02.05.2016 02:02 PM

My take after week one of R. v. Ghomeshi, or any trial like this one

25 Comments

  1. Jack D says:

    My take: Marie Henein is a machine of a lawyer.

    • SG says:

      Indeed. The Crown seems out of its league when pitted against her.

      • Jack D says:

        And totally ill-prepared.

        Though, likely not at a fault of their own. It seems that much of the evidence (emails and letters) being presented in court by defence was information not originally disclosed by the accusers. Which, ironically, has killed the Crown’s case because now Marie Henein has established reasonable doubt.

  2. e.a.f. says:

    Perhaps, on the other hand, there have been and are thousands of people, who “agree” to be hit because the alternative is something they don’t want to deal with.

    Men will stay in abusive relationships because they frequently don’t want to leave their children with an abusive mother and they are afraid what society will say about them as men.

    Women will stay in an abusive relationship, if they have no where to go. For many the street and welfare is not an answer. Getting beat up is the price they consider they pay for their life style.

    In the case before the courts, I would suggest some thought no one would believe them. Some thought it would be O.K., because they wanted to get ahead. this trial isn’t that different from the one in the U.S.A., with Bill Cosby. People want to be included in the celebrity life style and what they will gain from it. Some are simply confused, but certainly not all.

    With the number of women who came forward in the Canadian case, I’d suggest many knew about Mr. G.’s “act”, but went forward with him anyhow.

    In many cases, I’d suggest, the women wanted something from Mr. G., they just didn’t get what they wanted. an attachment to fame and got punched. They didn’t want that, but some pressed onward towards their goal. I wonder if any woman actually punched Mr. G. back or hit him with a lamp, etc.

    • Jack D says:

      Actually this trial is vastly different from the Bill Cosby situation in America.

      For starters, Cosby is alleged to have drugged and raped those women. That is monumentally worse than what’s happened here. Those women were sexually violated without consent, whatever the motive for their association with Bill Cosby prior to these incidents.

      Also, Cosby is/was a huge celebrity –nobody really gave a shit about Ghomeshi outside of Toronto. George Strombo is a bigger celebrity than him so I hardly think these women (of whom one happens to be an actress herself) were with Jian Ghomeshi to get ahead in the world.

      But most importantly, this Ghomeshi trial is taking place within the parameters of what constitutes consensual sexual relationships involving rough behaviour. The victims in this case allege what Jian did was a crime and un-concensual, hence the charges. However, as the defence lawyer is demonstrating, the reliability of the witness accounts on what actually occurred seem to be conflicting with the evidence being presented and the allegations being made to the police. All Marie Henein (defence lawyer) needs to prove is reasonable doubt; that perhaps these relationship where the use of force was undeniably used, were in fact understood to be consensual at the time.

    • gyor says:

      I think he might be innocent, BUT its still early, but seeing people bashing his lawyer for not rolling over, but rather doing her to the best of her ability.

      You can’t treat witnesses with kit gloves when there is evidence that they have lied, purjury is a crime as well.

  3. Hugh Whalen says:

    A long time ago, in the 1970s, I took Judo classes as an extracurricular activity in university. A lot of it was throwing people around but a significant part of it was learning how to choke people. While my recollection may be tainted by the passing of time I seem to remember one choke hold where you compressed the arteries in the neck resulting in a quick loss of consciousness.

    Question: Are you saying that when we engaged in matches we could not consent to that because it wasn’t boxing? Or that one could only consent to that during a competition? Or practice?

    Just curious …

  4. rww says:

    The big question today seems to be – if you still like someone after they assault you, was it assault.

    I would still contend that you cannot consent to being assaulted. If you can then you can consent to being murdered in which case there would be no need for an assisted suicide law.

    • Nasty Bob says:

      Actually you can consent to be assaulted ( although then it wouldn’t be an assault) as long as no bodily harm occurres ( even if there was consent there would not – in law – be consent)

  5. Darren H says:

    My Aunt used to get beaten up by my Uncle for years but they stayed together. That did not somehow make it legal or right.
    I truly hope the jurors and the public remember to judge the actions of the accused for which they are on trial, and not the reactions of frightened and angry victims who probably had no idea how to react to the situations they were put into.

    • smelter rat says:

      The good news is that it’s a trial by judge alone.

    • Jack D says:

      That truly is tragic. I also know women who have been in abusive relationships, and its not something one could easily understand if they haven’t been in a similar situation.

      That said, this situation is much different from the one you’ve shared. Lucy DeCoutere was not in an exclusive relationship with Ghomeshi at the time of the assault yet she actively pursued him in the following weeks, months and even years. Based on the correspondence, its evident that DeCoutere was intent on keeping Ghomeshi in her life. This is problematic for this trial because in the police report (and essentially every other time she’s been asked) DeCoutere has explicitly indicated that there was no further communication with Ghomeshi following the incident and especially not to the extent we’ve now discovered.

      Whatever her thought process was, her preceding actions are inconsistent with her recollection. Those sort of incongruences, while unfortunate, don’t hold up in a court of law where one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the prerogative of the defence to expose any contradictions in order to establish that doubt. Its the way our judicial system works.

  6. the salamander hordes says:

    .. in my experience and memory bank .. the concept of ‘grooming’ leading to assault immediately raises it ugly head.. but with a critical difference in the #ghomeshi assault trial testimonies. I believe these cases present alleged assault as grooming.. ! But perhaps better conjecture would be to consider these points ! The separate testimonies suggest a practiced or similar pattern. Were the alleged assaults a prompt 1st date tolerance test? Did Mr Ghomeshi move quickly to efficiently cut to the chase and only continue with women who ‘passed the tolerance or condone test’? As crude as it may seem.. Lucy DeCoutere may have passed the test far far better than Witness #1 who did not fail, but .. well we know the rest don’t we, via the stunning chapter and verse goring in court, courtesy of the intrepid Ms Henein. Were the complainants tragic Victims or willing Volunteers ? I guess the Judge will inform us .. … Realistically though, if the alleged assaults are seen in some blurry way as consensual, tolerable or somehow invited or condoned.. one may look upon Mr Ghomeshi as unconcerned by having habitually crossed the legal line regarding his complicated dark ‘romantic’ endeavors..

  7. Montréalaise says:

    I find it really, really hard to understand what was going through DeCoutere’s mind. she and Ghomeshi were not in a relationship – they barely knew each other, and the incident at his house occurred during their first date. He chokes her and slaps her and instead of saying so much as “ouch” and running for the exit, she stays around for an hour, kisses him, sends him an e-mail a few hours later which reads “You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to f–k your brains out tonight”, spends the next day with him, sends him flowers, continues to pursue him….

  8. nobonus4nonis says:

    Hey Jian. I’d like you Ms Rousey.
    Rhonda this is Mr Ghomeshi.
    Now you two go out and have a good time.

  9. Kelly says:

    Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy trilogy has sold over 100 million copies. The movie box office was $571 million.

    Sadomasochism is big business, it seems. https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/sexual-masochism

    Lots of theories amd ideas and opinions about what happened and why. Lawyers will do their jobs. Judge will do his. Personally I think there should be a publication ban on all trials of this nature. The Star wants the bikini shots of today’s witness. If the Star ends up going bankrupt, it wont pain me one bit.

    We live in a very sick society.

    • gyor says:

      There is nothing wrong with BDSM, but Shades of Grey is a BDSM fantasy NOT a guide book on proper BDSM techinques so things go wrong when people conflate the two.

  10. Peter says:

    Assault is defined in the Criminal Code as applying any physical force without consent (or when the consent is obtained by threats, fraud or abuse of authority), so of course you can consent to being touched, struck, etc.. Happens in sports everyday. Obviously is also happens in romantic/sexual contact (an unwanted kiss is an assault, a wanted one is the stuff of dreams), which is where the whole problem starts. There is no way that subsequent conduct operates as a retroactive consent that didn’t exist at the time, but I am assuming Ghomeshi will testify, give a different spin and we’ll be into a he said/she said credibility war in which a tie would go to Ghomeshi because of the criminal standard of proof. I think he’s still in trouble because it will be a he said/they said conundrum and because for many the conduct is disturbing per se, but those hoping he will do hard time or that this will be a big victory for “women everywhere” may be disappointed.

    Despite the technical definition of assault, the public and to a certain extent the law expect some degree of severity or damage to sustain a criminal conviction. We don’t charge people with criminal assault for congratulating someone with a slap on the back, although we could (no, I’m not equating them, I am illustrating a point). This, I think, is the issue the testimony to date has opened up–how serious was all this to the complainants at the time, and I think subsequent conduct is relevant to that question. The very nature of a criminal trial means that question won’t likely be answered with reference to public policy or the general vulnerabilities of women, because it is a question of fact relating to these complainants, not a question of law. Plus there is a whiff of “games beautiful people play” starting to develop. However, it’s still early days.

    Given the high profile and a lead time of more than a year, I cannot believe the Crown and witnesses were so ill-prepared they couldn’t see this coming. Surely something is coming in response.

  11. SG says:

    I would like to know the full account of how the top echelons of Canada’s leftist taxpayer-funded broadcaster covered up for this lout for years and years before the weight of looming media revelations forced them to fire him.

    • SW says:

      I’d certainly like to know that too. In your case it’s to bad you had to be an idiot and foul your comment with your “leftist taxpayer-funded broadcaster” claptrap so annoyingly predictable among your ilk.

      • SG says:

        The leftist, progressive broadcaster protected this “personality” until it became obvious the charade could not continue. I’d like to know who knew about it; I’d like to know whose salaries I’ve been paying so that they could cover up for a vain, sociopathic nut on account of him being popular with other progressive airheads.

  12. e.a.f. says:

    the “covered up” for him, because he was part of the brand. he made money. that is all corporations care about and the CBC is not that much different from any other corporation.

  13. Jean A Paterson says:

    In the 1930’s my mother always had a hat pin in her hat. She used it as a weapon when she was groped, grabbed, or otherwise made uncomfortable by uninvited physical touching. While I did not wear hats and hat pins, I got the message that when something seems wrong or makes me afraid, I was to take immediate action to get out of the situation with strong words of protest. I even risked losing my job by this protest. Mother had lost jobs too.
    It may seem old-fashioned, but women need to learn to avoid potentially bad situations —like being willingly “high” in someone else’s apartment or hotel room, especially someone whose ego is needy.
    I am not blaming the victims in this case. I am just wondering why confusing situations happen in the first place e.g. The Parliament hill allegations last year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*