The Jian Ghomeshi saga

[The Brain]

Is he the elephant god?

[Barrister]

"forgot"..lol. If I sent a pic of myself in a bikini to Ghameshi, I wouldn't forget...and neither would he.

Memory is a funny thing though.  Some things can be retained years later sharp as day - while other matters can be completely lost.

Just an example.  I called two cops on Wednesday about some drunken yahoo beating up a cab driver.  Both gave good eyewitness testimony.  This happened outside, so I asked what the lighting was like.  One described that it was dark with overhead street lighting.

The other said it was still daylight.

Now they're not making this incident up.  They're not lying.  But one remembers daylight, while the other does not.

This first witness... in police interviews, and in Crown prep, she would have been asked about any other contact with Ghomeshi.  She would have been told it's important.  So why would she try and hide this email from all those people?  The only thing that makes sense is simply "I forgot".

[Josephus]

Word around the office after today's testimony is another discredited witness ^*. Ghomeshi's gonna walk free ^**

* Not based on legal advice, and is purely water cooler gossip by people who are not in any way connected to the trial.

** This is not an actual verdict, but merely supposition.

[Josephus]

Here's a Globe column that actually defends CC and BB's argument. (Just to prove this is not a black v white issue for me) 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/dont-dismiss-ghomeshis-accusers-over-their-after-the-fact-behaviour/article28607777/

[Josephus]

Word around the office after today's testimony is another discredited witness ^*. Ghomeshi's gonna walk free ^**

* Not based on legal advice, and is purely water cooler gossip by people who are not in any way connected to the trial.

** This is not an actual verdict, but merely supposition.

And you guys doubted me.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/jian-ghomeshi-found-not-guilty-of-sexual-assault/article29377074/

[PRC]

Still guilty of being a creep.

[Barrister]

Said it before, and I'll say it again - not guilty <> innocent.

[Drakken]

Said it before, and I'll say it again - not guilty <> innocent.

You've got to be kidding, BB.

Because if not I would not want to be a defender against you, if you believe that being brought to trial automatically means a defender you find abhorrent must be guilty; that if said abhorrent defender is declared not guilty it is because his story was merely better than the Prosecutor's; that such abhorrent defender must still be declared guilty when the whole body of evidence beyond every possible doubt, comes from accusers with a vested interest of personal revenge who act extremely shady with authorities and nigh-on perjure themselves on the stand.

By this verdict, the judge has pretty much put into jurisprudence that spurned former dates do not have the right to abuse the time, resource, and energy of both the Canadian courts and public prosecutors such as yourself to destroy the life and blacken the reputation of a former paramour. It should be instead used to provide justice to real victims of sexual assault; people who need to be reassured that they will be taken seriously by authorities with all help and support to feel they deserve from the system.

Whether you don't like Gomeshi as a human being, and I agree with you the guy is a major creep, it would be intellectually dishonest to call this verdict a defeat for the Canadian justice system. On the contrary, it is a victory for Canadian justice as a whole. It means there is still presumption of innocence even when it involves highly public accusations of sexual assault, and it will help clarify what should be the threshold of evidence beyond the mere word and presumed good faith of an accuser against a presumed abuser.

[Malthus]

a link to the reasons (warning, PDF):

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi7jN-Il9rLAhVCuoMKHfcPDMkQqQIIHjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ontariocourts.ca%2Fen%2F24Mar16.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGiOoyR2Igc1TRx4zxrSaPQ71py0A

[Drakken]

[139] The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness cannot 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.

That sums it all up.

[Barrister]

Said it before, and I'll say it again - not guilty <> innocent.

You've got to be kidding, BB.

Because if not I would not want to be a defender against you, if you believe that being brought to trial automatically means a defender you find abhorrent must be guilty; that if said abhorrent defender is declared not guilty it is because his story was merely better than the Prosecutor's; that such abhorrent defender must still be declared guilty when the whole body of evidence beyond every possible doubt, comes from accusers with a vested interest of personal revenge who act extremely shady with authorities and nigh-on perjure themselves on the stand.

By this verdict, the judge has pretty much put into jurisprudence that spurned former dates do not have the right to abuse the time, resource, and energy of both the Canadian courts and public prosecutors such as yourself to destroy the life and blacken the reputation of a former paramour. It should be instead used to provide justice to real victims of sexual assault; people who need to be reassured that they will be taken seriously by authorities with all help and support to feel they deserve from the system.

Whether you don't like Gomeshi as a human being, and I agree with you the guy is a major creep, it would be intellectually dishonest to call this verdict a defeat for the Canadian justice system. On the contrary, it is a victory for Canadian justice as a whole. It means there is still presumption of innocence even when it involves highly public accusations of sexual assault, and it will help clarify what should be the threshold of evidence beyond the mere word and presumed good faith of an accuser against a presumed abuser.

Huh?

All I am saying is that this finding by this judge does not, and should not, be taken as an exoneration of Ghomeshi.  The Crown has a high burden to meet to establish a conviction, and the judge found that it wasn't met here.  It's very much the "OJ" type of verdict.

[Malthus]

Yes, it all boiled down to the credibility of the witnesses. They were found by the judge to be not credible, so the case against G. collapsed.

This sort of thing is very hard to appeal. The findings of credibility on the stand, an appellate court will be very reluctant to touch, as the trier of fact has actually seen the witnesses. 

[Barrister]

Yes, it all boiled down to the credibility of the witnesses. They were found by the judge to be not credible, so the case against G. collapsed.

This sort of thing is very hard to appeal. The findings of credibility on the stand, an appellate court will be very reluctant to touch, as the trier of fact has actually seen the witnesses.

There's no appeal here from what I can see.

[Malthus]

Yes, it all boiled down to the credibility of the witnesses. They were found by the judge to be not credible, so the case against G. collapsed.

This sort of thing is very hard to appeal. The findings of credibility on the stand, an appellate court will be very reluctant to touch, as the trier of fact has actually seen the witnesses.

There's no appeal here from what I can see.

Not a realistic one.

[Barrister]

What there is, however, is another set of charges still coming up for trial.