Jian Ghomeshi no longer with CBC - Page 58 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Slava · 02-09-2016, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

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

Freudian slip or plot twist?

Coach · 02-09-2016, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Witness is stranded in Nova Scotia by winter storm.

Couldn't they get her in via Skype or some such thing?

afc wimbledon · 02-09-2016, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

Couldn't they get her in via Skype or some such thing?

The defence obviously isn't that concerned, if they were this would be a slam dunk mistrial.

Coach · 02-09-2016, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The defence obviously isn't that concerned, if they were this would be a slam dunk mistrial.

What do you mean? That if they were concerned they would be pushing for an in-person witness cross-examination? And that if they did do that, they would be able to declare it a mistrial?

afc wimbledon · 02-09-2016, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

What do you mean? That if they were concerned they would be pushing for an in-person witness cross-examination? And that if they did do that, they would be able to declare it a mistrial?

The ability to confront a witness is axiomatic in law, if the defence had requested the witnesses presence and the judge had over ruled them it would be a clear mis trial.

I'll be honest my first thought was the defence are setting up a mis trial by letting this happen any way.

Blaster86 · 02-09-2016, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'll be honest my first thought was the defence are setting up a mis trial by letting this happen any way.

My thought as well. The Crown are desperate for something and the Henein is letting them grab an anchor instead of a life preserver.

afc wimbledon · 02-10-2016, 03:08 PM

I've now lost track of which witness has lied or with held what but I think it's all of them.

I have never seen as weird a case as this.

Bagor · 02-10-2016, 05:06 PM

Full statement from Sarah Dunsworth (aka Sarah from Trailer Park Boys) to the cops.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/298878354/...lice-Statement

I don't see the value of this at all.

Blaster86 · 02-10-2016, 06:05 PM

Michael Callaghan should never be allowed to run a trial for the Crown prosecution the rest of his career.

What an utter waste of everyone's time and money.

afc wimbledon · 02-10-2016, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagor

Full statement from Sarah Dunsworth (aka Sarah from Trailer Park Boys) to the cops.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/298878354/...lice-Statement

I don't see the value of this at all.

Its hugely valuable to the defence, you have testimony that one of your victims had to ring up a friend a week later and ask if Ghomishis actions were normal, makes it hard to argue it was a heinous assault if the victim isn't actually sure if it was an assault or not at the time.

Kjesse · 02-10-2016, 06:46 PM

The statement contradicts Lucy's testimony in a few respects, the most serious being that Lucy only told her about choking, nothing about hitting. That's a huge problem for the Crown.

Bagor · 02-10-2016, 06:55 PM

So the reason for the Crown requesting that the statement be entered is to consider it as proof that DeCoutere didn't invent the allegation?

How strong of proof is that? A statement from a friend that says they talked about it years before?

Quote:

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Its hugely valuable to the defence, you have testimony that one of your victims had to ring up a friend a week later and ask if Ghomishis actions were normal, makes it hard to argue it was a heinous assault if the victim isn't actually sure if it was an assault or not at the time.

Jeez, I don't know about that. Just because someone is unsure whether or not they have been assaulted should not be taken into consideration as whether or not an offence did take place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delgar

The statement contradicts Lucy's testimony in a few respects, the most serious being that Lucy only told her about choking, nothing about hitting. That's a huge problem for the Crown.

Yeah, don't understand why the defence is not all over this statement.

OMG!WTF! · 02-10-2016, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bagor

Jeez, I don't know about that. Just because someone is unsure whether or not they have been assaulted should not be taken into consideration as whether or not an offence did take place.

Right on. That's all I got.

Kjesse · 02-10-2016, 07:39 PM

I understood Lucy's "Is this normal" comment to be more a joke than a genuine question.

afc wimbledon · 02-10-2016, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delgar

I understood Lucy's "Is this normal" comment to be more a joke than a genuine question.

I'm not sure the fact she was having a joke about it a few days later is any better than if she was serious, either way it speaks to a minimal event she didn't appear to be in the least bothered by at the time.

peter12 · 02-10-2016, 08:29 PM

So Callaghan's job is not to seek a conviction but to seek out what really happened.

Blaster86 · 02-10-2016, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter12

So Callaghan's job is not to seek a conviction but to seek out what really happened.

That's court in general's job.

Callaghan's job is to seek a conviction or not to bring it to trial if he thinks he can't.

bluejays · 02-10-2016, 08:49 PM

I'm not going to give much credit to Ghomeshi's lawyer, but rather it's upsetting that the victims in this case acted so carelessly. I understand the celebrity aspect but I just can't get around that he hurt them and they still stuck around him for dates when there really wasn't that established relationship yet at that point. Plus, not disclosing this to the prosecution has been utterly aggravating to me. In my personal opinion, the witnesses have messed this up from the start by not being fully aware of their past interactions with the bum, and they should've ironed their story out before hand. Ghomeshi probably gets off on this one, but there are a few more likely coming, and he likely will face victims who will get their story right this time.

PeteMoss · 02-11-2016, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaster86

That's court in general's job.

Callaghan's job is to seek a conviction or not to bring it to trial if he thinks he can't.

This is not his job. He presents the case fairly and it goes where it is. Its not a win or losses thing for the Crown. Its different in the US where these people are elected and get and keep their jobs based on their records and tough on crime stances.

Quote:

The
following observations from the Supreme Court of Canada provide a summary of our complex function
within the criminal justice system:

“It cannot be overemphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a
conviction; it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant
to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the
facts is presented; it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength, but it must also
be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is
a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater
responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the
seriousness, and the justness of judicial proceedings.” (R. v. Boucher)

troutman · 02-11-2016, 08:55 AM

Crown just finished closing argument.

https://twitter.com/sarahboesveld

Defence next in 20 minutes.