Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by MattyC

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.

One witness might go out of their way to lie and omit, but both? What if this happens with the third? At this point, this trial is little more than a waste of tax payer dollars. Every which way, this investigation and trial has been ####ed up by either the TPD, the Crown Counsel or both. Not enough evidence to convict, the wrong witnesses to take to trial and no where near enough investigative work done pre-trial to avoid this stuff.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by 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.

The Role of the Defence Counsel in Canadian Society
Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C.
http://speeches.empireclub.org/60446/data?n=4

The concept of a right to counsel is one of the most significant manifestations of our regard for the dignity of the individual. No person is required to stand alone against the awesome power of the government. Rather, every criminal defendant is guaranteed an advocate-a "champion" against a "hostile world," the "single voice on which he must rely with confidence that his interests will be protected to the fullest extent consistent with the rules of procedure and the standards of professional conduct." Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this great land says an accused person has the right to retain and instruct counsel. It does not say every accused except gamblers, thieves and robbers. It does not say every accused except communists, members of the FLQ, members of organized crime and narcotics offenders. The right to counsel is an absolute right which extends to every person charged with a crime, no matter how socially or politically obnoxious he may be, no matter how unorthodox his thinking or his conduct or how unpopular his cause or, yes, no matter how strongly the finger of guilt may point at him. And I say that the right to counsel would be an empty sham if the members of the bar did not have a corresponding duty to defend all those who seek representation within only two limits. The limits of honesty and integrity.

Project yourself for a moment into the position of a defendant. If you should one day find yourself accused of crime, you would expect your lawyer to raise every defence authorized by law of the land. Even if you were guilty, you would expect your lawyer to make sure that the government did not secure your conviction by unlawful means. You would be justifiably outraged if your lawyer sat silent while the prosecution deprived you of your liberty on the basis of a defective indictment, perjured testimony or a coerced confession.

The most important, the most frequent question I am asked, the question that comes up at my cocktail parties, is: How do we represent a guilty man? There is a simple, quick and complete answer. Our whole system of criminal justice is built on the basic premise that every man is presumed innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. His guilt must be shown by evidence produced by a prosecutor in a courtroom-not in a newspaper or broadcast.

"Guilty" in this frame of reference is not a moral term. It is a legal term. No one is legally guilty until a judgment of guilt has been made by the court. The lawyer is neither expected nor qualified to make a moral judgment on the person seeking his help. Moral guilt or innocence is no more within the province of the lawyer than within the jurisdiction of the court. The accused is entitled to have a trial and to have his legal guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence tested in the crucible of cross-examination. He is not entitled to produce perjured evidence in court or to testify falsely. But he is entitled to sit silent and force the proof of guilt. Moral judgments by the lawyer are frequently wrong and he learns not to make them. No lawyer can assume the character of a judge.

[DiracSpike]

I've only read some details on the second witness but is it correct that essentially both witnesses reached out repeatedly to the guy after the alleged assault took place? Everyone inlcuding me wanted this guy to be guilty but maybe he's actually not the monster everyone thought

[PeteMoss]

Still think he's going to be found guilty.

Even in these letters/emails she's talking about being knocked out (which I assume means being hit).

Again - its reasonable doubt not no doubt. I just don't see how you can reasonably doubt that three people decided to lie about it. The defense has shown these woman have done things you might not expect after the fact (and who knows if those expectations about how people react to these things are true). But you have a long row to haul to show that three people have decided to lie about it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

One witness might go out of their way to lie and omit, but both? What if this happens with the third? At this point, this trial is little more than a waste of tax payer dollars. Every which way, this investigation and trial has been ####ed up by either the TPD, the Crown Counsel or both. Not enough evidence to convict, the wrong witnesses to take to trial and no where near enough investigative work done pre-trial to avoid this stuff.

Exactly. She isn't being shamed for past sexual behaviour, she is being slammed for stuff that she didn't mention to the police or the prosecution. She obviously selectively managed her story to include an assault, but not the mounds of emails she sent afterwards. It just looks awful. She could have started straight out by saying, yeah, you know what, I didn't know what to do. I spent a year humiliating myself even more by trying to ameliorate what was a very traumatic experience for me. I sent pictures and suggestive emails, and you know what, it disgusts me that I did that.

Bringing that out straight at the beginning would have nullified the suspense factor brilliantly exploited by the defense. It would have taken it right back to the central allegation - that this guy seems to think it is a good idea to whack women around the face and strangle them. Something that I still have trouble believing never happened. The problem is, I now kind of have some doubts that things went that way with these two witnesses. So does the judge.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Still think he's going to be found guilty.

Even in these letters/emails she's talking about being knocked out (which I assume means being hit).

Again - its reasonable doubt not no doubt. I just don't see how you can reasonably doubt that three people decided to lie about it. The defense has shown these woman have done things you might not expect after the fact (and who knows if those expectations about how people react to these things are true). But you have a long row to haul to show that three people have decided to lie about it.

This is the one thing that jumped out at me too. She mentions that something physical happened that night. I don't know if they can prove that her response falls into the narrative that it wasn't consensual.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Everyone inlcuding me wanted this guy to be guilty but maybe he's actually not the monster everyone thought

There is little doubt that this man has left a trail of damage and abuse in his wake. Even in the case of these three women, he probably did things without consent.

However, in the case of these three women, or at the very least the first two, there was so little framing done by the Crown; so little preparation and so little planning and investigating that I cannot look at what has been said and objectively say that whatever they experience with Jian was not in anyways consensual or enjoyed by them.

Whether the Judge can remains to be seen, but don't be fooled. There are are more than three, that has always been known. Only three were willing to step forward and go to trial with it.

[saillias]

Just wondering. Why is the "I love your hands" line seen as a knockout blow? A lot of things were revealed that cast doubt, to me this single line was mild/forgettable in the overall picture. People have said this to me after meeting me for the first time and shaking my hand.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Still think he's going to be found guilty.

I think you're right.

I think the issue here is that he will likely get less than what was offered in a plea deal and if and when was offered, I think we now see why it was passed on. The crown case is FUBAR. If the third witness is as erratic and unreliable, I think he could actually get off free and clear.

[troutman]

Why is the June trial being held separately from this trial?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by troutman

Why is the June trial being held separately from this trial?

Why two trials?
Crown prosecutor Michael Callaghan has said the second trial was justified because that alleged sexual assault occurred in a “different factual context.” What that means is that the February trial will involve accusers who had social relationships with Ghomeshi; the June trial will deal with an alleged sexual assault in the CBC workplace.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/p...homeshi-trial/

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

There is little doubt that this man has left a trail of damage and abuse in his wake. Even in the case of these three women, he probably did things without consent.

However, in the case of these three women, or at the very least the first two, there was so little framing done by the Crown; so little preparation and so little planning and investigating that I cannot look at what has been said and objectively say that whatever they experience with Jian was not in anyways consensual or enjoyed by them.

Whether the Judge can remains to be seen, but don't be fooled. There are are more than three, that has always been known. Only three were willing to step forward and go to trial with it.

So does the question become, is it OK to do something like this without consent if the person ended up enjoying it? My inclination is no, it's not. He assaulted them, and whether they liked it or not doesn't have any bearing on the fact that he hurt them without their consent in the first place. Its an interesting (for lack of a better term) grey area. What if he said "I want to smack you" and she said "yes" thinking he was talking about a spanking or something, and then he punched them. Is that consent? I don't know. I've definitely spanked women without asking first, is that assault? As mentioned earlier, I've been bit to the point it made me yelp. Is that assault? It seems to me this case might end up as a bit of a landmark for what sexual consent actually means and what we should be doing in order to make sure our partner is comfortable with what's happening.

This is getting pretty confusing.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by saillias

Just wondering. Why is the "I love your hands" line seen as a knockout blow? A lot of things were revealed that cast doubt, to me this single line was mild/forgettable in the overall picture. People have said this to me after meeting me for the first time and shaking my hand.

Probably because victims of abuse would not usually go out of their way to specifically and lovingly mention the instruments of abuse (the things that allegedly struck and strangled her). Not an expert, but it seems strange to me as well.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Probably because victims of abuse would not usually go out of their way to specifically and lovingly mention the instruments of abuse (the things that allegedly struck and strangled her). Not an expert, but it seems strange to me as well.

It also contradicts the narrative that she presented in court - that his hands disgusted her, that she can still feel his hands around her throat.

[PeteMoss]

So much of this comes down to judging how people who are abused are supposed to act.

Logically it makes sense that people would just stay away, but in reality it can be different. And I don't think its wildly out of the question for these people - years after the fact - to feel shame for trying to get back with him and want to hide that fact.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Still think he's going to be found guilty.

Even in these letters/emails she's talking about being knocked out (which I assume means being hit).

Again - its reasonable doubt not no doubt. I just don't see how you can reasonably doubt that three people decided to lie about it. The defense has shown these woman have done things you might not expect after the fact (and who knows if those expectations about how people react to these things are true). But you have a long row to haul to show that three people have decided to lie about it.

Originally Posted by peter12

This is the one thing that jumped out at me too. She mentions that something physical happened that night. I don't know if they can prove that her response falls into the narrative that it wasn't consensual.

I don't know what letters you guys are reading but it isn't what I am reading.

"We hooked up for dinner and you totally knocked me out," she said. "Either because you were reading my mind."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...eshi-1.3434463

That doesn't read to me as physical.

Am I missing something?

[peter12]

Earlier, she says that you "kicked my a**, and now I want to f*** you brains out."

[peter12]

Crown did a decent job of redirecting back to allegations.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Earlier, she says that you "kicked my a**, and now I want to f*** you brains out."

Introducing that email tends to confirm that the violence happened, leaving JG only the defence of consent.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by troutman

Introducing that email tends to confirm that the violence happened, leaving JG only the defence of consent.

I think that's been their tactic from the start.