The Ghomeshi trial, Day 5: A Jenga Tower implosion

Day five in the Jian Ghomeshi trial brought a demolition derby—and lessons in dealing with police that came much too late

Former CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi arrives at a Toronto court for day five of his trial on Monday, Feb. 8, 2016. (Chris Young/CP)

Former CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi arrives at a Toronto court for day five of his trial on Monday, Feb. 8, 2016. (Chris Young/CP)

If there was any grace to be found in the demolition derby that marked day five of the Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault trial, it was that the testimony of a third complainant provided an evocative metaphor that described both the day’s wreckage and how sexual assault cases can self-immolate: “Jenga tower.” That was the phrase Lucy DeCouture, complainant number two, used to encourage the third and final witness to come forward and report to police in December 2014. “Your statement will be part of a Jenga tower,” DeCoutere wrote in one of roughly 5,000 messages exchanged between the two women between October 2014 and September 2015. One can only assume DeCoutere was thinking of some sort of impenetrable fortress being constructed by dozens of women coming forward, and not an actual Jenga Tower—which is a construction of interlocking wooden blocks vulnerable to collapse when one of its pieces is removed.

That’s certainly what the court watched today as defence lawyer Marie Henein handily dismantled the witness’s testimony, plucking away at so many loose pieces that it was easy to lose track. The day began with lawyers in camera before the judge, discussing new disclosures that the third complainant had made at end of day Friday. Like DeCoutere, the witness—whose identity is protected by a publication ban—came forward on the eve of her testimony with information she’d not given the police or the Crown. This in turn gave rise to concerns that the witness defied court rules, and listened to media coverage, which made her realize the defence was ready to clobber her for statements left unreported, emails unmentioned.

From Chatelaine: How complainants are prepared in sexual assault trials

Though less resilient on the stand than the previous two witnesses (the judge called a 20-minute break at one point so she could collect herself), echoes of previous testimony reverberated. The witness’s relationship with Ghomeshi was short-term; the alleged incident was sudden, unexpected and seemed out of character; she tried to find ways to  justify the behaviour. And, despite “red flags,” she saw him again. “I’m notoriously known for given people second, third and fourth chances,” the witness boasted, as if this was a womanly good thing.

In an often-wavering voice, the witness, whose identity is protected by publication ban, said she knew Ghomeshi from the Canadian arts community for years before they met more personally in July 2003 when she performed in a festival in a Toronto park. Ghomeshi came up behind her and rested her elbows on her shoulders when she was speaking with teenage girls after one performance, she told the court. He joked: “We’re engaged.” It made her uncomfortable, the witness said: “It was taking ownership in some way.”

Still, she went out with Ghomeshi another night. During dinner, she was put off when he insisted on sitting at the edge of a patio. “He was very aware of who noticed him,” she said. Later, they returned to the park and “made out” for several minutes seated on a bench. This was a detail she hadn’t told police; she disclosed it to the Crown for the first time last week. Then, she testified, “I felt his hands on my shoulders, then his teeth, then his hands were on my neck and he was squeezing.” He put his hand on her mouth, smothering her, she said. She had difficult breathing and and felt “not safe,” she testified. “I felt like some switch” in his personality occurred. She said she didn’t remember the exact details of how the encounter ended: “To the best of my recollection I got in a cab and went home … My instinct was to get out of it quickly.” She did remember his hands around her neck, she told the court: “That’s difficult to forget.” There was no discussion of consent, she testified.

Related: What we’re not seeing at the Ghomeshi trial

She’d go out with Ghomeshi again, this time to a restaurant and a bar. “What were you thinking?” Crown prosecutor Michael Callaghan asked. “He’s very charming,” the witness said. “You second-guess yourself. You think, ‘Maybe I misread it.’ ” While at the bar, they bumped into a writer Ghomeshi knew who asked how long the two had been together. “We’re not dating, we’re f–king,” Ghomeshi said, a remark the witness said she found “humiliating.” “It wasn’t true,” she said. Then, she told the court, they went to her place where she gave him a hand job. “Why?” Callaghan asked her. “It was a Jekyll-Hyde thing going on,” she said, saying again she likes to give people second chances. She said she didn’t tell police because she wasn’t specifically asked, because she didn’t think it was “relevant,” and also because it was “embarrassing.”

The witness testified she saw Ghomeshi again in Toronto at a party within the next few weeks. After he warned her that a close friend of hers was manipulative and trying to control her, they fell into bitter argument, she testified. “You’re f–king crazy,” she said she told him. “Don’t call me again.” On cross-examination, Henein was caustic: “And that was the time you realized he was sick?” Ghomeshi called the day after, and she spoke with him, the witness testified. She also told the court they had contact in later years; she’d emailed him with an invitation to see musical acts she was managing. “He’s a personality … a name in the business,” she explained.

During her cross-examination, Henein plucked the blocks out one by one, dismantling the narrative structure. The witness’s report to police was used to undermine her credibility: “You tell police: ‘He was a creep, I always felt unsafe around him,’ ” Henein charged before discussing their sexual encounter. The lawyer aggressively questioned why she didn’t tell the police: “You lied,” she said. “I omitted,” the witness countered, as if that was not, as Henein put it, deliberately misleading.

The biggest focus, though, was placed on the witness’s bonding with DeCoutere—“insta-sisters” they called themselves. In court today, the witness denied discussing details of the case with DeCoutere. Henein then exposed that, in fact, the two combed over every aspect of the case—meetings with Crown lawyers, speculation about defence strategies, chatter over new allegations. DeCoutere encouraged the witness to meet with her lawyer and publicist, and to do media before going to police. The defence lawyer intimated the two conspired to take down Ghomeshi—whom they referred to as “the Persian princess.” “It’s time to sink the prick … I’ll do whatever possible to put this predator where he belongs,” one communication read aloud by Henein claimed. The defence unearthing emails, texts and thousands of Facebook threads might have come to a surprise to the court; it shouldn’t have been a shock to the women who sent them.

Related: The rising importance of ‘digital debris’ in trials

The witness countered that she was motivated to go to police only after she saw a “a pattern” of behaviour in Ghomeshi, she testified: “I wasn’t an isolated incident.” She told the court that, at the time, she didn’t know what Ghomeshi allegedly did to her was assault: “I didn’t think there was anything to press charges against.”

Henein didn’t have to work all that hard for the bricks to come tumbling. How could the witnesses not have known that their court testimony couldn’t contradict their police reports, that Ghomeshi’s famously formidable lawyer would ferret out the facts, even ones they didn’t think relevant? The day’s events point to the fact a judicial system needs the same sort of graphic messaging for complainants in sexual assault cases that airport security provides travellers—those signs that list what cannot be taken on board: no firearms, no explosives, no knives. Here, though, bigger social messaging is required: that one must tell police everything, even if it’s embarrassing, even if it the complainant doesn’t fit the textbook victim mould; that there’s no such thing as a predictable response; that there’s no place for shame. It might take some time to make sense of all of this, though. Today, all we saw was the rubble.


The Ghomeshi trial, Day 5: A Jenga Tower implosion

  1. The author failed to mention that the 2nd and 3rd witness shared over 5000 texts and messages (many of them racist) in their effort to “cook Jian’s goose”, and took gleeful delight in his downfall.
    This isn’t as complex as the author is attempting to make it seem. The crown witnesses were deceptive, dishonest, and had a shared agenda.

    • Very true.
      Reading this MacLean’s writer’s articles on this trial she seems very biased and her writing creates a distorted impression of what is occurring here and just how dishonest (purgery) the statements these women gave under Oath to the Police and to the Crown, really are.
      Does this writer have an Agenda too?
      These 3 women will be lucky if they are not penalized for purgery and slander before this is done.

      • I think they were just very naive. I don’t think they committed perjury.

        • No they were vengeful because he spurned them and strategically dishonest.

      • She very much has an agenda. That and she is not much brighter than the witnesses for the crown.

    • Spoken like a lawyer Malcolm

    • Maybe it’s true that she is reluctant to let go of the guilty verdict she had determined in advance of the trial. But then again, maybe after a few decades of living as a woman a person gets sick of the BS double standard that women get shoved into. It’s hard for us to see, as men, but it’s not impossible.

      My own verdict hasn’t changed either since the trial began – Ghomeshi is guilty, but not guilty enough for the severity of the charges or the punishments that potentiall go with them. That’s not the fault of these women, but of legislators and prosecutors who didn’t have anything more to scale to bring to the bench.

      We can’t afford to play fair (literally can’t) so it’s habitual for the courts to bring over-the-top claims and then look to deal down to lesser charges. That works more often than it should, because most defendants can’t afford anything else.

      Henein makes a lot more than the crown prosecutors do, mostly because she’s a talent and the crown is mostly mediocre — nobody takes the much lower pay out of altruism. There are no altruists on that side of the bar, where the truth must be won.

  2. These women have demolished the feminist narrative that women are always honest regarding claims regarding sexual abuse.

    It would be difficult to find less trustworthy witnesses in any criminal trial, female or male.

    • We have seen how terrible it is for sexual abuse victims to get any justice. And technically, according to the rules of evidence they may have been naive in their overzealousness to get this creep off the streets. Back to the old days of victim blamming. But I truly believe these women were abused degraded hit and punched as they said. And I thank them for their bravery. I think the word on the street got around very quickly that he was a creep. The only avenue available to them was to lay a charge of sexual abuse to bring him down. Listen after charges were laid, the CBC distanced themselves very quickly after hearing stories from female staff etc. And he is a “persona non grata” these days and in my view will never recover. Let Ghomeshi live the life of OJ. He is welcome to it.

      • You must have different standards for bravery than I do. These women were not brave, they were too frightened to come forward for years. Risking ones life for others is brave, being scared to do the right thing because it might damage your reputation isn’t.

        • No they were and are cowards masquerading as pretend “victims”.

      • What you believe is irrelevant. And why do you call them “victims”? Lying to the police is a very serious affair.

        Sexual abuse victims do get justice. That is another false narrative peddled by feminists.

        Throwing a man in jail when he may well be innocent of these charges is a more serious concern then your misplaced empathy for these witnesses.

  3. Well there yah go. Not to despair totally though. He may get found not guilty and this display lets the judge have a valid excuse. Too much of a hot potato for the courts to handle anyway.But he has been tried in the court of public opinion. Apparently his friends have all turned their backs on him., according to an article in a local newspaper. He will forever be known as the creep and should never expect to mingle with the up and coming any longer.

    • Alex2, there is no such thing as a court of public opionion. It is a myth.

      However, several of the female witnesses may be soon facing real courts on actual charges soon.

  4. The real HERO in this trial, where all 3 of the Crown’s witnesses have shown no credibility whatsoever and where the work of the police and Crown has been shown to be wanting, is clearly MARIE HENEIN, the Defence Lawyer.

    Without Henein’s depth of research and skillful cross examinations we would never have known what really happened here.

    What was brought forward by these women who had an agenda and lied under oath to police and Crown, and what was displayed in the media, like in this MacLeans writer’s previous articles, was only the shoddy and distorted lynch mob mentality of a Kangaroo Court.

    • Indeed she is a good lawyer. And she reminds us why it is so important that serious charges like these be aired in open court and not solely by the media.

    • Dude, after this disastrous trial, this is what is going to happen in the next 2 years;

      -Jian will win his lawsuit against the CBC for $50 Million with great support from everyone.
      -Networks will fall heads of heels for interviews and giving him a slot on their prime time.

      YOU will remain the little racist nobody behind fake profiles making online comments.

      The End!:-)

      • He dropped the cbc lawsuit months ago. Do try to keep up.

        • There’s no statute on wronful dismissal.
          he could go double on the original amount to $100,000,000

          • Do you mean legal statute? Is that what you are trying to say. Because if there is no statute, it would be hard to make a case. A case which he withdrew, just to refresh your memory.

  5. Turns out Ms Decoutere seemed to be the one to orchestrate this whole thing. No wonder the first complainant got the type of car wrong.

    What I found telling was that in one of her media interviews she was sitting on a porch and said that she is fine telling her story because she has nothing to lose and it doesnt change anything to her life now. Wow nice to know that we can accuse people of serious crimes with serious jail time consequences if charged just for the hell of it without nothing to lose. I am sure if she would have had to pay her lawyer maybe she would have made sure she actually had a strong enough case than waste everyones time in this farce that she clearly build up. Her lawyer said it wasnt her actions being tried but Ghomeshis. I am sorry but I think that if you are intentionally perjuring yourself, intentionally omitting important information and trying to orchestrate a case by rallying other plaintiffs against someone on bogus accusations you should pay a price. I have a feeling what she thought her story with no recourse will end up costing her big time.

    • technically her lawyer is right, this case is about Ghomeshi. Lucy’s case comes after this one … when all the facts are in.

  6. Third times a charm Anne? Glad to see you’ve realized what others have known for quite some time. It is as simple as telling the truth. But it really shouldn’t take that long to process …. unless you are still in denial.
    Which you may be. For some reason you still have a need to assume away the statements of dim bulbs … as in “One can only assume DeCoutere was thinking of some sort of impenetrable fortress … and not an actual Jenga Tower—which is … vulnerable to collapse when one of its pieces is removed”. On the contrary, I believe Lucy knew what a sham of a case this was … maybe not in her operating brain, but at least on some level, she knew.
    There is still a ways to go with this Anne. I actually believe the stories of these “vicitms”. But your next revelation will be, that while technically sexual assault, the harm that was done was negligible. They all went on with their lives, and they all continued to see him. There was no “battered woman syndrome”, just horny chicks or career climbers who thought he was a little weird.
    And weird he is, I’m sure most will agree. Sure, there is a “community” of bdsm aficionados, but I still have a right to maintain that is not appropriate behaviour, from either side. If you need a safe word, other than stop, then you’ve taken it too far.
    But that doesn’t rehabilitate what these women have done to JG.

    • Following the coverage of this trial at Macleans.ca makes me check the top of the page each time I visit this site for trial coverage, to make sure I’m not on the Chatelaine website. It’s beyond my comprehension that you ( Macleans) have chosen to cover this trial in this manner and from only Ms. Kingston’s point of view, even though today her writing has improved, and has some balance. Surely you should have assigned a writer with a legal background. Ms. Kingston appears to share the views of the “#i believe” group on the courthouse steps who appear to have hearing difficulties. “Believing” in this particular case, when these women have lied to police, crown and the court does not further the cause of abused women, rather, it makes it more difficult for those with valid cases. Sexual assault is a very real issue and the consequences for anyone found guilty are severe. Reading the testimony from today’s witness, who seemed to think (according to the written coverage elsewhere) that some parts of her testimony were funny, sickened me. If women need a role model, they could do no better than to look to Marie Henein, a professional and very competent woman at the top of her game who is doing a masterful job of defending her client.

      • It seems like feminists eating their own when one of them is too successful. Better to be like Lucy. I guess it gives them something to complain about ad nauseum …

  7. These 3 women who the Crown called as “witnesses” have shown themselves to be liars and con artists.
    They lied to the Police under Oath and gave distorted information in their Police Reports. They also lied to the Crown prosecutors.
    Some committed purgery on the witness stand in court.
    All 3 have demonstrated very poor character and immature personalities…people who wanted some kind of “pay back” revenge for being rejected by Ghomeshi after the fact.
    They all appear to have wanted some kind of attention by playing the “victim”.
    They are unhealthy and dangerous people.

    Watch for the law suits after this trial ends in an acquittal.

  8. This trial demonstrates a lot of things:
    1. Women (I’m a woman BTW) are vindictive bitches – this women wanted to shine in Jian’s fame and when it didn’t happen they were very pleased to play their part in crushing him.
    2. The ‘believe the women’ movement is dangerous to men and to the justice system.
    3. The justice system was push by the ‘believe the women’ movement to ‘find’ victims and they broadcast widely what they were looking forward. Apparently there were 20/30 women that came forward – why not other charges? Probably because these were the top three which doesn’t say much since it didn’t take long for the defense to crush them. The lesson – the justice system needs to do their job rather than fall for claptrap that various victim movements push.
    4. These are some of the stupidest women in the world who can’t even keep their stories straight.

    BTW – I am not a fan of Jian – didn’t like Q – thought it was overblown nonsense from CBC trying to appear hip and I don’t think Jian is some fabulous interviewer.

  9. Question for a lawyer:

    The 5,000 text messages. I assume this was part of the new info that was disclosed by the third witness at the end of last week. These were private texts so Ghomeshi would not have had access. And one presumes they were not part of the initial disclosure – as Lucy was not cross examined about them. Furthermore, hard for me to believe the crown would have proceeded with the case if they were aware of this level of coordination/collusion.

    So, if the defense felt that it needed to further discredit Lucy, in light of the new evidence, could they call her back to the stand to question her further about these 5,000 text messages? And do you agree with my conclusions about how they came into evidence as noted above?

    • From what I read in court accounts it sounds like the vast majority of those texts came after charges were filed.

      The level of coordination and collusion is appalling.

      Ghomeshi has gotten more than his fair share of punishment. Will likely never work again at the level he was at. 7-figure legal bill.

  10. This makes me really sad. I personally understand how a woman could react that way and do the things she did. I have personally experienced what it is like to feel violated and yet not able to extradite myself from the situation. I have also not reported what happened to me for fear of being relentlessly questioned and blamed for what happened. Our criminal justice system doesn’t account for the unique nature of a sexual assault, which can be intimate yet violent, and hard to talk about. I’m just really sad that this case will make people think the wrong things about survivors of sexual assaults and lead to more misunderstandings and less reporting in the future.

  11. What I’m taking away from this is how unprincipled advocates can be. Related to that is the narcissism of the witnesses in this case. I’m honestly shocked at their casual attitude towards the court process, and their own prosecutors. I’m thinking that might be due to the way they were coached by the support system. The icing on the cake was a piece in the Star by some lawyers, which started out saying it couldn’t be farther from the truth that they don’t care about due process, and proceeded to say there needs to be a separate court system for these charges. Yeah, that makes sense, especially considering how much integrity has been on display in this coverage.

    This is the closest Anne Kingston has come to showing any reservations about the quality of the prosecution’s case, and she still omitted to note the 5,000 emails. 5,000 — man, the number alone is the essence of dysfunction.

    Over at Canadaland, Jesse Brown, who has appointed himself as a media watchdog, continues to entrench himself as part of the problem, with no analysis whatsoever of whether the media overstepped itself convicting Ghomeshi in the press and giving women a platform to accuse him of whatever, without challenge.

    • Yes the media, including this writer Kingston did a grave disservice to the rights of the accused.
      After everything that has come out to discredit these 3 women, Kingston will have to live with her own conscience about how she conducted herself as a writer of “facts”.

    • Jesse Brown has played fast and loose with the rules on more than one occasion.

      He made a name for himself breaking this story in the first place. There would be zero chance for him to be anything but stridently anti-Ghomeshi from here on out.

      Brown does not seem like the kind of guy to issue mea culpas.

  12. Bottom line: his accusers lied. All three of them. At least one of them lied under oath, and at least two of them colluded, and lied about that. Lessons came too late? Seriously? What lessons could possibly have helped these three liars of questionable intelligence get the results they were after?

    I’m all in favour of sending abusers to prison. I just want to be certain they are guilty first. From what we’ve heard from these three witnesses, I’m no longer convinced he did anything wrong. The collapse of the Crown’s case is not just the result of a skillful defense lawyer and a lack of experience in dealing with the justice system. It collapsed because his accusers have serious, inate character flaws that undermine their credibility.

    • It also collapsed because the Police and the Crown were conned by these vengeful, spurned women who had no scruples at all.
      The lesson here is not for these women it is for the over zealous Police and Crown who believed their lies in the first place.

  13. It appears more likely that these educated, mature and rational women are really the predators – rather than the victims – in their pursuit of Ghomeshi (hunting him for his fame, attractiveness and confidence) and then, when spurned by him, in their vindictiveness through payback and media publicity. They don’t seem attractive enough in character to captivate a celebrity for long. So did they try to seduce Ghomeshi by encouraging his rough sexual foreplay before they decided to either quickly return or try to return for more sex and time alone with Ghomeshi? Pity we will not hear from Ghomeshi’s side of the story.
    The public misperception that these three witnesses are ‘victims’ as well as the public pressure on the police, prosecutors and his employer to punish Ghomeshi are a result of the media and lobbyist narrative dominating the mainstream news channels (exploiting our biases and stereotypes about men taking advantage of women the weaker sex).
    These complainants abused public sympathy for sexual assault victims. They relied on the gullible public and justice system giving their lies the benefit of doubt and presumed there was no evidence of the truth after 13 years. Imagine how this case would have gone if Ghomeshi did not have the hard evidence and competent lawyers to discredit the questionable claims made by these complainants. Ghomeshi would probably be summarily convicted if he was unable to prove that the women’s lies, inconsistencies, questionable conduct and collusion happened (as no doubt some innocent men accused of sexual assault likely have been – see “The numbers contradict Ghomeshi case rhetoric”). These complainants and the media should be held accountable for destroying Ghomeshi’s reputation and career, wasting our time, and discrediting legitimate sexual assault victims.

    • I’d like to see one bona fide man (meaning not clearly taking advantage of this case to promote a misognyst agenda) in the media come out and say, he would not be comfortable faced with the prospect of being convicted and imprisoned on the kind of testimony this case had.

      • Every ‘bona fide’ man knows that — should he make such a public statement — he will be bashed as a misogynist by the media and lobbyists (victims advocates, feminists, etc.).
        Ghomeshi probably had sex with a large number of different women — let’s say 2,000 to 5,000 women. Despite having the opportunity to hurt a large number of women both physically (e.g., choking) and emotionally (spurning them after a sexual encounter), only relatively small number have accused him of violence or sexual abuse — and these three discredited witnesses were probably the best witnesses the prosecutor had!
        No rational man would be comfortable faced with the prospect of being convicted and imprisoned (the charge of “overcoming resistance by choking, an offence that carries a maximum possible sentence of life in prison”) on the kind of testimony this case had.

  14. So we have 3 women who lied to Police, to the Crown Prosecuters, and in Court under Oath.
    That is all very serious !
    What charges should now be brought against these women for abusing our justice system in this way?
    Contempt of Court….?

  15. If anything the ruins of this (mis) trial tells a tale of how superfluous allegations made by a “jilted” ex girlfriend of some 10-14 years ago can make a mockery of the justice system.
    Jian moved on to become a star, clearly after he recognized that he must break his relationship with lying and self serving individuals who wanted nothing more out of their relationship with him that spotlight and fame.

  16. This trial has become the latest high profile example of what happens when the justice system is used as a blunt instrument to further special interests (Charter litigation), accomplish political objectives (Duffy trial), replace democratic engagement (enviro- and other NIMBY lawsuits) or even form an additional source of revenue for ever more capacious governments (photo-radar).

    Ghomeshi’s prosecution for criminal charges appears now to be another variation of this delusional notion that the justice system can cure all social ills, in this case men acting badly. Ghomeshi is clearly a cretinous cad. This could have been unequivocally established short of criminal prosecution. By clamoring for that, those who egged on the prosecution have made him a martyr.

  17. It’s fascinating to come to the comments here and read all those defending poor victimized Ghomeshi. The only good to come out of all this is that from now on he’ll be watched like a hawk in his personal life about how he treats women and will ask for permission to choke and hit in future. That is if he gets his demons under control. I almost wonder if after this he hasn’t in fact learned the concept of consent, if we’ll see him back in court again some day.

    • Why do you equate defending truth in our court system with defending ghomeshi? It is possible to disagree with his admitted issues or to dislike him in general but to still believe that it is unacceptable to collude and to mislead the court.

      And if you feel his actions are so detestable, why is it acceptable for Lucy to be so attracted to them? Why the double standard?

  18. I think we forget that abused women in a marriage/relationship will return to their abuser. People, who have never experienced such abuse wonder why they do so. It is inappropriate to abuse another person in the manner that he did (if that is true). That is the real issue and it is immaterial, that they came back to him or sent emails to him or dated him after the fact. The defense is deflecting things away from the real issue. I only hope the judge sees through the smoke and mirrors but judges sometimes render dumb decisions just like the rest of us do in our lives.

    • Your comment shows your irrational belief in the 3 people in this court case who have lied after swearing an oath not to. They lied to the police. They lied to the prosecutor. They lied to the judge and they lied to the entire world through their interviews.
      Ghomeshi has not been shown to have lied once.
      Yet you insist that they should be believed.

      • Excuse me, has Mr. Ghomeshi testified? How can you say he has never lied?

          • Wow,
            I did not say he lied, you said he never did.
            Neither of us know that, you are not logical. When you get things right we can debate but not now.

          • sigh … when people suggest they are more logical, it rarely is the case.
            You initial comment was in support of the witnesses and suggested that there was a risk the judge will render a “dumb” decision. This could only mean you think he is guilty.
            He has entered a plea of not guilty. This is him saying he didn’t commit the crimes with which he is charged.
            You are in fact suggesting that he is lying with this plea.
            And to be clear. I didn’t say he has never lied, I said he hasn’t been shown to have lied. There is a difference.
            To borrow a phrase … are you now prepared to admit that you were incorrect in your application of logic?

  19. Well DC, a “sigh” is just a deflection.

    When I wrote that the judge may render a “dumb” decision, I did not imply Mr. Ghomeshi was guilty. Take a look at the reaction to Justin Robin Camp (Alberta judge) who said to a victim of abuse “could you not just keep your knees together” – he was to undergo some “retraining” as a result of his inappropriate comments. Judges are – like you and I – they sit because of political appointments not always because they are bright.

    I said it was inappropriate to abuse another person (if that was true – not that it was true) reread what I wrote. If you think it appropriate to abuse another person we can end the discussion now. To me that’s what this trial is about.

    • You are right back to the beginning. Every one of the witnesses has lied to the police, the crown and the judge. That is the issue that was highlighted in this trial. This is what I initially addressed.
      You also tried to imagine that the defence deflected from what you consider the “real issue”. It is clear to those who did not bring pre-conceived notions that the defence did no such thing. They simply showed the lies of the witnesses. You have conflated this line of questioning with what the content of the emails that demonstrated the lies.
      a sigh is a sign of weariness from dealing with posters who imagine themselves to be more logical than they are

  20. The trial is not about you nor I, take a break.

Sign in to comment.