• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Jian Ghomeshi alleges firing due to Fifty Shades of CBC

From College Park,

Feb 9, 2016
Judge at Ghomeshi sex assault trial to look at evidence from Crown witness
http://www.680news.com/2016/02/09/judge-ghomeshi-sex-assault-trial-look-evidence-crown-witness/

Feb 8, 2016
Ghomeshi's accusers exchanged 5,000 messages before and after going to police
http://www.680news.com/2016/02/08/ghomeshis-accusers-exchanged-5000-messages-before-and-after-going-to-police-2/

Feb 7, 2016
Ghomeshi emails reveal growing importance of 'digital debris' to trials
http://www.680news.com/2016/02/07/ghomeshi-emails-reveal-growing-importance-of-digital-debris-to-trials/
 
Christine Blatchford has a good article about the end of the trial and the collapse of the prosecution's case. There actually is a lesson for us here; the new starting point seems to be a presumption of guilt which is used to try and steamroller the defendant, and whatever you think of Jian Ghomeshi himself, his reputation was dragged through the mud by what now turns out to be unsubstantiated complaints (the evidence shows the women often continued to have contact with and relations with the accused, so there was obviously some element of consent).

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-defence-team-a-contrast-to-over-delicate-view-of-women-around-ghomeshi-trial

The only way to protect yourself in this environment is to use extreme defensive measures, such as saving every email, tweet, social media posting or even (as is sometimes the case in the US where this sort of thing is in high gear in US Colleges) recording the entire event on video. Hardly the sort of environment that fosters trust or cohesion.

Obviously the definitions of assault, harassment and inappropriate behaviours need to be tightened up considerably, and complainants need to have evidence collected right away (including reporting to the police and a rape kit, if necessary), otherwise this turns into a "she said/he said" circus.
 
Thucydides said:
Christine Blatchford has a good article about the end of the trial and the collapse of the prosecution's case.
At least according to her, without any account of the prosecution's case in that piece - I'm curious to hear/read what the judge says about everything that went on in the courtroom.
 
Thucydides said:
(the evidence shows the women often continued to have contact with and relations with the accused, so there was obviously some element of consent).

With respect, that reasoning is entirely false.  Whether you choose to stay with someone does not mean that you consented to past conduct.  An abused partner may stay on for many reasons.  It does not mean that the abuse is consented to.
 
Thucydides said:
The only way to protect yourself in this environment is to use extreme defensive measures, such as saving every email, tweet, social media posting or even (as is sometimes the case in the US where this sort of thing is in high gear in US Colleges) recording the entire event on video.

They seem to have an App for everything these days,
http://we-consent.org/index.php/41-apps-abcd/101-we-consent-app
"Each partner is prompted to state his or her name, the name of the other partner, and to state explicitly “yes” to sexual relations. If the second partner is feeling coerced, he or she can state “forced yes” and the app creates a record of the coercion. The We-Consent™ App records video and audio, which are encrypted, sent initially to cloud storage, and then stored off-line. The recordings are only available to law enforcement, university disciplinary proceedings, or by subpoena. They are NOT available to the users—which prevents misuse."

CBC.ca
Sexual consent app 'Good2Go' takes the guesswork out of hooking up
http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/09/sexual-consent-app-good2go-takes-the-guesswok-out-of-hooking-up.html
"Just when you thought that dating in the digital age couldn't possibly get any more complicated (or weird,) a new app that allows prospective partners to give each other sexual consent via smartphone has entered the game."
 
Privateer said:
With respect, that reasoning is entirely false.  Whether you choose to stay with someone does not mean that you consented to past conduct.  An abused partner may stay on for many reasons.  It does not mean that the abuse is consented to.

:goodpost:
 
Privateer said:
With respect, that reasoning is entirely false.  Whether you choose to stay with someone does not mean that you consented to past conduct.  An abused partner may stay on for many reasons.  It does not mean that the abuse is consented to.

It may be a bit different, he had no legal, fiscal, child care or matrimony hold over them and did not dwell together. They had much more freedom of choice.
 
Privateer said:
With respect, that reasoning is entirely false.  Whether you choose to stay with someone does not mean that you consented to past conduct.  An abused partner may stay on for many reasons.  It does not mean that the abuse is consented to.
With equal respect, I've always thought your reasoning applied to partners who were cohabitating. Otherwise it's as simple as not seeing the person again.
 
vanderkalin said:
With equal respect, I've always thought your reasoning applied to partners who were cohabitating. Otherwise it's as simple as not seeing the person again.

To you, perhaps. But not for everyone. Broad generalizations don't work here.
 
In this particular case, there was the element of consent, the continued relationships and the lack of "hold" the accused had (as mentioned upthread, he had no legal, fiscal, child care or matrimony hold over them and did not dwell together.)

The case was sensationalized from the first, and reading Blatchford's articles it is clear that the prosecution case collapsed as it was revealed that there were continuing relationships between the accused and the complainants which had gone unmentioned earlier, as well as a seeming collusion between at least two of the accusers via email exchanges, which also had been unnoticed by the prosecution. The prosecution's case collapsed when it became clear that these elements were "on the table" for the defense.
 
Thucydides said:
In this particular case, there was the element of consent, the continued relationships and the lack of "hold" the accused had (as mentioned upthread, he had no legal, fiscal, child care or matrimony hold over them and did not dwell together.)

I agree with you for the most part, but I must say that consent was never proved. It was just alleged by the defense when the prosecutor attacked the credibility of the witnesses (to do just that). Evertyhing you named contributed to create a doubt (in my opinion), but I just wanted to clarify that consent was not proved.
 
azoute said:
I agree with you for the most part, but I must say that consent was never proved. It was just alleged by the defense when the prosecutor attacked the credibility of the witnesses (to do just that). Evertyhing you named contributed to create a doubt (in my opinion), but I just wanted to clarify that consent was not proved.
It is not necessary to prove consent, people are presumed innocent. The burden is on the prosecution to prove he commited the crime, not the defence to prove he did not.
 
Ludoc said:
It is not necessary to prove consent, people are presumed innocent. The burden is on the prosecution to prove he commited the crime, not the defence to prove he did not.

I know! I stated that, in this case, consent was not proved by the defense. I don't mean to say the defense has to prove anything. It was just to clarify what the defense did and did not. :)
 
Mar 24, 2016

Ghomeshi found not guilty of all charges in sexual assault trial
http://www.680news.com/2016/03/24/ghomeshi-found-not-guilty-of-all-charges-in-sexual-assault-trial/
 
The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness can no longer expect the Court to consider them to be a trusted source of the truth. I am forced to conclude that it is impossible for the Court to have sufficient faith in the reliability or sincerity of these complainants. Put simply, the volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence leaves the Court with a reasonable doubt.

Not one but 3 cases of the above. I hope the case is instructive to lawyers and police as to what evidence should be collected and advice to their clients. I can imagine the Crown having a sinking feeling as the witnesses stories unraveled.
 
Actually, Colin, the Crown prosecutors are used to this.

In our system, they don't meet in advance with the witnesses and prepare them, the way commercial lawyers will with their clients or the defence will in a criminal case. The crown attorneys rely on the evidence gathered by the police and simply offer the witnesses to the court. They ask them questions getting them to present their case, and let the defence poke holes at them if they can.

Ultimately, in theory, the Crown doesn't care if a person is found guilty or not as a result of trial. Their job is to put what evidence they have which contains sufficient facts to warrant being put to a trier of fact (judge or jury) to such trier to ascertain guilt or absence of guilt.

The people who should be wary here are the "feminists" who pander constantly  that, contrary to human nature and the whole non-verbal realm of communication, consent requires a signed contract entered into after a 50 question questionnaire on intent 5 years down the road (I exaggerate on purpose, please don't crucify me). The Court just reminded them that the issue of consent is not that straight forward that it requires a positively expressed and provable in court  "YES", and that human nature is more complex than that where criminal intent is concerned.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
The Court just reminded them that the issue of consent is not that straight forward that it requires a positively expressed and provable in court  "YES", and that human nature is more complex than that where criminal intent is concerned.

You will not find that in the reasons for judgment.  That is not part of what the court said.  It is not implied in the judgment.
 
Now, I hope Ghomeshi sues CBC for wrongful dismissal and gets a big chunk of that $675 million that was given to CBC.
 
Privateer said:
You will not find that in the reasons for judgment.  That is not part of what the court said.  It is not implied in the judgment.

I suggest you read paragraphs [135] and [136] of the reasons for judgement.
 
Back
Top