Jian Ghomeshi: Guilty or Innocent?

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

On a more positive note, hopefully this will educate Canadians about how our criminal justice system works. As the judge said in his ruling, navigating your testimony to the police and courts is actually pretty straightforward - tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That doesn't mean you will always get satisfaction in the courts, but it does mean you won't sabotage your own case.

Again, the justice nailed it. This isn't some legal game of cat and mouse for witnesses and complainants.

Horkins said that the witness explained that the witness tried to explain her behaviour away, saying that she told the court "this was her first kick at the can" and she didn't know how to navigate the court.

"Navigating this proceeding is really quite simple. Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

[troutman]

Lucy's exclusive interview with Chatelaine:

http://www.chatelaine.com/news/exclu...eshi-disaster/

[Canehdianman]

I think I have a very different take on this than most of you here (and the public in general).

Jian deserved to be found not guilty as soon as it became clear that the complainants were lying.

I hope an investigation is done into whether the complainants should be charged with perjury. Because what they tried to do was put someone in prison that doesn't deserve to be there.

I hope it doesn't have a chilling effect on complainants coming forward who have been abused.

But i certainly hope it has a chilling effect on people lying to try to convict someone.

I'm sure Jian will sue CBC for a gazillion dollars at this point. And I hope he wins.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I think I have a very different take on this than most of you here (and the public in general).

Jian deserved to be found not guilty as soon as it became clear that the complainants were lying.

I hope an investigation is done into whether the complainants should be charged with perjury. Because what they tried to do was put someone in prison that doesn't deserve to be there.

I hope it doesn't have a chilling effect on complainants coming forward who have been abused.

But i certainly hope it has a chilling effect on people lying to try to convict someone.

I'm sure Jian will sue CBC for a gazillion dollars at this point. And I hope he wins.

See this is a big discrepancy going on about innocent vs not guilty.

He has been found not guilty because of the witness testimonies, but that doesn't mean he's innocent and did not deserve to go to jail. They tried to have someone found guilty of something he very likely did, but in doing so tried to collude their stories, purposely withhold information, and outright lie. And thus, brought all of their testimonies into question. None of those means he didn't physically assault these women.

You may notice that the defense never once tried to deny the allegations through witnesses for Ghomeshi, they tore down the complaintants story because they and the prosecution allowed themselves to be open to such scrutiny.

If they had been forthright about their relationships with Ghomeshi, no doubt in my mind he would have been found guilty.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I hope an investigation is done into whether the complainants should be charged with perjury.

What did they say on the stand that would qualify as a no-doubt-about-it lie?

[bigtmac19]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I think I have a very different take on this than most of you here (and the public in general).

Jian deserved to be found not guilty as soon as it became clear that the complainants were lying.

I hope an investigation is done into whether the complainants should be charged with perjury. Because what they tried to do was put someone in prison that doesn't deserve to be there.

I hope it doesn't have a chilling effect on complainants coming forward who have been abused.

But i certainly hope it has a chilling effect on people lying to try to convict someone.

I'm sure Jian will sue CBC for a gazillion dollars at this point. And I hope he wins.

He got fired from the CBC because of his conduct at work against other employees - not because of these three cases. So no - he can't sue them. He was harassing people he worked with hence the firing.

If anyone should be suing CBC it should be the women who left their jobs because they were being sexually harassed by Ghomeshi at work, and complained to management about it, and nothing was done to stop it.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

I'm sure Jian will sue CBC for a gazillion dollars at this point. And I hope he wins.

Again this? He did sue CBC, withdrew his case and paid $18K for CBC's legal costs. One problem with his claim is I think it was barred from the outset by the collective bargaining agreement. He can only pursue a grievance through the union.

And, what does the criminal case have to do with his dismissal at CBC? He was accused of harassment by CBC employees.

No way he files a civil suit, where he would have to go on the stand. And the burden of proof is only a balance of probabilities.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by MattyC

See this is a big discrepancy going on about innocent vs not guilty.

He has been found not guilty because of the witness testimonies, but that doesn't mean he's innocent and did not deserve to go to jail. They tried to have someone found guilty of something he very likely did, but in doing so tried to collude their stories, purposely withhold information, and outright lie. And thus, brought all of their testimonies into question. None of those means he didn't physically assault these women.

You may notice that the defense never once tried to deny the allegations through witnesses for Ghomeshi, they tore down the complaintants story because they and the prosecution allowed themselves to be open to such scrutiny.

If they had been forthright about their relationships with Ghomeshi, no doubt in my mind he would have been found guilty.

Thanks for the lesson in law, but I never said he was innocent. I said he didn't deserve to be in prison. As he's been acquitted of all charges, I'm not sure how you can think otherwise. It exactly means that he doesn't deserve to go to jail.

We will never know if he would have been convicted in the absence of the collusion and lies, but it is pretty clear that the complainants thought they had to do those things in order to get a conviction (otherwise, why do it?)

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by bigtmac19

He got fired from the CBC because of his conduct at work against other employees - not because of these three cases. So no - he can't sue them. He was harassing people he worked with hence the firing.

If anyone should be suing CBC it should be the women who left their jobs because they were being sexually harassed by Ghomeshi at work, and complained to management about it, and nothing was done to stop it.

Originally Posted by troutman

Again this? He did sue CBC, withdrew his case and paid $18K for CBC's legal costs. One problem with his claim is I think it was barred from the outset by the collective bargaining agreement. He can only pursue a grievance through the union.

And, what does the criminal case have to do with his dismissal at CBC? He was accused of harassment by CBC employees.

No way he files a civil suit, where he would have to go on the stand.

Good point. I hadn't read much about his dismissal from CBC, I assumed that it was because of the charges.

[peter12]

Disclaimer: Jian Ghomeshi is a scum-bag.

That said, would anyone feel it was justice if someone went to prison on the basis of those three testimonies? Of course not. These women weren't held to a higher standard. In fact the opposite. All of them blatantly misled the prosecution. lied to the court, and colluded with each other to enact some sort of revenge on Ghomeshi

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Thanks for the lesson in law, but I never said he was innocent. I said he didn't deserve to be in prison. As he's been acquitted of all charges, I'm not sure how you can think otherwise. It exactly means that he doesn't deserve to go to jail.

We will never know if he would have been convicted in the absence of the collusion and lies, but it is pretty clear that the complainants thought they had to do those things in order to get a conviction (otherwise, why do it?)

Saying he didn't deserve to, to me, implies that he was innocent. Especially when you frame it that they tried to put him there, undeservedly. He could very much deserve to be there, but their testimony tanked any notion of that happening.

He shouldn't go to prison based on the trial, and the judge made the right call. What he "deserves" is still up for debate, because the truth of the situation hasn't been fully realized. All that's been realized is that there was inconsistency in the complainants' testimonies. It has nothing to do with what he deserves.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Thanks for the lesson in law, but I never said he was innocent. I said he didn't deserve to be in prison. As he's been acquitted of all charges, I'm not sure how you can think otherwise. It exactly means that he doesn't deserve to go to jail.

We will never know if he would have been convicted in the absence of the collusion and lies, but it is pretty clear that the complainants thought they had to do those things in order to get a conviction (otherwise, why do it?)

Wait hold on. RE: the bolded part, that is exactly what court decisions not decide is "deserves". That's a subjective term and open to debate for each person to decide. Guilty/Not Guilty has nothing to do with deserves.

As for your second paragraph I actually think they lied to avoid the wrath of segments of the public who would vilify Jian to such a degree that I think they felt immense guilt for carrying on a relationship with him.

I mean the protesters and other such people (not all of them but some) that are vehemently against our justice system giving him his day in trial. They are militant in their "it's rape culture" stance and have actually put pressure (not directly of course, I'm not talking coercion) on the victims to pretend he was a psychotic violent monster 24/7. That's not to mention the people who would have questioned these women because they genuinely don't understand abusive relationships. Basically it was a no-win scenario for these women. Or maybe it was one of a dozen other reasons why they didn't tell the full truth. Maybe it wasn't the cycle of abuse. Maybe they just thought he had an episode and wanted to give him a second chance, maybe there was an attraction to status that caused them to use bad judgement. It could be any number of things. Bottom line is that I don't think they lied because they are scumbags. I'd bet they did it because they felt like if they told the truth they'd be judged by the "jian supporters" and by their own supporters, if it is fair to call either group that name.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Saying he didn't deserve to, to me, implies that he was innocent. Especially when you frame it that they tried to put him there, undeservedly. He could very much deserve to be there, but their testimony tanked any notion of that happening.

He shouldn't go to prison based on the trial, and the judge made the right call. What he "deserves" is still up for debate, because the truth of the situation hasn't been fully realized. All that's been realized is that there was inconsistency in the complainants' testimonies. It has nothing to do with what he deserves.

Sorry, but until we have some means of determining what people "deserve", the only determination of what he "deserves" is what the judge decided.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Thanks for the lesson in law, but I never said he was innocent. I said he didn't deserve to be in prison. As he's been acquitted of all charges, I'm not sure how you can think otherwise. It exactly means that he doesn't deserve to go to jail.

I think the confusion comes here:

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Because what they tried to do was put someone in prison that doesn't deserve to be there.

He might very well deserve to be in jail if he committed crimes, but the process dictates that there is reasonable doubt, so they can't put him there.

He can absolutely be acquitted and still deserve to be in jail. It happens all the time.

The definition of deserve states doing something that is worthy of a particular outcome, not that the outcome must be reached. To argue Jian being undeserving of prison is to argue Jian's definitive innocence.

[Kjesse]

An excerpt from the written decision:

138:
The success of this prosecution depended entirely on the Court being able to accept each complainant as a sincere, honest and accurate witness. Each complainant was revealed at trial to be lacking in these important attributes. The evidence of each complainant suffered not just from inconsistencies and questionable behaviour, but was tainted by outright deception.

[bigtmac19]

Originally Posted by Delgar

An excerpt from the written decision:

138:
The success of this prosecution depended entirely on the Court being able to accept each complainant as a sincere, honest and accurate witness. Each complainant was revealed at trial to be lacking in these important attributes. The evidence of each complainant suffered not just from inconsistencies and questionable behaviour, but was tainted by outright deception.

This is the sad part about the case. I thought in most criminal cases that the crown will extensively question and prepare their witnesses. They really should not have pursued this case to court, with the complainants they had. It was nothing but a circus.

I believe he treated these women as they described, it's unfortunate that the trial turned out as it did.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by peter12

Disclaimer: Jian Ghomeshi is a scum-bag.

That said, would anyone feel it was justice if someone went to prison on the basis of those three testimonies? Of course not. These women weren't held to a higher standard. In fact the opposite. All of them blatantly misled the prosecution. lied to the court, and colluded with each other to enact some sort of revenge on Ghomeshi

I agree with the general tone of this post. I disagree with labeling though. We don't know if he's a scum-bag. He certainly LOOKS like a scum-bag in light of accusations and media portrayal and it feels like he could be one. But the general public doesn't know if he is or not. Therefore, to label him as a scum bag is presumptuous, libelous and unwarranted. Assume for a moment that he is 100% innocent (that is that all of the accusations against him are fabricated). Would anyone want to be in his place right now? Is Patrick Kane a scum-bag?

Regardless of what had really happened (and the judge pointed out this was impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt), we do know with 100% certainty (proven in court) that the two women have conspired to have him convicted and organized their efforts to do so using questionable (and illegal) means. This is in the age where anyone can sue anyone for anything.

Yet, nobody here seems satisfied that the justice had been served as it should have. The overwhelming general sentiment is that "the ba$tard had gotten away with murder!" We now have own Canadian OJ Simpson. Everyone still sincerely believes that he is guilty of the crime as accused even AFTER reading the very detailed and well-reasoned judgement. Even the lawyers here seem to support this sentiment. Where's the respect for law and due process? The amount of blood thirst is almost medieval.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I agree with the general tone of this post. I disagree with labeling though. We don't know if he's a scum-bag. He certainly LOOKS like a scum-bag in light of accusations and media portrayal and it feels like he could be one. But the general public doesn't know if he is or not. Therefore, to label him as a scum bag is presumptuous, libelous and unwarranted. Assume for a moment that he is 100% innocent (that is that all of the accusations against him are fabricated). Would anyone want to be in his place right now? Is Patrick Kane a scum-bag?

Regardless of what had really happened (and the judge pointed out this was impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt), we do know with 100% certainty (proven in court) that the two women have conspired to have him convicted and organized their efforts to do so using questionable (and illegal) means. This is in the age where anyone can sue anyone for anything.

Yet, nobody here seems satisfied that the justice had been served as it should have. The overwhelming general sentiment is that "the ba$tard had gotten away with murder!" We now have own Canadian OJ Simpson. Everyone still sincerely believes that he is guilty of the crime as accused even AFTER reading the very detailed and well-reasoned judgement. Even the lawyers here seem to support this sentiment. Where's the respect for law and due process? The amount of blood thirst is almost medieval.

Well, I agree. I just added the "Disclaimer" as any general approval for the decision is automatically seen as equivocal to Ghomeshi's purported habits.

That said, there is a lot of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that suggests to me he is a scum-bag. All warranted.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

That said, there is a lot of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that suggests to me he is a scum-bag. All warranted.

He was in a band called Moxy Fruvous. Enough said.

[DiracSpike]

Can someone speak to the legal definition of what exactly he was charged with?

Assault? Sexual Assault? Is rape called sexual assult under the criminal code of Canada?