The Jian Ghomeshi saga

[Malthus]

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

That I did not know.

[Malthus]

Anyway, the reasons make an interesting read. I haven't followed the trial at all, but it looks like the witnesses were destroyed on cross examination.

[Drakken]

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. 

Of course, not guilty doesn't mean innocence. Yet, it reeks that the judge writng that last paragraph for public consumption.

Well, duh!

For all intents and purposes, Jian Gomeshi was exonerated, this time at least. The body of evidence was almost non-existent, brought by accusers who were unreliable and conceited, and quite frankly wouldn't even been allowed as evidence had it been R. vs Common Joe Schmoe. However, here it was Jian Gomeshi, a former media darling now made to be a scumbag of the magnitude of the Marquis de Sade.

It's very much the "OJ" type of verdict.

No, it's not.

It's made as such, because the reality it makes obvious is extremely uncomfortable, that a defender publicly accused of a crime of sexual nature, and heavily presumed by everyone as guilty on the sole words of his presumed victims, was declared not guilty. And really, the prosecutors did they very best they could with what they had.

It is also extremely uncomfortable that the accusers did everything in their control to attempt to hide the simple fact... that they liked it after the fact. There, I said it. They contacted the defender afterwards because they were aroused by it and wanted more.

We get why public defenders have to avoid to bring in the behavior of the accused before as a matter of procedure, for obvious reasons. But after the fact... no amount of fact-twisting can change that the accusers' behavior fitted what the defence argued. It is hard to argue sexual assault when the victims themselves write thousands of e-mails to the defender, containing such gems as 'I loved your hands. I wanted them to fuck me'.

They couldn't even establish beyond reasonable fact there was a crime in intent. No one contested the core facts that there was a crime in OJ Simpson's case: Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronny Goldman were savaged to death on OJ Simpson's former property, and he fled the police. Here, the only thing that was established, because it wasn't even contested, was Gomeshi was a damn arrogant prick and idiot, to really believe you could choke a woman you date and act like BDSM, without making it clear and certain beforehand she did consent to it.

[garbon]

So is Gomeshi part of the seduction community?

[Drakken]

So is Gomeshi part of the seduction community?

So predicable, Garbo. Your vain attempts of teasing on the same insipid subject would amuse me, weren't it so 2008.

Get with the times.

[garbon]

It wasn't so much of a tease, more of a, why the fuck is Drakken so worked up on this subject?

Besides, tainted behavior stays with you for life.

[Barrister]

It is also extremely uncomfortable that the accusers did everything in their control to attempt to hide the simple fact... that they liked it after the fact. There, I said it. They contacted the defender afterwards because they were aroused by it and wanted more.

Yeah, I think there's no point in my discussing this further with you... *backs away slowly*

[HVC]

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

That I did not know.

yeah the coworker who started this whole thing is  up next. Hopefully the prosecutors are smart enough to do
Some research this time around (although I guess in the last trial there was no Eason to doubt the witnesses until things starts to unravel)

[DontSayBanana]

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.

Whoa, dude.  I think what BB was trying to say is that "legally" not guilty and "morally" not guilty are not the same things.  He could well have done some pretty despicable stuff, and it may be well known to some or all parties that he did some despicable stuff, but the crown just wasn't able to make enough evidence stick at trial.

[PRC]

Justice and the Law are two separate things.  Anyone at all familiar with Batman should get that.

[The Brain]

Yeah. Those movies still get made.

[Drakken]

It wasn't so much of a tease, more of a, why the fuck is Drakken so worked up on this subject?

Besides, tainted behavior stays with you for life.

As your modus operandi is one of a once small time high-school bully who attempts the same tease in a high school reunion ten years later, your own tainted behavior stays with you as well. Tu quoques.

[garbon]

It wasn't so much of a tease, more of a, why the fuck is Drakken so worked up on this subject?

Besides, tainted behavior stays with you for life.

As your modus operandi is one of a once small time high-school bully who attempts the same tease in a high school reunion ten years later, your own tainted behavior stays with you as well. Tu quoques.

Do you really know me so little after all these years?

[Drakken]

Here are some key excerpts from the judge's analysis of the testimony of the complaining witnesses.

My emphasis in bold. Caveat emptor.

... Each charge presented against Mr. Ghomeshi is based entirely on the evidence of the complainant. Given the nature of the allegations this is not unusual or surprising; however it is significant because, as a result, the judgment of this Court depends entirely on an assessment of the credibility and the reliability of each complainant as a witness...

...In a case which turns entirely on the reliability of the evidence of the complainant, this otherwise, perhaps, innocuous error takes on greater significance. This was a central feature of her assessment of Mr. Ghomeshi as a "nice guy" and a safe date. Her description of his car was an important feature of her recollection of the first date. And yet we know that this memory is simply wrong. The impossibility of this memory makes one seriously question, what else might be honestly remembered by her and yet actually be equally wrong? This demonstrably false memory weighs in the balance against the general reliability of L.R.'s evidence as a whole...

...L.R.'s evidence in-chief seemed rational and balanced. Under cross-examination, the value of her evidence suffered irreparable damage. Defence counsel's questioning revealed inconsistencies, and incongruous and deceptive conduct. L.R. has been exposed as a witness willing to withhold relevant information from the police, from the Crown and from the Court. It is clear that she deliberately breached her oath to tell the truth. Her value as a reliable witness is diminished accordingly...

...Ms. DeCoutere repeatedly stated that Mr. Ghomeshi's suggestion about lying down together and listening to music was creepy, cheesy or otherwise unappealing. It made her instantly uncomfortable. However, five days later, when she penned him a "love letter", she wrote, "What on earth could be better than lying with you, listening to music and having peace?

...When a witness is comfortable with giving differing versions of the same event, it suggests a degree of carelessness with the truth that diminishes the general reliability of the witness...

...Lucy DeCoutere swore to the police that after the alleged assault in 2003 she only saw Mr. Ghomeshi "in passing". She was polite to him, only because she did not want to jeopardize her future professional prospects. She "didn't pursue any kind of relationship" with him. Ms. DeCoutere was asked directly by the police interviewers to tell them everything about her relationship with Mr. Ghomeshi, before and after the alleged assault. It became clear at trial that Ms. DeCoutere very deliberately chose not to be completely honest with the police. Her statement to the police was what initiated these proceedings. This statement was subject to a formal caution concerning the potential criminal consequences of making a false statement. It was given under oath, an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, not a selective version of the truth. Despite this formal caution and oath, Ms. DeCoutere proceeded to consciously suppress relevant and material information. This reflects very negatively on her general reliability and credibility as a witness. It indicates a failure to take the oath seriously and a wilful carelessness with the truth...

...I do not accept that Ms. DeCoutere could have sincerely thought that all this was inconsequential and of no interest to the prosecution. She may have been afraid to disclose this information. She may have been embarrassed to disclose this information. These would not be unreasonable feelings; but to say that she decided not to disclose this information because she thought it was of no importance is just not credible. To make matters worse, when given this last minute opportunity to make full disclosure, she still failed to do so...

...Ms. DeCoutere said her plan was to disclose all of these things [various friendly contacts with Ghomeshi] once the trial began. She said that she had always intended to reveal this information but thought that the trial would be her first chance to do so. With respect, that explanation seems unreasonable to me. Ms. DeCoutere had literally dozens of pre-trial opportunities to provide the full picture to the authorities. I suspect the truth is she simply thought that she might get away with not mentioning it...

...On July 5th 2003, within twenty-four hours of the alleged choking incident, Ms. DeCoutere emailed Mr. Ghomeshi with the message:

"Getting to know you is literally changing my mind, in a good way. You challenge me and point to stuff that has not been pulled out in a very long time. I can tell you about that sometime and everything about our friendship so far will make sense. You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to fuck your brains out, tonight." There is not a trace of animosity, regret or offence taken, in that message.

...All of the extreme animosity expressed since going public with her complaint in 2014 stands in stark contrast to the flirtatious correspondence and interactions of 2003 and 2004, words and actions that are preserved in the emails and photographs she says she forgot about.

Let me emphasize strongly, it is the suppression of evidence and the deceptions maintained under oath that drive my concerns with the reliability of this witness, not necessarily her undetermined motivations for doing so. It is difficult to have trust in a witness who engages in the selective withholding relevant information...

...The team bond between Ms. DeCoutere and S.D. was strong. They discussed witnesses, court dates and meetings with the prosecution. They described their partnership as being "insta sisters". They shared a publicist. They initially shared the same lawyer. They spoke of together building a "Jenga Tower" against Mr. Ghomeshi. They expressed their top priority in the crude vernacular that they sometimes employed, to "sink the prick,... 'cause he's a fucking piece of shit."

...It is now apparent that in her initial interviews, S.D was putting forward her non-association with Mr. Ghomeshi after the assault, as evidence that she had reason to fear him. She said that she "always kept her distance" from Mr. Ghomeshi. She felt unsafe around Mr. Ghomeshi. In her statement to the police she acknowledged that she went out a couple of times with Mr. Ghomeshi after the alleged assault but underscored that it was always in public. She told the police that "the extent of it is, we're going to be in public." They went to a bar and they had a dinner date.

At trial, a very different truth was revealed. After meeting with Mr. Ghomeshi at a bar, in public, she took him back to her home and, to use her words, they "messed around". She gave him a "hand job". He slept there for a while then went home. This of course was dramatically contrary to her earlier statement that she "tried to stay in public with him" and keep her distance. S.D. acknowledged that her earlier comments were a deliberate lie and an intentional misrepresentation of her brief relationship with Mr. Ghomeshi.

S.D.'s decision to supress this information until the last minute, prior to trial, greatly undermines the Court's confidence in her evidence. In assessing the credibility of a witness, the active suppression of the truth will be as damaging to their reliability as a direct lie under oath...

[Drakken]

I admit I may have inferred a bit much in BB's post. Still, what infuriated me in BB's seemingly casual dismissal of this verdict is that a public prosecutor seems willing to either ignore or shove under the rag how disrespectful of the whole justice system the accusers have been. If I were a Crown prosecutor, I would be incensed about what transpired in this case :

a) It is glosses over the fact that overwhelming evidence was shown that the "victims" colluded and abused the Canadian justice system not to see justice done, but for personal reasons. They used the very sensitive and branding nature of accusing someone of sexual assault to get revenge on a former date partner; in their own words, they aimed to 'sink the prick because he was a piece of shit'. This goes beyond that the evidence was insufficient to prove a crime, or the victim make mistakes in his or her testimony. The deceit was voluntary and premediated.

b) That even with that evidence being shown, there is a wide coalition of people, even public actors, members of the justice system, going la-la-la and willing to believe these women were of good faith but 'afraid'. They are still willing to give those three women a pass as poor, misunderstood victims of a dark-triad maniac who happened to slip through the cracks of justicr, when factual evidence shows it was quite otherwise. De facto they have perjured themselves, numerous times, and thus made a mockery of the justice system. And yet, they will be shielded of consequence for doing so by the sheer backlash it might cause to bring charges of perjury and contempt of court on these 'victims', when by their callous and irresponsible behavior with both police and court alike they - not Gomeshi - they may have directly hurt the cause of victims of sexual assault, by making it even harder for victims in the future to bring accusations to see their abuser or aggressor be punished when there is no smoking gun evidence.