Ghomeshi will be acquitted

[yazoo]

I only read the letters between Lucy and him, and it sounded like he did beat her up...am I missing something?

Take a listen to Blatch's take on it:

[video]http://cdnbakmi.kaltura.com/p/1698541/sp/169854100/playManifest/entryId/0_bghqaaf9/flavorParamId/487051/format/url/protocol/http/a.mp4[/video]

 

[sdw]

So, on Sunday Marie Henein - Ghomeshi's Lawyer - gets a fresh package from the Crown. A completely revised statement from the third complainant that contradicts her previous statements. Once again, the complainant had maintained a relationship with Ghomeshi until he got bored with her and dumped her.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ghomeshi-trial-1.3438245

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/live-f...-trial-hears-from-third-complainant-1.2768678

The complainant said she met Ghomeshi again for dinner at a later date, saying she second-guessed herself.

"You think, 'He is being really nice, maybe I misread it. Maybe if I give him another chance, maybe it will be different,'" she said.

Ghomeshi went home with her afterwards and they engaged in "romantic activity," a detail she said did not initially mention to the police.

She said she was embarrassed, and didn't think it was relevant to the investigation. She said nothing aggressive happened and she wasn't afraid during the interaction.

Of course, the third complainant now knows that every email, letter or photo that Ghomeshi received from her is in Marie Henein's possession. Marie Henein is pissed off that she didn't get the revised statement from the third complainant until Sunday, but I'm sure that she and her assistant have highlighter on each and every difference between the original statement and the new statement.

The complainant was called shortly before noon, after the judge held a closed-door hearing on the fifth day of the Toronto trial.

The former CBC Radio host's lawyer advised the court this morning about her concerns that the third complainant gave a new statement to police on Friday. The statement was not disclosed to Ghomeshi's lawyer, Marie Henein, until Sunday.

She said there were pages of notes where the complainant "disclosed a myriad of things that she had failed to disclose previously."

Henein said the woman had also indicated that she had been following coverage of the trial, contrary to a court order, and called the new developments "disturbing."

The Crown told Henein that there was no attempt to mislead anyone with the late disclosure.

Details of what was disclosed have not been discussed in open court, but the complainant told the Crown that coverage of the trial so far made her feel that she should disclose the details of her interactions with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault.

 

[bnuts]

I haven't read it everything to do with the case and I'm not a lawyer but on the face of it, I don't see how you can or why you should render a guilty verdict?

Ok so let's say he slapped them or choked them or whatever the exact details were. They clearly liked it judging by what happened after in each case. He dominated them sexually and it turned them on for the same reason 50 shades of grey had every vagina in town wet.

All three of these accusers have zero credibility left. Unless someone else steps forward with some untainted evidence I don't know how you give him any reprimand at all. (At least, based on what I've read, which may not be complete).

I'm not saying it's model first date behaviour but I need to see something more compelling from the accusers before I throw someone in prison.

 

[sdw]

Well, now we know that the jilted ex lover was complainant number 3. She says "we were engaged". Marie Henein is probably going dwell on how a person becomes engaged in a week long relationship.

Since we now know that Ghomeshi is incapable of remaining interested after he's notched his bedpost, it becomes interesting that he keeps everything on each woman he has dumped. Are they Trophies? Or is he clairvoyant and just knew he'd need all of the information at some later date?

Whatever Ghomeshi is paying Marie Henein, she is underpaid. On the other hand, the Crown Prosecutor's resume on Witness Preparation and Case Management is ... underwhelming. I hope the Crown Prosecutor didn't have any fantasies about employment with a top law firm. This is the third unprepared and clueless witness that he has put on the stand as a sacrificial lamb for Marie Henein to devour.

Marie Henein has "something relevant" that the Court has given her permission to ask about complainant three's sexual history. This is a big NO NO usually, so the early conference with the Judge and Crown Prosecutor was probably pivotal in the final resolution of the case.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...i-back-in-court-for-second-week-of-trial.html

She also testified she is good friends with DeCoutere, another of the complainants in the case, but said that they did not discuss the allegations.

Her testimony began after the judge held a closed-door hearing this morning to deal with new evidence that came from the woman's new statement to police on Friday.

The hearing was requested by Ghomeshi's lawyer, who noted that the statement was not fully disclosed to the defence until Sunday.

Crown Michael Callaghan said there was no attempt to mislead the defence, adding that the Crown gave the defence a summary of the new information on Friday and disclosed all of it on Sunday.

Following the hearing, the Crown said they consented to an application by the defence to allow a “relevant” portion of the complainant's sexual history to be testified about during the trial.

Anyone want to bet that there was an email exchange between complainant 2 and complainant 3 discussing the case?

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/02/06/what-accusers-forget-jian-ghomeshi-remembers-menon.html

That evidence — emails the complainants don’t remember sending, photos they don’t remember posing for, letters they don’t remember writing, calls they don’t remember dialing, small and not-so-small details they don’t remember at all — are now flooding out of a hard drive that was clearly designed by CSIS or the late Steve Jobs and features lifetime undelete.

Or the former host of Q has a time machine.

“Do you recall taking some photographs with him when you were at the barbecue?” Henein asked DeCoutere, referring to a social outing after the alleged assault.

“I don’t recall that, no,” DeCoutere replied.

Henein: “And you didn’t just go for a brunch with him. You went for a walk in the park, right?”

DeCoutere: “Maybe, yeah.”

Henein: “Remember posing for some pictures?”

DeCoutere: “In the park?”

Henein: “Yeah.”

DeCoutere: “I don’t remember that. No.”

 

[bnuts]

Your second paragraph.. notching the bedpost... he didn't have actually have sex with complaintant 2, from what I've read. So if he's getting bored of girls it's not necessarily having sex with them that is leading to the boredom

 

[sdw]

I wonder who his lawyers are for his cases against the Toronto Star and CBC. It won't be Marie Henein, it's not what she does.

The complete text of Jian Ghomeshi’s Facebook post from the evening of Oct. 26 regarding his departure from CBC and his program Q:

Dear everyone,

I am writing today because I want you to be the first to know some news.

This has been the hardest time of my life. I am reeling from the loss of my father. I am in deep personal pain and worried about my mom. And now my world has been rocked by so much more.

Today, I was fired from the CBC.

For almost 8 years I have been the host of a show I co-created on CBC called Q. It has been my pride and joy. My fantastic team on Q are super-talented and have helped build something beautiful.

I have always operated on the principle of doing my best to maintain a dignity and a commitment to openness and truth, both on and off the air. I have conducted major interviews, supported Canadian talent, and spoken out loudly in my audio essays about ideas, issues, and my love for this country. All of that is available for anyone to hear or watch. I have known, of course, that not everyone always agrees with my opinions or my style, but I’ve never been anything but honest. I have doggedly defended the CBC and embraced public broadcasting. This is a brand I’ve been honoured to help grow.

All this has now changed.

Today I was fired from the company where I’ve been working for almost 14 years — stripped from my show, barred from the building and separated from my colleagues. I was given the choice to walk away quietly and to publicly suggest that this was my decision. But I am not going to do that. Because that would be untrue. Because I’ve been fired. And because I’ve done nothing wrong.

I’ve been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.

As friends and family of mine, you are owed the truth.

I have commenced legal proceedings against the CBC, what’s important to me is that you know what happened and why.

Forgive me if what follows may be shocking to some.

I have always been interested in a variety of activities in the bedroom but I only participate in sexual practices that are mutually agreed upon, consensual, and exciting for both partners.

About two years ago I started seeing a woman in her late 20s. Our relationship was affectionate, casual and passionate. We saw each other on and off over the period of a year and began engaging in adventurous forms of sex that included role-play, dominance and submission. We discussed our interests at length before engaging in rough sex (forms of BDSM). We talked about using safe words and regularly checked in with each other about our comfort levels. She encouraged our role-play and often was the initiator. We joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey or a story from Lynn Coady’s Giller-Prize winning book last year. I don’t wish to get into any more detail because it is truly not anyone’s business what two consenting adults do. I have never discussed my private life before. Sexual preferences are a human right.

Despite a strong connection between us it became clear to me that our on-and-off dating was unlikely to grow into a larger relationship and I ended things in the beginning of this year. She was upset by this and sent me messages indicating her disappointment that I would not commit to more, and her anger that I was seeing others.

After this, in the early spring there began a campaign of harassment, vengeance and demonization against me that would lead to months of anxiety.

It came to light that a woman had begun anonymously reaching out to people that I had dated (via Facebook) to tell them she had been a victim of abusive relations with me. In other words, someone was reframing what had been an ongoing consensual relationship as something nefarious. I learned — through one of my friends who got in contact with this person — that someone had rifled through my phone on one occasion and taken down the names of any woman I had seemed to have been dating in recent years. This person had begun methodically contacting them to try to build a story against me. Increasingly, female friends and ex-girlfriends of mine told me about these attempts to smear me.

Someone also began colluding with a freelance writer who was known not to be a fan of mine and, together, they set out to try to find corroborators to build a case to defame me. She found some sympathetic ears by painting herself as a victim and turned this into a campaign. The writer boldly started contacting my friends, acquaintances and even work colleagues — all of whom came to me to tell me this was happening and all of whom recognized it as a trumped up way to attack me and undermine my reputation. Everyone contacted would ask the same question, if I had engaged in non-consensual behavior why was the place to address this the media?

The writer tried to peddle the story and, at one point, a major Canadian media publication did due diligence but never printed a story. One assumes they recognized these attempts to recast my sexual behaviour were fabrications. Still, the spectre of mud being flung onto the Internet where online outrage can demonize someone before facts can refute false allegations has been what I’ve had to live with.

And this leads us to today and this moment. I’ve lived with the threat that this stuff would be thrown out there to defame me. And I would sue. But it would do the reputational damage to me it was intended to do (the ex has even tried to contact me to say that she now wishes to refute any of these categorically untrue allegations). But with me bringing it to light, in the coming days you will prospectively hear about how I engage in all kinds of unsavoury aggressive acts in the bedroom. And the implication may be made that this happens non-consensually. And that will be a lie. But it will be salacious gossip in a world driven by a hunger for “scandal”. And there will be those who choose to believe it and to hate me or to laugh at me. And there will be an attempt to pile on. And there will be the claim that there are a few women involved (those who colluded with my ex) in an attempt to show a “pattern of behaviour”. And it will be based in lies but damage will be done. But I am telling you this story in the hopes that the truth will, finally, conquer all.

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.

CBC execs confirmed that the information provided showed that there was consent. In fact, they later said to me and my team that there is no question in their minds that there has always been consent. They said they’re not concerned about the legal side. But then they said that this type of sexual behavior was unbecoming of a prominent host on the CBC. They said that I was being dismissed for “the risk of the perception that may come from a story that could come out.” To recap, I am being fired in my prime from the show I love and built and threw myself into for years because of what I do in my private life.

Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. We all have our secret life. But that is my private life. That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life.

And so, with no formal allegations, no formal complaints, no complaints, not one, to the HR department at the CBC (they told us they’d done a thorough check and were satisfied), and no charges, I have lost my job based on a campaign of vengeance. Two weeks after the death of my beautiful father I have been fired from the CBC because of what I do in my private life.

I have loved the CBC. The Q team are the best group of people in the land. My colleagues and producers and on-air talent at the CBC are unparalleled in being some of the best in the business. I have always tried to be a good soldier and do a good job for my country. I am still in shock. But I am telling this story to you so the truth is heard. And to bring an end to the nightmare.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

IMHO, even if he is found guilty there have already been many things occur that are obvious grounds for appeal.

 

[sdw]

Anyone taking that bet, (in post 47) would have lost. Over 5,000 texts and emails since Oct 29, 2014. Whats that 10 or more a day? And complainant 3 couldn't remember discussing the case with complainant 2. Marie Henein read the various explicit instructions on what to say to the police, what to say to the press, what to say to the lawyer - both Crown and Personal.

Now, the release of the facebook post becomes clear. Marie Henein is making the case that exactly the conspiracy that Ghomeshi predicted in the facebook post, took place between the three complainants.

http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-trial-day-5

The third woman to testify against Ghomeshi said earlier on Monday that while she and Trailer Park Boys actress Lucy DeCoutere — who testified last week — were friends, they did not discuss the sexual assault allegations involving the former CBC Radio host.

But during an intense cross-examination, the woman, who can not be identified, said that she did in fact discuss the allegations with DeCoutere.

Ghomeshi’s lawyer Marie Heinen noted that the two women had exchanged 5,000 messages, beginning on Oct. 29, 2014 _ the same day DeCoutere went public with her allegations.

Heinen said the woman reported the alleged assault to police in December 2014, and the correspondence with DeCoutere continued until September 2015.

In some of the messages, DeCoutere instructs the woman to contact the actress’s lawyer and her publisher. In others, she gives the woman a “detailed and lengthy breakdown” of her own meetings with the Crown.

She was with other people at the community event when Ghomeshi approached her from behind and rested his arms on her shoulders. When asked by someone how they knew each other, she said Ghomeshi replied “We’re engaged.”

“We weren’t,” the woman told court on Monday “It was taking ownership of me in some way that was just surprising. It was a familiarity that was surprising to me.”

Ghomeshi and the woman went out for dinner after that interaction, and on another night, met in an isolated part of a city park where they began kissing on a bench.

It was while they were kissing that the alleged assault took place, court heard.

She said as soon as she freed herself from his hold, she left the park without saying a word, got into a cab and went home.

“My instinct was to just sort of get out of it physically,” she said. “There was nothing about this that I wanted to be a part of. It didn’t feel safe or sexy.”

She met again with Ghomeshi for dinner and drinks and then they went back to her place for “romantic” interactions.

The woman said she did not tell police about that night when she initially came forward because she had been embarrassed and didn’t think the encounter was relevant.

When pressed further on why she would have Ghomeshi come back to her place after he had allegedly assaulted her, the woman said the former CBC host was a charmer.

Sometime today, if the world according to Lucy DeCoutere unfolds as it should, Marie Henein will get some flowers.

They’ll be from DeCoutere, of course, with a note maybe saying, “You kicked my butt yesterday; can we hang soon?”

This — sending flowers to and love-bombing those who have hurt you, not to mention handed your ass to you on a platter — is what DeCoutere would have Ontario Court Judge William Horkins believe she does, that it’s her thing to be particularly nice to people who are mean to her.

She calls this “flattening out my negative.”

It was, as it turns out, just this Thursday, shortly before she stepped into the witness box, that DeCoutere for the very first time told Toronto Police and Crown prosecutors Mike Callaghan and Corie Langdon that after Ghomeshi allegedly choked her and slapped her hard in the summer of 2003, she sent him flowers when she got back home to Halifax.

Anyone think that Marie Henein is going to get flowers from Lucy DeCoutere? Not unless that florist that sends the dead plants is still in business.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...i-back-in-court-for-second-week-of-trial.html

Cross-examination of the third witness in the sexual assault trial of Jian Ghomeshi began on Monday afternoon. She detailed how the former CBC radio host allegedly attacked her in the summer of 2003.

The complainant, a dancer and artist whose name is subject to a publication ban, was questioned by defence lawyer Marie Henein about what she disclosed to police in an interview on Friday.

Do you agree you were being deliberately misleading to police, Henein asked.

“Yes,” the witness responded.

Henein said in an interview with the police on Friday, the complainant disclosed that she had “messed around and gave him [Ghomeshi] a handjob” after the alleged assault took place.

The complainant said she never had intercourse with Ghomeshi, and that was why she told police she “never had sex” with Ghomeshi.

 

[thodisipagal]

IMHO, even if he is found guilty there have already been many things occur that are obvious grounds for appeal.

Such as? What has happened?

 

[thodisipagal]

Anyone taking that bet, (in post 47) would have lost. Over 5,000 texts and emails since Oct 29, 2014. Whats that 10 or more a day? And complainant 3 couldn't remember discussing the case with complainant 2. Marie Henein read the various explicit instructions on what to say to the police, what to say to the press, what to say to the lawyer - both Crown and Personal.

Now, the release of the facebook post becomes clear. Marie Henein is making the case that exactly the conspiracy that Ghomeshi predicted in the facebook post, took place between the three complainants.

http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-trial-day-5






Anyone think that Marie Henein is going to get flowers from Lucy DeCoutere? Not unless that florist that sends the dead plants is still in business.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...i-back-in-court-for-second-week-of-trial.html

Crown's case is doomed. I'm sure Callahan, the prosecutor, is a smart guy. But each of his three key (and I think only) Crown witnesses have turned out to be completely unreliable.

What was the basis of the charge? Misogyny? Activism?

If the email between two witnesses about contacting publisher is true, that is a strong indication of their motives to get publicity and make money by publishing Trailer Trash Book of Sleaze.

 

[papillion]

Should Ghomeshi's allegations about a campaign of vengeance be borne out, there will be three tragedies:

1: that a man was made to endure public humiliation over his personal and private sexual preferences
2: that a man was fired from his career over his personal and private sexual preferences
3 (and possibly most heinous of all): the blow to all woman who are legitimately victims of sexual assault. These accusing women will have given credence and huge publicity to a theme of jilted lovers claiming sexual assault to punish ex lovers. This is a huge deterence for women who already historically under report sexual crimes to them; who wants to come forward if they're pre-judged by the public as frauds based on this case? All of the above points upset me.

I'm not ruling out that the conclusion of the case may be in favour of the women, if so I categorically rescind all of the above statements. The prospect of it being true however is unsettling. I hope a result of this trial is some reform to better protect victims of sexual assault (to help them through the trial process in a sensitive and supportive manner) and to better protect victims of false accusations of sexual assault. It seems that even if the accusations are dismissed the damage to the accused is already done simply through the act of accusing.

This trial has degenerated onto fiasco, and the Crown lawyers, plus the police, and the 3 complainants made it happen.

 

[76duster]

"Never Underestimate the Wrath of a Woman Scorned".

Gomeshi is slimy asshole prick, a guy I personally would love to see punished - but not for this crime, because he's innocent!

Each one of these women had very obvious motives in wanting to get with him, and would put up with his creepy/horrible behaviour because they are clearly fame whores. It's come to pass that 2 of the 3 women went back for more after the "assault". We've not heard from the 3rd accuser yet but I'm willing to bet it was much the same.

We've also heard that the first 2 women exchanged a few thousand messages after they were both "assaulted" that they wanted to do him in, this of course after they were unsuccessful in getting more involved with him. Sounds like revenge to me.

The fact of the matter is, is that he had something they wanted and they'd do anything to get it. When it was apparent they weren't going to achieve their goals, well they were snubbed and that's just too much shit to eat, and apparently not the assault.

It just goes to show what a stupid gong show it is when the criminal justice system solicits women to come out of the woodwork to press charges. It encourages the wrong motive, not the one they think they are helping - these "poor, hapless women". In fact, they were always clear-eyed harpies. Stop treating women like children that need to be made comfortable and coaxed into standing up for themselves. Adults must know that if you are going to have sex with someone you barely know, you're taking your life into your own hands - gay men know this very well. Adults also know that if you accuse someone legally in court, your own testimony and even character is up for examination, and adults know that lying to criminalize an innocent person is wrong and the courts must employ due process. No, instead women are treated as a special case - like children. The justice system is effectively making regret, rape.

 

[sdw]

sdw,

In reference to the final sentence in the last quote in post #51, are we sure that the quote is accurate and that she didn't use the full "Slick Willie" Clinton line that she "did not have sexual relations" with that man?

Here's what Christie Blatchford reports

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...homeshi-trial-enters-unsettling-new-territory

February 8, 2016
With third accuser on stand, Ghomeshi trial enters unsettling new territory
By Christie Blatchford

Where once the sexual assault trial of Jian Ghomeshi was a mere meshugaas (a wonderful Yiddish word for craziness), it has now entered unsettling new territory.

With the collapse Monday of the third accuser's credibility - she might just as well have been wearing a suicide vest, so thoroughly did she blow up - it's now apparent the case was built upon the self-serving and carefully edited allegations of dishonest complainants, two of whom appear to have been colluding and gleefully anticipating Ghomeshi's ruination, and raised up on the gossamer wings of unproven allegations in the press and on social media.

Now the trial, merely by continuing to proceed, actually threatens to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The magic moment came Monday, when Ghomeshi's third accuser was being grilled about some of the 5,000 messages she exchanged in the relevant period from the fall of 2014 to the fall of 2015 with fellow Ghomeshi complainant Lucy DeCoutere.

As became clear only in the cross-examination by Marie Henein, Ghomeshi's lead lawyer, the woman was regularly reporting in to DeCoutere whenever she met with Toronto Police or prosecutors Mike Callaghan and Corie Langdon.

In this particular message, the woman had texted DeCoutere to tell her she'd just met Callaghan and Langdon.

"Did they talk about him (Ghomeshi)?" DeCoutere asked. "Like, does he miss me?"

Even now, the woman in the witness box found this to be terribly witty, and laughed.

Already, Henein had caught her red-handed in what sure looks like collusion with DeCoutere - their messages are filled with talk of "our team," and they shared a publicist and at least for a time the same civil litigator lawyer - and a growing list of lies or omissions.

The woman, whose identity is protected by a publication ban, had just been forced to admit that before she went to police on Dec. 3, 2014, she told DeCoutere in a message a month earlier that "he choked me, smothered me, but never hit" - this despite saying, just two hours earlier, that she and DeCoutere had never discussed the specifics of their allegations.

"I guess I did," the woman said. "Yep."

In fact, the very day before the woman gave her police statement she asked DeCoutere, "Did you read about the latest allegations about him (Ghomeshi)?"

The two kept close tabs on the case.

The day of Ghomeshi's bail hearing, for instance, the woman wrote to DeCoutere to say she was tempted to show up at the hearing, carrying a bowl of popcorn and wearing "a s–t-eating grin."

"I think people know his goose is cooked," DeCoutere replied.

"He's cooked, all right," the woman said.

And that was the least of their vicious, occasionally racist, discussion of the fallen CBC star, whom they sometimes called "the Arabian princess."

In two messages to DeCoutere in November of 2014, the woman wrote, "It's time to sink the pr–k. I'll do whatever I can to put this predator where he belongs," and said she wanted this "piece of s–t to pay for all he's done."

Yet still, even now, the woman still found DeCoutere's little joke funny, and laughed - as though the 48-year-old Ghomeshi isn't on trial, as Mike Duffy's lawyer used to say like a mantra, "for his liberty," as though there is something amusing about fully grown women sandbagging police and prosecutors, making 11th-hour revelations and leading the criminal justice system about by the nose.

DeCoutere was discredited last week, caught in a web of her own making by what turned out to be her assiduous courting of the very man she claimed had choked her and cut off her air.

This woman imploded in even more dramatic fashion.

Thirty-two years old when she first met Ghomeshi in July of 2003, she was involved in the arts community. After an event in a Toronto park where she was performing, he came up behind her and they talked. Then they met another time for dinner, then on another occasion ended up in a secluded part of the same park after another performance, and sat on a bench and made out.

They kissed a while, the woman said, and then at some point she felt "his hands were around my neck and he was squeezing.

"I realized something's not right," she told Ontario Court Judge William Horkins. "I felt like some kind of switch (had been thrown in him), I tried to get out of it, and then his hand was on my mouth, smothering me."

She wiggled out of it, she said, adding, "There was nothing about this I wanted to be a part of. It didn't feel safe or sexy."

But she went out with him again, for dinner and drinks on King Street (asked why, she told Callaghan "...he's very charming and you sort of second-guess yourself"), but there was nothing remarkable about the evening, she said.

Up until last Friday, this was all she ever said about that night - and that since the alleged choking, she had always kept her distance from Ghomeshi.

Friday, however, she had a revelation that perhaps there was "the little thing I didn't say and you didn't ask" as she told the detectives.

The detail was that she'd taken Ghomeshi home after the King Street dinner, and there, in the safety of her house, they'd messed around and she'd masturbated him, and then he'd fallen asleep for a while, and then he went home.

Now what she'd originally told the police, quite specifically, was that that night, "I took a cab. I went home."

"That's a lie, under oath?" Henein asked.

"It's an omission," the woman replied.

"Well, it wasn't accidental," Henein said.

"It was an absolute misjudgment and one that a lot of women make," the woman began to say, but Henein stopped her. "That is a lie?"

"Sure," the woman said.

"Deliberately misleading?"

"Yes," the woman said.

The police had asked, of course, if she and Ghomeshi had ever had sexual discussions, and she said no.

"You tell the police 'I never had sex" (with Ghomeshi). Did you think masturbating him would fall within that category?" Henein asked.

And the woman, invoking the great Bill Clinton, who famously did not have "Intercourse with that woman," replied, "It wasn't sex. Intercourse is sex."

National Post

• Email: cblatchford@postmedia.com1 | Twitter: blatchkiki 2

 

[windowshopr]

I remember reading Ghomeshi's FB post back when this all started, and the allegations that started flooding in. I've also read most of the transcripts of the cross-examination of Lucy, and the summed up versions of the other two complainants.

When this thread first started, there were quite a few people stating that it's so unfortunate he's potentially going to be 'let go' in the case because he's guilty. Can anyone fill me in on why this thought occurred? Am I missing submitted evidence?

I actually don't know much about him at all. I really only found out about him because of this case - so, I'm just curious why people are 99% sure he's guilty. I've only seen the info that seems to paint the complainants as unreliable and inconsistent. I don't buy the argument about abused and battered persons staying in abusive relationships (I mean, I believe they exist, just not here). Especially Lucy's testimony. Literally HOURS after a traumatic attack, and she couldn't look more in love with someone.

 

[sdw]

I remember reading Ghomeshi's FB post back when this all started, and the allegations that started flooding in. I've also read most of the transcripts of the cross-examination of Lucy, and the summed up versions of the other two complainants.

When this thread first started, there were quite a few people stating that it's so unfortunate he's potentially going to be 'let go' in the case because he's guilty. Can anyone fill me in on why this thought occurred? Am I missing submitted evidence?

I actually don't know much about him at all. I really only found out about him because of this case - so, I'm just curious why people are 99% sure he's guilty. I've only seen the info that seems to paint the complainants as unreliable and inconsistent. I don't buy the argument about abused and battered persons staying in abusive relationships (I mean, I believe they exist, just not here). Especially Lucy's testimony. Literally HOURS after a traumatic attack, and she couldn't look more in love with someone.

Ghomeshi is one of those guys who is charming and constantly on the chase. It's the chase that is exciting, once he's caught a woman he gets bored quickly and discards them.

That's the reason that these three former girlfriends entered on a conspiracy to bring him down. And it is a conspiracy, the over 5,000 messages exchanged among the three of them leave no doubt of that.

Marie Henein is a genius, she knows that simply proving that Ghomeshi innocent is not enough. He wouldn't be able to rebuild his life just because he was found innocent. Marie Henein had to and has proved that there was a conspiracy to bring him down, to destroy him.

It's going to be fascinating to watch the aftermath. False report to the police, check times 3 (now 4). Perjury under oath, check times 3 (now 4). Criminal Conspiracy, check times 3 (now 4).

There will be people that say that these women won't be charged, won't be brought to account. No, the criminal justice system can't afford to let them walk away from this.

And then there is the Toronto Star and the CBC. Both who had most of the information (where do you think Marie Henein got it?), both of whom chose the course of action that they took. Their decision is going to cost them a lot of money.

When this first started in Oct 2014, there were many women that were being actively courted to join in. Most or all of these women had been pursued, caught and then thrown away just as these three women were. The difference is that they had sane legal advice who advised them not to involve themselves in a conspiracy. Unlike these three women who had the advice of a soon to be disbarred Lawyer. And yes, suborning perjury gets you disbarred.

The fourth witness submitted an affidavit alleging the Lucy DeCoutere emailed her in 2004 immediately after the attack. (Lucy DeCoutere testified that she was attacked in 2003) I don't know how Marie Henein gets a hold of email so quickly, but she rebutted with an email between Lucy and witness 4 that was exchanged on Thursday. The email discusses what Lucy needs her friend to attest to.

 

[thodisipagal]

Ghomeshi is one of those guys who is charming and constantly on the chase. It's the chase that is exciting, once he's caught a woman he gets bored quickly and discards them.

That's the reason that these three former girlfriends entered on a conspiracy to bring him down. And it is a conspiracy, the over 5,000 messages exchanged among the three of them leave no doubt of that.

Marie Henein is a genius, she knows that simply proving that Ghomeshi innocent is not enough. He wouldn't be able to rebuild his life just because he was found innocent. Marie Henein had to and has proved that there was a conspiracy to bring him down, to destroy him.

It's going to be fascinating to watch the aftermath. False report to the police, check times 3 (now 4). Perjury under oath, check times 3 (now 4). Criminal Conspiracy, check times 3 (now 4).

There will be people that say that these women won't be charged, won't be brought to account. No, the criminal justice system can't afford to let them walk away from this.

And then there is the Toronto Star and the CBC. Both who had most of the information (where do you think Marie Henein got it?), both of whom chose the course of action that they took. Their decision is going to cost them a lot of money.

When this first started in Oct 2014, there were many women that were being actively courted to join in. Most or all of these women had been pursued, caught and then thrown away just as these three women were. The difference is that they had sane legal advice who advised them not to involve themselves in a conspiracy. Unlike these three women who had the advice of a soon to be disbarred Lawyer. And yes, suborning perjury gets you disbarred.

The fourth witness submitted an affidavit alleging the Lucy DeCoutere emailed her in 2004 immediately after the attack. (Lucy DeCoutere testified that she was attacked in 2003) I don't know how Marie Henein gets a hold of email so quickly, but she rebutted with an email between Lucy and witness 4 that was exchanged on Thursday. The email discusses what Lucy needs her friend to attest to.

It is yet to be seen if any lawyer has actually suborned perjury. The witnesses may have. I noticed that Gillian Hnatiw, the lawyer for Lucy DeCoutere, identifies herself as "faminist" in her twitter bio. Nothing wrong with anybody being feminist (I actually consider myself one) and I actually admire them. But this lawyer (whom I find cute as a button) read the statement outside the court last week, painting her client's case as being part of a feminist movement. You don't do that in a trial. Trials move with evidence and testimony, nothing else. To convict Ghomeshi, she could have aided her client to be forthright with the Crown. It doesn't look like she was able to. So, now Crown ends up looking bad, Hnatiw ends up looking bad. DeCoutere and Jane Doe #2 apparently exchanged thousands of email and one or both of them may have committed and/or suborned perjury. But the lawyers themselves may not have suborned perjury. Anything less than that is incompetence, not criminal.

 

[sdw]

It is yet to be seen if any lawyer has actually sunburned perjury. The witnesses may have. I noticed that Gillian Hnatiw, the lawyer for Lucy DeCoutere, identifies herself as "faminist" in her twitter bio. Nothing wrong with anybody being feminist (I actually consider myself one) and I actually admire then. But this lawyer (who I find cute as a button) read the statement outside the court last week, painting her client's case as being part of a feminist movement. You don't do that in a trial. Trial move with evidence and testimony, nothing else. To convict Ghomeshi, she could have aided her client to be forthright with the Crown. It doesn't look like she was able to. So, now Crown ends up looking bad, Hnatiw ends up looking bad. DeCoutere and Jane Doe #2 apparently exchanged thousands of email and over or both of them may have permitted and suborned perjury. But the lawyers themselves may not have suborned perjury. Anything less than that is incompetence, not criminal.

I was referring to Gillian Hnatiw who advised all 4 of the women.

I was in error earlier when I stated that Marie Henein used email in the presentation on the admissibility of the fourth witnesses affidavit. She used the conversation between Lucy DeCoutere and the fourth witness on Facebook. What kind of idiot discusses a criminal act on Facebook? Of Course Marie Henein has someone monitoring the women's Facebook/Twitter and other social media.

 

[Feenix]

Marie Henein is a genius, she knows that simply proving that Ghomeshi innocent is not enough. He wouldn't be able to rebuild his life just because he was found innocent. [/lQUOTE]


Ghomeshi will not be found innocent. He will be found "not guilty", if not found guilty. Being found "not guilty" simply means that there was not sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.

OJ Simpson was found "not guilty". He was not declared innocent.

I am not a lawyer, but the crown would have to prove that a witness intentionally lied to make a perjury case against the witness. Simply because Henein succeeded in discrediting these witnesses does not mean they perjured themselves.

 

[sdw]

Wow, SDW, you are a godsend to this board. So informative to read.

Who needs Christie Blatchford ?

lol, I'm quoting Christie Blatchford a lot. I admit I've gotten a little exercised on this case. I suffered a similar thing when divorcing my third wife. She and her friends painted me as a monster, but couldn't get dates right.

 

[sdw]

Marie Henein is a genius, she knows that simply proving that Ghomeshi innocent is not enough. He wouldn't be able to rebuild his life just because he was found innocent. [/lQUOTE]


Ghomeshi will not be found innocent. He will be found "not guilty", if not found guilty. Being found "not guilty" simply means that there was not sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.

OJ Simpson was found "not guilty". He was not declared innocent.

I am not a lawyer, but the crown would have to prove that a witness intentionally lied to make a perjury case against the witness. Simply because Henein succeeded in discrediting these witnesses does not mean they perjured themselves.

5,000 email and other messages discussing who should say what is a conspiracy to commit perjury.

If Jian Ghomeshi was simply found not guilty, he would have this hanging over him and be unable to return to his life. That's why I said Marie Henein is a genius. She is demonstrating that there was a conspiracy and that there was never any substance to the alleged acts.