Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC

[Coach]

Pims?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Maybe she meant Pimm's.

[peter12]

I think she meant Pimm's. It's a thing out east.

So these emails are not looking good for her. I know that it is probably standard behaviour for a victim to reach out to their abuser, but she is basically asking to hook up with him for months after. It looks very, very bad, especially 12 years after the fact.

[Kjesse]

Its almost like she's stalking him... many suggestive emails, he barely responds. Now she sends him a picture of her pretending to treat a beer bottle like a dick, but then says, "I wasn't intending to tantalize him...".... wow.

[peter12]

She's done. At this point, you have no reason to believe Lucy.

[woob]

Originally Posted by peter12

She's done. At this point, you have no reason to believe Lucy.

As Corsi says, could the Crown not bring in experts to explain her behaviour? Not totally disagreeing with your view on this, but you have to think that this can somehow be explained by experts?

[Coach]

Man, the Crown has be pretty pissed at their witnesses for not disclosing this stuff to them beforehand. It's not that it really has much bearing on whether or not assault took place, but it just makes the whole investigation look shoddy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by woob

As Corsi says, could the Crown not bring in experts to explain her behaviour? Not totally disagreeing with your view on this, but you have to think that this can somehow be explained by experts?

I tend to agree with Delgar. It doesn't look like she sent a few cursory "hey, how is it going..." emails but a deluge of "hey, can we meet up, hey want to hook up, hey have an itch you need to scratch" emails.

Is this normal victim behaviour? I don't know at this point.

The thing is, based on all of the reports coming out of the woodwork from women who associated with Ghomeshi, plus his under-the-radar reputation, I have no idea that the creep has done a lot of awful things.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Man, the Crown has be pretty pissed at their witnesses for not disclosing this stuff to them beforehand. It's not that it really has much bearing on whether or not assault took place, but it just makes the whole investigation look shoddy.

No. Straight up no. The Crown has NO ONE to blame but themselves. How do you end up so badly duped by not one BUT TWO key witnesses? Was the prep for this, "Oh cool, just uh... just... yeah. Just say what happened and we'll sort the rest out. It'll be cool. Real open and shut stuff."

When I got sucker punched there was two trials. One that had to be stopped because the judge had to recuse himself after realizing he was neighbours with the accused's parents and one that went through. The prosecutor for the first trial pulled me in, sat me down and went over every detail. Why it happened, any prior contact, how long I had known the accused, if there was anything else illegal that might be involved, if there was a woman involved, if there had been any contact after the event. Second guy simply said "Did he punch you?" "Yes" "Did someone see it?" "Yes" "Are they going to be here" "Yes" "K, that's pretty much that." The meetings were a difference of about an hour. I can't help but wonder if they took the approach of the second assuming this was going to be an empty netter of a case.

[peter12]

She is done. Based on these two witnesses, he walks. Both witnesses ended up telling lies to police. The whole narrative actually ends up corroborating Ghomeshi's original narrative that these were just jealous girlfriends. Honestly, the prosecution better have an ace in his pocket. Where is the video that was sent to CBC executives?

[troutman]

JG saved everything. Why? Is he just sentimental, or was he building a shield?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

JG saved everything. Why? Is he just sentimental, or was he building a shield?

I think that he liked rough stuff, and he probably toed the line a lot, so he built a shield. That love letter ends it. She is not credible as a witness anymore.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Man, the Crown has be pretty pissed at their witnesses for not disclosing this stuff to them beforehand. It's not that it really has much bearing on whether or not assault took place, but it just makes the whole investigation look shoddy.

If the defence can dig it up, there's no reason the Crown can't. I'm not a prosecutor, but if I was, I wouldn't trust anyone's word for anything. It's pretty basic human psychology, people lie or omit truths to make themselves look better and spin the narrative they prefer to believe.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

No. Straight up no. The Crown has NO ONE to blame but themselves. How do you end up so badly duped by not one BUT TWO key witnesses? Was the prep for this, "Oh cool, just uh... just... yeah. Just say what happened and we'll sort the rest out. It'll be cool. Real open and shut stuff."

When I got sucker punched there was two trials. One that had to be stopped because the judge had to recuse himself after realizing he was neighbours with the accused's parents and one that went through. The prosecutor for the first trial pulled me in, sat me down and went over every detail. Why it happened, any prior contact, how long I had known the accused, if there was anything else illegal that might be involved, if there was a woman involved, if there had been any contact after the event. Second guy simply said "Did he punch you?" "Yes" "Did someone see it?" "Yes" "Are they going to be here" "Yes" "K, that's pretty much that." The meetings were a difference of about an hour. I can't help but wonder if they took the approach of the second assuming this was going to be an empty netter of a case.

Either could be the case though. They could have gone into detail, like the first prosecutor in your example, and the witnesses either straight up didn't remember (possible, but not really a great defence), or decided for themselves that it wasn't relevant (which isn't really their call).

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. And I would agree that it was on the Crown to dig deeper, regardless of what the witnesses were saying.

[troutman]

Sarah Boesveld Verified account ‏@sarahboesveld Henein is through. Lucy awkwardly leaves stand. #Ghomeshi looks at her. She has to pass him on her way out again. Court adjourned til 2:15pm


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt#Canada

• Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty. It is not proof beyond any doubt, nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt.
• More is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty. A jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.

[woob]

Sarah Boesveld ✔ @sarahboesveld
To clarify, my apologies, Henein is not done, Crown asked for a recess. That's why we're at break. Back at 2:15 pm ET #Ghomeshi

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by peter12

I tend to agree with Delgar. It doesn't look like she sent a few cursory "hey, how is it going..." emails but a deluge of "hey, can we meet up, hey want to hook up, hey have an itch you need to scratch" emails.

Is this normal victim behaviour? I don't know at this point.

I think it's kind of old school thinking to brush off these women as victims because they were persuing Ghomeshi. This is fairly common behavior akin to the Stockholm Syndrome. Victims often bond with their abusers as a way of making some sense and normality out of the situation. Trauma bonding. However, at his point I have no idea what's going on with these particular women. I would just caution against using post abuse/assault behavior as "she's just a jilted, pissed off ex" in all cases.

[speede5]

Why do we say a lawyer is good at their job for getting guilty people off?

I would think a good lawyer would be one who gets a guilty person a reasonable plea deal. Lawyers who exploit the system and victims, do long term damage to the justice system.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think it's kind of old school thinking to brush off these women as victims because they were persuing Ghomeshi. This is fairly common behavior akin to the Stockholm Syndrome. Victims often bond with their abusers as a way of making some sense and normality out of the situation. Trauma bonding. However, at his point I have no idea what's going on with these particular women. I would just caution against using post abuse/assault behavior as "she's just a jilted, pissed off ex" in all cases.

That is all just sentimental speculation. I don't disagree that abused women often bond with abusers, and try to normalize things, but that letter is also hard evidence. For goodness sake, she said that she "loved his hands!"

As I said before, I have no doubt that some rough stuff occurred, and given what CHL has said, most or all of it was probably in the grey area of consent. We just don't know what happened, exactly, and from a legal perspective, that is the most important bit.

If you can't read over her emails, messages, and the love letter, and not think, "well, what if it isn't as black and white as we want to believe," then you are falling for a very sentimental perspective. We all loved the media-driven tragic story of a great ethnic Canadian broadcaster who fell from his perch because of an arrogant penchant for abusive, destructive sex. What if that narrative isn't true, but we all wanted it to be true.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think it's kind of old school thinking to brush off these women as victims because they were persuing Ghomeshi. This is fairly common behavior akin to the Stockholm Syndrome. Victims often bond with their abusers as a way of making some sense and normality out of the situation. Trauma bonding. However, at his point I have no idea what's going on with these particular women. I would just caution against using post abuse/assault behavior as "she's just a jilted, pissed off ex" in all cases.

I don't think anyone is discounting that. It's just disappointing that they didn't disclose this stuff to the Crown. And yes, the Crown obviously could have, and should have, discovered it themselves, but the witnesses didn't help much by leaving this stuff out. They could have prepared for it, brought in psych experts, had rebuttals to the defense's questions, etc...

They were probably going to do that anyways, but if they didn't know of these things, they now have to scramble to find ways of explaining it, rather than having months to do so. And yes, again, the Crown could have used those months to do research themselves, and it looks terrible on them, some people will likely be fired once this is all done. But if the Crown asked their witnesses if they had any contact after the fact, and the witnesses decided to say no, they're certainly not helping themselves.