03.24.2016 10:40 AM

My readers called it

And what the judge said: the complainant “breached her oath.” Wow. Is the Crown now compelled to explore whether perjury occurred? Extraordinary.

22 Comments

  1. Matt says:

    Well, I guess a question that needs to be asked is if the defence was able to find some 5000 emails exchanged between two of the accusers, why didn’t the Crown?

    Did the Crown know and not disclose them to his lawyers?

    • Sean says:

      Disclosure is a one-way street – the prosecution is required to share all its evidence with the defense, but not vice-versa.

    • doconnor says:

      As the email where exchanged between the women and Ghomeshi, both parties would have had a copy. The women didn’t tell the Crown about the emails and/or deleted or lost accrss to thier copies, but Ghomeshi had his copies and shared them with the defense. If the Crown knew about them, they could have gotten a warrant.

    • Mark says:

      To answer your question: because they were woefully ill-prepared.

      The second the witnesses took the stand and the Defence started presented a barrage of damning evidence, it was clear that the Crown had no idea what was happening. The information the accusers provided the police and the Crown is no where near the information that Jian provided his lawyers. Jian had archived years of emails and letters while the Lucy Decoutere and her co-accusers had only their personal account of the events.

      Therein lies the trouble with the Crown’s case; the accusers intentionally withheld crucial information and attempted to steer the trial in a direction they wanted. The accusers also had contact with one another, and based on the evidence presented by the Defence, colluded their testimony. If reasonable doubt is the threshold for acquittal then I don’t see how Jian could have been found guilty based on such inconsistencies.

      It really seems as if the Crown was blindsided by their own witnesses.

  2. Ron says:

    Oh wow. Now I suppose he’ll sue the CBC !

    I mean, who would hire him ? The Rebel ?

  3. ABB says:

    The female accusers have a lot of ‘splaining to do!!!! Holy crap!!!

  4. rww says:

    The CBC fired him on the basis of what he admitted to on Facebook not on the basis of the criminal allegations. They are free and clear.

  5. Mark says:

    That is fascinating.

    If perjury did occur, is it possible the Crown doesn’t pursue an appeal of the judge’s decision due to the mirky situation facing the accusers?

    I think the judge’s description of the witnesses was accurate. Their inconsistency and inability to be forthright with crucial information is what tanked their case. Honestly, for all the hysterics around the treatment of the victims I’m aghast by the irrelevance directed towards the consequences of intentional ommision by those angered by the verdict.

    Anyone vaguely familiar with court room trials should recognize the lack of reliability of the accusers and their half-truths.

    One thing is for sure, this trial is a historic one for Canadians.

  6. Luke says:

    I figure he is guilty, but from what I heard of the trial, a guilty verdict would have been outrageous. I am glad he was acquitted because there was not enough evidence to warrant a conviction. If, some day, I wind up falsely accused of something, I would hope a lack of evidence would lead to an acquittal.

  7. Gender politics comes into play with a trial like this. Sexual violence of any kind unacceptable. I don’t know what the protesters want because the justice system is what the justice system is. Allegations were made. Charges happened. Uncomfortable truths emerged. His name is dirt because though he is acquitted, the label of “he might be a sexual predator” will cling to him for the rest of his life. And his accusers … I don’t know what to say. Just wow is about it.

  8. Merrill Smith says:

    If he were to sue anybody, would he not be required to testify? Then his credibility might be called into question, as his accusers were.

    • Michael Bluth says:

      I don’t think JG will go anywhere near a court in his issue with the CBC. Much will depend on his upcoming trial in June.

      If he is acquitted again then the CBC will likely want to settle quickly. If he is convicted then there is no reason for the CBC to settle.

  9. Houland Wolfe says:

    Should Ghomeshi’s next trial go forward in June, I would bet that the complainant’s case will stand up much more strongly to cross-examination. Perhaps that is why the Crown decided to hold it separate.

  10. ABB says:

    Any lawyers on the forum care to comment about this….. In theory, might Ghomeshi have a civil claim against one or more of the alleged victims due to their lack of disclosure to the police and prosecutors? It seems the wording of this decision might be turned against the women in some way. Could be a powerful counter-punch. Is there a basis for defamation by their failing to disclose relevant facts and correspondence to police and Crown?

    • doconnor says:

      I think it is fair to say thier claims are probably true. While that isn’t enough to convect him beyond a reasonable doubt, it doesn’t mean he can go after them.

  11. Iris Mclean says:

    His rock-star CBC career came to an abrupt end. Potential victims have been given a very public heads-up.
    That’s about all we could hope for.

  12. Eric Weiss says:

    From the judge…

    “The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness can no longer expect the court to consider them to be a trusted source of the truth … Put simply, the volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence leaves the court with a reasonable doubt.”

    If being a douchebag was enough to convict someone Gomeshi would get a life sentence, but the witnesses changed their stories, didn’t disclose vital information and were seen to be conspiring with each other to get their stories straight. It may not have been justice, but it was the right legal decision.

  13. Derek Pearce says:

    Well at very least all women know what they’re getting into when they go on a date with him from now on. He has to know that the next time he sucker punches a woman she’ll be 10000X more likely to go directly to the police and not overthink it first.

  14. Bill Templeman says:

    This piece in today’s G&M makes a lot of sense. Our adversarial justice system need to be modernized. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/trial-by-battle-tradition-fails-to-meet-the-needs-of-sex-assault-survivors/article29391597/ Worth a read. By one of the lawyers involved in the Ghomeshi trail

Leave a Reply

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


*