Ghomeshi cleared all charges

[76duster]

Now I hope they get prosecuted for perjury and sued for all they're worth, sent to the poorhouse their whole lives paying off the damages.

 

[Lo-ki]

Sounds fair .......

 

[westwoody]

It will be nuts any second....

Can definitely see lawsuits coming.

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

There wont be any perjury charges.

A finding that your evidence is not credible is not a finding that you were lying. Proving perjury beyond a reasonable doubt is virtually impossible without objective evidence of the truth. That's clearly not the case here.

As for civil suits I'd be pretty amazed if anyone has the appetite or resources for those. It's easy to yell out "sue them" when you don't have to write the retainer cheque.

 

[Squishy]

That Marie Henein (Gomeshi's lawyer) has to be the hottest (and smartest ) lawyer in Canada.

Much like a few of the finer SP's on Perb, i have no doubt she could get anyone off.

 

[Feenix]

Now I hope they get prosecuted for perjury and sued for all they're worth, sent to the poorhouse their whole lives paying off the damages.

Being found "not guilty" is not the same as being found "innocent". OJ Simpson is the perfect example.

The judge in this case found that the ladies' after the assault actions and withholding some of that information was not credible. That does not mean nothing happened to them. The judge accepted that possibility in his ruling.

To be found guilty in a trial, the evidence must point to one's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ghomeshi's lawyer did what she was paid to do. She raised the issue of doubt in the judge's mind.

 

[JimDandy]

Ghomeshi could not be forced to testify in the trial. In a civil trial Ghomeshi would almost certainly be forced to testify. He would be required to answer some uncomfortable questions ...

JD

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

Ghomeshi could not be forced to testify in the trial. In a civil trial Ghomeshi would almost certainly be forced to testify. He would be required to answer some uncomfortable questions ...

JD

And in June, when he goes back on trial for sexual harassment of his female producer at CBC, he will be forced to testify. I believe then we will see more complete picture of who he is.

 

[P3t3rp4n]

Women lie
Men lie
That's all there is too it. Let's give it a rest now.

 

[Billiam]

And in June, when he goes back on trial for sexual harassment of his female producer at CBC, he will be forced to testify. I believe then we will see more complete picture of who he is.

Sorry Erica, but you are incorrect.

 

[westwoody]

He may be creepy but that is not a crime.
Making a false complaint to police and lying in court are. Lying by omission is as bad as fabrication.

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

Sorry Erica, but you are incorrect.

*shrug* it happens, I hear! ;D There are always three sides in every trial; the prosecution's version, the defense's version, and the truth, which may resemble neither.

 

[sdw]

And in June, when he goes back on trial for sexual harassment of his female producer at CBC, he will be forced to testify. I believe then we will see more complete picture of who he is.

Nope. He won't have to testify. He only has to answer "how do you plead?" with "not guilty" and then sit back and let Marie Henein work. This is the trial that has some substance to it, not the 4 "chancers" shooting for fame and glory.

The woman involved quit the her CBC job as producer of Ghomeshi's show because of his constant harassment and his statement "I want to hate fuck you" in front of numerous witnesses. The woman was working in California, but the reporter for the Toronto Star brought her back into unwanted contact with Ghomeshi with his article.

The reporter was writing the article because of "heads up" given him by many people at CBC who had had quite enough of Ghomeshi and wanted him gone. The woman, Kathryn Borel did a radio interview which can be found here: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...e-allegations-against-jian-ghomeshi-1.2902636

There is a Macleans article here: http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/busted-the-toxic-cbc-environment-that-abetted-jian-ghomeshi/

My personal opinion is that Jian Ghomeshi will be found guilty at the June 6 trial because there are a lot of witnesses.

As to why these well spoken truthfull witnesses wanted nothing to do with the Lucy DeCoutere show, well - you'd have to ask Lucy about that. Just know that Kathryn Borel refused to sign the charges if she was going to be mixed in with the Lucy DeCoutere show.

 

[resercher]

There wont be any perjury charges.

A finding that your evidence is not credible is not a finding that you were lying. Proving perjury beyond a reasonable doubt is virtually impossible without objective evidence of the truth. That's clearly not the case here.

As for civil suits I'd be pretty amazed if anyone has the appetite or resources for those. It's easy to yell out "sue them" when you don't have to write the retainer cheque.

some
people who hear about those law suites in the united states where someone sues a large company and gets a lot of money out of it . are very quick to as you say rufus yell out sue them That is untill they find out about what is known in the candian legal profeshon as the loser pay law .

What they do not know and this is why there are not many of these types of cival suites in canda." people trying to sue a resteraunt becase its coffie is to hot etc." Is if your side loses the case there is what is called in the legal profeshion" the loser pay law " The way this would work is if one of these women brought a cival suit against Ghomeshi and lost .They would not olny have to pay there lawer( even the least expensive lawer is not going to charge anything less than $100 an hour) But they would also have to pay the fees for Ghomeshi's Lawers.

And since it would be a cival suit the women would be unable to get legal aid to help them pay for it. This is why you dont hear about things like restrants having civial suits being brought against them becase there coffie was to hot etc. in canada .

Even if the women did get money for lawers. from croud funding or whatever. Im no lawer but it is my guess given the verdict from the judge with regards to lack of evedence etc they would lose a civial suite as well. I also think for the same resons if Ghomeshi asked his criminal lawer about a civial suit Against the women Ghomeshi's lawer would give Ghomeshi the same advice dont try to sue the women .

My frend who was a criminal lawer becase of those storys from the united states about people getting millons of dollers paid in law suites . Got asked this can i sue the police or the security gaurd or whatever by first time clients all the time .

 

[sdw]

It's not clear to me what recourse she has against Ghomeshi for her sexual harassment charge?

She admits publicly that he didn't "assault" her (which could also be why she didn't sign on for the DeCoutere show).

Clearly she has a case against her former employer, or at least a human rights violation, but this must be a civil action against Ghomeshi rather than a criminal one (and he has his own defence given the lax application of workplace policies at CBC).

She's also admitted to some bizarre outside behaviour (ie, binge drinking) so, no doubt, she has to prepare herself to testify (even if he doesn't) and withstand a withering cross-examination from Marie Henein.

Given this all points back to the CBC, and given the disaster that the DeCoutere show turned out to be, this thing just screams Settlement to me.

Not saying the scumbag doesn't deserve to be punished, or that Borel doesn't have a very legitimate case to make. Just hard to see why anyone would want to go through with this, given it's in the past, she's moved on to California, and after witnessing the shit show that the actual assault trial turned into?

All sorts of leafs blowing in the wind. Here's a few. Jian Ghomeshi's facebook post. Lucy DeCoutere's 2010 "love email to Ghomehi" (it's referred to in the judgement). The over 5000 emails and texts that Lucy DeCoutere sent to her "posse" to encourage and direct the substance of their "complaints" and her expressed desire to "decimate" him.

When I paste the leafs on the tree, I get:
-Lucy DeCoutere and Jian Ghomeshi were in a long term "open" relationship. When the "Fuck Buddies" were in the same area, they'd meet.
-In 2010 Jian Ghomeshi told Lucy DeCoutere that she bored him and he had found a new partner for fun. (Toronto Star story refers to 2010 start of organized leaks about Ghomeshi)
-6 people that work at CBC try to get their union or CBC to do something about Jian Ghomeshi because he's more "empowered" each time he can get someone to quit their job or have them fired.
-The Toronto Star publishes their article and soon after Maclean's publishes their article
-CBC management finally interviews Jian Ghomeshi and gives him time off to think about behaving
-Jian Ghomeshi doubles down with his Facebook Post because he "doesn't get" that people are tired of his shit
-CBC management terminates Jian Ghomeshi
-The Toronto Star publishes their second article
-The Toronto Star and the Police encourage Lucy DeCoutere and her posse to file their complaints and begin the Lucy DeCoutere show
-CBC does the radio interview with Kathryn Borel and the Police ask her to join the Lucy DeCoutere show
-Kathryn Borel and the 6 CBC employees refuse to have anything to do with the Lucy DeCoutere show because it's an open secret inside the CBC that Lucy DeCoutere and Jian Ghomeshi had had a relationship.
-Kathryn Borel is separated to a June 6 court date

 

[Billiam]

Obviously in the CBC's best interests to show Ghomeshi in as poor a light as possible in order to justify his firing.
One thing going for Kathryn Borel is her (apparent) lack of contact with him after the fact.

 

[sdw]

I don't understand your reasoning as to why this is an advantage for Kathryn Borel's complaint.

The issue in the previous trial was not that there was ongoing contact. The judge conceded that, while unusual, there might be a reasonable explanation. Victims of domestic violence & even those who date people prone to the occasional violent attacks do regularly continue in contact but the assaults are still valid. The major issue is that they failed to disclose the contact and, when confronted with their omission, they provided an unbelievable excuse for their omission. They were unreliable witnesses.

You state that Kathryn Borel apparently had no ongoing contact. If that is true, it won't hurt her credibility. If that is false & she disclosed it to the police (and presumably had a reasonable excuse because charges were still laid) then it likely won't harm her credibility either.

She left Toronto and got a new job in California writing for American Dad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Borel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dad!

She reported her difficulties with Jian Ghomeshi to her union and CBC and was basically told that He's important - you're not. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/02/-sp-jian-ghomeshi-sexual-harassment-cbc-ignored

I used to work as a radio producer for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. A few months into my job in 2007, I let out a big yawn at a staff meeting and my host told me “I want to hate fuck you, to wake you up.” I was 27 years old. I made sure never to yawn in front of him again.

After that, there were the uninvited back massages at my desk to which it was clear I couldn’t say no, during which my host’s hands would slide down just a little too close to the tops of my breasts. A year into my time on the job, he grabbed my rear end and claimed he couldn’t control himself because of my skirt. Occasionally my host would stand in the doorway of his office when no one was around and slowly undo his shirt by two or three buttons while staring at me, grinning. He once grabbed my waist from behind – in front of our fellow colleague, at the office – and proceeded to repeatedly thrust his crotch into my backside. There was emotional abuse, too: gaslighting and psychological games that undermined my intelligence, security and sense of self. Sometimes that hit harder than the physical trespassing.

In 2010, I went to my union to try and find a way to end this pattern of sexual harassment by Jian Ghomeshi. I had no intention to sue, or to get him fired, or even to have him reprimanded. I just needed him to stop. The union representative and my executive producer at Q, the radio show for which we worked, did nothing.

In retrospect, I’m one of the lucky ones. Ghomeshi never tried to sexually assault or beat me in the three years I worked with him on Q. But last week, Toronto police charged him with four counts of sexual assault and one count of choking a woman. So far, anonymously and in the press, 15 women have made allegations against Ghomeshi of violent physical abuse.

A small part of me was shocked: not because I think he is innocent, but because when Ghomeshi was harassing me, it felt like the power dynamics of his fame – and those complicit in maintaining that fame – had inured my host to all consequences of his actions.

I went years without reporting the harassment because I feared for my job and my career: getting asked to be part of the original production team behind Q was the biggest break I’d ever had. It was my first permanent, full-time job. I had stability, many excellent colleagues and a dental plan. The show became a conspicuous success with a known celebrity at its helm. If I quit, where else was there to go?

And, like a lot of women, I worried that I had somehow brought Ghomeshi’s unrelenting advances upon myself. I went over my workdays when I got home: Had I been too fast and loose with jokes in the office? Was I intentionally provoking his come-ons by talking back to him?

By the time a friend convinced me to go to the union in early 2010, I was 25 pounds heavier, I was binge-drinking on the weekends, and I was missing days of work to stay home and lie in bed. Reporting what was going on to someone outside of the chain of command – someone who had perspective outside the hermetic environment of the show’s increasingly twisted culture – felt like my last hope.

My meeting with Timothy Neesam, an elected rep of the Canadian Media Guild, lasted about a 30 minutes. He didn’t take notes while I detailed the extent of Ghomeshi’s sexual comments and inappropriate physical contact. (In October 2014, he emailed me in response to my questions that he remembers us talking “about Jian behaving inappropriately (verbally/in attitude) toward you”. The next day he added, “I have no recollection of you telling me about physical touching” but that my complaint “was passed verbatim to the CBC radio manager, and also verbatim to the Q executive producer.”). After my somewhat frantic monologue, Neesam gave me two options: start a union arbitration, or file a formal grievance. But confronting Ghomeshi directly seemed like a nightmare. His star was rising fast. He was inextricable to the brand of the show. I worked behind the scenes and could be replaced at a moment’s notice. My feeling was that if it came down to firing the “problem employee”, Ghomeshi certainly wasn’t going to be the one whom the radio station let go.

By the time my union rep offered to informally talk to the executive producer of the show, Arif Noorani, I felt like I was trapped in a feedback loop: I had cried in my boss’s office already, on more than one occasion, because of Ghomeshi’s behaviour towards me. A couple of days later, Noorani called me in for a meeting, and told me that Ghomeshi was the way he was, and that I had to figure out how to cope with that.

I took a leave of absence shortly thereafter and went to Los Angeles, where I decided to build a new career. I submitted my letter of resignation to Q, moved south and tried to put Ghomeshi in my rearview.

 

[Billiam]

I believe he was just expanding on my line of what happened in her particular situation after the incidents in question.

 

[sdw]

I would say that sdw's second link provides the answer. Here is a small quote from that article:



She complains of being touched without consent (assaulted) in a sexual way on numerous occasions. Thus the charge of sexual assault.

I quoted your post because it was the next in the conversation. You thought that she may have had later contact, I was pointing out that she moved to the west coast and to another country to get away from his attention.

I think she was being generous when she says he didn't sexually assault her. He doubtless knew, because she had complained to both the union and management, and he is still giving her unwanted back massages. Most will call that sexual assault or sexual harassment. Just about anywhere, these days, that will get you fired.

 

[westwoody]

Lucy DeCoutere Responds

She has an interesting point of view. And very selective bad memory.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/25/jian-ghomeshi-trial-lucy-de-coutere-interview