[Thanos]

I don't doubt this little fucker is guilty as hell but it looks like the trial could be as huge a botch by the crown attorney as the OJ Simpson prosecution was.

[BeaverFever]

I don't think a jury could find a guilty verdict based on what's been said so far. I AM NOT SAYING HE IS INNOCENT.

Of course no means no, and I'm not trying to blame the victims for their actions at all. I'm just saying a jury is going to have a hard time convicting someone based solely on the victim's statements when the victim admits to having sought out the company and/or affection of the attacker on multiple occasions after the fact, including going on second dates, etc. I know it's easy for legitimate victims to become confused and feel they were somehow to blame for the attack, or that maybe it wasn't really as bad as they think it was, especially when the attacker is popular, widely respected and otherwise seemed to be so kind and admirable. But unfortunately, I don't think you can convict someone on such a weak case.

[PluggyRug]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don't think a jury could find a guilty verdict based on what's been said so far. I AM NOT SAYING HE IS INNOCENT.

Of course no means no, and I'm not trying to blame the victims for their actions at all. I'm just saying a jury is going to have a hard time convicting someone based solely on the victim's statements when the victim admits to having sought out the company and/or affection of the attacker on multiple occasions after the fact, including going on second dates, etc. I know it's easy for legitimate victims to become confused and feel they were somehow to blame for the attack, or that maybe it wasn't really as bad as they think it was, especially when the attacker is popular, widely respected and otherwise seemed to be so kind and admirable. But unfortunately, I don't think you can convict someone on such a weak case.

The trial is by judge only....no jury.

[BeaverFever]

Good point

[martin14]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

The trial is by judge only....no jury.

Even worse, the judge (hopefully) doesn't buy the 'my feelings' stuff,
but will look at witnesses saying one thing on the stand, and then something else under cross.

[andyt]

$1:

Lucy DeCoutere emailed Jian Ghomeshi hours after an alleged sexual assault saying she wanted to have sex with him, and sent him a handwritten letter days later saying she was sad they didn't spend the night together, court heard today.

"You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to f--k your brains out tonight," DeCoutere emailed Ghomeshi about 1:30 a.m.

Henein also presented a letter DeCoutere had handwritten to Ghomeshi after she returned to Halifax from Toronto, dated five days after the alleged assault.

Ghomeshi trial sketch - Feb 5
In this courtroom sketch, witness Lucy DeCoutere, right, is cross-examined by defence lawyer Marie Henein as Jian Ghomeshi and Justice William Horkins listen in court. (Alexandra Newbould/Canadian Press)

In the letter, DeCoutere recounts the evening she had with Ghomeshi, saying how they hooked up for dinner and "you totally knocked me out."

She apologized if she sent Ghomeshi mixed messages, adding that "I loved spending time with you this weekend."

"Jian you're great and I want to know more, have more fun, easy times with you because it's so very rare, right?

"I am sad we didn't spend the night together," DeCoutere wrote.

Henein made DeCoutere read the last line of the letter.

"I love your hands," DeCoutere said.

And on and on. Not looking good for the prosecution. Now they've alerted the defense they have more disclosure about the third witness coming up - probably found out about more e-mails for this witness.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/jian-ghomeshi-se ... -1.3434801

[Hmmmm]

peck420 peck420:

The really really sad part, is that regardless of his guilt or innocence ..... the entire case could potentially be lost.

Peck, why would you say that? Why would it be sad if the (prosecution) case was lost, if he was innocent? That would be justice, no? If - I say "IF" - the behaviours were consensual and not illegal why would we demand one of the parties be penalised?

[andyt]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don't think a jury could find a guilty verdict based on what's been said so far. I AM NOT SAYING HE IS INNOCENT.

Of course no means no, and I'm not trying to blame the victims for their actions at all. I'm just saying a jury is going to have a hard time convicting someone based solely on the victim's statements when the victim admits to having sought out the company and/or affection of the attacker on multiple occasions after the fact, including going on second dates, etc. I know it's easy for legitimate victims to become confused and feel they were somehow to blame for the attack, or that maybe it wasn't really as bad as they think it was, especially when the attacker is popular, widely respected and otherwise seemed to be so kind and admirable. But unfortunately, I don't think you can convict someone on such a weak case.

Both victims also claimed in police statements that they had nothing to do with Ghomeshi after the assaults took place. Both untrue. And they "forgot" about the e-mails and handwritten letter until presented with the proof. Some commentators have said that Ghomeshi's lawyer is possibly trying to show collusion on the part of the witnesses.

[peck420]

Hmmmm Hmmmm:

Peck, why would you say that? Why would it be sad if the (prosecution) case was lost, if he was innocent? That would be justice, no? If - I say "IF" - the behaviours were consensual and not illegal why would we demand one of the parties be penalised?

Because this is a multi-accuser trial. It is possible that he is completely innocent, it is possible that he is completely guilty, but, it is also possible that he is guilty with some and innocent with others.

When the prosecution drops the ball like this (it is, ultimately their case), it poisons the entire trial. If there is one that he did assault (assuming the remainder were consensual), that one may no longer get justice.

[Hmmmm]

peck420 peck420:

When the prosecution drops the ball like this (it is, ultimately their case), it poisons the entire trial. If there is one that he did assault (assuming the remainder were consensual), that one may no longer get justice.

Fair enough, but you did say it would be sad if the case failed "regardless of his guilt or innocence."

It's not impossible that the ball that was dropped by the prosecution was in their failure to anticipate that the charges wouldn't be supported by the evidence; as is beginning to seem likely. The issue isn't whether the prosecution's trial goes to their satisfaction; it's whether the guy is criminally guilty.

If there's reasonable doubt we don't "do" him and I believe that's as it should be. Whichever way it plays out he's had a very rough time because of his exploits and he'll surely be very careful about consensuality in future.

[Thanos]

At this stage, unless the final complainant has something really spectacular to say, I can't see how he'll be found guilty. I feel kind of stupid for believing Decoutere because after what happened yesterday because real-life Lucy apparently isn't much different than the pretend Lucy on Trailer Park Boys. Ghomeshi looks now merely to be a rather stupid little man with a particularly odious personal habit but he isn't a criminal for it, not when the alleged victims keep trying to go back to him after being "traumatized". All that's going to happen to Ghomeshi now will be if the judge decides to give him one hell of a lecture at the end and tells him to grow the fuck up with his idiotic proclivity before he sets the repellent little choad free.

What happens next after what I'm assuming will be a not guilty verdict becomes interesting. Can Ghomeshi now sue the hell out of the CBC for an illegal dismissal? Is he going to end up with $10 or 20 million of tax money from CBC in his pocket as a settlement? All I can say is that if someone ends up in legal trouble in Toronto go hire Marie Heinen because she's the exact kind of merciless dragon lady someone wants for a criminal defense lawyer with the way she's made the witnesses and crown prosecutors in this case look like complete idiots. Said it before but this is a huge botch of a celebrity trial, almost as nauseating as the end result of the OJ Simpson mess.

[martin14]

Thanos Thanos:

What happens next after what I'm assuming will be a not guilty verdict becomes interesting. Can Ghomeshi now sue the hell out of the CBC for an illegal dismissal? Is he going to end up with $10 or 20 million of tax money from CBC in his pocket as a settlement?

If he walks, you can be sure that's the first thing he will do.

Probably keep the same lawyer.

Ka Ching !

[Thanos]

If she's bilingual the Tories should try to get Marie Henein to run for party leader.

[Brenda]

peck420 peck420:

Brenda Brenda:

Kissing and cuddling still does not mean they want sex...
No is no, even when there is already intercourse. Stop is stop...

The problem is that the kissing and cuddling occurred after the alleged assault and, that the witness told the prosecution/investigators that there was no interaction after the alleged assault.

Not really a question of whether or not no means no, more a question of witness credibility and/or prosecution ineptitude.

The really really sad part, is that regardless of his guilt or innocence, having two of the accuser's affidavits found faulty, the entire case could potentially be lost.

If I was involved, I would be having a very 'calm' conversation with the prosecution team. They just don't appear to be doing their due diligence.

Ah ok, sorry. I didnt read that far. I think (from what I've read and heard) that he is an idiotic creep, but some people like it rough. If you've been treated roughly and you liked it and came back for more, you don't have a case, I agree.

[andyt]

I think he's guilty. I don't think he asked them beforehand if he could punch them in the face or choke them. I don't they they gave tacit consent either, nor is what they wanted. So technically he's guilty. But, in civil law at least, there's the concept of damage - ie they only have a case if they suffered damage. Since they continued to suck up to him and ask for more, it doesn't seem they sustained any damage, and thought the pain or humiliation was worth it to hang with somebody famous. So he may be technically guilty, but common sense not so much. Don't know how the judge will parse this.

I do think he's as sick puke tho. Maybe the best judgement would be to let each of the complainants hit him with their best shots. (No nuts). Medieval, but fair.

How can Lucy DeCoutuere, a captain in the air force, be so confused about what constitutes assault and want to "normalize" the situation by saying she wanted to fark Ghomeshi, I just don't understand. Maybe she's our secret weapon and next will "normalize" all those sick ISIS fucks.