be no trial.

That's not how the justice system works. Assault is still assault, choking is still choking. Whether the witnesses are credible or not is the crux of the trial now. That's why they want a 4th witness all of a sudden, because the other three have called their credibility into question.

martin14 martin14:

$1:

But no matter what, Ghomeshi is still a dirtbag.

Good for us being a dirtbag is an opinion.

For now.

I don't see a person who abuses women ever not being a 'dirtbag'.

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I don't see a person who abuses women ever not being a 'dirtbag'.

Being a White Knight still won't get you laid.

So it looks like the 4th witness will testify that the 2nd complainant Decouture, told her about
the 'whatever' incident shortly after it happened, I guess to counteract the idea
that the 2nd's testimony was manufactured.

That's awful close to hearsay, and does nothing to counter Jian's penis
miraculously appearing in the 3rd's hand a couple days after the fact.


Can anyone spell railroad ?






Believe all survivors, because, you know, women never lie.

[ShepherdsDog]

So, someone living in Toronto who has had their credibility undermined due to collusion, willful omissions and such, told someone who lived in Halifax a 'story'(which version?) about something that is alleged to have happened, and we're supposed to believe that they're a credible witness? Holy Freaking Fifty Shades!!

[Mowich]

Total fiasco of a case. One wonders why it was even brought before the court. The only reason I come up with it that the witness never fully disclosed their continuing contact with Ghomeshi. In which case I agree with Peck420 - the Crown is guilty of not doing their due diligence. Shame on them.

[martin14]

Mowich Mowich:

The only reason I come up with it that the witness never fully disclosed their continuing contact with Ghomeshi.

And had lots of contact with each other.

Classic conspiracy.

[stratos]

Skimmed through the last couple of pages. I'm wondering if the (at least 2) witnesses are found to have lied and so forth can the Crown now go after them for false reporting of a crime? If so does the Crown normally do so is such high profile cases as this is?

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

Skimmed through the last couple of pages. I'm wondering if the (at least 2) witnesses are found to have lied and so forth can the Crown now go after them for false reporting of a crime? If so does the Crown normally do so is such high profile cases as this is?

They haven't been found guilty of lying, they have been deposed on the witness stand of not revealing all of their dealings with the accused. An omission, rather than a falsehood.

There hasn't been any proof that the alleged assaults didn't occur as they claim, but their own credibility as witnesses gives some pretty reasonable doubt.

[Thanos]

Probably not, considering that the Crown had more than enough time to thoroughly examine the statements that were being made and chose on their own to move forward with the charges. This is a prosecutors botch altogether. Going back at the complainants after being made to look like idiots by Ghomeshi's defense team would be petty beyond words.

Ghomeshi can't, or shouldn't, sue the complainants either. Just because they lied about the nature of their relationships with him it's still fact that he did the perverse S&M stuff with them. It's true what his particular kink is, as much as it's true now that the women weren't particularly repulsed or scared of his behaviour as their attempts to maintain contact with him after have shown.