Ghomeshi will be acquitted

[Insatiable Appetite]

Originally Posted by sdw
If Marie Henein thought that there was any doubt about what the Judge will have to rule in law, she would have Jian Ghomeshi on the stand.

This is just my intuition and inherent knowledge...haven't looked in to it....

My thoughts are based on the theory and advice given by lawyers that you NEVER talk to cops.....especially if you are innocent!

The cons of taking the stand usually outweigh the pros and consequently the accused rarely takes the stand especially if innocent....this is a philosophical approach as you have more to lose if you are innocent. So the guilty are more likely to take the stand as they have less to potentially lose if things go wrong.

 

[sdw]

Sorry, that logic does not hold water.

That statement is only always true if you assume that Ghomeshi's testimony would have cleared him. I argue that if he had gone on the stand the prosecution would have asked if he had approval from the 3 ladies before hitting and choking them. He would have to admit that he did in fact not have their permission or he would have had to lie under oath which would potentially lead to other legal problems in the future.

More likely the defense is hoping desperately that their cross examination has created enough doubt that if he is found guilty, he will not need to spend any time in jail.

I believe he will be found at least partially guilty. You read it here first Anyone care to make a small bet to the contrary?

JD

If we were talking in a bar, I'd take a large bet. The National Post has an article on the very subject of the advantages and disadvantages of Jian Ghomeshi being on the stand. In the article, the Lawyer being interviewed says that once Marie Henein demolished the witnesses, probable doubt was established and the Judge can only find Ghomeshi not guilty. http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/why-we-wont-hear-from-jian-ghomeshi

Q If Ghomeshi testifies, the Crown would get to cross-examine him — would that have the potential to raise problems for the defence?

A Whatever happened, or didn’t happen, the evidence of that all rests on the word of these three complainants. And based on what has transpired in court, it would be my estimation that it’s very difficult to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that what they say happened, happened. And if the court is left with a reasonable doubt, then the court has to acquit. Remember, for all we know, nothing happened.

Q Can you talk about the standard for reasonable doubt?

A “Maybe” is not good enough. The standard for reasonable doubt is very high. All the defence can do is raise reasonable doubt. We only have verdicts in Canada of guilty or not guilty.

 

[sdw]

This is just my intuition and inherent knowledge...haven't looked in to it....

My thoughts are based on the theory and advice given by lawyers that you NEVER talk to cops.....especially if you are innocent!

The cons of taking the stand usually outweigh the pros and consequently the accused rarely takes the stand especially if innocent....this is a philosophical approach as you have more to lose if you are innocent. So the guilty are more likely to take the stand as they have less to potentially lose if things go wrong.

Never talk to the police without your lawyer present. The police are not your friend, even if you are swearing out a complaint or affidavit. A lawyer will save your ass, by telling you not to answer the question in that form.

A great example, in this thread, is the affidavit that Sarah Dunsworth attested to on November 24, 2014. If she had "wasted" money by paying a lawyer to be present, she wouldn't be in danger of being charged with uttering a false document and making a false report to the police. The lawyer would have made sure that there actually was the conversation being related and the affidavit wasn't simply corroboration for a friend who's own testimony was being questioned by the police. In fact, without the affidavit, this case very well may not have made it to court.

 

[JimDandy]

If we were talking in a bar, I'd take a large bet. The National Post has an article on the very subject of the advantages and disadvantages of Jian Ghomeshi being on the stand. In the article, the Lawyer being interviewed says that once Marie Henein demolished the witnesses, probable doubt was established and the Judge can only find Ghomeshi not guilty. http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/why-we-wont-hear-from-jian-ghomeshi

Perhaps I am totally off base here, but from my point of view the judge only requires answers to these 2 questions:

1) Did Ghomeshi hit and order strangle the ladies?
2) Did he get their implicit or explicit approval to do so BEFORE hitting/strangling them?

If the answer to the 2 questions is yes and no respectively, he should be found guilty. Everything else is just window dressing. Where a jury might be swayed by how poor quality the witnesses were, a judge should not be overly swayed.

JD

 

[sdw]

Perhaps I am totally off base here, but from my point of view the judge only requires answers to these 2 questions:

1) Did Ghomeshi hit and order strangle the ladies?
2) Did he get their implicit or explicit approval to do so BEFORE hitting/strangling them?

If the answer to the 2 questions is yes and no respectively, he should be found guilty. Everything else is just window dressing. Where a jury might be swayed by how poor quality the witnesses were, a judge should not be overly swayed.

JD

Nope. The Judge has to rule based on if he believes the incidents happened as the four women testified. If the woman testifies that she had no contact with him after the incident she's alleging, and it turns out there are email, pictures and even an old fashioned paper letter that strongly indicate that she lied. Then, the Judge has to discount all of her testimony.

That's why Marie Henein demolished the testimony of all four women. Even the one who testified by affidavit. Her job was to give the Judge reasonable cause to believe that each of the four women was less than truthful in her testimony. The Judge can't cherry pick and decide that this unproven allegation is true despite the fact that Marie Henein has demonstrated that the woman is untruthful in the remainder of her testimony.

We aren't in a system of guilty unless proven otherwise. We are in a system of not guilty unless proven guilty. Each person, upon testifying or swearing an affidavit swears or affirms that they will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-5/fulltext.html

Oaths and Solemn Affirmations
Marginal note:Who may administer oaths

13 Every court and judge, and every person having, by law or consent of parties, authority to hear and receive evidence, has power to administer an oath to every witness who is legally called to give evidence before that court, judge or person.

R.S., c. E-10, s. 13.

Marginal note:Solemn affirmation by witness instead of oath

14 (1) A person may, instead of taking an oath, make the following solemn affirmation:

I solemnly affirm that the evidence to be given by me shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Marginal note:Effect

(2) Where a person makes a solemn affirmation in accordance with subsection (1), his evidence shall be taken and have the same effect as if taken under oath.

R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 14; 1994, c. 44, s. 87.

Marginal note:Solemn affirmation by deponent

15 (1) Where a person who is required or who desires to make an affidavit or deposition in a proceeding or on an occasion on which or concerning a matter respecting which an oath is required or is lawful, whether on the taking of office or otherwise, does not wish to take an oath, the court or judge, or other officer or person qualified to take affidavits or depositions, shall permit the person to make a solemn affirmation in the words following, namely, “I, , do solemnly affirm, etc.”, and that solemn affirmation has the same force and effect as if that person had taken an oath.
Marginal note:Effect

(2) Any witness whose evidence is admitted or who makes a solemn affirmation under this section or section 14 is liable to indictment and punishment for perjury in all respects as if he had been sworn.

R.S., 1985, c. C-5, s. 15; 1994, c. 44, s. 88.

In a Jury Trial, the Judge instructs the Jury that testimony that is untruthful has no weight or effect, in fact it is as if the testimony had never been given. When it's Trial by Judge alone, this trial, the Judge is bound by the same rule.

With each of the witnesses that testified in court, Marie Henein got the witness to admit that her statement was untrue or a lie. That wasn't accidental.

 

[papillion]

Sorry, that logic does not hold water.

That statement is only always true if you assume that Ghomeshi's testimony would have cleared him. I argue that if he had gone on the stand the prosecution would have asked if he had approval from the 3 ladies before hitting and choking them. He would have to admit that he did in fact not have their permission or he would have had to lie under oath which would potentially lead to other legal problems in the future.

More likely the defense is hoping desperately that their cross examination has created enough doubt that if he is found guilty, he will not need to spend any time in jail.

I believe he will be found at least partially guilty. You read it here first Anyone care to make a small bet to the contrary?

JD

I will take that bet, he will be found not guilty

 

[sdw]

Actually each of you have aspects of what is required of the judge correct, and he has to act between the two extremes.

Yes, he has to decide if the alleged events actually happened, but no he need not throw out all testimony of a less than totally reliable witness. The inconsistencies will be considered in assessing their testimony as will their explanations for them. The consistencies between the witnesses testimony will also go into that assessment as will the evidence suggesting collusion. As none of us (I reasonably assume) were present as the testimonies and evidence were presented, we cannot see the body language, reaction and demeanor of the witnesses and defendant. This too will go into the judge's weighing of the testimonies.

After deciding whether it is reasonable to say the events took place or not the judge then has to determine if consent was there in each and every instance that is determined to take place. The testimonies of the witnesses will again be weighed to decide this issue.

So yes he has to answer JimDandy's two questions but he has to weigh what parts, if any, of each of the testimonies can be relied upon to answer those questions.

As I have not actually seen all the evidence or seen and heard all the testimony, I really have no idea whether he is guilty if any or all of the crimes he is charged with or even if the events actually took place. I suspect that some semblance of the event took place with at least one of the ladies because he chose to reveal is kink rather than deny roughly touching women. But that is just a suspicion on my part.

The Canadian Judicial Council has a template of instructions to the Jury. There are a number of templates, I am linking the one for Final instructions.
https://www.nji-inm.ca/index.cfm/publications/model-jury-instructions/

9.2 Presumption of Innocence, Burden of Proof and
Reasonable Doubt
(Last revised June 2012)
[1] The first and most important principle of law applicable to every criminal case is the
presumption of innocence. (NOA) enters the proceedings presumed to be innocent, and the
presumption of innocence remains throughout the case unless the Crown, on the evidence put
before you, satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that s/he is guilty.
[2] Two rules flow from the presumption of innocence. One is that the Crown bears the burden of
proving guilt. The other is that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. These rules
are linked with the presumption of innocence to ensure that no innocent person is convicted.
[3] The burden of proof rests with the Crown and never shifts. There is no burden on (NOA) to
prove that s/he is innocent. S/he does not have to prove anything.4
[4] Now what does the expression “beyond a reasonable doubt” mean? A reasonable doubt is not
an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It is not based on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone
involved in the proceedings. Rather, it is based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that
arises logically from the evidence or from an absence of evidence.
[5] It is virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty, and the Crown is not
required to do so. Such a standard would be impossibly high. However, the standard of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to absolute certainty than to probable guilt. You
must not find (NOA) guilty unless you are sure s/he is guilty. Even if you believe that (NOA) is
probably guilty or likely guilty, that is not sufficient. In those circumstances, you must give the
benefit of the doubt to (NOA) and find him/her not guilty because the Crown has failed to
satisfy you of his/her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[6] In a few moments I will explain the essential elements that the Crown must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt to establish (NOA)’s guilt. For the moment, the important point for you to
understand is that the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies to each of
those essential elements. It does not apply to individual items of evidence. You must decide,
looking at the evidence as a whole, whether the Crown has proved (NOA)’s guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
[7] If you have a reasonable doubt about (NOA)’s guilt arising from the evidence, the absence of
evidence, or the credibility or the reliability of one or more of the witnesses, then you must
find him/her not guilty.[/SIZE]

9.4 Assessment of Evidence
(Last revised June 2012)
[1] To make your decision, you should consider carefully, and with an open mind, all the evidence
presented during the trial. It will be up to you to decide how much or little of the testimony of
any witness you will believe or rely on. You may believe some, none or all of the evidence given
by a witness.
[2] When you go to the jury room to consider the case, use your collective common sense to
decide whether the witnesses know what they are talking about and whether they are telling
the truth. There is no magic formula for deciding how much or how little to believe of a
witness’s testimony or how much to rely on it in deciding this case. But here are a few
questions you might keep in mind during your discussions.
[3] Did the witness seem honest? Is there any reason why the witness would not be telling the
truth?
[4] Does the witness have any reason to give evidence that is more favourable to one side than to
the other?5
[5] Was the witness in a position to make accurate and complete observations about the event?
Did s/he have a good opportunity to do so? What were the circumstances in which the
observation was made? What was the condition of the witness? Was the event itself unusual
or routine?
[6] Did the witness seem to have a good memory? Does the witness have any reason to remember
the things about which s/he testified? Did any inability or difficulty that the witness had in
remembering events seem genuine, or did it seem made up as an excuse to avoid answering
questions?
[7] 6 Did the witness seem to be reporting to you what he or she saw or heard, or simply putting
together an account based on information obtained from other sources, rather than personal
observation?
[8] Did the witness’s testimony seem reasonable and consistent? Is it similar to or different from
what other witnesses said about the same events? Did the witness say or do something
different on an earlier occasion?
[9] Do any inconsistencies in the witness’s evidence make the main points of the testimony more
or less believable and reliable? Is the inconsistency about something important, or a minor
detail? Does it seem like an honest mistake? Is it a deliberate lie? Is the inconsistency because
the witness said something different, or because s/he failed to mention something? Is there
any explanation for it? Does the explanation make sense?
[10] What was the witness’s manner when he or she testified? Do not jump to conclusions,
however, based entirely on how a witness has testified. Looks can be deceiving. Giving
evidence in a trial is not a common experience for many witnesses. People react and appear
differently. Witnesses come from different backgrounds. They have different abilities, values
and life experiences. There are simply too many variables to make the manner in which a
witness testifies the only or most important factor in your decision.7
[11] These are only some of the factors that you might keep in mind when you go to your jury room
to make your decision. These factors might help you decide how much or little of a witness’s
evidence you will believe or rely on. You may consider other factors as well.
[12] In making your decision, do not consider only the testimony of the witnesses. Take into
account, as well, any exhibits that have been filed and decide how much or little you will rely
on them to help you decide this case. I will be telling (or, have already told) you about how you
use admissions in making your decision.

9.5 Reasonable Doubt and Credibility
(Last revised June 2012)
[1] I am going to speak to you for just a moment about reasonable doubt and credibility.
Reasonable doubt applies to the issue of credibility. On any given point, you may believe a
witness, disbelieve a witness, or not be able to decide. You need not fully believe or disbelieve
one witness or a group of witnesses. If you have a reasonable doubt about (NOA)’s guilt arising
from the credibility of the witnesses, then you must find him/her not guilty.

[1] In his closing address (NOA2)’s counsel invited you to infer (NOA1)’s guilt from his/her failure
to testify. This submission is wrong in law and you must ignore it. You cannot use (NOA1)’s
silence at trial as evidence of his/her guilt.11
[2] Every accused person has the right to remain silent at trial. A person charged with an offence
does not have to testify and has no obligation to prove anything. The burden of proof rests on
the Crown from beginning to end.
[3] You cannot find (NOA1) guilty of an offence unless you are satisfied on the basis of all the
evidence that his/her guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In reaching your
verdict, you must not use (NOA1)’s silent at trial as evidence of his/her guilt.

10.1 Evidence Defined
(Last revised June 2012)
[1] You must consider only the evidence presented in the courtroom. Evidence is the testimony of
witnesses and things entered as exhibits. It may also consist of admissions.
[2] The evidence includes what each witness says in response to questions asked. Only the
answers are evidence. The questions are not evidence unless the witness agrees that what is
asked is correct.
[3] The Crown and the defence (or, (NOA)) have agreed about certain facts. This is called an
“admission”12 . You must accept those admitted facts without further proof.
[4] The indictment that you heard read out when we started this case is not evidence. What the
lawyers and I say when we speak to you during the trial is not evidence.
[5] When you go to the jury room to decide this case, the exhibits will go with you.13 Consider
them along with the rest of the evidence.14

Since in this case the Judge is instructing himself, that does not remove the considerations that he must make.

Marie Henein got each of the witnesses that testified in court to admit that they were telling an untruth or that they were lying. She also used Facebook and Text postings to show that there was collusion between Lucy DeCoutere and Sarah Dunsworth and that Sarah Dunsworth most likely had no knowledge of the incident until asked by Lucy DeCoutere to swear the affidavit.

The Crown effectively has no case. They failed to present any evidence that must be considered.

 

[Kurtis2015]

Perhaps I am totally off base here, but from my point of view the judge only requires answers to these 2 questions:

1) Did Ghomeshi hit and order strangle the ladies?
2) Did he get their implicit or explicit approval to do so BEFORE hitting/strangling them?

If the answer to the 2 questions is yes and no respectively, he should be found guilty. Everything else is just window dressing. Where a jury might be swayed by how poor quality the witnesses were, a judge should not be overly swayed.

JD

Although I have no doubt in my mind that JG hit and choked those ladies (I don't think that anyone doubts this), I have reasonable doubts that he did not get their "implied" consent.

I think, they might not like what he did, but they acted that they liked it (why would they keep dating with him, or even performing a blow job!!?).

I think the main problem here is they hoped that it is better to "act" in the circumstances, because JG may help them with their careers in future. That's main reason they did not complain at a time. But at later they realized that it was wrong what he did...

 

[Tugela]

Perhaps I am totally off base here, but from my point of view the judge only requires answers to these 2 questions:

1) Did Ghomeshi hit and order strangle the ladies?
2) Did he get their implicit or explicit approval to do so BEFORE hitting/strangling them?

If the answer to the 2 questions is yes and no respectively, he should be found guilty. Everything else is just window dressing. Where a jury might be swayed by how poor quality the witnesses were, a judge should not be overly swayed.

JD

Before the judge can even ask those questions, he first has to ask the question are the witnesses credible?

Since the defense has shown them to be not credible, your two questions will not be asked at all.

 

[sdw]

Although I have no doubt in my mind that JG hit and choked those ladies (I don't think that anyone doubts this), I have reasonable doubts that he did not get their "implied" consent.

I think, they might not like what he did, but they acted that they liked it (why would they keep dating with him, or even performing a blow job!!?).

I think the main problem here is they hoped that it is better to "act" in the circumstances, because JG may help them with their careers in future. That's main reason they did not complain at a time. But at later they realized that it was wrong what he did...

Actually, he wasn't in a position to help their careers when they allege this all happened. He was still playing in a small market band, they were acting in a hit TV series. It's not until a few years later that Jian Ghomeshi got hired first for a TV show at CBC and then for his hit Radio Show at CBC. He was small potatoes until the Radio Show.

 

[sdw]

Well, we won't know what the Judge decides until March 24, 2016.

Marie Henein "perjury is not a sign of abuse"

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/02/11/closing-arguments-today-in-jian-ghomeshi-trial.html

National Post's Christie Blatchford has published her take on the case to date:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...se-started-falling-apart-right-from-the-start

Complainant No. 2, Trailer Park Boys actor and Royal Canadian Air Force captain Lucy DeCoutere, who waived the mandatory publication ban on her identity and thus became the face and symbol of Ghomeshi’s accusers, was next.

Despite protestations she had no romantic or sexual interest in Ghomeshi after her purported assault — “I guarantee you that,” she told his lead lawyer, the formidable Marie Henein — it turned out she had all but stalked the 48-year-old former star — all this after he’d allegedly choked and slapped her hard in the face — and had told him in an email she wanted to “f— your brains out.”

A few days later, DeCoutere wrote him an old-school love letter that ended with the line “I love your hands.”

Incredibly, the last complainant flamed out even more spectacularly as Henein got her to acknowledge she’d told lies, omitted details and deliberately misled police and prosecutors and then confronted her with the fact that after the alleged attack, she had taken Ghomeshi home with her one night and, as the lawyer so inimitably put it, “messed around and gave him a hand job.”

The latter two accusers — the former Q host is pleading not guilty to four sex assault charges and one of choking DeCoutere — made 11th-hour disclosures of some of these details only on the eve of their taking the witness stand. The disclosures came so late they sandbagged prosecutors and left them unable to combat them.

But though these developments caused actual gasps in the crowded Old City Hall courtroom and had lawyers the city over reeling in disbelief at the havoc unfolding in courtroom No. 125, the die had been cast long before that.

As one veteran Toronto lawyer put it this week, “the criminal justice system has been hijacked by ideology,” in this instance, the feminist chant that accusers must always be believed.

The alleged victims reported to Toronto Police only after they had been well-interviewed — in DeCoutere’s case, nine times — in the pages of the Star and other newspapers and on air at the CBC and other stations.

While that may have been empowering for the women, it meant their versions of what happened were well on the public record already — and that meant any inconsistencies or differences between what they told the media and what they told police were there for the getting by the defence team.

Witness credibility always matters in court, but particularly in sex assault cases, where almost by definition other witnesses are scarce, and especially with historic or dated allegations like these, where the events took place in 2002 and 2003 and any potential forensic evidence is long lost.

Additionally, DeCoutere and the third complainant quickly bonded as online friends over Ghomeshi, and in less than a year from Oct. 29, 2014 to Sept. 23 last year, the two women exchanged more than 5,000 Facebook messages.

That raised the spectre of witness collusion, and certainly, with the two women regularly reporting in to one another when they met with detectives or prosecutors, tracking Ghomeshi’s every court appearance and gleefully savouring his fall from grace, it was at least damaging.

It was particularly galling in DeCoutere’s case, for in the same period that she was nodding her head sorrowfully in TV interviews about Ghomeshi’s situation and professing compassion for him, she was telling her newfound Facebook friend, “I want him f—ing decimated.”

There was, in other words, a lynching in the collective air.

 

[sdw]

MSN today has an article on how Marie Henein managed to get the 5,000 messages between Lucy DeCoutere and the third complainant.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/ghome...5000-messages-between-complainants/ar-BBpm2q4

How did Ghomeshi’s defence get hold of 5,000 messages between complainants?

Chatelaine
Sarah Boesveld

Over the duration of this trial, defence lawyer Marie Henein has hinged her cross-examinations on a number of emails that the complainants forgot they sent to Jian Ghomeshi. But on Monday, she pointed to thousands of private messages that the third complainant exchanged with second complainant Lucy DeCoutere. How did Henein get her hands on those?

The answer: A third party records application, which any lawyer can make (though it’s mostly defence lawyers who do) to access private information—like personal records and correspondence—so long as that information is germane to their case. “In the olden days, it was much easier to get counselling or therapy records,” says Toronto defence lawyer John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP. That changed after a 1992 sexual assault case called Regina vs. Mills. Now, if you want anything from medical records to a Facebook message thread (which Henein is believed to have accessed here), you need to establish that the materials exist and that they are relevant. “It can’t just be a fishing expedition,” Navarette says.

It’s not easy to prove relevance, he adds, especially when you’re not sure what’s contained in the material. (And, strategically, third party records can be risky, since they’re also disclosed to the Crown and “will show your hand or worse — it may confirm the complainants’ side of the story,” says Navarette.) But Henein was able to prove relevance, which leads Navarette to believe “maybe she has a few of [the messages] and was able to establish, ‘Hey, this communication has been ongoing.’”

And that ongoing communication is crucial to supporting a major plank of Henein’s defence: that two complainants colluded with each other. “Evidence of similar incidents of sexual assault on strangers is considered highly reliable, because you have different people who don’t know each other saying the same thing,” Naverrete explains. “How would that happen?” In this instance, Henein would argue that it happened because the complainants traded notes.

It’s not common for sexual assault complainants in the same case to collude with one another, Navarette says. But a case is much stronger if the complainants have never talked. “When they’re talking, it taints the evidence. It may no longer be your recollection of what happened — it becomes a mix up of everybody else’s.” Not everything is off-limits, he adds: “If complainants want to talk about the Toronto Maple Leafs before the trial, that’s fine. But they can’t talk about the case.”

 

[thodisipagal]

Here are two articles from opposing ends.

Sandy Garrosino, Associate Editor, National Observer:
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/02/11/opinion/why-crown-has-answer-ghomeshi-debacle

The burden of proof diagram is interesting.

Jennifer Koshan, Law Professor, University of Calgary:
http://ablawg.ca/2016/02/08/reflections-on-week-one-of-the-ghomeshi-trial/

 

[JimDandy]

I don't think it is a slam dunk acquittal like some of the people who have posted on this thread seem to think. If that was the case, I think the judge would have stated so right there and then rather than requiring 2 weeks to render his decision.

JD

 

[thodisipagal]

I don't think it is a slam dunk acquittal like some of the people who have posted on this thread seem to think. If that was the case, I think the judge would have stated so right there and then rather than requiring 2 weeks to render his decision.

JD

It's not a slam dunk, I agree. A case like this is never a slam dunk. But, it looks like, all that the Crown has is the original complaints of the three ladies. And the defence blew some holes in those complaints.

 

[sdw]

Here are two articles from opposing ends.

Sandy Garrosino, Associate Editor, National Observer:
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/02/11/opinion/why-crown-has-answer-ghomeshi-debacle

The burden of proof diagram is interesting.

Jennifer Koshan, Law Professor, University of Calgary:
http://ablawg.ca/2016/02/08/reflections-on-week-one-of-the-ghomeshi-trial/

The article by Sandy Garrosino describes the existing state of law. Which is why I've strongly stated that Jian Ghomeshi will be found not guilty.

So, how can the existing state of law be changed. All of the suggestions have the consequence of potentially sending an innocent person to jail. That's why the fact that the three complainants that testified in court and the witness that testified by affidavit all deliberately lied is so disturbing and their perjury must be punished.

The reason that we have courts of law is so that we won't have mobs imposing mob justice on people. As this case once again demonstrates, it's not that hard to whip up a mob demanding justice.

Usually, when a mob is demanding justice, they are responding to the knowledge set that the leaders of the hysteria choose to disseminate. The truth, an actual account of what happened, is not what they want people to know.

Sarah Ducksworth actually indicated this in her facebook post. "Go with your Truth" and then later "I'll be your oven mitts". Sarah Ducksworth was saying that the Truth that Lucy DeCoutere wanted and the real truth were two different things, that she knew that and would lie for her friend.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't think it is a slam dunk acquittal like some of the people who have posted on this thread seem to think. If that was the case, I think the judge would have stated so right there and then rather than requiring 2 weeks to render his decision.

JD

Judges are lazy. If he would have ruled right then and there, his name would have gone back into the rotation and he's be back hearing another case next Monday. This way he gets to sit on his ass for the next 2 weeks, drinking coffee, taking 3 hour lunch breaks and watching on-line porn while he "deliberates" this matter. LOL!

Cheers

 

[sdw]

Judges are lazy. If he would have ruled right then and there, his name would have gone back into the rotation and he's be back hearing another case next Monday. This way he gets to sit on his ass for the next 2 weeks, drinking coffee, taking 3 hour lunch breaks and watching on-line porn while he "deliberates" this matter. LOL!

Cheers

rotflmao I think that he's already scheduled into other cases and March 24 is when he has an open day. I also think that the reason that he didn't rule today is that he wants to ensure that he's not appealed.

If he had ruled today, the losing side would immediately have appealed because he would have made a judgement before considering all of the evidence and amassing all of the relevant law cites to support his decision. The case is too complicated for a quick decision.

The choking to overcome resistance is much amended law and I doubt that there is a lot of recent case law developed. The other thing is I don't think there is a whole lot of law on BDSM at all. The thing with BDSM is that all of the tying, hitting, gagging, etc is illegal under existing assault law. I don't think there is anything that accepts that a person can consent to any aspect of BDSM.

Overcoming resistance to commission of offence
246. Every one who, with intent to enable or assist himself or another person to commit an indictable offence,

(a) attempts, by any means, to choke, suffocate or strangle another person, or by any means calculated to choke, suffocate or strangle, attempts to render another person insensible, unconscious or incapable of resistance, or
(b) administers or causes to be administered to any person, or attempts to administer to any person, or causes or attempts to cause any person to take a stupefying or overpowering drug, matter or thing,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

What is unsaid and unallowable to be said in this case because of the Rape Shield Law is that there is a history between Jian Ghomeshi and Lucy DeCoutere. I think that Lucy DeCoutere is the relationship that Jian Ghomeshi refers to in his Facebook post. In that case, the relationship was of significant length. If Jian Ghomeshi is as much into BDSM as he's indicated, there was a lot of tying, hitting, gagging, etc going on.

I think that people that are into BDSM should take a long hard look at whether they want to find themselves in the position Jian Ghomeshi has found himself. When the relationship ends, all of that tying, hitting, gagging, etc can be painted as abusive sexual assault.

The reason that the CBC gave when they fired Jian Ghomeshi was that he had shown them a video where the woman had bruises from practicing BDSM with him. He was showing the video because he was trying to convince the CBC that his sexual practices were consensual. He had to do that because of the campaign by "someone" to have him punished. That prompted his initial public statements that BDSM is a private sexual practice.

In a way, Jian Ghomeshi is fortunate that all four women chose to lie, withhold information and "enhance" information. If they hadn't, Marie Henein would have had no defense for him. Everything about BDSM is illegal under our laws and in the case of choking to overcome resistance - the law specifically says life imprisonment is the penalty.

If, as I expect, the Judge finds him not guilty because the Crown failed to prove it's case - Jian Ghomeshi should think hard and long about his sexual practices. The next woman that he dumps is going to be forewarned that Jian Ghomeshi is a "Trophy Keeper" and therefore is going to tell the Police and Crown Prosecutor every little detail. If Lucy DeCoutere had done that, Jian Ghomeshi would be packing his stuff and arranging his life in the sure knowledge that he was going to Jail, probably for a long time.

 

[sdw]

Here's a question. Why didn't the Crown obtain whatever Jian Ghomeshi showed the CBC and the reporter for the Toronto Star? It's not like there were no reports that other evidence was out there. The CBC said they viewed "Graphic Evidence", the Toronto Star interviewed numerous women prior to Jian Ghomeshi being fired. The Crown didn't investigate, didn't ask for the "Graphic Evidence", didn't interview the women that the Toronto Star interviewed. Given that the women the Crown did accept the complaints of wouldn't know the truth if it was camped on their doorstep, surely the Crown would have had a better case with any of the other women.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/cbc-inquiry-concludes-management-mishandled-jian-ghomeshi-1.3035574

Ghomeshi, the former host of CBC Radio's arts and culture show Q, was fired on Oct. 26, 2014, after executives saw what they described as graphic evidence that he had physically injured a woman.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...a_campaign_of_false_allegations_at_fault.html

I have been open with the CBC about this since these categorically untrue allegations ramped up. I have never believed it was anyone’s business what I do in my private affairs but I wanted my bosses to be aware that this attempt to smear me was out there. CBC has been part of the team of friends and lawyers assembled to deal with this for months. On Thursday I voluntarily showed evidence that everything I have done has been consensual. I did this in good faith and because I know, as I have always known, that I have nothing to hide. This when the CBC decided to fire me.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/26/cbc_fires_jian_ghomeshi_over_sex_allegations.html

Over the past few months the Star has approached Ghomeshi with allegations from three young women, all about 20 years his junior, who say he was physically violent to them without their consent during sexual encounters or in the lead-up to sexual encounters. Ghomeshi, through his lawyer, has said he “does not engage in non-consensual role play or sex and any suggestion of the contrary is defamatory.”

Early last summer, the Star began looking into allegations by young women of sexual abuse by Ghomeshi over the past two years. The Star conducted detailed interviews with the women, talking to each woman several times. None of the women filed police complaints and none agreed to go on the record. The reasons given for not coming forward publicly include the fear that they would be sued or would be the object of Internet retaliation.

 

[Tugela]

Judges are lazy. If he would have ruled right then and there, his name would have gone back into the rotation and he's be back hearing another case next Monday. This way he gets to sit on his ass for the next 2 weeks, drinking coffee, taking 3 hour lunch breaks and watching on-line porn while he "deliberates" this matter. LOL!

Cheers

No, the reason is that a judge has to write up a motivation explaining how he/she came to their conclusion. Which is different from a jury, who make a decision without being required to explain their reasoning.

Because of that it takes much longer for a judge. He has already reached a verdict.