ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Based on my very small sampling of my newfeed, I don't see a gender difference in terms of support.
Ghomeshi walks
- Thread starter Mendalla
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Seeler said:
No support for Ghomeshi.
Based on reporting during the trial the verdict comes as absolutely no surprise. Three witnesses lied, multiple times, on the stand. Didn't they swear, in court, to tell the truth? Yes, they did. Then they lied.
The judge couldn't believe them.
If you cannot believe the testimony of witnesses who say somebody is guilty and all you have by way of allegation are those three witnesses then any finding of guilty would have been based on something outside of the testimony presented.
That isn't how the law works.
No compelling testimony means no reason to overturn the presumption of innocence.
Ghomeshi is found not to be guilty and set free.
Pinga
Room for All
revsdd
Well-Known Member
My discussions today about this have been here and on Facebook. I've seen lots of women posting. I haven't seen many say they disagree with the verdict. They may not like it, but they understand it. I also haven't seen a single man express support for Ghomeshi, but again all seem to understand the verdict.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
I think the guy is a rather sad case and a bit of a sleaze if even half the stories about him are true (where there's smoke, there's fire). I would have fully believed and accepted it had he been convicted. I hope, at the very least, that this is the end of his career. I certainly do not support him.
That does not, however, mean I have to reject this verdict. I do support the judge. Reasonable doubt is a cornerstone of justice as is the integrity of evidence and testimony, which was violated by the witnesses' lies. We could lower the standard but then we'd just have more Truscotts and Morins than we already do and would still not necessarily catch more Ghomeshis.
We cannot throw out the principles of our justice system just because we don't like a particular defendant.
Carolla
wondering & wandering
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
I do think there are systemic problems that come into play in how these cases move through the justice system. The 'beyond reasonable doubt' issue is a big factor, as other have commented. I at least applaud the judge for making it clear that he did not believe 'innocence' was the Ghomeshi situation - rather that the allegations had not been proven in the manner acceptable to the court. Many years ago I sat on a jury for a sexual assault & forceable confinement trial - the outcome was the same.
If we understand that many women who are in abusive relationships are repeatedly assaulted (I recall hearing a figure of 35 times) before cutting ties with the abuser, then perhaps we have a different filter through which to view trials for sexual assault. It seems to be a different situation than other clear cut non-sexual assault situations. A different process somehow seems needed ...
If we understand that many women who are in abusive relationships are repeatedly assaulted (I recall hearing a figure of 35 times) before cutting ties with the abuser, then perhaps we have a different filter through which to view trials for sexual assault. It seems to be a different situation than other clear cut non-sexual assault situations. A different process somehow seems needed ...
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Carolla said:
I'm hesitant that we need a different process.
What we do not know is how the case would have unfolded had the witnesses for the crown been upfront during examination. In the judgment given:
http://www.ontariocourts.ca/en/24Mar16.pdf
The trial judge does take great pains to point out that in trials of this kind, particularly in historical complaints where testimony is being offered of events long past it is understandable that detail may be fuzzy.
The testimony offered went well beyond fuzzy to fraudulent. Time and time again these witnesses were caught lying which is more egregious than not being consistent with details. Certainly all three were undone by denying ongoing contact when there was evidence of prolonged contact.
And when two witnesses exchange 5000 emails outlining how they intend to destroy the accused while denying doing so.
They lied in court. They were caught lying in court. They confessed to lying in court when caught. That is no way to ensure that your testimony is going to be found credible.
That had nothing to do with the way a court trial processes.
As a witness you promise to tell the truth. You can be mistaken about the truth and not have it impact upon your credibility as a witness. You cannot lie on the stand, get caught doing so, confess you just lied and expect to be found credible.
All they had to do was tell the truth and whether or not they were telling the truth about the assaults is difficult to tell simply because of all the other lies each spun in their testimony. They tainted themselves as witnesses, nobody did it to them.
Carolla
wondering & wandering
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Yes, lying is egregious. I agree. "Telling the truth" can be a challenging thing too ... for a whole lot of reasons.
My comment about process was not in reference only to this case - more reflective of the extreme difficulty of reporting and prosecuting such charges. I think this is an interesting graphic, by the YWCA that has a long history of promoting justice issues for women.
My comment about process was not in reference only to this case - more reflective of the extreme difficulty of reporting and prosecuting such charges. I think this is an interesting graphic, by the YWCA that has a long history of promoting justice issues for women.
Pinga
Room for All
I wish when people put graphs together they did a better job.
The graph above presumes that that each assailant only does one sexual assault. That is improbable.
The language around the 997 means that I won't share it...
Just as the witnesses/victims were discredited due to lying, analysis as such above discredits the cause ...
YWCA should know better.
The graph above presumes that that each assailant only does one sexual assault. That is improbable.
The language around the 997 means that I won't share it...
Just as the witnesses/victims were discredited due to lying, analysis as such above discredits the cause ...
YWCA should know better.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
That's probably what it means, but that's not what it says. It should have used "assaults" rather than "assailants." I think it does make its point, but it is a sloppy use of language.
Seeler
Well-Known Member
Actually that wwas my point that I was trying to get across. I'm not surprised by the verdict - I am saddened. I believe that Ghomeshi is guilty of sexual assault. And I don't believe it was proven in the court.
Seelermaan on the other hand seems to think that Ghomeshi was innocent and that it is a shame that his reputation was raked through the coals by lying scheming women.
We are so far apart on this that we are talking about the weather - freezing rain for today, the Good Friday service I've been working on will be cancelled.
As for Ghomeshi - CBC does not regret firing him and will not hire him back (I think they believe the women).
Seeler
Well-Known Member
Pity!
Lastpointe
Well-Known Member
Had an interesting discussioin with my 28 year old son. His comment was that when you listened or read about the trial it never felt like he was on trial. Just the women.
It did feel like that
But the women werenot believable. Perhaps if he had been froced to take the stand it might have gone differently but that is not our law.
When they testified, his lawyer never questioned their verions of what happened. She just questioned all their other statements and that sunk them.
I listened to victim one being interviewed after court. She was the one who felt safe because he drove a lovely yellow volkswagon beetle. It was an integral part of her testimony. Till it was pointed out he didnt own the car at the time. She referred to herself as an abuse woman
I struggle with that language.
You went on a date with a guy who turnd out to be a creep. He kissed you and pulled your hair. You left.
To me that is not an abused woman.
It did feel like that
But the women werenot believable. Perhaps if he had been froced to take the stand it might have gone differently but that is not our law.
When they testified, his lawyer never questioned their verions of what happened. She just questioned all their other statements and that sunk them.
I listened to victim one being interviewed after court. She was the one who felt safe because he drove a lovely yellow volkswagon beetle. It was an integral part of her testimony. Till it was pointed out he didnt own the car at the time. She referred to herself as an abuse woman
I struggle with that language.
You went on a date with a guy who turnd out to be a creep. He kissed you and pulled your hair. You left.
To me that is not an abused woman.
CBC issued a statement saying that the reason(s) they let him go were not related to the charges he was just tried for.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Lastpointe said:
I appreciate that for some it did feel like that. In a system where presumption of innocence is the foundation the burden will always be on those bringing the allegations of guilt.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt means exactly that, there is no way that the individual could not be anything but guilty. Because the accused is offered the presumption of innocent the weight of all evidence has to be sufficient to prove guilt.
Didn't happen in this case.
Lastpointe said:
Which is why the presumption of innocence remains (legally at any rate).
Lastpointe said:
That would require us to adopt a presumption of guilt (which is the default of the court of public opinion in this matter). Even if Ghomeshi had taken the stand and proven to be a stellar witness with exemplary testimony the presumption of guilt would have been impossible for him to defeat. By it we believe that there is more that he is done which will never see the light of day and by it we would decide that imprisoning him is the right thing to do and truth would be damned.
I'm not surprised by the verdict. As much as it rankles it was the only right verdict that could be delivered.
I am disappointed in the witnesses. All they needed to do was tell the truth and for reasons known only to themselves they decided not to.
Lastpointe said:
Not exactly true. The yellow "love bug" was a critical piece of testimony. Important enough, in the mind of the witness, to allow her to form an opinion on Ghomeshi's character. She claims that she was in that vehicle and was assaulted by Ghomeshi in that vehicle. Proof was offered to the court which stated that Ghomeshi did not own the vehicle at that time.
Ms DeCoutere's testimony was probably the most damaging to the Crown's case. Particularly the e-mail sent by her to Ghomeshi within a day of the first "alleged" assault.
Ghomeshi's claim, which was not tested in court was that the violence was consensual.
DeCoutere's correspondence with Ghomeshi after the choking incident was incongruent with her testimony.
And then the 5000 e-mails between Decoutere and the third witness which would have been problematic even if it had initially been honestly admitted becomes a mountain crushing credibility when it is denied.
All of that simply becomes too much to swallow. And whatever truth they might have is not enough to outweigh all of the lies they were caught telling.
That said, this is Round 1.
Ghomeshi survived round 1. Can he survive round 2?
This will be a very different trial.
No doubt part of that particular trial will include references to the lawsuit initiated by Ghomeshi against the CBC for damages of $55 million. That lawsuit was abruptly dropped and Ghomeshi ended up paying the CBC $18 thousand in legal costs incurred preparing a defence.
True is was a wrongful dismissal case which upon examination convinced Ghomeshi's lawyers that the dismissal was not by any means wrongful and paying the CBC $18 thousand now means not paying more later.
The trial to come is actually the precipitating event to the trial just passed.
Without Ghomeshi and the CBC parting ways and the attention Ghomeshi brought to it there would have been no public call for past victims.
I take some comfort in the fact that whatever witnesses will be called in the trial to come none of them are engaging in public interviews with media outlets which will then become part of the lens through which their credibility will be tested.
Always remember the McNaughton Rule:
Insanity is a legal matter ... unless your contemplations are beyond such bounds and thus you could be limited in where you go with such thoughts of virtue-ous things ... truth?
The vast judge is still out ... didn't wish to cause the results any tilde ...
Insanity is a legal matter ... unless your contemplations are beyond such bounds and thus you could be limited in where you go with such thoughts of virtue-ous things ... truth?
The vast judge is still out ... didn't wish to cause the results any tilde ...
Lastpointe
Well-Known Member
My understanding of the CBC law suit was that he didnt hav a leg to stand on as a union employee.
Inteesting various articles today. One i read said that women in the future should know that all the facts and detqils means just that. Not the facts you wish to disclose
I am so surprisd by the women who take the stand that they should be believed with out question. In that case, why bothe with trials. Accuse and then sentence. Much quicker that way
Presumption of innosence is our system. Like it or not
Inteesting various articles today. One i read said that women in the future should know that all the facts and detqils means just that. Not the facts you wish to disclose
I am so surprisd by the women who take the stand that they should be believed with out question. In that case, why bothe with trials. Accuse and then sentence. Much quicker that way
Presumption of innosence is our system. Like it or not