Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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

I disagree. I think it very well could be relevant, if his story is that he engages in this type of activity regularly and has a pattern of behaviour that includes obtaining prior consent. Those witnesses would corroborate any such story.

However, it's not so obviously on point that an adverse inference should be drawn by NOT calling them, and as with any witness you put on the stand, you're taking a risk about what they'll say on cross.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

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

In this case they are the same thing.

[troutman]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/live-fr...dc78bee67f4454

Lawyers Marie Henein and Danielle Robitaille told the court Tuesday morning that they plan to argue that actress Lucy DeCoutere "lied about events" while on the stand last week.

The Crown said it plans to call a fourth witness, who would refute the allegation that DeCoutere was untruthful.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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

He has admitted to engaging in this behaviour with others outside of the case, so I would think it is relevant. Context is everything, this case isn't about facts you can prove, it is about how believable his story is, versus the stories of his accusers.

A reasonable doubt would be, to me, where you think that while you find his behaviour extremely repugnant, there is a non-remote chance he diligently went through the steps to ensure it was consensual. Is there evidence that these women voluntarily engaged in this behaviour with others than Jian? Is there evidence that other women did give consent to Jian and are willing to say so?

That, to me, should be the focus of the prosecution - his story has zero corroboration whatsoever, and the likelihood of it being true is not reasonable. It's an utterly unsubstantiated claim for a very unlikely scenario to have happened not once, but three times, and possibly (by his admission) many many more times. I'm not saying he should be convicted for events he's not on trial for, but saying it's not relevant is wrong, it speaks to his credibility, just as emails unrelated to the actual assaults speak to the credibility of the witnesses against him.

[peter12]

Well, I think that has become the Crown's strategy - bring in a 4th witness to show that, at the very least, the witnesses have a central coherence to their shared narrative regarding the actual attacks.

I mean, the incidences are so similar that it is almost eerie.

[jammies]

And, before I forget, his keeping emails for years and years to "protect" himself, while never explicitly talking about what he actually did and re-affirming consent shows another pattern of behaviour that isn't in his favour, either.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by jammies

That, to me, should be the focus of the prosecution - his story has zero corroboration whatsoever, and the likelihood of it being true is not reasonable. It's an utterly unsubstantiated claim for a very unlikely scenario to have happened not once, but three times, and possibly (by his admission) many many more times. I'm not saying he should be convicted for events he's not on trial for, but saying it's not relevant is wrong, it speaks to his credibility, just as emails unrelated to the actual assaults speak to the credibility of the witnesses against him.

You definitely have the burden of proof backwards. His story doesn't need corroboration. It's presumed to be true. Only if the defense thinks that the crown witnesses are likely to be believed beyond a reasonable doubt would he even need to present a story at all.

[peter12]

To be fair, I have backed up almost every email that I have ever sent and received. Pretty standard practice, I would think.

He kept text messages, and letters, which is kind of weird.

[zamler]

So the Crown is going to call a 4th witness to try and repair damage and show DeCoutere didn't lie on the stand? Sounds dubious, could end up hurting the Crown's case even more.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You definitely have the burden of proof backwards. His story doesn't need corroboration. It's presumed to be true. Only if the defense thinks that the crown witnesses are likely to be believed beyond a reasonable doubt would he even need to present a story at all.

You aren't on trial because your story is presumed to be true. It is provisionally true unless contradicted by evidence, which is not the same thing. The argument otherwise is semantics, the whole point of a trial is to decide the truth - if that doesn't involve having to corroborate the accused's story, that's certainly possible, but I'm arguing this particular story isn't believable without some kind of evidence, so the presumption of innocence isn't going to help him.

To make an analogy, if I was accused of murder, and my story was that I was seen fleeing the scene with blood all over my clothes because I was in training to be a butcher but got horrified and sick, and then ran away, I am not going to be believed if I don't back that story up with some evidence. That my story is "presumed true" is going to help me not at all. I don't find Ghomeshi's narrative credible either, so to me, he needs to provide some evidence that it's true. And actually, that's pretty well my whole argument, so I'm not sure what the purpose is of pointing out that the burden of proof is on the Crown, I'm well aware of that, I'm saying that there is plenty of proof by testimony, context, and logic, so he'd better have more than "Nope. Didn't do it! They're all liars!" as a defence.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by jammies

To make an analogy, if I was accused of murder, and my story was that I was seen fleeing the scene with blood all over my clothes because I was in training to be a butcher but got horrified and sick, and then ran away, I am not going to be believed if I don't back that story up with some evidence. That my story is "presumed true" is going to help me not at all. I don't find Ghomeshi's narrative credible either, so to me, he needs to provide some evidence that it's true. And actually, that's pretty well my whole argument, so I'm not sure what the purpose is of pointing out that the burden of proof is on the Crown, I'm well aware of that, I'm saying that there is plenty of proof by testimony, context, and logic, so he'd better have more than "Nope. Didn't do it! They're all liars!" as a defence.

Uh, what?

[VladtheImpaler]

Jammies, Ghomeshi's narrative is irrelevant - there is no narrative as far as the Court is concerned, unless he testifies. There is the Crown's narrative, and if that doesn't establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he (Gomeshi) did something against the law, there is no need for his narrative to be presented at all. The Court can guess what that narrative is based upon the cross of the Crown witnesses, but there is no Gomeshi narrative to be believed or disbelieved.

[troutman]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/fourth-...rown-1.2770263

A statement from a fourth witness will be permitted in the trial of Jian Ghomeshi, despite attempts by the defence to prevent her testimony from being included.

The judge ruled that the witness should be heard in the form of a police statement. The Crown will file the witness' statement to police, and will be presented in court and made public on Wednesday.

The judge said the "safest course" is to hear the evidence, then determine its value.

The Crown has said that the witness will corroborate testimony given by one of the complainants in the sexual assault trial. The witness would refute the defence's claim that testimony from one of the complainants in his sexual assault trial was fabricated.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Jammies, Ghomeshi's narrative is irrelevant - there is no narrative as far as the Court is concerned, unless he testifies. There is the Crown's narrative, and if that doesn't establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he (Gomeshi) did something against the law, there is no need for his narrative to be presented at all. The Court can guess what that narrative is based upon the cross of the Crown witnesses, but there is no Gomeshi narrative to be believed or disbelieved.

So does that mean he probably won't testify?

[troutman]

I never thought he would testify. That would be foolish.

[afc wimbledon]

There's no law against being a creepy #######. If the defence is alleging collusion then you would expect the stories to be similar, that's pretty much the point of collusion.

[Bagor]

Why would the witness be heard in the form of a police statement?
And how would you cross examine it?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

There's no law against being a creepy #######. If the defence is alleging collusion then you would expect the stories to be similar, that's pretty much the point of collusion.

That's the point of successful collusion.

[PeteMoss]

They didn't point out any collusion between accuser 1 and the others and she had the same story as well.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Why would the witness be heard in the form of a police statement?
And how would you cross examine it?

Witness is stranded in Nova Scotia by winter storm.