Ghomeshi will be acquitted
- Thread starter sdw
- Start date
Maybe we should re-examine this so-called history of under-reporting by women of sexual crimes. This trial showcases 3 women who account for over-reporting. I would think there's been many, many more like this.
It's such a high profile case the judge will want to steer the middle ground to give neither side an unambiguous win. Much like the verdict for Toronto police officer James Forcilo who was convicted of a smaller charge and aquitted on the more serious charges.
My prediction for Ghomeshi: guilty on the choking charge and not guilty on the others, with a nominal sentence.
My prediction for Ghomeshi: guilty on the choking charge and not guilty on the others, with a nominal sentence.
The trial of the police officer was a jury trial and the jury determined what he was guilty of. The logic of their decision is pretty good.
Jian Ghomeshi is being tried by Judge alone and it hinges on consent and any doubt whether the allegations are completely truthful. So far, it would appear that the three women wouldn't know truth if it was camped on their doorstep.
Why would the judge steer the middle ground?
This isn't a popularity contest, it's a criminal court case. The bar is set pretty high. I could see the point if the 3 witnesses were less than convincing or inconsistent. Any fair minded judge would grant people who've been through some form of abuse with some leniency in testimony.
But these 3? They got blown up ! They're lying, withholding information and at least 2 of them were clearly plotting a conspiracy - complete with magazine cover shoots.
I'm not justifying what Ghomeshi did. Can't stand the prick. But it's hard to see a middle ground here that doesn't end up with a sole judge saying the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
If he offers any consolation price, or moral victory, he'll be rewarding the sham these ladies have made of your criminal justice system (and I'd be the first to say that anyone who abuses women - without their consent - should be hanged from the nearest overpass).
This isn't a popularity contest, it's a criminal court case. The bar is set pretty high. I could see the point if the 3 witnesses were less than convincing or inconsistent. Any fair minded judge would grant people who've been through some form of abuse with some leniency in testimony.
But these 3? They got blown up ! They're lying, withholding information and at least 2 of them were clearly plotting a conspiracy - complete with magazine cover shoots.
I'm not justifying what Ghomeshi did. Can't stand the prick. But it's hard to see a middle ground here that doesn't end up with a sole judge saying the prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
If he offers any consolation price, or moral victory, he'll be rewarding the sham these ladies have made of your criminal justice system (and I'd be the first to say that anyone who abuses women - without their consent - should be hanged from the nearest overpass).
Well, SDW, I disagree with you on the logic of Forcillo's jury. His murder aquital had mainly to do with the unwillingness of Canadian Courts, whether judge or jury, to convict police of murder. Did you know that 12 Canadian police officers have been tried for murder (on the job shootings) with no convictions? Video evidence gets trumped by sentiment.
And back to Mr Ghomeshi, yes his trial is different being by judge alone. The complainants had no idea how much scrutiny they would be under. They may have been naive but I think they were also brave. It's horrible to think that their public ordeal will discourage other women victims fro filing assault complaints. I hope the judge gives their testimony some weight.
BTW, there are four women who have come forward, not three.
I think that sexual assault will always be under reported. There are cultural mores where if the woman reports that she's been raped, she is considered to be at fault. Look at what happens in India and Pakistan.
However, I think in the western world, sexual assault has been expanded to include gaucherie by socially inept young men.
I once had a niece explain to me that leering at her is OK when she wants the guy to look and sexual assault when she doesn't want the guy to look. Same event, two different guys. One she wanted to notice her, one that she never, ever would date. Her response to "how is he supposed to know you would never date him?" "He should be able to tell"
This trial is very much like a divorce trial. It's unbelievable what people will say about their ex-partner in order to "win".
The fourth is a woman recruited to "testify" that she was told by Lucy DeCourtere that she was assaulted. Problem is, Marie Henein introduced the Facebook conversation between the two of them and the woman didn't use the right date in her affidavit. It enhances Marie Henein's theory of a conspiracy and doesn't assist the Crown's case at all.
The Jury found that the first 3 shots were fired legally, Police are allowed to shoot at people holding weapons. Then the Jury found that the later shots into a dying body were illegal. Police are not allowed to shoot people that are no threat to them. The logic is pretty good.
Despite being "blown up" these women still need to be listened to carefully by the judge and he needs to decide what parts of their testimony he believes and what parts he doesn't. Some inconsistencies, withholding, etc., do not need to make a witness's entire testimony without credibility, especially under circumstances like this.
Ghomeshi's lawyer, Ms Henein, is a very clever woman. She got around Canada's rape sheild laws. I wonder if she was able to do some "judge shopping" too.
False accusation rarely, if ever, have any consequences, so there is little stopping people who are thus inclined from doing that. On the other hand accusations in general in these cases are accepted as truthful with little or no evidence by most people, so it becomes a situation of presumed guilty for anyone accused. If you are accused in a case like this you are in big trouble and probably have little chance of defending yourself unless the accusers left a paper trail behind them (as these apparently have). Unlike most other crimes, for sexual assault the burden of proof effectively lies largely on the accused.
That is the big problem in sexual assault cases. While assaults are grossly under reported, it is also true that false accusations are common. So the whole thing becomes very murky when there is not definitive evidence.
The judge will not be concerned about middle ground. The criteria for conviction in a criminal case is "beyond reasonable doubt", and I think that it is fairly clear at this point that reasonable doubt has been established.
So it should end in an acquittal if the law is followed.
If he is innocent why did he not testify? Clearly he did not want the prosecution asking him any questions. This point alone makes him guilty in my book.
JD
JD
The "evidence" presented by affidavit from Sarah Dunsworth is on CBC, their normal format for documents so I won't even try to link them.
The affidavit says the incident was in 2004. Lucy DeCoutere says 2003 in her evidence and in the charges. Damn, the instructions from Lucy DeCoutere to Sarah Dunsworth just weren't explicit enough. Lucy even had to remind Sarah that she had told her about the incident.
The Judge has both the 33 page affidavit and the Facebook "Instructions" conversations between Lucy and Sarah. The "Instructions" conversation happened after Lucy's charges had been laid and the affidavit is dated Nov 24, 2014.
If anything, the affidavit is further proof that Marie Henein's theory of a conspiracy is probable.
The affidavit says the incident was in 2004. Lucy DeCoutere says 2003 in her evidence and in the charges. Damn, the instructions from Lucy DeCoutere to Sarah Dunsworth just weren't explicit enough. Lucy even had to remind Sarah that she had told her about the incident.
The Judge has both the 33 page affidavit and the Facebook "Instructions" conversations between Lucy and Sarah. The "Instructions" conversation happened after Lucy's charges had been laid and the affidavit is dated Nov 24, 2014.
If anything, the affidavit is further proof that Marie Henein's theory of a conspiracy is probable.
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. She only had to raise reasonable doubt that the incidents in the charges were as described in the charges. She has done that. She's not going to get into a discussion on BDSM sexual practices.
I remember when she came out of his first court appearance (the day his charges were heard in court) Marie Henein said that it's not her practice to litigate through the media, she'll do her talking in court. Given the hash that Jian Ghomeshi was making before he hired her, it's not surprising that she wasn't going to put him on the stand if she didn't need to. His Public Relations Firm and Lawyer in Oct 2014 separated themselves from him because he wouldn't shut up. She must have put the fear of Marie Henein into him because he hasn't said a peep since then.
The National Post has put up copies of Sarah Dunsworth's affidavit and the copies of Sarah Dunsworth and Lucy DeCoutere's Facebook and text exchanges that Marie Henein introduced in rebuttal. http://news.nationalpost.com/toront...-decouteres-allegations-against-jian-ghomeshi
It's fairly clear that Lucy asked for corroboration on something that Sarah didn't have knowledge of because the Toronto Police doubted her. "i told them that i had told you AGES ago. it makes me look i am not a copycat reported"
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...rom-final-witness-at-jian-ghomeshi-trial.html
It's fairly clear that Lucy asked for corroboration on something that Sarah didn't have knowledge of because the Toronto Police doubted her. "i told them that i had told you AGES ago. it makes me look i am not a copycat reported"
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...rom-final-witness-at-jian-ghomeshi-trial.html
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
