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.
Exactly. The protesters in Toronto are the one that really personify this feeling in our media and society. Its as if this man is 100% guilty and is somehow walking free. The crown tried to prove his guilt, failed to (miserably too), and now he "walks" not because of some loop hole, but because he isn't guilty of that crime.
We have as much proof that the ladies were lightly assaulted, as sexually assaulted, as we have that they made it up entirely, or that they are aliens from Krypton. The justice took all the evidence and tossed it in the bin. We know nothing of the truth, thus, all we know is he is not guilty based on evidence presented.
The right call was made today. But I truly do not feel that the acquittal leans towards Gomeshi's innocence. The 3 complainants screwed themselves and the justice system over with their collusion or altering of their testimony's. Is this a situation of them just trying to do too much to put him away? Probably.
The next trial will expose Gomeshi's guilt I think. And the courts will do the right thing then as well.
Are there consequences for these women lying under oath? Seems like it's been decided that they were, in fact, lying. I've always wondered if they do anything about that.
Not that I want to see something happen, I'm just curious.
Are there consequences for these women lying under oath? Seems like it's been decided that they were, in fact, lying. I've always wondered if they do anything about that.
Not that I want to see something happen, I'm just curious.
Ppossible given the justice, in his decision, said they deliberately lied under oath.
Quote:
Perjury
131. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ducay For This Useful Post:
Are there consequences for these women lying under oath? Seems like it's been decided that they were, in fact, lying. I've always wondered if they do anything about that.
Not that I want to see something happen, I'm just curious.
I doubt it, the cops and crown will want this to all go away fast.
That and Ghomeshi being a ######bag and all.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
I doubt it, the cops and crown will want this to all go away fast.
Agree - although they may have committed the crime, and the crown could potentially pursue charges of purjury against some of the complainants, could you imagine the backlash and implications on scaring other potential victims of saying something? Doubt it happens, but boy that'd be karma for lying.
No way in Hell the crown pursues perjury charges. What a firestorm that would be.
Witnesses commit perjury a lot more than you expect, especially a defendant.
However it's rarely ever pursued by the Crown, usually only in murder trials where the perjury results in the crowns case falling apart.
Woman come to court all the time and say their original statement accusing their partner was a lie. Once in a blue moon they get charged with public mischief, but hardly ever .
Last edited by Johnny199r; 03-24-2016 at 02:36 PM.
interesting - similar act evidence was inadmissible [para 127]
[para 140] - the bottom line
Interesting write up, never read something like that before. It's pretty hard to read that and not think the right decision was reached. It seems the judge's main problem was with witness reliability, but I would go so far as to say that probable consent was given in all three cases.
The fact that all three complainants claimed they wanted nothing to do with JG but then all tried to contact him is insane.
I mean, we all wanted Ghomeshi to be guilty. There was so much amour propre and schadenfreude built up across the collective consciousness. Good-looking star falls from grace. Ends up being a total creep. Well, what a perfect way to wrap up the tragedy.
That all fell apart for me when Decoutere's letter was read in court. Those women were most likely equally complicit in the whole sordid affair. Yes, they were probably used, but in no way can you say they were victims in all of this.
I mean, we all wanted Ghomeshi to be guilty. There was so much amour propre and schadenfreude built up across the collective consciousness. Good-looking star falls from grace. Ends up being a total creep. Well, what a perfect way to wrap up the tragedy.
Nothing society loves more than watching successful people fall from grace. Its a shame really, like I said, guy was judged by society long before the judge took up his case, and why the persistent belief the guy is guilty with everyday people.
Johnny, shouldn't it be though? I mean to say because X did it before he did it here too can be dangerous no? Convicting on character not facts?
This is why I didn't understand why the three accusers were combined in one trial. Was the Crown hoping the Judge would find guilt on a similar pattern of conduct?
This is why I didn't understand why the three accusers were combined in one trial. Was the Crown hoping the Judge would find guilt on a similar pattern of conduct?
I think the Crown would have needed to make that request... they didn't, though the judge talked about it a bit in his decision in any event. I expect the Crown was highly sensitive to the issue.
Note how most of the posters on this board (including me) think he's a creep because we all think there are so many accusers their allegations must be true....
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kjesse For This Useful Post:
I don't know the guy. I don't know anyone personally involved with Jian. I don't personally know of any facts or information regarding the investigations. I strongly feel I have no business forming an opinion of whether he did what others are accusing him of.
Sent from my LG-D950G using Tapatalk
__________________
Gaudreau > Huberdeau AINEC
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Philly06Cup For This Useful Post:
This is why I didn't understand why the three accusers were combined in one trial. Was the Crown hoping the Judge would find guilt on a similar pattern of conduct?
Sure, the Crown's argument would be strengthened significantly if the judge accepted the three separate encounters as similar fact evidence. That's why the 5000 text messages between the 2nd and 3rd accusers were so devastating to the Crown's case. From what I understand, they didn't even end up making an application for similar fact evidence and I would guess it is because they knew it wouldn't be granted.
Similar fact evidence is presumptively inadmissible (as you noted at para. 127) but there is a threshold that can be met by the Crown to connect the cases. It requires the Crown to present the separate scenarios to the court and say, "besides being true, there's no other reasonable explanation for why these people would describe such a similar pattern of behavior by the defendant in separate incidents."
After the texts were exposed, there was another explanation: the accusers were talking about their separate experiences. At that point it didn't matter whether they actually colluded or not, the possibility of another reasonable explanation takes similar fact evidence out of consideration for the judge and he's back to considering each charge separately.
U of A law prof Peter Sankoff explains this in some detail in this video:
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Savvy27 For This Useful Post:
