Ghomeshi Day 4: The ‘real conversation’ behind a shocking reveal

In which Jian Ghomeshi’s defence travels back to the future and drops snippets from lovesick emails


Audible murmurs and gasps filled the courtroom on Friday as correspondence sent by Lucy DeCoutere to Jian Ghomeshi projected on a jumbo screen. This was the covert “real conversation” defence lawyer Marie Henein promised in the cliffhanger close of court Thursday when she asked DeCoutere: “Do you want to tell His Honour the real conversation? The one that you have not told anybody even today, even when you met with the police?…Not the one you’ve been reporting to the media, not the one in press releases.”

This “real conversation,” the defence contended, occurred mostly electronically between DeCoutere and Ghomeshi sporadically over seven years after the sexual assault that the actress and Royal Air Force reserves captain alleged occurred on July 4, 2003. Specifically, the court saw DeCoutere’s one-sided attempts to engage the former CBC host in friendship—and much more—after the night Ghomeshi allegedly choked and slapped her at his house.

With dramatic flourish, Henein presented snippets from 22 emails, two Facebook posts, and a hand-written letter sent between July 5, 2003—hours after the alleged assault—and Sept. 8, 2010. Quickly it became clear that the tone and content of these missives didn’t square with a narrative DeCouture had laid out in her many media interviews since coming forward in October 2014; it also, Henein charged, was inconsistent with the version DeCoutere gave police and under oath this week. Publicly, DeCoutere has denied romantic interest in Ghomeshi; she said her visit to Toronto the month after she met the then-CBC Newsworld TV host was not specifically to see him but to see other friends; she’d mocked his first-date request to go back to his house to “hold her”as “cheesy”; in court, she’d insisted repeatedly that her bids to befriend him were intended to “normalize” the alleged attack stemming from her “people-pleaser” nature and need for happy harmony, what DeCoutere calls “flattening any negative.”

Henein zoned in on selective lines from these banter-filled emails, often asking DeCoutere to read them aloud to the court. In one, dated Oct. 17, 2003, DeCoutere writes: “sunday, in my brain, has a slot all for you. rrrrrr.” On May 26, 2004, the actress and producer warns Ghomeshi: “i might stalk you a little between meetings” at the Banff TV festival. After he responds “I can’t promise much because the next month an a half are bonkers,” she persists: “I wanna play with you,” she writes, suggesting “Pims on the terrace? chance encounter in the broom closet?” A sexually suggestive black-and-white photo DeCoutere sent Ghomeshi in which she posed with a water bottle—”fellated” it, Henein said repeatedly—was also admitted to evidence. She sent the photo to many of her friends, DeCoutere protested, even women. Heinen also noted DeCoutere had sent Ghomeshi flowers as a “thank you” and congratulations for buying a new car.

Henein saved the most incendiary email, dated July 5, 2003, for last. Noting this was mere hours after the alleged assault, Henein asked DeCoutere if she’d been warned by police that “it is a crime to make a false statement.” “Yes,” DeCoutere said before reading aloud: “Getting to know you has literally changed my mind—in a good way I think.” Then, the ending: “You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to f—k your brains out. Tonight.” DeCoutere protested: “When I said ‘he kicked my ass’ there’s no way it was ‘I liked it when you choked me’.” She had “conflicted feelings about Mr. Ghomeshi,” she said. DeCoutere maintained that Ghomeshi choked her for 10 seconds than slapped her three times: “He choked me with no consent. I never asked for it. He slapped me with no consent. I never asked for it.”

Next Henein presented the epistolatory coup de grace: what she called the “love letter”—a six-page hand-written note dated July 9, 2003, five days after the alleged choking and slapping. In it, DeCoutere referred to Ghomeshi as “too sparkling” and admitted, “I had no reason to come to Toronto but to visit you.” She referred to his “I want to hold you” line positively: “I mean, really, what on Earth could be better than lying with you listening to music & having peace.” DeCoutere was eager to see Ghomeshi again, she wrote: “Jian. You’re great. And I want to know more, have more fun easy times with you because it is so very rare—right?” before joking: “How many other men get this whole animal-kid f–king thing?” Again she suggested sexual interest: “I am sad we didn’t spend the night together.” Henein asked DeCoutere to read the sign-off, knowing it would summon gasps in the courtroom: “I love your hands. Lucy”

“You had feelings for him,” Henein said. “It does not change the heart of matter,” DeCoutere answered, likening what happened to a wife “being assaulted by husband and staying with them.” She didn’t have context to understand what happened, she said: “I mentioned to court earlier I was not used to being in violent situations, BDSM situations.” She noted that “women can be assaulted by someone and still have feelings for them afterwards.”

“You told police you’d only meet in passing,” Henein said, a statement, incidentally, that was not contradicted by the content of the emails. “I had complicated feeling about Mr. Ghomeshi,” DeCoutere said, “because I had so much guilt about negativity.”

Clear inconsistencies between the communication and what DeCoutere told the police and the court gave Henein grounds to say DeCoutere purposefully withheld evidence (DeCoutere said she didn’t remember sending the emails) and even that she made the whole thing up: “There was no sexual assault,” Henein said: “You said ‘I want to f–k your brains out’ the next day.” She continued: “It [the assault] never happened.” “Oh, it happened,” DeCoutere responded.

But does the conclusion that there was no assault actually follow from the evidence? Henein’s framing email exchanges between a woman with a crush on a man who shows little actual interest in her as the “real conversation” of the sexual assault trial is a brilliant bit of semantic transference. For while these communications are definitely shocking, perplexing, and even sad, they’re distracting chatter. The “real conversation” taking place in courtroom 125 of Toronto’s Old City Hall currently is whether or not Jian Ghomeshi sexually assaulted DeCoutere and two other women. In  presenting the correspondence, the defence appears to be trying to establish some sort of retroactive implied consent, which, of course, is moot: at the time of the alleged assault, the future hadn’t occurred.

Only DeCoutere’s emails were flashed on screen Friday; lines from Ghomeshi’s emails were read aloud. Email exhibits entered by the defence show Ghomeshi being polite while clearly not interested in pursuing a relationship with DeCoutere. Yet clearly that relationship wasn’t meaningless to him: Why else would he have kept the letter? (How the court harvested the emails is unclear.)

This is the second time in the trial the Crown appeared blindsided by emails indicating a witness made contact with Ghomeshi after alleged assaults. There was no rebuttal from the Crown, no counterargument that victims of sexual assault do continue seeing, even living, with people who abuse them. Nor is there any indication the Crown will provide expert testimony on the matter. A Crown redirect gave DeCoutere a chance to explain why she wrote the emails, again thrusting the spotlight on events occurring after the alleged assault, not the event itself. Addressing the court, a flustered DeCoutere grappled with the inconsistencies by blaming herself: “I was attracted to him,” she said. “He also assaulted me. He also said and did things that turned me off. But that’s my problem.” She told the court there’s “no untruth in this letter” and expressed bewilderment about the “I love your hands” line: “It is pointing love to the very thing that’s used to hurt me with, which is a magnifying glass,” she said, pausing: “The things that are used to hurt me. I don’t know what I was thinking. I guess I wanted to forget about it. So this letter and correspondence or encounters I had with Mr. Ghomeshi changed nothing.”

Reading that letter in its entirety reveals a bundle of contradictions in DeCoutere. But none of them actually contradict DeCourere’s account of what happened on the night in question, or the larger narrative. And that presents DeCoutere as confused, inaccurately projecting a relationship with Ghomeshi, while somehow blaming herself for any problems: “I am worried that I gave you mixed messages and if I did firstly I apolologize…um I mean Apologize—f–k where is my dictionary…and secondly I honestly did not intent [sic] to,” she writes. She suggests Ghomeshi is a catch, a romantic high-water mark for her: “I am used to spending time with people—men I suppose—who are totally unavailable emotionally that I did not know what to do,” she wrote to him. She also appeared invested in having a relationship with Ghomeshi before it even began. She visited Toronto after meeting Ghomeshi briefly “to see if you were a real, fallable [sic] person basically, not a figment of my imagination.” On the stand this week, DeCouture testified she wanted to smooth potential relationship waters by downplaying his actions: “I was thinking maybe this assault was a one-off,” she said. “Everyone makes gaffes.”

When DeCoutere came forward in October 2014 to allege that Ghomeshi sexually assaulted and choked her, the first woman publicly to do so, she became a beloved figurehead and sparked  a national conversation about sexual assault. Yesterday’s events in court shouldn’t change that, her lawyer Gillian Hnatiw said outside of court Friday. Hnatiw asked that the focus remain on Ghomeshi’s alleged actions and not on DeCoutere: “This is and remains a trial about Mr. Ghomeshi’s conduct.”

“What Lucy did or how she felt in the aftermath does not change that essential fact,” Hnatiw, said, noting, “Violence against women is not about the behaviour of the woman.” She redirected the “real conversation”: “It’s telling that the defence did not accuse [DeCoutere] of dishonesty regarding the objective facts of the assault itself,” adding her client “wants survivors of violence to know that what they do in the aftermath in no way changes the truth.” Her statement concluded: “There is no right or wrong way to cope or react or move forward with your life.”

Friday’s focus on the “real conversation” of the R v Ghomeshi suggests that there is a “right or wrong” way to cope. And that—more than an examination of the alleged assault itself—has taken over the conversation DeCoutere started more than a year ago.


Ghomeshi Day 4: The ‘real conversation’ behind a shocking reveal

  1. Two comments –

    1. “In presenting the correspondence, the defence appears to be trying to establish some sort of retroactive implied consent, which, of course, is moot: at the time of the alleged assault, the future hadn’t occurred.”

    That’s wrong. In cross-examination, the defence made clear that Ghomeshi’s position is not consent, but rather, that the assaults didn’t happen.

    2. “Why else would he have kept the letter? (How the court came into possession of the emails is unclear.)”

    The court came into possession of the emails via the defence lawyer, who presented them to the witness on the stand, as they are entitled to do. Clearly, Ghomeshi kept the emails all those years. He had no obligation to provide them to the Crown/Court prior to cross-examining the witnesses.

    • I believe that the emails could have been retrieved from the computer’s hard drive even if they had been deleted.
      Hard thing for me as a woman is that this woman pushed for a relationship with this guy even after being allegedly assaulted.
      She pursued him….vigorously. This gives all the women who actually are assaulted even more to prove and less hope of being believed. They are the real victims. Lucy was looking for her 15 minutes of fame and now its turning into 15 minutes of shame. I don’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth.

      • That aspect was poignant to me. Not as a reaction to an alleged assault, but to Ghomeshi “just not being into her.” It’s not uncommon. Dating is hell.

        • Ghomeshi told the whole world he was into “slapping” women. He claimed the women were all into too. Then he kept all the correspondence from those who might not have acted like they enjoyed it as much as he did….just in case.

          These women might be completely lacking in confidence and hence the desperate “make-up/what did I do to make you hit me and what can I do to make it better?” correspondence
          but wait until he comes up against the reality of what happened with his ex-employer. People lost jobs because they failed to react to complaints about his treatment of his subordinates. His Facebook story said it all. Just being in the room with him means one consents to being treated poorly by him.

    • What about the letters and texts he deleted?

      Sort of like Hillary’s missing emails.

  2. The writer seems fixated on what the emails prove. The emails are not required to prove anything. The Crown is required to prove the charges against the accused. The emails are intended to raise a reasonable doubt about the witness’ version of events.
    Both witnesses in the trial so far have been shown to have misrepresented, under oath, their subsequent relationship with Ghomeshi. Their credibility is reduced with each revelation. This clearly raises the possibility of reasonable doubt in relying on their version of events.
    A key phrase “I’m worried I gave you mixed messages” would suggest that the witness may have given Ghomeshi the impression that she consented when she didn’t mean it. This line will be quite damaging.
    The emails serve another purpose that I have not seen discussed. The focus has been on guilty vs innocence. The defence is also preparing themselves to make a sentence recommendation in the event of a guilty verdict. What if he pulled her hair, but not enough that her clip on hair extension came out? What if he slapped her face, but didn’t leave a mark or a physical injury at all?
    While no sexual assault should be tolerated, the question will be, what is the appropriate penalty if he is guilty. The defence has set the table to claim that while he may have committed an offence, it is of such a minor nature that he deserves a minimal sentence. clearly both defendants continued to contact him. It could be argued that their injuries were so insignificant as to not warrant a severe penalty. It is also clear that he stopped when they were not interested in this interaction. This could also be argued to be a mitigating factor in sentencing.
    LD was correct about one thing. The trial has been excellent theatre.
    It has also shown that our system works quite well. The bikini picture was excluded from public view to protect the witness. The defence examination has been intense, but has not been needlessly invasive nor has it delved into irrelevant personal issues. The witnesses have been undone by their own testimony and their own written correspondence. It should not deter sexual assault survivors from coming forward.
    Hopefully it will encourage others to come forward in a more timely manner. One of the biggest challenges is that the events were so long ago. It makes prosecution difficult and provides significant fodder for the defence. Women who are truly assaulted need to know that the most important step is to report it as soon as possible. That will be the most important step to reducing violence against women, which would ultimately be the best outcome of this trial.
    Beyond what the emails prove, JG has already said he gets sexual pleasure from hitting women (with consent). To me, this is a non-starter and will follow him for his life. There is not need to determine the minutia of specific guilt or innocence to make a personal assessment of this admitted behaviour.

    • I think people forget that that this is a he said/she said case. Since he isnt taking the stand and there are no proof to the accusation of no consent to assault, the court can only make a judgement based on her word. So they have to figure out whether she sounds credible or not. Does everything she says is on the up and up or are there lies, important details conveniently left out or omitted to maybe serve her testimony. Could there be a motive. Just because someone complains of assault, doesnt mean we shouldnt ask questions. People lie for numerous reasons, that is reality and anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. Who knows there could be a possibility that she did in fact consent to it before, told him its fine and because she knows there is no evidence other than verbal she chose to go ahead and sue to fill a personal vendetta or get fame. If there is no evidence of consent before or during, then what happens after becomes key because she is claiming being traumatized so how she reacted and dealt with it can shed light as to whether it actually took place or how serious it may have been. Its hard to believe from a rational stand point someone who goes on to keep seeing their assailant after the act. There is something not right there. It shows very poor judgement on the part of the victim. You have to wonder that the attack may have been less serious than what they claim or maybe this person deep down has some weird self esteem issue where they feel they deserve someone who hurts them and allows this person to keep doing it. Also was the assailant made aware of any wrong doing. If the victim doesnt tell the assailant they are being hurt, he may not be aware. In any case there should be some accountability on the part of the victim as well if this is an ongoing problem.

      Going back to this case..
      I have a hard time believing both women forgot about the emails. I tend to think that they gambled with the likelihood he hadnt kept their messages. Its pretty coincidental that in both cases it were evidence that was left out that did them in. But in both case, it completely discredited them because for them to constantly lie under oath that they didnt like him or see him again and to leave so many details and important pieces of information out to built their case could very well make it a possibility that they just omitted to having consented to aggression or that they lied about the assault happening although the last one’s email does refer to kicking her ass so there had to have been roughness going on, the question is whether she consented to it or not. Given her testimony it would be very difficult to believe she is telling the truth.

    • This is a case where there is no evidence other that what the ‘victim’s say – no photos of bruises, no DNA nothing. So credibility is central to the case. So far both ‘victims’ have proven they are liars – so why believe them? Don’t get me wrong, I think Jian is a sleezebag, didn’t think he was the wonderboy that CBC did, but that doesn’t mean he is guilty.

      • There doesn’t have to be DNA or bruises. Ghomeshi admitted in a Facebook article that he liked hitting women. He admits he hit and choked them. What is in dispute is whether the women consented to it. Was it S&M or was he assaulting them. His problems are that he had reputation at work as well. He was a star at the CBC and when a reporter from a newspaper started contacting him and saying they were hearing rumors about his habits of hitting and hurting women, Ghomeshi went to his employer and wanted support. They fired him instead and they fired the people who had ignored and suppressed the complaints against him over the years. He sued the CBC. Then women who didn’t for him went to the police to say he had physically attacked them on dates without their consent.

        • Admitting you like rough sex does not mean he had rough sex with these particular accusers. It has not been proven, and that is the point of the trial.
          Don’t jump to unsubstantiated conclusions based on media reports. Read the testimony under oath. What you’ll see at this point is that the witnesses were less than fully forthcoming in their description of events. There is a strong argument for reasonable doubt, which is the threshold to meet.

    • She is analyzing the emails as far as their impact on matters beyond the case. So as you say, not relevant to the case, but that wasn’t her objective.

  3. I think I always assumed that on some level, Ghomeshi was guilty, but now it seems possible that this entire thing was made-up. I think there needs to be a shift in public perception, where people stop believing an alleged victim simply because it is the progressive thing to do. Instead, we should all wait until the facts have all been aired and a verdict has been rendered. I honestly don’t know who to believe at this point, but doubts have been cast and I suspect that this will only continue.

  4. “Henein asked DeCoutere to read the sign-off, knowing it would summon gasps in the courtroom.” My guess is Henein doesn’t know or care what the reaction is behind her. She seems to be one of the few who remembers this is taking place in front of a judge. I’m pretty sure that nobody can claim to have access to Henein’s internal thought process.

    I don’t think it’s “distracting chatter” to raise these issues of what DeCoutere did around those dates. (Although, as the first commenter points out, Henein challenged more than that.) But what do you expect from a columnist who champions a separate court system for assault charges, where uppity lawyers like Henein can be brought in line.

    But even more seriously, I started thinking “perjury” as Henein began questioning her in day 4. If Henein was such an ogre, she would have continued to let Lucy talk herself right into that charge. It’s bewildering to me that both these women don’t seem to appreciate the gravity of the courtroom and that they didn’t seem to help the prosecutors.

  5. Women are “crazy” (and men are “stupid”) at the best of times.

    After being assaulted, and experienced the trauma of being assaulted, why should anyone (including the judge) expect them to behave and act rationally.

    I don’t see why this particular line of cross examination is considered shocking or illuminating at all. All it tells you is that trauma impairs the judgement of people. The assault is NOT an isolated event. It is an event that has aftereffects, often seemingly irrational ones.

    And this is why the upwards of ten other women declined to lay ask for charges to be laid, because they are going to be made victims of the the dumb things they did in the aftermath of the assault.

    I can believe the media doesn’t ridicule the defense. The e-mails tell us nothing, other than that Ghomeshi was a charismatic sociopath who was able to maintain his hold on this women even after assaulting them. And this is neither shocking, surprising, or illuminating.

    • The point the defence is making is that the complainants knowingly left out details that didn’t further their narrative. They were deceptive. If they are deceptive and not telling the whole truth then can their word be trusted beyond a shadow of a doubt.

      • People remember what they need to remember and forget what they need to forget to get by. The narratives we live by often only vaguely resemble the facts of what happened, even when not impacted by traumatic events.

        It is unlikely they knowingly left out details. Over time, in order to move on, their minds have consciously or unconsciously forgotten these details. People have to have an internal narrative of their lives that is sufficiently positive that they aren’t suicidal. Most people are not really self-aware. “They can’t handle the truth!”

        It is the crown attorney and the so-called expert police investigators who have failed here. They didn’t probe or ask for all communications. They failed to do simple things to protect Ghomeshi’s victims.

        The justice system, as it is, is not well suited for sexual crimes between individuals who are acquaintances. It might be impossible to construct such a justice system.

        The fact that Ghomeshi kept meticulous records suggests he used online conversations to determine those who most vulnerable and who, because of those online conversations and communications, would be less likely to make an accusation.

        Arguably, his defense reveals exactly how he chose his victims.

        • I have the same Hotmail, Gmail, and Yahoo email accounts as I did 20 years ago. Many people do. I can go back and review all my emails. It’s not unusual.

      • I agree with you.
        It looks like she remembered very clearly what she wants to remember, but not remembering dozens of emails and letter that she wrote!! Give me a brake.
        She also told Police during investigation that she was not in contact with the accused.
        Her extensive interviews with the media seeking publicity does not help her case eider.

    • It is relevant because it shows that both witnesses were not truthful when under oath. If they are not truthful in one area of testimony, it is reasonable to think they may not be truthful in other areas.

    • you do realize that in all the emails after the assault she was reading in court she was complementing and saying how great he was and how easy and peaceful it was in his company! Nowhere did she call him a sociopath. This whole BS of abused women is not relevant in these cases so far. These arent women who were in a serious relationship or dealing with a family member or dealing with a coworker or boss, someone with whom they have a close bond with that is difficult to break. This is just a random guy they spent a couple of days with 12 years ago. Both women werent in love or emotionally bound to him. They were hookups. Thats it. Although I tend to think that the second one given the handwritten letter she wrote was more invested in him. But lets go back to my old point, its pretty easy to dump a guy or choose never to see him again if the guy beats you on a first and second meeting. Ive dumped guys for far less important things after hanging out a couple of times. The fact they kept chasing him, the second one more intensely makes me believe that one she was definitely not traumatized and fine with his aggressive sexual ways because she stated in her emails and letter to have had a good time and wanting to do it again

      • Completely disagree. Even if these women enjoyed the assault, if they did not initially consent it is still wrong, and a crime.

        • And therefore needs to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. With no physical evidence, the entire case rests upon what the alleged victims say and how credible they are. An alleged victim who writes a six page love struck letter to her alleged abuser after the incident happened… Is highly suspect. One who says she can’t even remember writing said six page love letter, and countless emails…. is not credible.

    • Sorry, but your rationale is silly. As a women if a man tried that on me, my knee would be making contact with his balls and I would be out of there,. The only email I would be sending him would be warning to never come near me again even at industry events, he should thank his lucky stars I’m not reporting him to the police and all my friends and his friends will be informed of his actions, I would not be sending him love letters or a picture of myself in a bikini (although that would frighten him more than anything!). These women are sad cases of losers who are looking for their 15 minutes of fame – particularly that Lucy chick. Feminists and the media have tried very hard to make these women ‘victims’, but all they are are sad pathetic women who have probably always relied on their victimhood to have any success.

      None of my girlfriends (of all ages and walks of life) think these women are truthful,.

      • You say that because neither you nor your friends have been sexually assaulted or experienced any form of severe trauma. Your opinion is contrary to the best neuroscience.

        • You’ve seriously misunderstood the best neuroscience

      • What if these women enjoyed the attacks because they are into BDSM, but did not initially consent (i.e. Ghomesi sprang it on them at random)? Do you think that just because they, perhaps, enjoyed it, and wanted to see him again after, means that he should have no repercussions for attacking a woman without prior consent? You want him to walk free with the ability to continue doing that to other women? You are okay with this happening to other women as long as they react appropriately (by kicking him in the balls, as you say)?

        • Given the credibility of the alleged victims so far, we do not yet know if he did anything. Hes not guilty just because they say he is. Our justice system – thankfully – is usually very thorough when cross examining accusers and witnesses.

        • OK with what happening to other women? A gentle tug on her hair? Holding her against the wall while making out?
          Or have you assumed it is something else that has happened to them … and if so, how do you know this?
          I’ll give you a hint where I’m going with this … if you are outraged by actions that produced no physical harm, then why? If it is because of the mental harm it has done, then I would ask you for proof of that harm. Did the victim seek help? Tell someone about the harm? Did they cut off contacts with the accused?
          You can’t have it both ways. If you want to rely on the outcome of the “trauma”, then be prepared to show that.

          • Do you know how many victims of sexual violence never report it to anyone and when the perp is someone they know, they often blame themselves? Ghomeshi admitted he is into choking and hurting women. He stated they all consented and were into too.

          • Gage G – no one knows how many victims of assault have not reported. There are only estimates.
            I am aware of the things Ghomeshi has admitted. He has not admitted to anything related to the accusers in this case. That’s why there is a trial.
            My comment to the OP was related to the complaint from many that the accusers have been asked about their subsequent relationship. I was illustrating why it would be important information.

  6. It is very sad for the women who were hoping these women coming forward would be the ones to put light on sexual assaults. Unfortunately these women have revealed themselves to be opportunist with a vengeful streak and bitterness of having been rejected by Ghomeshi in the past.

    They underestimated Ghomeshi in this thing. He was smart and is aware that due to his celebrity and his kinky fetish that there is increased risk that a woman at some point could try and extort or sue him so he was very diligent in keeping all records just in case to cover his butt. His attention to record keeping basically discredited the women. Well see what the third one is about on monday.

    My issue is why has this been made into a trial to begin with? So far the 2 women have had no proof, no evidence of any kind and their stories were so long ago and had so many plot holes. At first there were A LOT of women supposedly coming forward, then he was arrested on 7 charges and that was reduced to 5 due to lack of evidence from the previous complainants. And the last 2 women with a total of 3 charges so far have been a joke as well. The police and crown really havent done much investigating in either case and dont seem all that bothered in reexamining their clients making it seem like they think this is a joke and waste of time as well. I am not sure why this was even sent to trial? Are women simply supposed to claim abuse and have to be instantly believed and throw the guy in jail? That makes no sense. I think its being naive that no women would ever dare to god forbid lie or exaggerate a story for their own motive and interest. Please. Women can be vindictive and looking for pity/attention. I feel like because of the numerous empty claims as well as the fact that CBC fired him and the women activists were pushing for this guy to be charged they might have been pinned against a wall and went ahead and charged him anyways most likely expecting him to be acquitted in the end due to lack of evidence. So far the police, prosecution have really been looking like idiots. I dont know if the 3 complainant has a stronger case than the others (only she knows that) but lets hope for her case after seeing Henein devour the last 2 that she is there for something substantial or else this trial will have been a complete waste of time.

  7. The “real conversation” of the R v Ghomeshi trial is whether the Crown will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ghomeshi assaulted the complainants. The credibility and reliability of the complainants goes to the very heart of that conversation. Contrary to Ms Kingston’s spin, it isn’t about a right way or wrong way for victims to cope with the alleged assaults it is about believing that the complainants’ versions of events actually happened beyond a reasonable doubt.

  8. What a sad display of justifying the actions of silly women. Here’s what a normal woman would do – if a man tried that on me, my knee would be making contact with his balls and I would be out of there,. The only email I would be sending him would be warning to never come near me again even at industry events, he should thank his lucky stars I’m not reporting him to the police and all my friends and his friends will be informed of his actions, I would not be sending him love letters or a picture of myself in a bikini (although that would frighten him more than anything!).

    This is a case where there is no evidence beyond the women’s statements (and by extension their actions). There is no photographic evidence of injuries, no DNA – nothing other than the statements of the women, So their words and actions after the encounter is very important. If they were so traumatized by the encounter, why would they seek him out? There responses make no sense unless they were auditioning for the role of victim turned crime fighter.

    These are not women who had a long term relationship with Jian so comparing them with domestic assault victims is insane and insulting. They have not invested years in the relationship, have children with the guy or have tangled their finances with him. Supposedly they are ‘independent’ women who could have walked away. But they didn’t – they pursued him – and with Lucy aggressively.

    It looks like these women were seeking to advance their careers by catching a rising star at CBC (is this a foreshadowing of the Bill Cosby trial? Remember that in the 1960s and 70s, the way young starlets advanced was to be associated with a star and Bill Cosby was that – what was the Playboy mansion all about if not hook up central). Don’t get me wrong, I think Jian is a sleezebag and I never thought Q was the big show that CBC thought it was – or that Jian was the bestest interviewer of all time, but he was a rising star and these women wanted to catch that star.

    As a truly independent professional woman I’m insulted that that feminist media think they are getting a raw deal in their trial. The police overestimated their hand when they opened the door for these flake to walk through in the police’s attempt to satisfy the demands of feminists. The police should have been looking at these women’s email trails, but didn’t. And because of that, the whole narrative has fallen apart. The real victims are those women who have been sexually assaulted and actually hurt more than have their feelings deflated. Few Crown will be willing to believe them without stronger evidence – like an actual police report shortly have the incident,

    • I 100% agree with everything you have said. I am not a fan of his but I am not naive enough to think that as a celebrity he has no problem having girls throw themselves at him and most likely WILLING to put up with his crazy fetishes if it means being with him.

      The first complainant I could believe maybe forgot about the emails, however that is being sloppy to me. Before you make serious accusations on someone where they potentially would go to jail, would you not go back to check your email exchanges with him to see if there could be incriminating proof on his side or even anything on your side that could potentially damage your credibility. I mean these women had 16 months to prepare themselves and do a bit of homework on their own case. Sounds lazy and kinda like they believed because so many were coming forward it would add weight to their case and be an open shut case. Who knows maybe she did look, did find anything and forgot or found the emails and chose to not disclose it thinking he wouldnt have them.

      As for Lucy well she is one for the books. As much as you want to pretend you dont remember some of the content of some of the email exchanges and sending a letter, you would remember having a crush and chasing after a guy for 2 years. Please.

      I dont understand the people who are still defending this one after being so brutally discredited. I really dont. I understand not liking him because you dont agree with his fetishes but to accuse someone of choking is a very serious accusation and could cause this guy to go to prison for life potentially. I had no opinion of either before this trial but after seeing all the emails pile up against her it just seemed so obvious that this was only a case of girl who is pissed because he rejected her. Why people are still believing her that an assault happened when she has lied already so much is bewildering to me. I think common sense would be that if someone was making a statement that cannot be proven yet almost every detail related to the statement were proven untrue, then there is very reasonable doubt that the initial statement could be untrue. I definitely wouldnt be betting money or my life on that statement thats for sure. And neither should the court. The court should just waste a life and throw a guy in jail because some random girl he dated 12 years ago says he hit her and choked her yet had no problem with chasing after him wanting to keep seeing him after the incident. But I guess there are gullible and naive people everywhere even when you are hit in the face with most of the facts contradicting the story.

      I think all this thing is partly the police’s fault. There was a huge casing call from the police inviting presumed victims to come forward to build a case against him and it ended up attracting were women looking to further their own interests. I thought to myself, you must really be a vengeful person to wish jail on someone who blew you off 12 years ago.

      • Yes…the conversation is was it sexual assault or consensual rough sex play as Ghomeshi contends. He never denied he choked, pulled hair or hit women but he claimed they all consented to it.

        • The defence hasn’t made it’s case yet -you don’t know what they will claim. And in fact, they may not say anything. If they feel the crown has not proven it’s case, they may not bring any witnesses.
          I get it, you think he’s a douche. Most thinking people do. That doesn’t make him guilty.

  9. There should be more focus on the media coming out of this court case, never mind an overhaul of the court system. It’s disturbing that so much media coverage hung Ghomeshi out to dry beforehand, that they seem now to be invested into continuing to push that point of view. All the things said about the alleged assault victims could also apply to Ghomeshi — he has character flaws, has admitted to being a sexual outlier, they didn’t like him at work — except he still’s innocent till proved guilty. But it’s cost him dearly, financially, personally, professionally. I’m sincerely surprised he’s still standing. If he’s found guilty or not, the trial by media has already imposed a harsh sentence.

    Why is Anne Kingston reporting on the court case? She seems to have no insight into law, no interest in strategy, and files a string of personal perceptions, assumptions, and a fanciful wish list of how courts should treat testimony from alleged victims. She doesn’t seem to have considered for one minute that the sentence for choking could be 25 years. I assume that’s Lucy’s charge, yet Kingston seems perturbed that Heinen challenged her at all. Unfortunately, MacLean’s offers nothing else by way of analysis.

    I have to wonder if Heinen could have negotiated to reduce the charges even more, considering what the defense had in hand. What is her strategy there? I like the karma aspect, but there must be more to it.

    • Indeed. I can’t stand the guy and that goes back to his Moxi Fruvous days. I rather spitefully enjoyed his fall from grace. But if this is how flimsy and flaky the rest of his accusers are, I am prepared to accept that maybe the whole thing is made up. Of course, I have made no such conclusions yet. But a few more alleged victims like this, I will be a lot closer to doing so.

    • “They didn’t like him at work…” What??? He was the star of CBC radio. What do you think it took for him to get fired? Certainly not a couple of complaints from some nobody underlings. People in charge of departments at the CBC lost their jobs over the way they protected him. Maybe only 3 women that make less than fantastic witness came forth but if you believe that the CBC wanted to get rid of Ghomeshi, you are out to lunch.

  10. The only 2 people who know if there was consent are both of them. He said there was. She says there wasnt. She has lied so much on the stand that we cannot believe her that she did not consent.

    If you were being accused of a crime with a potential life sentence and there was no proof other than just your say against the other person, and upon cross-examination the person accusing you was being shown to have lied extensively, withheld info and to have had an ulterior motive, would you want the judge to overlook ALL those FACTS and simply believe this other person (just because they claim to be a victim) even though they clearly are not credible and throw you in jail for 25 years and throw away the key?

    As for your opinion that assault is still assault in that moment even though you see the person again. There is such a thing as ACCOUNTABILITY. Its not all ghomeshi’s fault here, she CAN speak up or give him a hint if she doesnt want him to do it to her. This doesnt sound like a girl who felt her life in danger if she ask him to stop, clearly had she had a problem with it, she would have been able to bring it up to him at the time. If a guy assaults you, you dont say anything to him that its wrong or to stop, then you are ALLOWING it to happen. If your kid does something wrong and you dont say anything and you let them keep doing it, even encouraging it, who’s fault is it? Is it theirs? No, you never told them not to do it in the first place. How are they supposed to know? Same with a guy. He cant read your mind. If you tell him not to do it and he does it anyways ok but if he did it, she never said anything to stop him then he wont know not to do it again especially if she encourages him again.

    • Comparing a murderer with a case predicted on such flimsy evidence,suggests someone needs to return to a school of journalism
      for a reality lesson

    • Comparing a murderer with a case predicted on such flimsy evidence,suggests someone needs to return to school for a reality lesson
      and common sense. Oh I am sorry, you are excused, after all you are a woman.

  11. iT IS FRIGHTENING to see a person charged with these offences facing a court on such flimsy evidence. From what I have read and seen, the complaintants should be charged with perjury and public mischief. Men should be very concerned this matter be continued without an instant acquittal and dismissal of all charges. So much for women’s issues. This entire mess has set back women’s rights for a long long time. If I were the accused I would be seeking redress through civil litigation including the CBC for their presumption of guilt prior to any trial taking place. No I do not know the accused. However I am disgusted by this entire matter.

    • The CBC has not said they think he is guilty of these charges. They fired him long before they existd. And with good reason. His FB post should have been enough to torpedo his career.

  12. Those who see this case as a test for the warmth of the water for victims of sexual assault, always seem to think great strides could be made if victims of sexual assault could get some more quality time in the courtrooms of the nation. What is happening in this case is pretty typical of most cases: Misery. A huge number of accused just plead out because they are in an impossible situation, and a huge number of witnesses get ripped a new one by lawyers. While the lies seem pretty flagrant in this case, we aren’t really any nearer to the truth of what happened.

    Witnesses in court pretty typically come out with that “hit by a bus” look when they run into a defense attorney. Or for that mater those who meet with the police when arrested, or the prosecutor. All these worthies are expert at setting you up for a fall. It’s just technique to them,

    If people really cared about the victims of assault they would counsel them to be very clear as to what they want to get out of any prosecution they align themselves with. Consider it is not for their benefit but for the prerogatives of the crown. They will not, at least in the first instance, get any restitution. There is little to be gained by victims, particularly in a case like this one where further contact with the perp was not a risk.

    The victims should be given a check list, at the top of which would be a warning not to bear witness 13 years after the event. Most can’t remember what they had for breakfast the week before. All they really recall is their historic placement of the events in their personal record. If you didn’t keep detailed records from that time, and only if the events were not traumatic, and were easily understood, should you give any credence to your own thoughts.

    The modern day prosecutors and police who promise to believe all complainants, are actually just putting you in the frame for any failures.

    Be careful what you wish for,

Sign in to comment.