The Jian Ghomeshi saga

[crazy canuck]

Eff you all.

Thats what Ghomeshi said.

[Josephus]

And a Toronto Star probe once again gets action.

[Barrister]

It is not as limited as BB thinks.  A couple of years ago a person was convicted because the trial judge found as a fact that the Defendant's alibi was directly contradicted by materials the accused had provided to me (as opposing counsel) in another proceeding.  BB if you want I can try to dig up the cite for you and PM it.

That legal issue aside, your point is well made. It was very unwise for Ghomeshi to have started his law suit.  If he had just dealt with his termination through the usual union grievance procedure (which would have remained confidential) he would not be in this mess today. 

edit:  and just to clarify BB, Ghomeshi has already admited that violent sexual acts did occur.  His only defence is consent.

Sure, I'd be interested in the link.

Ghomeshi's Facebook post was never specific.  He never said what kind of actions, or with whom.  If he so chooses he has lots of room to deny, and in fact he pretty much has to.  The accounts of, say, Lucy Decoutere (there you go Siegey, google her) leave no possible room for consent.

[crazy canuck]

It is not as limited as BB thinks.  A couple of years ago a person was convicted because the trial judge found as a fact that the Defendant's alibi was directly contradicted by materials the accused had provided to me (as opposing counsel) in another proceeding.  BB if you want I can try to dig up the cite for you and PM it.

That legal issue aside, your point is well made. It was very unwise for Ghomeshi to have started his law suit.  If he had just dealt with his termination through the usual union grievance procedure (which would have remained confidential) he would not be in this mess today. 

edit:  and just to clarify BB, Ghomeshi has already admited that violent sexual acts did occur.  His only defence is consent.

Sure, I'd be interested in the link.

Ghomeshi's Facebook post was never specific.  He never said what kind of actions, or with whom.  If he so chooses he has lots of room to deny, and in fact he pretty much has to.  The accounts of, say, Lucy Decoutere (there you go Siegey, google her) leave no possible room for consent.

Go back and re-read his Statement of Claim.  He admits the following:

1) that he provided the CBC with information about his sexual activities (we know from other reports that this included a video depicting sexual violence);

2) he admits that he engaged in what he characterized as BDSM (and what others characterize as sexual violence)

3) his defence to all of this is that it was entirely consensual.


It is going to be very difficult for him to prove the alleged acts didnt occur.  His only real defence is one of consent.  That is the factual issue the Court is going to have to decide.

[crazy canuck]

And a Toronto Star probe once again gets action.

I already told you upstream that you were right.  Now you are just fishing for compliments.

[Barrister]

It is not as limited as BB thinks.  A couple of years ago a person was convicted because the trial judge found as a fact that the Defendant's alibi was directly contradicted by materials the accused had provided to me (as opposing counsel) in another proceeding.  BB if you want I can try to dig up the cite for you and PM it.

That legal issue aside, your point is well made. It was very unwise for Ghomeshi to have started his law suit.  If he had just dealt with his termination through the usual union grievance procedure (which would have remained confidential) he would not be in this mess today. 

edit:  and just to clarify BB, Ghomeshi has already admited that violent sexual acts did occur.  His only defence is consent.

Sure, I'd be interested in the link.

Ghomeshi's Facebook post was never specific.  He never said what kind of actions, or with whom.  If he so chooses he has lots of room to deny, and in fact he pretty much has to.  The accounts of, say, Lucy Decoutere (there you go Siegey, google her) leave no possible room for consent.

Go back and re-read his Statement of Claim.  He admits the following:

1) that he provided the CBC with information about his sexual activities (we know from other reports that this included a video depicting sexual violence);

2) he admits that he engaged in what he characterized as BDSM (and what others characterize as sexual violence)

3) his defence to all of this is that it was entirely consensual.


It is going to be very difficult for him to prove the alleged acts didnt occur.  His only real defence is one of consent.  That is the factual issue the Court is going to have to decide.

Here's the relevant part from his Facebook page:

About two years ago I started seeing a woman in her late 20s. Our relationship was affectionate, casual and passionate. We saw each other on and off over the period of a year and began engaging in adventurous forms of sex that included role-play, dominance and submission. We discussed our interests at length before engaging in rough sex (forms of BDSM). We talked about using safe words and regularly checked in with each other about our comfort levels. She encouraged our role-play and often was the initiator. We joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey or a story from Lynn Coady's Giller-Prize winning book last year. I don't wish to get into any more detail because it is truly not anyone's business what two consenting adults do. I have never discussed my private life before. Sexual preferences are a human right.

His Statement of Claim is even briefer - all it says is that he and this anonymous woman "engaged in role play and BDSM", emphasizing several times that it was talked about beforehand, and was consentual.

He has lots of room to deny specific actions.  He only admits to engaging in BDSM with one, unnamed, person.  He never specifies what that rough sex or BDSM was like - in fact he says it's nobody's business.

[The Minsky Moment]

But if he turned over a video . . . 

[crazy canuck]

But if he turned over a video . . . 

Yeah, that is the point BB is missing.

[Barrister]

Well yeah the video will speak for itself.

But we have no idea what's on that video (other than it caused the CBC to fire him).  We don't know if it involved any of the women he is now charged with assaulting.  If it doesn't involve the women in question the only way it gets into evidence is as "similar fact", which is notoriously hard to get in.

[crazy canuck]

Well yeah the video will speak for itself.

But we have no idea what's on that video (other than it caused the CBC to fire him).  We don't know if it involved any of the women he is now charged with assaulting.  If it doesn't involve the women in question the only way it gets into evidence is as "similar fact", which is notoriously hard to get in.

Sure but absent all of his admissions it wouldnt even exist as a possibility.

[Josephus]

And a Toronto Star probe once again gets action.

I already told you upstream that you were right.  Now you are just fishing for compliments.

Get them where I can on this forum. 

[Josephus]

Lawyers:

Consent, i guess, must be hard to prove, right, since it's He said, she said, with little evidence.

If two, three, four people, say the same thing, does that influence anything? In other words can 5 separate  cases of 1 V 1 have an effect on outcome, know what I'm asking?

[crazy canuck]

Lawyers:

Consent, i guess, must be hard to prove, right, since it's He said, she said, with little evidence.

If two, three, four people, say the same thing, does that influence anything? In other words can 5 separate  cases of 1 V 1 have an effect on outcome, know what I'm asking?

That is the area I will defer to BB completely. 

[Malthus]

Lawyers:

Consent, i guess, must be hard to prove, right, since it's He said, she said, with little evidence.

If two, three, four people, say the same thing, does that influence anything? In other words can 5 separate  cases of 1 V 1 have an effect on outcome, know what I'm asking?

BB's your man on this - strikes me as a classic "similar fact evidence" case though. That is, typically evidence of other misdeeds is excluded from consideration, but not if it passes the "similar fact evidence" test. Basically, the "probative value" of the evidence must outweigh the "prejudicial value" of introducing evidence of bad character.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/SimilarFactEvidence.aspx

Way I understand it works is: if the evidence is really specific to that particular crime, it is more likely to be admitted; if it just tends to show that the guy is a bad dude more likely to commit crimes in general, it will be excluded.

In short ... Big Ears Teddy weeps when he looks at the similar fact evidence rules. 

[Malthus]

THe classic "similar fact evidence" case was the "brides in the bath" case, R. v. Smith - where a guy was charged with murdering his recently-married wife (she drowned in the bath). As it turns out, he'd been married a few times before - and each of his wives drowned in the bath, too. The issue was whether these previous deaths could be entered into evidence to show he likely killed them all - and it was, on the "it is beeling obvious that this ain't no coincidence" principle, basically.

The similarity here is - for brides dying in baths, read Jim assaulting women without consent. If the evidence of all his charges are allowed in, is it "probative" in that it tends to demonstrate a criminal pattern?