Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So what if they stayed in contact with him after the alleged assaults? That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Surely you're aware how common it is for women to stay in relationships with men who are abusive to them (often believing that they are somehow at fault). The fact that they maintain a relationship with their abusers doesn't negate the abuse.

They were not dating. It was strictly sex. This is the issue.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

They were not dating. It was strictly sex. This is the issue.

He hasn't had sex with any of these people.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So what if they stayed in contact with him after the alleged assaults? That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Surely you're aware how common it is for women to stay in relationships with men who are abusive to them (often believing that they are somehow at fault). The fact that they maintain a relationship with their abusers doesn't negate the abuse.

MY friend had a girlfriend who liked to be punch..is it still abuse?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

He hasn't had sex with any of these people.

Was a bit quick with that and was just coming back to edit.

It was about sex. There wasn't any move to look at dating these people. The issue is that while it is true, women in abusive relationships do keep going back, none of these really seem to fit that. And in some of these cases, the women actively seemed to enjoy it and want it.

[PeteMoss]

He's famous and people will do stupid things when it comes to getting to know famous people.

And there's the whole 'negging'/pick-up artist thing. Some people respond in ways you wouldn't expect to negativity or being treated badly. I just don't see how going back gives him consent. In a lot of ways that's like the old husband can't rape his wife argument.

[CliffFletcher]

Surely there's a difference between someone you've exchanged emails with and gone on a date, and a spouse who you live with. Was it abuse that gave him power over these women after very brief contact, or his celebrity?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

MY friend had a girlfriend who liked to be punch..is it still abuse?

Did she consent to being punched? The three alleged victims have all claimed that they did not consent to Ghomeshi's physical violence. That's precisely why he's on trial.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Was a bit quick with that and was just coming back to edit.

It was about sex. There wasn't any move to look at dating these people. The issue is that while it is true, women in abusive relationships do keep going back, none of these really seem to fit that. And in some of these cases, the women actively seemed to enjoy it and want it.

Where are you getting that idea from? I've been following the live reporting from the courtroom each day of the trial, and not once have any of the alleged victims ever stated that they are into S&M or that they consented to being physically abused.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Where are you getting that idea from? I've been following the live reporting from the courtroom each day of the trial, and not once have any of the alleged victims ever stated that they are into S&M or that they consented to being physically abused.

Emails asking for it again stating they loved it

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Emails asking for it again stating they loved it

The emails (I presume you mean the ones from Lucy D.) said that she wanted to f*** him; she never said that she wanted to be punched and choked again.

[Blaster86]

Her e-mail clearly indicated she was turned on by it.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Her e-mail clearly indicated she was turned on by it.

[Citation needed]

Here's the full text of all the emails that were entered into evidence.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/fu...lleged-assault

I just read them in their entirety, and not once did I find anything that shows that she was into S&M and turned on by being punched and choked. If you can find something, please copy/paste it here. The closest I found was when she said, "You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to f*** your brains out." However, that sentence followed immediately after a paragraph where she talks about how he is challenging her mentally and changing her mind about things, so it's likely when she said, "you kicked my ass" she didn't mean that literally as a reference to the alleged punching/choking, but rather that he metaphorically kicked her ass in whatever debate they were having, and she found his intellect attractive. Later she says, "We hooked up for dinner and you totally knocked me out." Once again, she is not being literal when she said that.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Once again, she is not being literal when she said that.

Not sure how you can say I'm making a leap and then saying then with what is being said happened on their date.

The prosecution is making the same case as what I just said and that brings up reasonable doubt. I don't like it, but that's the case.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

it's likely when she said, "you kicked my ass" she didn't mean that literally as a reference to the alleged punching/choking, but rather that he metaphorically kicked her ass in whatever debate they were having, and she found his intellect attractive.

I mean I guess it's possible but it doesn't seem terribly likely to me.

[PeteMoss]

By the way - what is the point of the 'accuser can't look at media or follow the trial' rule?

Seems weird that they have to pretend the trial isn't happened.

[Fuzz]

Ya, a lot of the stuff seams tilted to the defense.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

By the way - what is the point of the 'accuser can't look at media or follow the trial' rule?

Seems weird that they have to pretend the trial isn't happened.

It's not that the accuser can't, it's that the witness shouldn't.

[jammies]

I'm not as certain he's not going to be convicted of something as most others seem to be - I'm neither a judge nor even a lawyer, but the crucial point to me is that if he doesn't testify, there is no indication of *prior* consent to the violence. Whether or not the women continued some kind of relationship or even decided they rather liked being punched, do you not have to explicitly get permission to do such things and not just go ahead and assume it's all going to be good once she gets to like it?

Maybe in his statements to the police, he says that for every incident in question, he specifically asked if he could go ahead and hit/choke the woman involved, but even if he did state that, is that believable? Yes, it's his word against theirs, and they've each been shown to be flawed witnesses, but where are the women that the defence should be calling in defence of his story, that is, other women he has been involved with that will confirm they were asked and were ok with the abuse?

To me, that is the huge problem with his story - if he's been doing this for (apparently) decades, with dozens and dozens of women, why have none of them showed up to corroborate his version of events? The narrative just doesn't work without that, whereas the narrative that he is an arrogant sociopathic a-hole that used his celebrity and position to intimidate women into compliance with his kinks is convincing.

I don't know, maybe I have a naive belief that a judge is going to look at the agreed upon facts of the case - that he did strike and choke these women, and many others - and then ponder the likelihood of every one of them explicitly agreeing to it beforehand without coercion, and conclude that it is not possible. Really, unless you think that every woman secretly yearns to be punched by a d-bag, it seems the only reasonable conclusion to come to, regardless of the obfuscation put up by the defence.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by jammies

I don't know, maybe I have a naive belief that a judge is going to look at the agreed upon facts of the case - that he did strike and choke these women, and many others - and then ponder the likelihood of every one of them explicitly agreeing to it beforehand without coercion, and conclude that it is not possible.

What women who have not brought charges say about Ghomeshi is irrelevant to the case, and I would hope the judge would disregard it.

Originally Posted by jammies

Really, unless you think that every woman secretly yearns to be punched by a d-bag, it seems the only reasonable conclusion to come to, regardless of the obfuscation put up by the defence.

Then why even have a trial?

Presumably the defence rests on the notion that there was consent, and it was only after relations with Ghomeshi went sour that these women - possibly as a conspiracy (those 5,000 emails between two of the witnesses) - brought charges. As I understand it, Ghomeshi does not have to prove consent, only raise reasonable doubt around claims by his accusers that consent was not given.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by jammies

I don't know, maybe I have a naive belief that a judge is going to look at the agreed upon facts of the case - that he did strike and choke these women, and many others - and then ponder the likelihood of every one of them explicitly agreeing to it beforehand without coercion, and conclude that it is not possible. Really, unless you think that every woman secretly yearns to be punched by a d-bag, it seems the only reasonable conclusion to come to, regardless of the obfuscation put up by the defence.

In general I agree with your premise that the defense needs to do something to establish that he obtains consent. The bolded is I think where you are getting tripped up but the many others is not relevant to the case and it isn't the likelihood that ALL victims agreed it is that is there a reasonable doubt that these women did not agree.

At least for number 2 I think reasonable doubt has been established without Gomeshi having to defend anything. However for 1 and 3 I think without something to establish that Gomeshi seeks consent I don't see reasonable doubt for those 2.