Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jg

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Reserving my comments until the judge delivers the verdict and it hits CanLII.

    So far what I am reading in the media is all over the place.

    Comment


    • #32
      The judge will deliver his verdict on March 24?

      Christie Blatchford of National Post had this commentary piece today:

      Christie Blatchford: The Ghomeshi sex-assault case started falling apart right from the start | National Post

      Timber?

      As one veteran Toronto lawyer put it this week, “the criminal justice system has been hijacked by ideology,” in this instance, the feminist chant that accusers must always be believed.
      And when the third complainant arranged to give her late-in-the-day second statement, and told the officers what it was about — that “little detail” about her taking Ghomeshi home and masturbating him — the detectives spent only nine minutes asking her about the encounter, nine minutes after 13 months of the woman steadfastly maintaining she’d kept her distance from Ghomeshi after the alleged assault.

      Comment


      • #33
        I suspect the case is going to fall apart because the Crown screwed up by not thoroughly checking everything about the witnesses beforehand, so that their credibility was impaired when the prosecutor was able to catch them in contradictory statements. This will make it difficult to meet the "reasonable doubt" standard for a criminal trial".

        Christie Blatchford just makes my head hurt. She has spent a journalistic career trying so so so hard to be one of the boys that whenever there's a chance to throw a woman under the bus, Blatchford is at the front of the pack salivating. (And she gets things simply wrong - the Crown is the one bringing the case against Ghomeshi, so the women are witnesses to the Crown case, not "accusers").

        There are decades of complaints about Ghomeshi's behavior (it seems to have been an open secret), fifteen women and two men coming forward to say they were assaulted, he was fired from the CBC and is the subject of an internal investigation. Is this going to be enough to convict him of assault under Canadian standards of evidence? Maybe not. Does this mean that we have to buy his narrative about how he's a poor martyr because of his unorthodox sexual practices and is the victim of harassment by his (seventeen) vindictive ex(es)? Absolutely not.

        Comment


        • #34
          Did he not admit to choking people and allege it was consensual?

          Women who allege he assaulted them dispel the crown's position by their own admissions they pursued him after the alleged assault. It's not like he was joe-blow off the street - he had a reputation but the victims readily agreed to date him. Time it took them to register complaints also brings their credibility into question as well as the evidence that they seemed to be into a "group think" sort of process.

          I think the charges will be dismissed.

          If he is found guilty: He has lost his job and suffered public humiliation (rightfully so - I think he's a puke). I would therefore think justice has been served.
          Last edited by arabian; 02-11-2016, 07:52 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            I would also add that, in my opinion, court is not necessarily the best avenue for therapy. I feel sorry for the women in this case. Instead of being encouraged to conquer their past demons through therapy they were duped into litigation. Either way you look at it the women participated in something that they later regretted. Court is not the remedy and they will likely come to regret their decision to become 'spectacles.'

            Comment


            • #36
              OMG, what will it take for it to be unanimous that either he DIDN'T do it (he never admitted to consensual choking) OR that it was consensual....

              I think the 3 are lying whores... and I wish they could be penalized but they can't because even when you are a woman lying about assault - you can hide behind the protections we try to give REAL assault victims...

              This wasn't the fault of the crown, this is the fault of lobby so strong that saying you don't "believe" makes you a criminal... The crown had to prosecute....

              It's the feminist movement that has turned so much of this life into gender warfare....

              Out of the "15" accusers, we somehow ended up with 3 of this caliber, what does that say about the 15 - you are rushing to judgement without the facts - exactly the problem.

              I think sexual assault accused should have their identities protected until found guilty.....
              Last edited by Links17; 02-11-2016, 08:10 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                no the crown does not have to prosecute

                I really thought he admitted to that.... or simply said "rough sex"? I haven't read transcripts, rather just your usual biased news reports.

                Feminist movement? No. I think it's just lawyers wanting to make their marks. Convincing the 'victims' they will be able to get on with their lives if they go through this... saving other women from same situation. These woman, and other women like them, encourage the pervs by NOT REPORTING THE ALLEGED CRIME AT THE TIME. They didn't report it at the time because they, themselves, didn't see it as "rape."

                This is a case of assault IMO. No witnesses. Time taken to report the alleged assault.

                No case.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by stripes View Post
                  ...Christie Blatchford just makes my head hurt. She has spent a journalistic career trying so so so hard to be one of the boys that whenever there's a chance to throw a woman under the bus, Blatchford is at the front of the pack salivating. (And she gets things simply wrong - the Crown is the one bringing the case against Ghomeshi, so the women are witnesses to the Crown case, not "accusers")...
                  .
                  They are accusers though. They were quite vocal to media before even police through many channels. You can't just say, well, they are just witnesses. To be fair, Blatchford points out many follies in the handling of this case so she is throwing many parties under the bus, if you want to phrase it that way.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Stripes is correct. These are "witnesses" and not accusers.

                    You know I'm thinking back now... 35 years ago I had a pretty rough sexual encounter with a man (much worse than "choking"). I recall being very excited that he even asked me out. He was much older than me and drove a pretty swanky car. He never called me afterwards. Did I pursue him? Uh NOOOOO.

                    Was I sexually assaulted? Back in the 80's - no. I made a poor decision to go with the guy. Today I guess if someone sticks their tongue down your throat then that is sexual assault. Where is the line drawn? When it hurts? above the waist vs. below the waist?

                    Absurd. I made a bad decision to have sex with this guy. End of story.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                      Even if he raped these women, with the type of testimony I've read it would be a massive injustice if he is anything but non-guilty.
                      It's the repetitive garbage like this^^, that keep people from coming forward.
                      Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by dad2bandm View Post
                        I'm presuming you meant to refer to Cosby, and not Crosby, in this context.
                        ahhaa! yes, apologies to the Kid.
                        Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by stripes View Post
                          I suspect the case is going to fall apart because the Crown screwed up by not thoroughly checking everything about the witnesses beforehand, so that their credibility was impaired when the prosecutor was able to catch them in contradictory statements.
                          Without a doubt, the Crown blew it - but so did our system. Conviction rates on sexual assaults are a dismal failure. Working a sexual assault case (or any assault case, frankly), in the criminal justice system means that one must always prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. And in a he-said, she-said scenario, that is almost impossible to prove. Working an assault case in a civil court, where a judge can focus on who is more believable, would perhaps be a better system. And victims having their own experienced independent counsel supplied would work wonders as well, so that they too could have the system explained to them. Meeting with an assailant afterwards, emailing, etc. isn't the issue after an assault - it is not disclosing same that is the turnkey.

                          Henein is brilliant (and kind of hot!). I'm hiring her if I ever need a lawyer. Did anyone else keep thinking she and Ghomeshi looked more and more alike?

                          Water cooler majority thinks he'll be acquitted this time around, but will lose in the eventual civil action(s). In any event, his actions have now been publicly outed by the 20-some-odd complainants, and everyone is now forewarned that he is a predator. Which, in itself, is a huge win. He'll never hold another public relations job again with easy access to young, impressionable women.
                          Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                            Without a doubt, the Crown blew it - but so did our system. Conviction rates on sexual assaults are a dismal failure. Working a sexual assault case (or any assault case, frankly), in the criminal justice system means that one must always prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. And in a he-said, she-said scenario, that is almost impossible to prove. Working an assault case in a civil court, where a judge can focus on who is more believable, would perhaps be a better system. And victims having their own experienced independent counsel supplied would work wonders as well, so that they too could have the system explained to them. Meeting with an assailant afterwards, emailing, etc. isn't the issue after an assault - it is not disclosing same that is the turnkey.

                            Henein is brilliant (and kind of hot!). I'm hiring her if I ever need a lawyer. Did anyone else keep thinking she and Ghomeshi looked more and more alike?

                            Water cooler majority thinks he'll be acquitted this time around, but will lose in the eventual civil action(s). In any event, his actions have now been publicly outed by the 20-some-odd complainants, and everyone is now forewarned that he is a predator. Which, in itself, is a huge win. He'll never hold another public relations job again with easy access to young, impressionable women.
                            Its scary how sure you are he is guilty despite all the evidence...
                            This case was easy-mode, the plaintiffs have so little credibility taking their word for anything would be a crime.

                            Yeah, I felt raped but I later called him and told him I want screw him.... who does that make sense?

                            Giving credit to heinen as if she pulled off some masterful defense rather than admitting the plaintiffs have 0 credibility proven by way of several emails, messages is disingenuous.

                            This wasn't a matter of he-said, she-said - it was that THEN it was what happened after or around the events to support your version of events (i.e: did you get depressed and hide in a room, did you stop seeing him, did you become withdrawn?????) - QUITE THE OPPOSITE - you flirted, date, hand jobbed, propositionned....

                            I don't even think he will lose in a civil action - on a balance of probabilities whose story makes more sense.

                            JG - we had some rough sex and things went on as normal

                            Accusers - He raped me and things went on as normal

                            ??
                            Last edited by Links17; 02-11-2016, 10:15 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by arabian View Post
                              no the crown does not have to prosecute
                              After the public raping of JG the crown had no choice.


                              I really thought he admitted to that.... or simply said "rough sex"? I haven't read transcripts, rather just your usual biased news reports.
                              This was his only admission:
                              Full text: Jian Ghomeshi’s Facebook post on why he believes CBC fired him | Globalnews.ca
                              I would add the criminals aren't normally forthright in making statements like this (of little value anyways)

                              Originally posted by arabian View Post
                              Feminist movement? No. I think it's just lawyers wanting to make their marks. Convincing the 'victims' they will be able to get on with their lives if they go through this... saving other women from same situation. These woman, and other women like them, encourage the pervs by NOT REPORTING THE ALLEGED CRIME AT THE TIME. They didn't report it at the time because they, themselves, didn't see it as "rape."

                              This is a case of assault IMO. No witnesses. Time taken to report the alleged assault.
                              I don't quite understand - if a guy kisses a girl without asking permission as part of normal relationship first kiss, the girl lets him kiss her. Then 3 years later she files sexual assault charges because he didn't ask for the kiss? Does the law support that?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                                It's the repetitive garbage like this^^, that keep people from coming forward.
                                I am talking about the weight of the evidence whereby the plaintiffs admittedly left out very important details, behaved in a way that contradicts their accusations - they cannot be considered credible.

                                When 2 people contradict each other - you have to look at the other things down the list to determine who is telling the truth and then based on that make a call.

                                That's what I mean...

                                I am so disturbed that an individual can never clear their name EVEN with the quality of accusers that we had in this trial...

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X