# Jian Ghomeshi not guilty



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

I had a feeling he would get off.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

I was pretty sure he would too. Nothing says reasonable doubt like lying about 5000 emails.

Let the lawsuits begin.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Sneaky said:


> I was pretty sure he would too. Nothing says reasonable doubt like lying about 5000 emails.
> 
> Let the lawsuits begin.


Yeah, as of now he's probably broke from legal fees.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i don't feel sorry for him either way. he gets off on beating and degrading someone else. 

thinking about it though, even without the email thing, they couldn't allow a conviction. because there's no way in this world his employers were not aware, making them complicit. if he was convicted, they would have to be next. no way that's gonna happen.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Do I believe he did it? Yes. Should he have been charged? No, not based on the evidence. To charge him would essentially let the govt into everyones bedroom. This kind if sex happens every day, along with much worse. If the consent is there then there is not much that can be done. I feel very badly for the 3 women but to try to continue a relationship after the act implies consent. It also throws everything they've said into question, no way the judge could convict based on that.

What I find somewhat amusing is that the CBC immediately issued a statement saying the decision to fire Ghomeshi had nothing to do with these accusations. Positioning themselves for the pending lawsuit, no doubt.

To be clear I absolutely hate any kind of violence, particularly towards women, but even I could not have convicted him based on what I know at the moment.

The second trial will be quite interesting.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

The crown and its witnesses sure buggered up this time.


----------



## Tarbender (Apr 7, 2006)

Not guilty in a court of law maybe, but in the court of public opinion we all know he's guilty as hell.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Watching the dramatization of the Simpson trial, it shows a poorly funded crown (or their version of it) against a very expensive, but squabbling, defense. And we know the outcome of that.

Is this the same thing? Does money buy you justice? We all know why it failed, but why wasn't the crown prepared for what the defense brought to the table?


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

High/Deaf said:


> Is this the same thing? Does money buy you justice? We all know why it failed, but why wasn't the crown prepared for what the defense brought to the table?


It's quite possible that had the police and the Crown done due diligence with the witnesses that this may never have gone to trial. How much of that was down to the witnesses actually misleading (we can't say lying anymore) both the Crown and police we'll likely never know. Had they known they might have been able to defend the womens actions somewhat but I'm pretty sure they were blindsided.

There is some pretty damning evidence for a defamation lawsuit by the sound of things, as distasteful as that may seem. The judge's summation was quite specific.

And yes I'm quite sure he did it, but I don't think money bought the defense, although it probably paid for a very competent attorney and a very thorough investigation by the defense.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

davetcan said:


> It's quite possible that had the police and the Crown done due diligence with the witnesses that this may never have gone to trial. How much of that was down to the witnesses actually misleading (we can't say lying anymore) both the Crown and police we'll likely never know. Had they known they might have been able to defend the womens actions somewhat but I'm pretty sure they were blindsided.
> 
> There is some pretty damning evidence for a defamation lawsuit by the sound of things, as distasteful as that may seem. The judge's summation was quite specific.
> 
> And yes I'm quite sure he did it, but I don't think money bought the defense, although it probably paid for a very competent attorney and a very thorough investigation by the defense.


The lawsuits are coming, and CBC might also have to make a substantial payout.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

butterknucket said:


> The lawsuits are coming, and CBC might also have to make a substantial payout.


No problem for the CBC, they can dip into that $650M we just gave them, thanks to Justin.


----------



## Lord-Humongous (Jun 5, 2014)

CBC has nothing to do with this case. And I'm pretty sure he won't be able to sue due to the union contract at CBC.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

One of the inherent difficulties in the legal interpretation of sexual assault cases is that it relies to some extent on the presumption of negative consequences for the plaintiff. The acts themselves are not necessarily criminal, by definition, in every instance. After all, people have sex. People have weird sex. Couples have sex when one partner doesn't necessarily feel in the mood. It was the consideration of emotional consequences that allowed for sexual assault to also include rape within the context of marriage. Otherwise, the presumption and judgment would have continued to be that a husband cannot, by definition, rape someone he is legally permitted to have sex with. 

Given that expanded understanding of sexual assault, factors such as consent, emotional hurt and/or humiliation, etc., play a role in considering whether some action IS assault. But that broader, more comprehensive legal definition brings with it certain risks to the plaintiff. If the act is labelled as sexual assault, partly based on how it affects me, then it becomes incumbent on me to show in unambiguous fashion that I *have* been emotionally scarred. And while that can be easy to demonstrate in many instances, it is also easy to challenge in other instances.

And that seems to be what happened in this case. Faced with evidence that the plaintiffs showed rather contradictory consequences (such as seeming to flirt with Ghomeshi after the alleged assaults), it becomes hard for the court to say that there is clearly the commission of acts that had harmful effect to the plaintiffs.

Now, let me be clear that the lad has sorely disappointed me with his off-mic character. Whether it qualifies as a criminal offense is something I'm up in the air about. To the best of my knowledge, nobody claimed rape (please correct me if I'm wrong). And while I don't wish to diminish any harm it may have had (as might just about any really bad relationship), ultimately it was presented by the plaintiffs as unwanted _sexual_ behaviour. I don't blame them for being livid about the unwanted blurring of lines between physical violence and romantic love-making, but conceivably, they might have had better luck pursuing the case as common assault, where it becomes more a matter of the actions themselves. After all, if somebody punches me in a bar, the court is minimally concerned with my emotional outcomes, and broaches the case purely in terms of whether a) they did or did not punch me, b) whether I punched them first, and c) whether it was provoked or not.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

He is clearly a scumbag but I find the protestor's actions questionable. While all alleged victims of sexual assaults need to be taken seriously, they seem to be saying that they need to be _believed_, which is not the same thing. They don't seem to understand, or care about, the legal tenet that a person is innocent until _proven_ guilty.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Call me conservative, but I don't think protesting topless at a sexual assault trial is an intelligent way to get your point across. 

Sure, it gets attention, but there's a better way to go about things.


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

I haven't been following the trial but just did a quick read/recap. The defense sure made a strong case that all the acts were consensual (if they even happened). Those e-mails/letters were more than enough evidence to create reasonable doubt.

If he is guilty, it's a shame our system isn't better equipped to handle such things. If he is innocent, it's a shame the court of public opinion can be so damaging. Even though he is acquitted of all charges, there are countless people who will consider him guilty for the rest of his life.

It makes me wonder what will happen with the Bill Cosby case.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

butterknucket said:


> Call me conservative, but I don't think protesting topless at a sexual assault trial is an intelligent way to get your point across.
> 
> Sure, it gets attention, but there's a better way to go about things.


Pics please.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

jbealsmusic said:


> I haven't been following the trial but just did a quick read/recap. The defense sure made a strong case that all the acts were consensual (if they even happened). Those e-mails/letters were more than enough evidence to create reasonable doubt.
> 
> If he is guilty, it's a shame our system isn't better equipped to handle such things. If he is innocent, it's a shame the court of public opinion can be so damaging. Even though he is acquitted of all charges, there are countless people who will consider him guilty for the rest of his life.
> 
> It makes me wonder what will happen with the Bill Cosby case.


I don't doubt for a second that he is guilty, but our system worked exactly as it should in this case. Crown and witnesses both f'd this one up.


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

mhammer said:


> After all, if somebody punches me in a bar, the court is minimally concerned with my emotional outcomes, and broaches the case purely in terms of whether a) they did or did not punch me, b) whether I punched them first, and c) whether it was provoked or not.


What if somebody punched you in a bar, then after you got up off the floor and skulked away with your tail between your legs, you decided that him punching you was maybe your fault because you looked at his girlfriend when she walked by, so after a couple beers you went over and said sorry. You bought him a beer and gave him a big man hug. Then in the morning when you were sober and noticed your giant black eye in the mirror you realized, "hey that guy assaulted me, I'm calling the cops." Then what? The fact they carried on a relationship afterward was a big factor in this case.

(Not directed at you MH, just a devils advocate type question)


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

The crown fucked up. The witnesses were weak. The defence was sharp. The judge had little choice. 

Social networks are having a field day.

Ever been a victim or sexual assault or known someone who was? It makes one much more invested in the issue.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

I always thought that it was a criminal offense to 
lie to an investigating police officer
lie to crown attorneys
lie in court in front of a judge.

Obviously I know nothing about criminal court proceedings...
G.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

http://www.thebeaverton.com/nationa...olice-for-their-excellent-work-on-his-defence


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

http://www.thebeaverton.com/nationa...inst-the-stereotype-that-women-tell-the-truth


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

It's interesting that all the vitriol is directed at Judge Horkins and Ghomeshi, yet none of it is directed toward Marie Henein. I would have thought that the protesters would view her as a traitor and be out for her scalp.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

People can blame whomever they want to, but there's not much anyone can do when witnesses don't tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". You know, that thing they all pledge to do before giving testimony. The minute we find out that they are all, in fact, failing to do so throws the whole case into doubt. I don't see the judge having any other course of action.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Can you guys that think he's guilty tell me what you think he's guilty of. From what I've read and seen about this case, the women were willing participants that kept in contact after the alleged assault.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

He's guilty of smacking and choking unwilling but gullible and naïve women who testify poorly and have the tendency to omit and forget pertinent facts when talking to police, prosecutors and the court in general.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

In the last few months, I've heard and read comment after comment from advocates, people working in women's shelters, lawyers, sociologists, and others, that the relationship between female victims and their assaulter are complex, often paradoxical, and less likely to yield the sorts of testimony that many are accustomed to hearing. Keep in mind that, unless we're talking stranger-assault, the situations in the Ghomeshi case arose because there was a desire for a relationship. Unlike simple assault, where one would just stay away from a person who physically attacked you out of the blue, assault in the context of intimate relationships can easily result in someone doubting themselves, wondering if they experienced what they think they experienced, and wanting to test their understanding of things by maintaining the relationship. The motivation to find coherence in one's understanding of the world and people is a very strong one, and leads to people doing some unexpected or strange things.

To simply dismiss the plaintiffs as "liars" or "attention-seekers", based on the very different form of their testimony and post-event behaviour, relative to many more straightforward sorts of offenses ("Yes officer, that's the man who hit me", "That's the person on the security-cam recording who robbed the convenience store"), is to misunderstand the nature of sexual assault in the context ofclose relationships. That doesn't mean there should not be stringent _standards_ of evidence applied, but those standards may need to adapt. In this case, the defense strategy seemed to be demonstrating that the evidence from the plaintiffs did not meet the standard for other kinds of offenses.

I wish I knew what the solution was.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

Regardless of the Judge's decision in this case, the "court of public opinion" seems to have found him guilty of being too: 1) rough with women; and 2) full of himself. I'd guess his career is largely (if not entirely) _done _at this point. Have to wonder how Jian's "star power" is working out for him now...


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Guitar101 said:


> Can you guys that think he's guilty tell me what you think he's guilty of. From what I've read and seen about this case, the women were willing participants that kept in contact after the alleged assault.


I suspect he did exactly what the women said he did, which I personally do not agree with. At the moment he's not guilty of anything in the eyes of the law.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

mhammer's post above captures my thoughts and conclusion. The Judge did the right thing in an impossible situation. 

My big disappointment in a case like this is it tends to drive other victims away from seeking justice in cases that demand it. 

Our society, and the law, is a work in progress.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

ronmac said:


> My big disappointment in a case like this is it tends to drive other victims away from seeking justice in cases that demand it. Our society, and the law, is a work in progress.


Well said.


----------



## Rski (Dec 28, 2013)

Interesting thread. The media brewed the sensationalism of those allegations, and yes the police did act accordingly and the matter taken its course. Here is a scary thought.

This site is Guitars Canada and I'm sure that most of us sling a guitar and play. Interestingly the accused also plays guitar like many of us.

What if one of the members on this site is really Jian?


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Christie Blatchford praises the judge and the trial he ran for its dispassionate focus on the law without coloration of social pressures:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...ie-blatchford-break-down-the-ghomeshi-verdict

We may not like what the reports have told us the little shit did, but the justice system worked properly IMO. Nice when it does in spite of high-pitched clamoring in social media (including this place!)

Only those who are certain they will never do anything that's unpopular but not unequivocally illegal, and/or never encounter anyone willing to do anything to exact revenge for it (or something else they don't like about you), should disagree.


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

how about this point of view...
how many guys are in jail right now based sole on pure lies and fabrications of the accusers.
Based on the Ghomeshi case, the police didn't bother to expose the lies,
and the prosecution didn't bother either.
So this case comes down to some pretty good defense lawyers
who Im sure where not cheap to hire to bring out the facts of lies and fabrications in this case.
How many of us in this similar spot could afford such defense lawyers?
I would suggest most of us would go directly to jail.
G.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Taken from the ole social media:

Charlie Angus:
"I have known Jian Ghomeshi casually for 25 plus years. What did I learn from the trial? 1) That a woman who remembers being beaten is not considered credible because she didn't know the make of his car. 2) That famous people can afford lawyers known as "Hannibal Lecter" for their ability to take sexual assault witnesses apart. 3) That Jian won't bother to refute any of the charges because as some law expert says: "There are many reasons why an accused elects not to call evidence. One of them is that the complainants have been destroyed in cross-examination.'' 4) That Jian flourished as a predator in what should have been the safest organization in the country and that the legal system continues to fail women and 5) that nobody close to Jian even pretends he is innocent, and somehow this isn't an issue -- the women are."

Something to ponder.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

GTmaker said:


> how about this point of view...
> how many guys are in jail right now based sole on pure lies and fabrications of the accusers.
> Based on the Ghomeshi case, the police didn't bother to expose the lies,
> and the prosecution didn't bother either.
> ...


Heck, I can't even afford a low-end Tesla ............... I'd be in jail


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Budda said:


> Taken from the ole social media: Charlie Angus: "I have known Jian Ghomeshi casually for 25 plus years. What did I learn from the trial? 1) That a woman who remembers being beaten is not considered credible because she didn't know the make of his car. 2) That famous people can afford lawyers known as "Hannibal Lecter" for their ability to take sexual assault witnesses apart. 3) That Jian won't bother to refute any of the charges because as some law expert says: "There are many reasons why an accused elects not to call evidence. One of them is that the complainants have been destroyed in cross-examination.'' 4) That Jian flourished as a predator in what should have been the safest organization in the country and that the legal system continues to fail women and 5) that nobody close to Jian even pretends he is innocent, and somehow this isn't an issue -- the women are." Something to ponder.


I've tried to make clear that I don't like what we've been told he did. However in a court of law if the people accusing him of doing it are demonstrably uncertain, dishonest, and even willing to break the law to see him convicted, I'll go with "not guilty". It's called "reasonable doubt".

It is facile to accept the stories, emotionally bond with the victims, and lay the verdict at the feet of contemptible sharpie lawyers. The state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what it said happened, happened. Charlie Angus wasn't on the stand, and he doesn't say anything that is not likely to be third-party hearsay so on the stand his assertions would be objectionable.

Your post illustrates my point well. What Charlie Angus thinks has nothing to do with the law.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

mhammer said:


> In the last few months, I've heard and read comment after comment from advocates, people working in women's shelters, lawyers, sociologists, and others, that the relationship between female victims and their assaulter are complex, often paradoxical, and less likely to yield the sorts of testimony that many are accustomed to hearing. Keep in mind that, unless we're talking stranger-assault, the situations in the Ghomeshi case arose because there was a desire for a relationship. Unlike simple assault, where one would just stay away from a person who physically attacked you out of the blue, assault in the context of intimate relationships can easily result in someone doubting themselves, wondering if they experienced what they think they experienced, and wanting to test their understanding of things by maintaining the relationship. The motivation to find coherence in one's understanding of the world and people is a very strong one, and leads to people doing some unexpected or strange things.
> 
> To simply dismiss the plaintiffs as "liars" or "attention-seekers", based on the very different form of their testimony and post-event behaviour, relative to many more straightforward sorts of offenses ("Yes officer, that's the man who hit me", "That's the person on the security-cam recording who robbed the convenience store"), is to misunderstand the nature of sexual assault in the context ofclose relationships. That doesn't mean there should not be stringent _standards_ of evidence applied, but those standards may need to adapt. In this case, the defense strategy seemed to be demonstrating that the evidence from the plaintiffs did not meet the standard for other kinds of offenses.



So there should be special (ie. lower) standards of evidence in sexual assault cases? So the men accused of sexual assault should not have the same rights in a criminal court as someone accused of robbery, murder, dealing drugs, or whatever? That would contravene multiple sections of the Charter of Rights, particularly sections 11 and 15.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I'm not saying reasonable doubt wasn't proved. What I am saying is that it seems that most who knows him on a personal level sides with the women, regardless of the outcome of the trial. And that's saying something.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

It is an interesting situation. It is obvious that these women got wind of each other's stories and decided to do something about it, which alone is a big statement. They withheld evidence from the Crown ... all three of them. If the Crown had known about them could they have proceeded in a different way with a better case? They took him down.... a win anyway (i.e the crown payed for court)? 

There is still another case


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

colchar said:


> So there should be special (ie. lower) standards of evidence in sexual assault cases? So the men accused of sexual assault should not have the same rights in a criminal court as someone accused of robbery, murder, dealing drugs, or whatever? That would contravene multiple sections of the Charter of Rights, particularly sections 11 and 15.


Not a question of rights.

There are ALWAYS different standards for different sorts of evidence. For example we have different standards for DNA evidence, for confessions obtained under this circumstance or that, and so on.

Perhaps the word "standards" is unintentionally misleading. Maybe a better term should be "qualifiers". That is, the evidence is considered with an understanding of what versions of that category of evidence might exist, and which ones have greater creedence than others. This should also include some consideration of when a piece of evidence not only does not support the plaintiff's case, but does not turn around and support the defendent's case.

And that has been one of the ongoing sore spots with sexual assault cases, even though folks have been trying to fix things. To presume a woman is "a tramp" or "loose" suggests at once that she is unaffected by the alleged offense (so, no plaintiff case because of an assumption there were likely no demonstrable consequences) and that the defendent had an honest belief that they were not committing an offense (I mean, after all, she _wanted_ it, right?).

It's a bit like judging a theft by saying "Well, a few months after the $6000 Les Paul was stolen, your honour, the plaintiff started to get into his Telecaster more, and didn't really miss his Les Paul as much as he thought he would. So, the defendent didn't really commit a crime, really, because he knew the plaintiff could eventually get along without the Les Paul." That's the risk I was referring to earlier, when noting that offenses defined by psychological consequences, in addition to actions, can put plaintiffs at a disadvantage.

For Ghomeshi's actions to have been readily accepted as a sexual assault, the women on the receiving end would have had to demonstrate clear, documented, and continuing consequences. We have no assurances that such a thing could ever be as likely or straightforward as, say, being able to show the court receipts from 18 months of physiotherapy resulting from the other party's car slamming into yours.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

mhammer said:


> Not a question of rights.


Yes, it most definitely _is_ a question of rights.

Section 11 of the _Charter_ guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. What you are proposing would contravene that section. 

Section 15 of the _Charter_ guarantees the right to equal treatment before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. What you are proposing would _most definitely_ contravene that right.





> There are ALWAYS different standards for different sorts of evidence. For example we have different standards for DNA evidence, for confessions obtained under this circumstance or that, and so on.


But those standards are applied equally in all cases (ie. one standard for DNA evidence which is used in all cases, another standard for eyewitness testimony, etc.). What you were proposing is a lower standard of proof for sexual assault cases, which would most definitely contravene the_ Charter of Rights_.





> Perhaps the word "standards" is unintentionally misleading. Maybe a better term should be "qualifiers". That is, the evidence is considered with an understanding of what versions of that category of evidence might exist, and which ones have greater creedence than others.


That already happens. DNA evidence, for example, is given greater credence than eyewitness testimony (which is notoriously unreliable). 





> And that has been one of the ongoing sore spots with sexual assault cases, even though folks have been trying to fix things. To presume a woman is "a tramp" or "loose" suggests at once that she is unaffected by the alleged offense (so, no plaintiff case because of an assumption there were likely no demonstrable consequences) and that the defendent had an honest belief that they were not committing an offense (I mean, after all, she _wanted_ it, right?).



While that _might_ happen in _some_ cases, it did not happen in this case. In this case the complainants gave misleading and contradictory statements and testimony which calls the veracity of those statements and testimony, and the complainant's truthfulness, into question to such a degree that it created reasonable doubt. And since the standard is that someone be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt it was impossible to reach that standard based on such misleading and contradictory testimony.





> It's a bit like judging a theft by saying "Well, a few months after the $6000 Les Paul was stolen, your honour, the plaintiff started to get into his Telecaster more, and didn't really miss his Les Paul as much as he thought he would. So, the defendent didn't really commit a crime, really, because he knew the plaintiff could eventually get along without the Les Paul." That's the risk I was referring to earlier, when noting that offenses defined by psychological consequences, in addition to actions, can put plaintiffs at a disadvantage.



That is a terrible analogy.

In this case one complainant claimed that she was so traumatized by what he had done that she couldn't even hear his voice without reliving the alleged assault. But despite that she sent him bikini pics. 

Another (or maybe it was the same one) made claims about his car but it was proven that he didn't even own that car until more than six months _after_ the alleged assault. How can her recollections be given credence when they are proven to be factually incorrect?




> For Ghomeshi's actions to have been readily accepted as a sexual assault, the women on the receiving end would have had to demonstrate clear, documented, and continuing consequences.


No, they would not. All they had to do was to demonstrate clear and truthful recollections of what happened. They did not do that. In fact, they directly contradicted themselves through both their words and their actions. Because of that the prosecution could not reach the standard of proving the case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

shoretyus said:


> It is an interesting situation. It is obvious that these women got wind of each other's stories and decided to do something about it, which alone is a big statement.



Two of them were in email contact with each other and those emails, in which they stated they were going to 'get the prick' (or words to that effect), came to light.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

davetcan said:


> I suspect he did exactly what the women said he did, which I personally do not agree with. At the moment he's not guilty of anything in the eyes of the law.


It's the eyes of the law that counts.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Personally, I don't really care about this case, and my comments are not about it, but about the challenges it illustrates. And I certainly don't propose lower standards of evidence. It does illustrate some difficult issues that accompany sexual assault cases in general.

For every form of evidence, there are better and worse, or I should say moreand less reliable versions. There is reliable, and less reliable eyewitness, there is reliable and less reliable DNA, better and worse forensic evaluaion of voice or security-cam recordings, higher and lower quality forensic audits, and testimony from more and less reliable witnesses. Each form has its own standards for what constitutes a "best form", based on what we know about it. Once upon a time we thought being an eyewitness was incontrovertible proof. Then, Liz Loftus and others demonstrated that eyewitness memory was amenable to distortion; sometimes dependable, but sometimes not. Understanding how memory works provided some principles and qualifiers for understanding when the veridicality of such testimony should be challenged.

What I propose is that the behaviour of those who have been sexually assaulted is not fully understood yet, and that, like a great many forms of evidence we require qualifiers to be able to say with greater accuracy this sort of behaviour means X and that sort means Y.

That is no undermining of the Charter any more than re-assessing the validity of eyewitness testimony provided by leading questions undermines the charter.

As for "getting the prick", I would imagine many of Bernie Madoff's victims exchanged the same sort of correspondence between them, once they found out that they had all been swindled the same way. Vengeance by victims is not exactly the unique realm of these women or of victims of sexual assault.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

The smartest thing he and his lawyer did was go before Judge alone. That removes 12 people who are more likely to make emotional decisions, even when instructed otherwise.

I have no doubt that the women were victimized and traumatized by his actions. Their actions and missteps after the fact likely contributed greatly to the final verdict. I feel genuinely sad for them, and other women suffering through similar struggles. But the system worked. The accused got a fair trial and the Judge based his verdict on the evidence as presented, weighing the errors of omission/collusion along with the factual, contextual and emotional arguments. 

"Facts are the enemy of truth." _Miguel de Cervantes_


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

After reading things online about the case from people with legal knowledge, I didn't think it was going to end any other way. I actually have an old friend who had to deal with him first hand, and the guy is an absolute scumbag. She told me about him way before any of this stuff ever came to light.


----------



## mario (Feb 18, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> After reading things online about the case from people with legal knowledge, I didn't think it was going to end any other way. I actually have an old friend who had to deal with him first hand, and the guy is an absolute scumbag. She told me about him way before any of this stuff ever came to light.



My Sister-in-law worked at the CBC in Toronto long before this stuff came out. Apparently it was common knowledge he was a dirtbag and he was openly into smacking women around. She also told me the higher ups in the CBC knew about this and turned a blind eye to it.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

mario said:


> My Sister-in-law worked at the CBC in Toronto long before this stuff came out. Apparently it was common knowledge he was a dirtbag and he was openly into smacking women around. She also told me the higher ups in the CBC knew about this and turned a blind eye to it.


I was told the exact same thing RE the CBC by my friend and some of her friends as well.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

allthumbs56 said:


> Heck, I can't even afford a low-end Tesla ............... I'd be in jail


Hm.....hire a lawyer or go to jail. I'd hire the best I could get.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

mario said:


> My Sister-in-law worked at the CBC in Toronto long before this stuff came out. Apparently it was common knowledge he was a dirtbag and he was openly into smacking women around. She also told me the higher ups in the CBC knew about this and turned a blind eye to it.


It was common knowledge about what he liked and did and yet he still could get dates.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

mario said:


> My Sister-in-law worked at the CBC in Toronto long before this stuff came out. Apparently it was common knowledge he was a dirtbag and he was openly into smacking women around. She also told me the higher ups in the CBC knew about this and turned a blind eye to it.


Our niece also works for "the corporation" in the Front St. HQ, and while she has not conveyed anything about what he does behind closed doors, she did depict him as having a reputation around the office for hitting on (as distinguished from hitting) female employees.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

All the facts, except the ones that counted, point to him being a complete dirtbag where women are concerned. Let's hope the witness(es?) in the next case is a damn site more reliable.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

Rski said:


> Interesting thread. The media brewed the sensationalism of those allegations, and yes the police did act accordingly and the matter taken its course. Here is a scary thought.
> 
> This site is Guitars Canada and I'm sure that most of us sling a guitar and play. Interestingly the accused also plays guitar like many of us.
> 
> What if one of the members on this site is really Jian?


I would welcome the conservation and sympathize for what he was put through. Not Guilty. End of story.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

davetcan said:


> All the facts, except the ones that counted, point to him being a complete dirtbag where women are concerned. Let's hope the witness(es?) in the next case is a damn site more reliable.


I have high hopes for this as well.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

There are a percentage of women who like the "bad boys". Even imprisoned murderers get proposals daily.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> There are a percentage of women who like the "bad boys". Even imprisoned murderers get proposals daily.


And while I have no use for him, he qualifies as a 'celebrity' which also goes a long way for some people.


----------



## Guest (Mar 26, 2016)

While men tend to choose women for looks,
women tend to choose men for levels of authority/power.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> There are a percentage of women who like the "bad boys". Even imprisoned murderers get proposals daily.


Sadly, there are violent sexual offenders who get letters of sympathy from women....daily.Not because these women like "bad boys", but because they feel the men are misunderstood, falsely accused, etc. Doesn't really help such men change their outlook on life, or on women, or their understanding of just what is someone else's fault, and what is their own fault.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

For her success in defending him, Jian Ghomeshi's lawyer inevitably endures tsk-tsking from nattering-chattering feminists, including from their poster-boy Peter Mansbridge:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...m-serves-only-to-undermine-feminisms-true-aim


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Is anyone finding it a little childish that now CBC is going after Marie Henein?


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

butterknucket said:


> Is anyone finding it a little childish that now CBC is going after Marie Henein?


I watched this and yes, Peter did ask a few tough questions and she handled him like the pro that she is. I didn't feel Peter was "going after her" as you put it. The full show (One on One) airs Sat at 6:30 pm.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

butterknucket said:


> Is anyone finding it a little childish that now CBC is going after Marie Henein?


I have a ton of respect for that young lady, almost none for the CBC.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

davetcan said:


> I have a ton of respect for that young lady, almost none for the CBC.


CBC has really lost their way.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

butterknucket said:


> CBC has really lost their way.


But have found their sugar daddy.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Guitar101 said:


> I watched this and yes, Peter did ask a few tough questions and she handled him like the pro that she is. I didn't feel Peter was "going after her" as you put it. *The full show (One on One) airs Sat at 6:30 pm.*


I just searched Rogers' bajillion offerings but One on One doesn't show up in the near future, only some older episodes in Video on Demand. 

The Rogers schedule says we'll be into hockey at 6:30 Saturday, and CBC's web site says the same thing. I see that you're in Ontario too... is it in your listings now?


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

boyscout said:


> I just searched Rogers' bajillion offerings but One on One doesn't show up in the near future, only some older episodes in Video on Demand.
> 
> The Rogers schedule says we'll be into hockey at 6:30 Saturday, and CBC's web site says the same thing. I see that you're in Ontario too... is it in your listings now?


I watch The National on Channel 96 nightly on Shaw. I checked my listings and it's on channel 96 (Shaw) on Sat April 2 @ 6:30 PM and again on channel 96 (Shaw) on Sun April 3 @ 12:30 AM. I have set my PVR for the Sat airing. On his show the other night, Peter did say you can catch the full show this weekend on One on One. I hope you can find it.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

StevieMac said:


> Regardless of the Judge's decision in this case, the "court of public opinion" seems to have found him guilty of being too: 1) rough with women; and 2) full of himself. I'd guess his career is largely (if not entirely) _done _at this point. Have to wonder how Jian's "star power" is working out for him now...


Movie coming out in June, "Ghomeshi The True Inside Story" Starring "Justin Bieber" as Jian Ghomeshi the remaining cast members to be chosen at random by The Biebs himself.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

fredyfreeloader said:


> Movie coming out in June, "Ghomeshi The True Inside Story" Starring "Justin Bieber" as Jian Ghomeshi the remaining cast members to be chosen at random by The Biebs himself.


I'd prefer to see Russell Peters play that role.


----------



## Guest (Apr 1, 2016)




----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. Power can go to the head.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

*Re: The CBC...*


----------

