How Ghomeshi's second trial differs from his first

How Ghomeshi’s second trial differs from his first

Anne Kingston on four key differences in the courtroom at Toronto’s old city hall


Jian Ghomeshi will be back in court to face one charge of sexual assault on June 6—and for several reasons, it will be a far different trial than his first. Maclean’s senior writer Anne Kingston, who has followed every moment of Ghomeshi’s legal battles, sets the scene for the next chapter. As she explains, the nature of the complaint that led to the charge differs from the first trial, a new judge will oversee the proceedings, and a possible witness could buttress the complainant’s case.

Related from Anne Kingston:


How Ghomeshi’s second trial differs from his first

  1. I predict that this case will be dropped very soon. Why? Because the complainant, KB, is not credible either.

    If it does go to court, the CBC will testify that she never mentioned anything of a sexual nature when she complained, and secondly, it is the complainant herself who has stated that she often sexualized workplace meetings.

    And if you are pinning your hopes on this case because of a female judge, good luck with that one. Our courts operate to much higher standards then the media has on this issue.

    • That statement regarding judges is interesting… It seems that female judges on our Supreme Court (Justices McLachlin, Abella, L’Hereux-Dube etc) have treated some sexual cases markedly different than their male counterparts. Take that symbolism and what it represents about our legals system any way you want.

    • Whatever the outcome of the 2nd Trial, I think most folks seem to understand that Gomeshi is pretty much just a creepy dude. His reputation for being a creep who went for the young interns was already well known. CBC should have fired his ass years ago.

      that being said, as I wrote after his last trial, “to celebrate his acquittal, Jian immediately went home and punched his mom in the face”

      (had to get it in there again, as it was deleted by the censors already

  2. What I find interesting aside from the court case and its merits. is the position on some of the press. It seems there’s been an inundation of attitude long before there’s been a trial. We have in this country

    When the trial is over, this will be a question we Canadians will have to answer.

    • The press, with writers such as Anne above, have made themselves the defacto judge and jury in the Ghomeshi case.

      Anne will not accept that the first three women to testify in court all perjured themselves horribly and now she is pinning her hope and belief for Ghomeshi’s guilt on KB, who will be another complainant of very dubious credibility if she ever does testify.

      Flagpole feminists, when they are reporters, believe they must advance the “cause” no matter whether the truth leads that way or not.

      • To be fair, Chris,

        I’m sure that none of the women from the first trial asked to be choked, or punched in the face. Their troubles started when they went back for more.

        They ended up taking a worse beating in court.

  3. Here we go again. Before the February trial began, Ms. Kingston, Canadaland and radical feminists were also beating the drums of hope that the case against Ghomeshi was air-tight for those dubious and trivial allegations. Liberal feminist Rosie DiManno: “as described by the complainants it’s still unlikely the incidents would have risen to threshold of reasonable likelihood of conviction. We’ve criminalized the picayune… Jane Doe — brutally attacked at knifepoint by the Balcony Rapist in 1986… Yet even “Jane” told me last week she couldn’t understand how the Ghomeshi case had ever come to court.” (From “The trial unfolded the way it did because the complainants were swaddled in fuzzy investigative treatment” )

    Given this hindsight, many impartial experts have considered the obvious: the June trial might not happen at all if the prosecution decides not to pursue the case or if the fourth complainant decides not to testify under oath. Right now, the prosecution is likely re-evaluating the June case for potential weaknesses, re-interviewing the fourth complainant and the “possible witness” to assess their credibility, and then deciding whether the June case is worth pursuing. The prosecution would not want a repeat of the February trial, which Margaret Wente correctly noted: “It was one of the weakest cases that many people have ever seen.” (From “Truth and deception: Ghomeshi verdict a good day for justice” ). That February trial collapsed because the first three complainants lied and withheld information from the police, prosecution and court in order to try to secure a conviction. Having seen what happened to these complainants, the fourth complainant might realize the game is up for her (had she had also intended to behave deceitfully and manipulatively while under oath).

    Ms. Kingston points out that it will be a “female judge” — as if having a “female judge” would have changed the outcome of the February trial. As Chris678 pointed out: “our courts operate to much higher standards then the media has on this issue.” Regardless, now that Ms. Kingston has revealed the judge’s name, no doubt the radical feminist lobby will be working feverishly to try to pressurize and influence this “female judge” — then later castigate her as ‘misogynist’ when she performs to the professional standards required of her office.

    The fourth complainant being “informed by the previous trial” won’t help her much in the June trial as the defense will probably use mostly different strategies for this different type of trial. Furthermore, the defense performed so efficiently in the February trial that it is unlikely they revealed all the strategies and evidence they had in their playbook for that trial. The defense stopped with each accuser once the threshold of ‘reasonable doubt’ was probably reached (even though we get the impression that Henein could have kept on cross-examining them and exposing even more shocking truths about their stories).

    The defense may also present its own slate of ‘possible witnesses’ and other evidence that tell the other side of the story. Given the workplace was the context, it would be fair to examine the complainant’s own sexualized behavior (as well as other behaviors) in the workplace pertinent to the alleged assault, as Chris678 pointed out.

    It is easy to be disappointed in the outcome of a case where the media inundates the public with one side of the story. Enlightening insights into the other side of the story — including on Canadaland’s Jesse Brown — are on these You Tube clips on the Feminism LOL channel:
    – “Jesse Brown and Kathryn Borel lied about Ghomeshi and the CBC”
    – “Marie Henein v. Social Justice Warriors”
    – “The Fraud Behind the Ghomeshi Scandal”
    – “The Truth About Jian Ghomeshi”
    – “Ghomeshi Accusers Are Liars“
    – “Jian Ghomeshi: The collusion to destroy his life”
    – “The Ins and Outs of BDSM – The Ghomeshi Files”
    – “The Anatomy of False Accusations Lucy DeCoutere

  4. It is hilarious that people come here to “predict” what is going to happen at this trial. Accusing the media of condemning Ghomeshi, when you are all condemning the complainant, is kind of hypocritical.

    Perhaps someone can fill me in on why this complainant is not credible? Do the posters here have some sort of insider information, or are you just omnipotent?

    Actually, never mind. I will wait to see what happens at the trial.

      – “Jesse Brown and Kathryn Borel lied about Ghomeshi and the CBC”
      – “Marie Henein v. Social Justice Warriors”
      – “The Fraud Behind the Ghomeshi Scandal”
      – “The Truth About Jian Ghomeshi”
      – “Ghomeshi Accusers Are Liars“
      – “Jian Ghomeshi: The collusion to destroy his life”
      – “The Ins and Outs of BDSM – The Ghomeshi Files”
      – “The Anatomy of False Accusations Lucy DeCoutere

      • While it is amusing that you point to someone making the same kind of assumptions as you to prove your assumptions are not assumptions, it actually does not change my mind about waiting for the trial.

        • It is because the first three (and supposedly most credible) accusers imploded so spectacularly at the first trial that one can make assumptions with some degree of credibility about the next complainant (particularly with what information is easily available).

          How the media has portrayed the next complainant is much different then what the reality likely is.

          • I do not know why, what 3 different people did in a completely different trial, means that this 4th person is not credible.

            We will see what happens at this trial.

    • What’s truly hilarious is the greater hypocrisy of (a) carefully omitting hilarity at the author’s article for ‘predicting’ “what is going to happen at this trial” (while (b) disingenuously claiming hilarity at posters for posting their predictions in response to the author’s article (which invited our comments in the first place). Furthermore, it also seems hypocritical to come here to read this article of predictions, read our compelling comments and then profess: “I will wait to see what happens at the trial”. Such inconsistencies affect one’s credibility, just as inconsistencies discredited the first three complainants.

      If you have the authority to tell us the name of this complainant hiding behind her veil of anonymity, I’m sure someone will be able to fill you in on why this fourth complainant is likely also not credible – just like the first three complainants. Furthermore, it is probable that the prosecutor chose the three most credible complainants with the strongest cases for the first trial (in February), hoping to start off with wins and convictions. Instead the case collapsed when the three complainants were discredited and proven as untrustworthy, deceitful, inaccurate, unreliable, manipulative, colluding. Given this experience, prudent observers will be scrutinizing the fourth complainant for signs she lacks credibility. After all, what’s that saying: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

      • I don’t think you understand what hypocrisy means.

        In any event, the authour bases her predictions on what the defence will do based on what the defence did at the last trial. As in,”this person did this last time, so I am guessing this same person will do the same thing next time”.

        Your predictions are basically: “these three people did this, so I predict this fourth person, whose situation is completely different from the previous three, will do the same”. This sounds more like wishful thinking rather than predictions based on facts and evidence.

        But, as I say, I will wait for the trial. You never know, you may have guessed lucky!

        • A person is a hypocrite when she applies to others rules, principles and standards that she refuses to apply to herself or to her comrades/allies. So you are a hypocrite when you criticize others for something that is wrong when they do it but it is right when your ally/comrade does it – thereby failing to follow your pretense of having those rules, principles and standards.

          Example of hypocrisy: On the one hand, in your original post you attacked us simply for making predictions on what is going to happen at this trial (“it is hilarious that people come here to “predict” what is going to happen at this trial”). On the other hand, you omit to criticize the author for also making predictions on what is going to happen at this trial – even though you later admitted that the author made such predictions (“the authour bases her predictions on what…”). The attack in your original post focused on the fact that we had made predictions – and not whether our predictions were sound — but you later suggested the author’s predictions were sound, thereby suggesting it was right for the author to make those predictions.

          You are not the right person to assess the quality of our predictions, given we have had an excellent batting average (in predicting and analyzing the outcomes of the February trial) while you did not.

          You support the author’s linear thinking that the defense will “do the same thing” in the June trial as they had done in the February trial – however, a master lawyer such as Henein has more options in her playbook to draw from. Second, this fourth complainant’s situation is NOT “completely different from the previous three” – e.g., they were all linked in some way to Canadaland’s Jesse Brown; they all engaged in a publicity campaign to promote their carefully-edited, self-serving allegations. Third, the February trial should have taught you to keep an open mind — instead of repeating the mistake of presuming the scope of what happened is limited to what the complainants claimed.

          • I do think it is hilarious that people are making such baseless predictions (as opposed to the predictions made by the authour), however I never suggested that was hypocritical.

            What is hypocritical is that some of you are attacking journalists for what you perceive to be bias against Ghomeshi, while at the same time making baseless “predictions” about the complainant’s credibility.

            As for this:

            “You are not the right person to assess the quality of our predictions, given we have had an excellent batting average (in predicting and analyzing the outcomes of the February trial) while you did not.”

            I have no idea what you are talking about.

          • Gayle1: Your presumption is baseless that we’re “making baseless “predictions” about the complainant’s credibility” – given (a) you are unable or unwilling to identify this complainant hiding behind her veil of anonymity, (b) our predictions about the first three complainants turned out to be generally correct, and (c) we are confident our predictions about this complainant are well-grounded as well (i.e. not “baseless”). Anonymous accusers go against the interests of justice and the public good when it blocks the public from finding out pertinent information about the behavior and history of such accusers, e.g., whether any complainant has a history of accusing other men of sex crimes (besides Ghomeshi) through a media-publicity campaign.

            What remains obviously hypocritical is your declaring “it is hilarious that people come here to “predict” what is going to happen at this trial” given you omitted to apply the same standards to the author who also came here to “predict” what is going to happen at this trial.

            When this obvious hypocrisy was exposed, you then – after the fact – qualified that our supposed predictions were “such baseless predictions (as opposed to the predictions made by the authour)”. Now what is really hilarious is this: the words “baseless predictions” are really baseless and meaningless in definition, expert use and even socially-accepted use (just Google the words). That’s because a “prediction” (which can be defined as a statement about an uncertain event that will happen in the future) may or may not be based on past experience and known facts/data. So it is wrong to limit such predictions to simple linear extrapolations using past facts from the first trial based on the presumption that these past facts that were valid for the earlier trial will also be valid for the new and different trial – yet this is the only type of prediction you are willing to accept.

            In my experience, linear thinkers relying on Linear extrapolation tend not to be good at making accurate predictions People who make better predictions do not limit themselves to known past facts (”this person did this last time “) because they have the cognitive ability to see the big picture, think outside the box, and deal with the complexity of both known and unknown factors. The Good Judgment Project, a collaborative research effort that has identified “superforecasters”: individuals who reliably make more accurate predictions about a host of potential global events… Many of the characteristics that set apart superforecasters are unsurprising. For instance, they tend to have high levels of fluid intelligence (the ability to engage in abstract reasoning and problem solving)… the importance of additional factors, including our willingness to revise past opinions, to acknowledge a role for factors we cannot predict or control, and to attend to and learn from our own experience.” (From “Want To Make Better Predictions?”)

            It is valid to question the continuing bias of journalists and the media who blatantly ignore certain facts from Ghomeshi’s side of the story as well as from the first trial (which partially vindicated him and discredited his accusers). It is wrong to pretend we are hypocritical for challenging this double standard.

            Of course you would “have no idea what (we) are talking about” given you are not the right person to assess the quality of our predictions.

    • I have only read snipts but what I’m curious about if anybody out there is interested in how the image of your junk (male) can land you a year in jail and 10 years on the sex regrisrty

  5. “A female judge”. Seriously, has Anne Kingston even read a court decision before this? That’s the last thing to be pinning your hopes on.

    I’m surprised this case even got this far. And if all she has is one witness, I don’t know if that makes it so solid. Who is it, Jesse Brown? I would expect a host of people, considering she tried to make a complaint.

    • Most SA cases have only one witness. It is not like perpetrators usually rape their victims in public.

      • This wasn’t alleged rape, this is alleged groping, if I recall correctly, in the coffee room, or office, or whatever. Not in a closet. More to the point, the Q staff was vociferous in their grievances against Ghomeshi. I think in the confusion people assumed many of those complaints were also about inappropriate sexual behavior. Of course, I don’t know where the information is coming from about there being one witness. But it would be surprising if all that furor boils down to something so…anemic.

        On the face of it, it’s hard to see why this one is any more solid than the others. Like the others, she was very public about it, so left lots to speculate about.
        The trouble with being in the media is they seemed to think a public relations strategy would get them somewhere. Unwise.

        • Groping IS sexual assault. And just because it was not done in a closet does not mean he did it in front of witnesses. T

          • Gayle1: You had sensationalized it as “rape their victims in public”. Regardless, given the alleged groping happened inside a big organization with many staff, there’s a good probability there was more than one witness especially if it was an open office layout.

            Applying your own standards to yourself, don’t you agree that “this sounds more like wishful thinking rather than predictions based on facts and evidence” and “it is hilarious that (you) are making such baseless predictions”? It’s hypocritical not to apply your own standards to yourself, don’t you believe?