Ghomeshi will be acquitted

[sdw]

So far in the Ghomeshi trial, both of the complainants had continuing contact with Ghomeshi after the alleged attack. Emails of the first complainant in a bikini, photos of the second complainant cuddling in a park days after the alleged attack.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...th-ghomeshi-taken-hours-after-alleged-assault

And DeCoutere never told anyone that, as Henein put it, “You were cuddling Mr. Ghomeshi, the man who just hours ago, choked you and slapped you?”

“That’s correct,” DeCoutere said. “I didn’t know these photos existed.”

“You do now,” Henein replied with trademark ferocious coolness.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I agree. So far the credibility of these complainants has been destroyed.
I know there are lots of people out there with poor self esteem or feel trapped, who stay in abusive relationships and that must be terrible.
But why would any woman with even a scintilla of common sense continue to associate with a guy who minutes or days earlier, had apparently viciously assaulted them? It makes no sense to me.
Maybe some of the ladies on here can chime in and shed some light on this from a woman's perspective.

 

[Feenix]

Don't be too sure to declare the case lost. This is a trial by judge only. It depends on how much weight he puts on these inconsistencies.

From what I have heard and read, I put little weight on them. Eg: the make of car. Unless one is a car nut, it may be easy to forget what kind of car one was in. And, even if that fact is wrong , does it impact on the testimony of being treated roughly?

I am one who believes something untoward happened. Not hearing evidence directly, and seeing body language, I think there is a chance he will be found guilty, especially if all three stories are similar in nature.

I would never want to be a judge, having had my own negative experience with the law, and being misjudged by one. There are so many factors that they use to come to their decisions, including the appearance of the parties. In my case, my opponent was a very attractive former Miss Holland. Her looks prevented others from seeing her as I described her, leaving me with the short end of the stick. She is also a pathological liar.

 

[badbadboy]

The issue of "beyond a shadow of doubt" will rule the day in this case.

You can not cherry pick the testimony that will convict him. The prosecution should have known that there were email trails weeks/months after the alleged assault indicating she wanted to be with him in Banff etc.

I think she has tainted the case and the judge will have a difficult time rendering a decision on this one IMHO.

 

[westwoody]

He was known for getting interviews with subjects nobody else could get an interview with.
He is/was very good at manipulating people, even celebrities who were leery of being interviewed.
So it follows that he would be good at manipulating women he chose to prey on. Predators know who to pick on. Lions don't go after the strongest in a herd, they go after ones they can kill easily.

I have had at least three coworkers that were in terribly abusive relationships for years. Totally inexplicable but it happens. A judge has seen all this before, many times.

Let's not start blaming the victims just yet.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

While I agree the trial is far from over this case depends so much on "he said/she said evidence."
You are correct that "eye witness" testimony is not given as much weight as we may like to think (it has actually been proven to be one of the least reliable forms of testimony) but in this case there were no witnesses to the alleged assaults nor are there any police or hospital reports at the time.
All we have is the victims' testimony. So it all comes down to credibility. And by leaving out important facts such as sending your alleged assailant pictures of you in a bikini or having brunch and cuddling the next day you are not doing your credibility any favours.

Don't get me wrong. I think he's a sick bastard who did this and relied on his power and position the keep his victims silent. Just like Bill Cosby. Unfortunately, when the complaints come up years after the alleged incident(s), it makes them exponentially harder to prosecute.

Cheers

 

[sdw]

He was known for getting interviews with subjects nobody else could get an interview with.
He is/was very good at manipulating people, even celebrities who were leery of being interviewed.
So it follows that he would be good at manipulating women he chose to prey on. Predators know who to pick on. Lions don't go after the strongest in a herd, they go after ones they can kill easily.

I have had at least three coworkers that were in terribly abusive relationships for years. Totally inexplicable but it happens. A judge has seen all this before, many times.

Let's not start blaming the victims just yet.

Not blaming the victim. Just saying that acquittal (or finding that there isn't enough evidence to convict) is based on what evidence the Crown is able to present and how well the Defense is able to rebut the Crown's evidence.

So far, the Defense has shown that the first two complainants continued to have a relationship with him after the alleged attack. One with sending him bikini pictures and one in pictures cuddling with him.

With the first complainant, it was clear that the Crown had failed to prepare the witness, had failed to ask if there was anything that the defense may bring up. So, little things like bikini pictures and invitations to spend time together in Banff came as a complete surprise to the Crown, which had no answer.

With the second complainant, again - it was clear that the Crown had failed to prepare the witness. The Crown didn't know little things like the complainant spent the next day with him, cuddling and having pictures taken of the "happy couple" by his friends. Again, the defense completely surprised the Crown which has no answer.

 

[JimDandy]

Not blaming the victim. Just saying that acquittal (or finding that there isn't enough evidence to convict) is based on what evidence the Crown is able to present and how well the Defense is able to rebut the Crown's evidence.

So far, the Defense has shown that the first two complainants continued to have a relationship with him after the alleged attack. One with sending him bikini pictures and one in pictures cuddling with him.

With the first complainant, it was clear that the Crown had failed to prepare the witness, had failed to ask if there was anything that the defense may bring up. So, little things like bikini pictures and invitations to spend time together in Banff came as a complete surprise to the Crown, which had no answer.

With the second complainant, again - it was clear that the Crown had failed to prepare the witness. The Crown didn't know little things like the complainant spent the next day with him, cuddling and having pictures taken of the "happy couple" by his friends. Again, the defense completely surprised the Crown which has no answer.

I agree. The above plus the fact that all this took place over 10 years ago makes me think he will be acquitted or he will receive a very light sentence that will involve no jail time. The judge may decide that what has happened to Ghomeshi's career is punishment enough. I certainly believe that regardless of the result, Ghomeshi will never attain the heights of success he achieved previously in any type of future broadcasting career.

JD

 

[Feenix]

At the very least, it is unlikely Ghomeshi will ever choke another woman again without her permission. This has been traumatic for him in a way that he did not foresee.

 

[marsvolta]

he's fucked. its not just "he said/she said" but "he said/they said". a pattern is emerging. the defense know they are fucked and thats why they've picked a judge over a jury hoping for a measured response instead of something that could be much more visceral. the judge will mostly ignore continued contact between the participants. many abused people continue to contact/live with/stay married to their abusers!

the defense is doing the only thing that they can do... attempt to minimize long term effects on their client by winning a public battle. making the women look like sluts. hoping that their client can get another job in the future.

 

[dchoye]

So far I have to judge with the defence.
If the complaints were victimized why did they continue a close relationship with Ghomeshi?
Leaves more questions than answers.
Ghomeshi isn't out of the woods yet, there are still complaints to be heard.
Maybe one of them might sound more credible.

 

[sdw]

I think that after he's acquitted at this trial, Ghomeshi will double down and re-start his lawsuit against the CBC. The third complainant may not even appear in court, she and the Crown are "reviewing" her case.

 

[overdone]

I am unaware of there being any identified victims as yet.

you need to turn on a tv or crack a newspaper or maybe get the internet, lol

Mr Lahey's daughter, came forward a long time ago, the one from the show

 

[Feenix]

I think that after he's acquitted at this trial, Ghomeshi will double down and re-start his lawsuit against the CBC. The third complainant may not even appear in court, she and the Crown are "reviewing" her case.

This is not likely. Not guilty does not mean innocent. I can't see Ghomeshi giving anyone an opportunity to bring up anything new, that would be an even bigger bombshell.

 

[CJ Tylers]

Too bad Ghomeshi didn't have his lawyer back when he first opened his mouth. The guy is a guilty creep. It's just sad that he will likely get off due to lack of evidence.

His lawyer should write a book called "The Ghomeshi Experience: How No means Yes, aka, How to Get Away with Rape & Assault"

 

[PierreCoeur]

I totally believe he is a slime ball, but if you are following the trial, his lawyer is tearing the accusers apart in court, and laying a solid case of doubt. If I was the judge at this point I would be letting Ghomeshi free. As far as the prosecuting lawyers go they are probably dumbfounded at this point.

 

[overdone]

You have listed a complainant. As to whether she is a victim or one who has victimized another will be a part of the decision rendered by the court.

This is not a murder of other type of criminal case that has actual evidence, the corpus delicti, that a crime has occurred for which there is an identifiable victim and only the identity of the perpetrator is in question. Thus in cases like this, the common law norm of the presumption of innocence of the accused requires that there be no presumption of the victimhood of the plaintiff.

And you wonder why the majority don't ever file a complaint

Cosby supporter too?

 

[bcneil]

I personally believe he is probably a creep and guilty. Lucy's testimony has been a huge trainwreck.
It will make a good movie one day. Hopefully not done by CBC

 

[sdw]

I totally believe he is a slime ball, but if you are following the trial, his lawyer is tearing the accusers apart in court, and laying a solid case of doubt. If I was the judge at this point I would be letting Ghomeshi free. As far as the prosecuting lawyers go they are probably dumbfounded at this point.

I thought, still do, that O.J. Simpson was guilty. The Prosecutor didn't have an answer when it became clear that Mark Fuhrman had tampered with the evidence. Since the glove and socks had both been tampered with, Simpson was acquitted.

Same goes for the Jian Ghomeshi case, I think that he's quilty. The Prosecutor thought the case was a "Slam Dunk" and didn't ask/didn't know about the complainant's continued contact with Ghomeshi. Ghomeshi's Lawyer, on the other hand, explained the facts of life to him. She probably required him to document every breath he took. So, the emails were in her possession. The pictures were in her possession. Every action between the complainants and Ghomeshi is documented in her files.

The first complainant didn't mention that she was emailing him in an effort to entrap him to the Prosecutor - because the prosecutor was in the dark, there was no answer when Ghomeshi's lawyer brought up their existence. She has painted the emails the color that best suits her client.

The second complainant didn't mention that she saw him and his friends after the alleged attack, didn't mention that someone there was taking pictures of the "Happy Couple", didn't mention that she emailed him often after the alleged attack. Again, Ghomeshi's lawyer is able to paint the unanswered evidence in the colors that suit her client. The second complainant admitted that she had knowingly withheld some evidence from the prosecutor because she wanted to keep the case simple. Clearly, Ghomeshi didn't withhold evidence from his lawyer. Which is why she is prepared and the Prosecutor isn't prepared.

The Prosecutor is required to prove guilt, Ghomeshi's lawyer is only required to raise doubt that the alleged attacks happened as described in the charges.

 

[thodisipagal]

The National Post has today powerfully summarized the trial this week with the cropped picture of the letter Lucy DeCoutere wrote to Ghomeshi just a few days after he, as she alleges, used his hands to slap her and choke her.

http://news.nationalpost.com/toront...tere-sent-jian-ghomeshi-after-alleged-assault

How can someone accuse a person of sexually assaulting her and then hope to have any credibility with that "I love your hand, Lucy".

This case is fit for another episode of Trailer Park Boys.