Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC

[flylock shox]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ghomeshi gets totally lit up in this case.

Given the nature of the allegations against him, he's almost certainly going to have to testify to gain an acquittal. I don't get the sense that the complainants are easily impeachable - there's plenty of them and they don't seem to stem from colorful backgrounds. Decent chance that hard line attempts to attack them just end up aggravating the judge.

And if he testifies, I doubt he presents well even if very well prepared. What he has already tacitly admitted to provides both fodder for the Crown and insight into his character.

I would also be hesitant to go with a lawyer who markets herself as the article suggests. It's a "love it or hate it" approach, and you've got a better than 50% chance the judge hates it, I would think.

That said though, the cards are always stacked against the Crown in a prosecution, so who knows how it will all unfold. It'll mostly come down to the courage of the complainants.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Isn't that reasonable doubt right there?

With no independent witnesses, video, or pictures etc. Yes.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by bigtmac19

Pretty interesting article in Toronto Life about Marie Henein, Jian Ghomeshi's lawyer.

Looks like he picked a good one.

http://torontolife.com/marie-henein-...omeshi-lawyer/

Good article:

"Ghomeshi had not yet retained Henein on the night of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association gala last October, when she took to the stage of the Ritz-Carlton with a one-liner that lit up the Twittersphere. “We represent people who have committed heinous acts—acts of violence, acts of depravity, acts of cruelty,” she quipped. “Or as Jian Ghomeshi likes to call it, foreplay.”

The ballroom erupted in laughter, but six days later when the butt of her joke hired her, some colleagues wondered whether the jest was yet another of Henein’s marketing ploys—a provocative signal pitched directly at Ghomeshi, who had already confessed to a taste for rough sex, that she would push boundaries in defending him. “I wouldn’t put it past her,” says one, asking for anonymity. “That’s one of her assets. She can think five, six, 10 moves down the chess game.”

[Yanda]

They saw each other off and on for a year... There is no way it wasnt consensual. If your getting casually raped once a month then you deserve a darwin award.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

I've been a prosecutor and defence lawyer.

All the defence needs is a reasonable doubt. That means if the judge feels 99% certain he's guilty, that's an acquittal. Whether that means they were lucky enough to draw the judge that always acquits if judge alone(there are some judges that convict after trial maybe 10% of the time), a few dummies on the jury if a jury trial, or some of the complainants just make honest mistakes testifying which makes them look a bit dishonest.

Especially with all the money that he's paying her, I'm sure she'll dig something up to try to impeach their credibility.

There are no slam dunks in sexual assault cases, none. A lot of very good crown prosecutors in my office when I was in Alberta were like 1/10 or 2/20 in securing sexual assault convictions after trial. It was almost a running joke. When you got a sexual assault conviction it was usually because the defence lawyer was inexperienced and did a ####ty job.

The test that a judge must use when it's he said vs she said and no physical evidence (like pictures or Dan) makes it very difficult to convict when the accused gets on the stand and is very smooth and denies doing anything wrong and has no inconsistencies in his evidence. The judge basically says "I can't be sure he really did it". Of course the judge can't be sure, they weren't there, no one was!

I wouldn't be surprised in the least bit if he is acquitted on all counts.

She got Micheal Bryant aquitted and there was even video evidence of him ramming a cyclist with his car:
https://nowtoronto.com/news/exclusiv...of-darcy-alla/

[bigtmac19]

I certainly believe he's guilty. I know it's her job, but the suggestion that she's going to crucify these women in order to poke enough holes in their stories, is so hard to stomach. While that slimy creep sits there and watches on top of it.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

I've been a prosecutor and defence lawyer.

All the defence needs is a reasonable doubt. That means if the judge feels 99% certain he's guilty, that's an acquittal. Whether that means they were lucky enough to draw the judge that always acquits if judge alone(there are some judges that convict after trial maybe 10% of the time), a few dummies on the jury if a jury trial, or some of the complainants just make honest mistakes testifying which makes them look a bit dishonest.

Especially with all the money that he's paying her, I'm sure she'll dig something up to try to impeach their credibility.

There are no slam dunks in sexual assault cases, none. A lot of very good crown prosecutors in my office when I was in Alberta were like 1/10 or 2/20 in securing sexual assault convictions after trial. It was almost a running joke. When you got a sexual assault conviction it was usually because the defence lawyer was inexperienced and did a ####ty job.

I'm just going by memory but I don't think conviction rates for other major crimes are that much different than for sexual assault. Murder is usually about 50%, sex assault about 43%. It's less, but not much so given the inherent lack of physical evidence.

Originally Posted by Yanda

They saw each other off and on for a year... There is no way it wasnt consensual. If your getting casually raped once a month then you deserve a darwin award.

That's unbelievably ignorant. Give your head a shake.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Yanda

They saw each other off and on for a year... There is no way it wasnt consensual. If your getting casually raped once a month then you deserve a darwin award.

So which one of the 4 complaints that are going to trial would that crap excuse cover.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Yanda

They saw each other off and on for a year... There is no way it wasnt consensual. If your getting casually raped once a month then you deserve a darwin award.

I suggest your drive down to the women's shelter right now and get educated before you spout more ignorant nonsense.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by bigtmac19

I certainly believe he's guilty. I know it's her job, but the suggestion that she's going to crucify these women in order to poke enough holes in their stories, is so hard to stomach. While that slimy creep sits there and watches on top of it.

I think it's going to come down to Ghomeshi and what he says. I personally think the guy is a psychopath and he honestly believes that he didn't do anything wrong and that he is the victim. I can totally see his ego taking over and right now his lawyer is probably coaching him not to be stupid. I am hoping he can't help himself though.

[darockwilder]

Fascinating article, I'm hopeful that the truth wins out in the end no matter what. Pretty sure he'll be toast.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Yanda

They saw each other off and on for a year... There is no way it wasnt consensual. If your getting casually raped once a month then you deserve a darwin award.

Wow. [Mod edit- how about saying that you couldn't disagree more?]

[Yanda]

nm

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Yanda

Come on man its not like she was locked up in some basement. It was 2 adults that were casually seeing each other over a year long process.

What reason do you have to believe it wasnt consensual?

Maybe you can form an actual response this time?

This is not specific to this case but just general terms:

For one its a power and dominance issue.

For two its fear: what will happen?

For three its intimidation: fine tell someone, but then they will know what you do. Your parents. Your coworkers. Your friends. Your colleagues. Your future boyfriend(s)/husband.

For four: its stereotyping and societal attitude. "Well she must have wanted it because she stayed."

For five: as confusing as this may sound, it may be all they have. Do I stay with this person and their "warts" especially if the alternative may be going out on the street, no place to live, or this is the only person that has "loved" me, etc etc.

For six: its trying to help. If I stay with this person, I can help them, I love them. I can help them work through it.

I'll stop there for now.

I'm not commenting on the specifics of this case, but there are a lot of issues and reasons at play, and I think the more we look to learn, understand, and most importantly - listen - the better off we are.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Yanda

Come on man its not like she was locked up in some basement. It was 2 adults that were casually seeing each other over a year long process.

What reason do you have to believe it wasnt consensual?

Because she said it wasn't you ****.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Jesus, Yanda, it's not even about this case, the issue is you saying there's "no way" it wasn't consensual simply because they were involved. Are you saying there's no such thing as marital rape, for example? Just an incredibly stupid thing to say.

[V]

Originally Posted by Yanda

Come on man its not like she was locked up in some basement. It was 2 adults that were casually seeing each other over a year long process.

What reason do you have to believe it wasnt consensual?

Maybe you can form an actual response this time?

Haha, keep digging. rube's right, you're a disgusting person.

[Nuje]

Originally Posted by Yanda

Come on man its not like she was locked up in some basement. It was 2 adults that were casually seeing each other over a year long process.

What reason do you have to believe it wasnt consensual?

Maybe you can form an actual response this time?

Have you ever had someone, while talking to you, ask if something counts as rape if they're your boyfriend? Well I have. It certainly wasn't a happy-go-lucky !@#$ing conversation.

Oh, but wait. I didn't realize this was a giant conspiracy of women out to get one particular guy, accusing him of serious violent crimes, because they didn't like him for some totally lesser reason!

Get a clue!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by V

Haha, keep digging. rube's right, you're a disgusting person.

I'm not sure it's fair to call him a disgusting person, yet.... Some people are just that ignorant about these types of things. Educating them, rather than calling them disgusting is probably a better way to start. If' he doubles down and starts linking to MRA video's, well then have at 'er.

[bigtmac19]

I don't think I agree. You would have to live under a rock to not be aware of this "type of thing".