Marie Henein defends herself

Why Jian Ghomeshi’s lawyer, Marie Henein, has turned her attention to Peter Mansbridge and the court of public opinion

Marie Henein, criminal defence lawyer for Jian Ghomshi. Chris So/Toronto Star/Getty Images

Marie Henein, criminal defence lawyer for Jian Ghomeshi. Chris So/Toronto Star/Getty Images

Central to defence lawyer Marie Henein’s well-crafted imagery is the notion that she reserves her voice for the criminal justice system, that she’s media-averse.  It’s mythology that holds, even though she submitted to an interview and posed for a glossy Vanity Fair-style portrait for a profile piece last year in Toronto Life.  So when the accomplished lawyer showed up in a 19-minute interview with Peter Mansbridge on the CBC’s The National last night, anyone following the trial couldn’t help but take notice, especially after she protested that she approached it “reluctantly.” If we know anything about Marie Henein, it’s that she’s a woman who doesn’t do anything she doesn’t want to do. So what’s up with this mainstream media cameo appearance on the very broadcaster that created and then disgraced her client?

Henein’s appearance, five days after a controversial ruling that acquitted Ghomeshi of four sexual assault charges and one of choking to overcome resistance, was framed as a command performance. She spoke of a “number of people that I really value, justice actors” who felt it was important for someone with 25 years of experience in the court to “address some of the misconceptions” that arose in the Ghomeshi case. What she’s talking about here, of course, is the other court the Ghomeshi trial simultaneously played out in, that of public opinion—social media and news coverage. In these forums, her performance was critiqued, as was discrediting witnesses and the trying of sexual crimes more broadly. The fact that Henein even felt obliged to address the issue is telling, reflecting an ongoing recalibration of the power balance between the courts and the public, one in which the courts prevailed without question.

More from Anne Kington: The Ghomeshi verdict is in. But the story isn’t over.

The ferociously smart Henein, who defines herself as feminist and who has worked pro bono for the full decriminalization of prostitution and the human and legal rights of sex workers, ably rejected the notion defending men charged with sexual assault is a betrayal of other women: “I respect their right to say that, I don’t respect their opinion or agree with it,” Henein said, rightly calling it out as sexist: “When males disagree with one another or are on opposite side of things, you’re not viewed as someone who betrayed your gender, you’re viewed as people who disagree.” Mansbridge wouldn’t let the subject go—later reading several Facebook posts calling Henein a traitor to the sisterhood: “I’m not about to send myself back into the kitchen because somebody doesn’t like what I do,” Henein said, summoning Hillary Clinton’s notorious “I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas” comment while managing to also discredit kitchen workers.  She gave short shrift to the #IBelieveWomen movement, noting no group should be reflexively believed without question, including police or priests:  “It’s never been to the benefit of the disadvantaged or the most marginalized,” she said. Henein, famed for her unsparing cross-examinations particularly when eviscerating female complainants and witnesses in sexual assault cases (seen vividly at the 2008 David Frost trial), waved off the singular focus on the “she said” in sexual assault trials. It’s necessary, she pointed out, to uphold fundamental legal principles of “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” and “innocent until proven guilty”: “Most cases are determined on credibility… That requires a judge to engage in an assessment of it.”

Famous for doing her research, Henein must have found in Mansbridge a softball interrogator, the journalistic equivalent of the nodding dog in the back window of cars. The enterprise could definitely have benefited from the Marie Henein approach. One example was the lack of  follow up on Henein’s rejection that sexual assault cases are different than any other crimes. Another was a lack of questioning  about how the way defence lawyers are able to “discredit” witnesses in sexual assault cases reflects broader cultural biases and stereotypes. Discussing the Ghomeshi trial specifically was off the table as it is still within the 30-day appeal period, which is unfortunate. Anyone in court saw Henein dismantle the first witness, her identity protected by a publication ban, partly on the basis of class and marital status. She painted the woman, who bounced between part-time jobs as a make-up artist and cater-waiter, as foundering career-wise, someone on the fringes of the arts community, a hanger-on taken by Ghomeshi’s “celebrity” (he was then the host of a late-night CBC cable show). She also questioned whether the witness was legally separated from her husband, as she had told police; it’s a detail that should have had no bearing on her account of the alleged assault but went to reliability. The woman told the court a lawyer friend told her that if they lived in separate floors it was legal separation. Henein was comfortable leaning on patronizing clichés: the flaky arts groupie in an unstable marriage.

More from What I wish I’d known before testifying in the Ghomeshi trial

There was also no Mansbridge redirect to what was the signal revelation of the interview: her statement that although Crown attorneys are typically underfunded, in high-profile cases including Ghomeshi’s they “are very, very well-resourced,” as were the police and witnesses. Where this resourcing was spent is a mystery; it certainly wasn’t evident at trial.

Henein used the national platform to assert that, contrary to the ongoing public conversation, how sexual assault cases are tried is not “in crisis.” At this point, Mansbridge could have referenced the notoriously low reporting rate of sexual assault—unprecedented in any other crime—to suggest that a problem definitely exists. Instead Henein highlighted how easy it is for someone to be accused of a crime and end up requiring her services. She attested that the legal system is “constantly evolving” and “constantly changing,” but was asked for no evidence. Instead, viewers heard vague platitudes about the law being in flux: “That in my view is not a negative thing, provided it’s done in a meaningful way and a way at the end of the day we are actually moving forward and not just getting a 140-character tweet out,” she said. “Because no one changed the world doing that.” Of course, some of those 140-character tweets, and the questions they asked, accounted for why Henein was now sitting before Mansbridge.

Despite the aforementioned reading of critical Facebook posts, there wasn’t much that was adversarial about the exchange. Toward the end of the interview, Henein even congratulated the newsman for asking “Did anybody not get hurt in this case?” It is a “very good question,” she said, choosing not to state the obvious—that the only one not hurt by the case was Marie Henein and co-counsel Danielle Robitaille. Instead, she focused on  the “devastating” criminal court process,” and how Ghomeshi “had his life turned upside down.” Whether this interview was also an attempt  right her client’s life was unclear, but raises questions. Mansbridge, who asked Henein what is in her mind when a case concludes, didn’t bother to follow up when she replied: “I’m thinking about the next case.” Of course, one of those next cases happens to be defending Ghomeshi, in the one remaining charge of sexual assault that allegedly occurred in the CBC workplace, set for trial in June.


Marie Henein defends herself

  1. Henein is many things, but she sure as hell isn’t a feminist.

    Of course Ghomeshi, Bryant and even Paul Bernardo deserved counsel. But she was demolishing women in a most patriarchal-enabler way.

  2. I had to stop reading this when I encountered “although Crown attorneys are typically underfunded.” Kingston has somehow concocted this as a basis for what is really a fibster excuse, based on the obscure references to “resources,” Apparently this purports to explain the unfairness of the trial, in that it was Henein, and not the crown, who laid hold of the emails and other materials. This evidence clearly exposed the complainant witnesses as chronic untruthers. Just as what they uttered, this assertion too is patently untrue. Despite her mimicry of lawyer’s language, Kingston obviously has no real knowledge of the criminal law’s terrain, where the crown and police together or separately far out strip the resources of the common accused. But in light of Ghomeshi’s deep pockets, this was conceivably going to be an equal contest. However, the tie always goes to the Crown, especially in high profile cases, where the state’s deep pockets are the deepest of them all. Obviously the shazam evidence was low hanging fruit out there for anybody to figure out. Could the police and Crown be blamed because their complainant witnesses pulled the wool over their eyes so convincingly that nobody on that side bothered to scratch the surface? Here, plainly the only “resource” differential was in the talent, brains, and hard work of Henein, who did her job properly. And the only victims in this case are those future victims who fall for Kingston’s pontification and therefore will feel let down, under the false impression that there are no resources for them and the system is rigged against them.

  3. Mansbridge did not ask who was not “hurt” in this case, he asked “is there anyone whose voice was not heard”? Kingston has misquoted Mansbridge in this article.

  4. Anne writes:
    “question of how the way defence lawyers are able to “discredit” witnesses, particularly women,”

    Actually, Anne, what you should have written was, “question of how the way defence lawyers are able to “discredit” witnesses; particularly women who have been found to be compulsive liars”

    • The concept of a “liar” in criminal court is a very convenient one, if probably necessary. It is the equivalent of me luring an employee into a discussion of where their keys are and his responding “in a dish”. Then it turns out they were in a pocket, and he is branded a liar, then fired, and I am saved the necessity of paying him compensation when all I wanted was a staff reduction. This is why one never talks to the police as they will always try to prove an inconsistency, and then your ability to defend yourself is destroyed. But witnesses can also be passed through the grinder.

      Rule one is to never appear as a witness in a criminal trial when your memory is a crisp 13 years old. Studies show eye witnesses are unreliable; more unreliable if the events were traumatic; worse still if they were the victim; and worse still 13 years after the fact.

      If one is interested in preserving one’s standing as a “non-liar” one should consider not bearing false witness against others who testimony has been impugned when that is the expected and understandable result of running up against even a run of the mill lawyer. Decoutere”s testimony was destroyed, but that really has little bearing on her candor in general.

  5. What struck me about the interview was that whatever CBC (and Canadian taxpayers) are paying Mansbridge it is way too much. She took him apart!

    • Mansbridge still doesn’t pronounce Jian correctly. He has never pronounced Joe Schlesinger’s name correctly. Off the subject, I know, but for the salary he earns I have always thought he should listen to how Jian and Schlesinger pronounce their own names.

    • Mansbridge married a co-worker, so he really wouldn’t want to rip into this one from all sides.

  6. It’s ridiculous for anyone to read much of anything into this case. On the one hand there’s a defendant who can euphemistically be labelled as not terribly nice, and who is conceivably guilty (though not provenly so) of at least some of what he was charged with. On the other hand, there are complainants who mislead and outright lied from start to finish. There is noone to cheer for here, but pinning blame of sorts on the defence attorney because she did a good job in an all-round crappy case is just bizarre. If anyone deserves blame, it would be the police and prosecution for doing a craptastic job of vetting the complainants.

  7. Ms. Kingston,

    THIS is a “Poorly Written Essay” as you should know well that Ms. Henein could NOT speak about the Case and WE should all thank her for accepting to address the “Trial By The Media AGAIN, This Time Demonizing The Criminal Justice System”.


    I also had a chance to read the recent Interviews given by the Three Complainants and NOW They Have A New Target, Ms. Henein!???

    AND Astonishingly Once Again They Fail To Look In The Mirror For Answers!???

    AS their Case Fell Apart, even without Mr. Ghomeshi Telling His Side(s) Of The Story (Something I am certain Ms. Henein knows Very Well) and with their “Behaviour & Character” Shielded by the “Rape Shield Law”.

    JUST in case they still don’t realize what has happened and how Serious Their Allegations were; they must be Alerted that after Murder, Rape & Sexual Assault are the Most Serious Crimes anyone could be “Accused of and Locked-up for Life”.

    IN Fact they Got-off Very Easy as the Honorable Horkins could have “Handed Them Severs Penalties For Collusion, Perjury And Making A Mockery Of The Criminal Justice System”.

    IT would also be Prudent for the Crown to re-examine the next Case against Jian Ghomeshi due in June 2016 as “WE Do Not Need A Repeat Performance Of This Outrageous & Costly Circus”.

    AND I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Ghomeshi “Launches Multiple Lawsuits” against ALL those who “Ganged-up On Him And Savaged/Destroyed His Career & Life”.

  8. “…an ongoing recalibration of the power balance between the courts and the public…”. Dream on.

    It’s remarkable to me how the one side manages to ascribe all kinds of motivations to the defendant and his lawyer, unchecked, yet their outrage at the witnesses being challenged with their own paper trail is boundless. What are Anne Kingston’s grounds for saying Marie Heinen is there to “defend” herself? If she was defending anything, it was our court system, and it’s about time that voice was given a suitable forum. Though that’s one of the more disappointing efforts by Mansbridge.

    If Heinen was there to make a point, maybe it was to acknowledge the experience that everyone goes through when faced with a court action, where she was very eloquent. The cavalier attitude of the witnesses and their supporters to not only the legal process, but the cost to the defendant, has been revelatory. Nothing points more to them seeking revenge, not justice, than that it doesn’t seem to mean anything that Ghomeshi has spent a huge amount of money, lost his livelihood, his future in jeopardy, and been publicly excoriated in the most medieval way, all the while with the spectre of prison over his head. It seems more and more a function of social media that put him in that position. And his family is sharing the pain all the way.

    Maybe that’s why the judge wasn’t restrained in his judgement. The image of Lucy attempting to make quips and match her feeble wits to Heinen (“I like your shoes?”) must have truly unsettling to people in the position of making those kinds of decisions over someone’s life every day. The “vulgar language” in emails that spoke so flippantly of what they wanted for the defendant. Their casual attitude toward speaking under oath.

    I find it kind of regressive that Macleans has pretty much limited analysis of this trial and issue to someone who is clearly struggling to overcome her biases and has limited knowledge of the legal system. She quotes no sources, stitching together a series of suppositions and sketchy rationale. The column might as well be called “Lifestyle” or “Women’s Page.” And by the way, why should a lawyer be “willing” to travel on their own dime pro bono? That’s at least one day away from their practice, plus air fare, plus travel time. That she couldn’t do that doesn’t say anything at all about either the system or the lawyer.

    • “And by the way, why should a lawyer be “willing” to travel on their own dime pro bono? That’s at least one day away from their practice, plus air fare, plus travel time. That she couldn’t do that doesn’t say anything at all about either the system or the lawyer.”

      What exactly does Ms. Kingston and people who share her views on this matter think Ms. DeCoutere’s lawyer would have said to her on the eve of the trial, had she traveled from Halifax? Here’s a hint: “don’t lie under oath”. Perhaps it’s advice that can be offered more emphatically in person, although one has one’s doubts about whether Ms. DeCoutere’s testimony would have been any different, had she been under the gaze of her own lawyer while testifying. Still, Ms. Kingston has to blame the result on something.

      • Exactly. I don’t particularly like Jian, but I certainly don’t hate him either. However it would be very important for him do just that, launch lawsuits. In protection of our justice system.

        And, what the hell does this sentence mean? Someone tell me please: “Another was a lack of questioning about how the way defence lawyers are able to “discredit” witnesses in sexual assault cases reflects broader cultural biases and stereotypes.

        And while you’re at it, tell me what the hell she’s talking about here as well: “The fact that Henein even felt obliged to address the issue is telling, reflecting an ongoing recalibration of the power balance between the courts and the public, one in which the courts prevailed without question.”

        Now I stood just outside our office building, and I kept asking until I got a good dozen or so people if they wouldn’t mind giving me a moment or two and read this article. What was she talking about in these two sentences? I asked. Now these were certainly what I would think, and most others as well, as being competent people. They would venture to even guess what the hell Anne was talking about here.

        Weird man! ;)

  9. Reading this article I wondered if Anne Kingston watched the same interview that I did. She must have been trying really hard to find fault with Marie Henein. She has put words in her mouth that I doubt Ms. Henein intended. Just one example, “the next case” I took to mean the one she is working on the next day, not the next JG case as Anne Kingston presumes. This article is riddled with such presumptions of what Ms. Henein’s thoughts and motivations must be. One more article like this and I will reconsider my subscription. The best summary of this case is the judge’s decision. It’s in plain English, readable, and set out in meticulous detail. It is also highly educational for those who do not fully understand how criminal cases are tried and decided.

    • GUEST89,
      I fully agree with you. Henein’s answers were so superior to Mansbridge’s inept questions it was abundantly clear why she is so good at her job. Mansbridge kept pushing her for some kind of apology or shame but she had nothing to defend herself against. Since the case might be appealed she was cautious about details. However, the nuts of the matter here is not whether Ghomeshi was rough with these women-he admitted that- but whether it was consensual. Whether Kingston likes it or not when the complainants make advances on the perpetrator AFTER the first encounter it certainly smells like these women either liked the rough sex or were willing to put up with it to get to be on the arm of a big celebrity. Kingston demonstrated that she is equally as bad as Mansbridge.

      • Thank you, Jerome. I’m female, by the way. Have you heard Rex Murphy on CBC today? He nails it!

        • Yes I did. Murphy, as usual, did an outstanding job researching and understanding this matter and then articulating it as only Rex Murphy can. He is BY FAR the very best part of the CBC. There is very little reason why the CBC should be publicly funded and if Rex Murphy left there would be none.

          • I don’t know why people think the next case is a more solid one. The woman (I’m assuming it’s the same one who was named in the media) made many of the same mistakes, speaking to the media, for one. If they’re relying on the CBC staff to lend it gravity, good luck. They’re all so compromised at this point, it’s getting comical. I don’t think it’s anything Heinen can’t handle. The “report” looks sillier every time it gets quoted. I’m very curious how it will pan out.

    • The next case thing was a nothing. It isn’t wrong that she is defending JG later, again. And that is exactly what most people are thinking about, for one I didn’t know if she was even involved in that case, she had a triumph in this one, the next one looks more difficult. And she was slagging Mansbridge at the time, not Heinen. And if you can put words into Heinen’s mouth, more power to you, she is a pro at that herself, and would probably appreciate the skill.

    • Exactly. There seems to be a small misandry, cottage industry percolating particularly in the media and academic realms.

  10. Why pray tell should she have to defend herself Komarade Kingston?? She torn those Three Liars a New ONE EACH….

    • Oh and by the way Komarade Kingston when are you and your ilk going to demand Perjury Charges be laid for those above mentioned LIARS??

  11. Regardless of the motivations involved, it appeared to me that Ms. Henein did her job far better than Mr. Mansbridge in the interview.

  12. “One example was the lack of questions about how the way defence lawyers are able to “discredit” witnesses, particularly women, reflects broader cultural biases and stereotypes.” Anne, what are you still in high school something? ;)

    Here let me reference those “low reporting rates” of sexual assault. It’s called being drunk, loaded, stoned or passed out. If they’re using scant 5% and maybe 10% reporting rates to extrapolate this and that, then continue on my friend with the extrapolation, right.

    That very means of extrapolation would indicate that most of these women who are sexual assaulted, are under the influence. And in a good deal of the cases, so much so, that it would be pointless talking to an attorney. A couple of decades of bartending glued me in on that one fast enough.

    Why don’t people like Anne put forward an even “lower reporting rate”, that of men reporting violence against them by women. Now there’s a baby “reflecting broader cultural biases and stereotypes” I’ll tell ya.”

    A benefit of this trial has been that its unearthed a very bad smell in this country. And we should walk over and find out what it is. A disease that so badly afflicts them to the hatred of men, that they simply won’t see common sense.

    If Anne really wants answers to the questions she’s posed here (however she doesn’t), she can score an interview with Henein herself. ;)

  13. “Did anybody not get HURT in this case?”

    As a previous commenter pointed out, the question posed by Peter Mansbridge was, “Did anybody not get HEARD in this case?”

    This is proof that people only hear what they want to hear. Literally.

    And Ms Henein really did not get heard in this editorial, because the word posed to her in the question was “HEARD” and not “HURT” rendering Ms Kingston’s entire paragraph about Ms Henein’s reply to that question, moot. It calls into question the entire editorial piece, possibly.

    I’m no fan of Mr Ghomeshi but he was acquitted because the complainants LIED. But everybody wants to hear the narrative that the system is broken, and the system abuses women etc. etc. and they didn’t even bother to read the transcripts/listen to the interview carefully. (Why let objective evidence spoil your narrative?) The media is more than happy to feed the frenzy, by churning out content and editorials based on what they want to hear, the populist wants to hear, and therefore becomes ONLY what they hear; and not on anything based in objectivity and open-mindedness.

    The narrative has been constructed that this is an example of the “system” against “women”. In fact, it is about accused and accusers. It has nothing to do with gender. I’ve yet to read an editorial pointing out that the accused could have been a woman and the accusers could have been men. I’m sure the judge and Ms Henein would not have treated either parties differently if the genders were reversed. And would you have wanted them to?

    The courts are doing exactly as they’ve been built to do and that is to work on the basis of evidence, without prejudice.

    I’ve also yet to see an editorial pointing out and contrasting the Ghomeshi outcome against the travesty that is happening to Neil Bantleman in Indonesia, at this very moment. THAT (Neil’s case) is an example of a broken legal system where gender, nationality, race, class, wealth etc. completely affect how you’re treated (for the accused and accusers). The “system” in Indonesia “believed” the survivors at all cost and despite all contrary evidence in Mr Bantleman’s case (as the Canadian public seemingly wants for the Ghomeshi trial), and look at the outcome for Mr Bantleman. Is THIS what you want for your judicial system?!

    The only parties I have admiration for are Judge William Horkins and Ms Henein, who seem to be the only ones acting on and speaking on evidence and not through a filter of prejudice.

    Before the whole country erupts in arms over this—- with journalists, social media leading the charge…ask yourself this question: Are you just hearing what fits in with the narrative that you want to hear?

    Ms Henein is not defending herself. She is saying “between the lines” that it could have been any competent lawyer in that courtroom and the outcome would have been the same, because lying complaintants cast reasonable doubt on their accusations, and so it should be. She is defending a legal system because the media, itself, has spread a lying narrative about the “system” and is getting away with it, with impunity! You put her in that position. Not her. You have the luxury to be prejudicial and inaccurate in your profession, and keep your job She does not. She is defending a legal system that Canadians should be proud of. It is not perfect, but it’s better than the alternative. Ask Mr Bantleman.

  14. I seriously doubt that Henein cares about public opinion, but she undoubtedly cares deeply about the potential loss of future client fees. She is the personification of lawyer jokes and like most of her kind has scant regard for the truth. She makes big bucks because she knows the legal system has little to do with justice and nothing to do with doing the right thing.

    • Henein did her job on this case superbly. She showed clearly that the defendants all lied and lacked credibility. If they truly felt Ghomeshi had harmed them why did they want to go back for more? Looks like they were either into rough sex or were prepared to accept it to be part of “life styles of the rich and famous”.

    • Doing the right thing? Like telling the truth? Can you fill in the rest yourself Bruce? Or do you need it spelled out?

  15. I just finished reading this article as well as ‘What Jian Gomeshi Did” both by the same author. Both articles truly want to underplay and even deny at time the truth that the complainants lied and were ultimately responsible for the final outcome. The judge and the Marie Henein handled themselves with the utmost professionalism. Anyone who is non-biase can see that. The Crown was totally asleep at the switch and the lawyers for the complainants should hang their heads in shame. How hard was this? They had months to prepare for one of the most high profile court cases in recent times and no one told the complainants to stay quiet and to disclose all information? And if they did then they are in a bad place because they won’t want to make it look like the complainants are being picked on.

    And all the women who decided not to press charges? Well sadly their voice doesn’t count in the least in a court of law and maybe they shouldn’t in the court of public opinion either. It appears there are lots of liars out there. This is the truth and all this whining and trying to twist the truth should be beneath a Macleans article.

    • Ruth, one of the best signs I have ever read regarding “rape culture” on campus was held by a woman who had the guts to state the truth. it read,

      “Regret is not rape”

      If a guy really is a rapist…then keep him in jail for a nice long time. but if a woman ever accuses an innocent man of rape, then she has to go to jail for as long as a real rapist would have to go to jail. If she wants to steal 10 years of his life, then she must pay with 10 years of her life. That would do a lot to stop false accusations.

      • An enlightening article is “False Rape Allegations: An Assault On Justice” by Bruce Gross.

        False accusations of sexual assault have caused suicides, tarnished reputations, trauma and family distress to innocent men, as shown in these news articles:
        – Telegraph “ ‘Guilty until proven innocent’: life after a false rape accusation” (story of a teenage boy who committed suicide after being falsely accused of rape).
        – Daily Mail “My son’s life was ripped apart by a woman who falsely cried ‘rape’… twice”
        – Mirror “Man wrongly accused of rape said it ruined his life and he is now living in a tent”
        – Spectator “The Oxford Union case shows why we need anonymity for men accused of rape”
        – Express “Woman convicted of falsely accusing boyfriend of rape FIVE times to avoid exams”
        – Telegraph “British rape laws need urgent reform to prevent injustice”
        – Telegraph “What it’s like to be falsely accused of rape”
        – Metro “ ‘Rocks are thrown at us’: Man describes devastating impact of wrongful accusation of rape”
        – Independent “London Underground worker jailed for falsely claiming she was raped”
        – Express “John Leslie says being falsely accused of rape reduced him to a jobless pauper”
        – BBC “False rape accusation ‘destroyed life’ of Surrey man”

      • While I detest women who try to use our justice system for revenge, to convict them you would need to hold them to as high a standard of evidence as every criminal case. Proving intentional maliciousness beyond a reasonable doubt would be difficult. And trading sentences makes no sense. Should Lucy DeC be in prison for life (a potential sentence for Ghomeshi) because she forgot some emails and letters? I don’t like her, but when you put it in that context, hopefully it is no longer a consideration.

        • How could ANYONE “forget” the e-mails and letters such as the ones she sent?!? She just didn’t think they would surface. Henein sure appropriately fixed that!!

          • Was wondering the same thing.

          • I used that word intentionally because it is a possible justification for not mentioning them. My impression of Lucy is that she’s a little flighty. And to be fair, it was 13 years ago. In that context, it could offer reasonable doubt to claim that she forgot that she had sent those letters.
            Although she has, since the trial, admitted that she remembered the flowers all along. She also said there were emails before the “incident” that she felt would be more damaging to the case ….. would love to know what those said. but the chatelaine interviewer didn’t bother (knew better than?) to follow up that line of questioning.

        • I don’t buy that she forgot them, though I can see not remembering everything they said. I don’t know if you’d forget sending a love letter, really. And I really don’t know why she wouldn’t make more effort to find the emails.

          What bugs me is that somehow that Ghomeshi kept everything is suspect in itself, to some people. Men keep love letters, in my experience. They’re flattering! And if I ever went to court, I’d have lots of paper to draw on. That only means I’m lazy about sorting out emails.

          • The standard is to believe beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge came pretty close to saying he believed that the assaults happened, but the witnesses were not credible. I’m just suggesting that there are ways to create reasonable doubt in this hypothetical case as well.
            blaming ghomeshi for having access to the emails is bs. No one who is making comments knows how he gained access to them. He may have kept them, or he may have had to find them. It’s simply grasping at straws in a weak case. It’s like believing all women. To do so, you would have to believe witness 1 was riding in a car that didn’t exist. And what could you believe about witness 3. she didn’t see him again or she went back to his place a week later for a quicky?
            fortunately the main decision makers are rational, thoughtful and competent. Hashtag warriors take as much time thinking about the issues as it takes to click the like button

  16. One of Kingston’s false arguments is: “the notoriously low reporting rate of sexual assault—unprecedented in any other crime—to suggest that a problem definitely exists.” (In her recent article What Jian Ghomeshi did, Kingston claimed: “flaws in the prosecution of sexual assault, a crime for which reporting and conviction rates are notoriously low. One widely quoted 2012 study found that for every 1,000 sexual assaults, only 33 are reported; of these, 12 result in charges and six go to trial, where only 45 per cent result in conviction.”).

    Kingston parroted some of the statistical manipulations in a misleading YMCA chart: “there are 460,000 sexual assaults in Canada annually. Out of every 1000 sexual assaults: 33 are reported to police; 29 are recorded as a crime; 12 have charges laid; 6 are prosecuted; 3 lead to conviction; 997 assailants walk free.” This fools the public into believing that the conviction rate is only 0.3% out of 460,000 sexual assailants.

    That’s because the argument conflated a set of current facts with an outdated estimate. An unproven, questionable estimate (460,000 sexual assaults, not assailants) underlies the baseline (“every 1,000 sexual assaults” not assailants). This 1,000 sexual assaults baseline was then used to sensationalize the proven facts (number of police reports, crimes recorded, charges laid, prosecutions, convictions) and to create a false fact (sexual assailants who walk free).

    The YMCA claim (“460,000 sexual assaults in Canada annually”) is deceptive since there is no evidence of 460,000 actual sexual assaults in any year.

    The ‘460,0000 sexual assaults’ is just an estimate that was extrapolated from only 330 sexual assaults actually claimed in a 2004 survey! Furthermore, 78% of those 330 claims (or 258 claims) are for minor things like unwanted kissing and touching. And these 330 claims included false claims and female assailants. Regardless, the YMCA magically turned 330 into the perception of 460,000 male assailants sexually assaulting vulnerable women each year! Here’s what happened:

    – The 460,000 estimate was originally made by Holly Johnson who claimed “an ESTIMATED 460,000 Canadian women were victims of sexual assault in 2004 and just 8 percent reported the crime to the police”. While Johnson never claimed 460,000 sex assaults actually occurred every year outside 2004, she did not correct the YMCA and others who mis-reported Johnson’s number as a real and absolute number for each and every year.

    – Johnson’s estimate came from an extrapolation of 330 claims of sex assault from Statistics Canada’s 2004 crime victimization survey of 13,166 women and 10,600 men (“Limits of a Criminal Justice Response: Trends in Police and Court Processing of Sexual Assault”). These 330 claims in the survey also included false claims of sexual assault and sexual assaults by women on other women. It’s unclear whether these claims included women’s sexual assaults on males.

    – Of those 330 actual claims of sex assault, only 22% (72 of 330) were for serious “forced into sexual activity” offences and the majority 78% (258 of 330) were for relatively minor “unwanted sexual touching” offences. Forced into sexual activity was determined by this question: “Has anyone forced you or attempted to force you into any unwanted sexual activity, by threatening you, holding you down or hurting you in some way?” Unwanted sexual touching was determined by this question: “Has anyone ever touched you against your will in any sexual way? By this I mean anything from unwanted touching or grabbing, to kissing or fondling.”

    – The survey results (330 sexual assaults claimed) were multiplied by a weight to represent 13,163,777 women and 12,736,867 men aged 15 years and older in the Canadian population.

    – Thus Kingston’s misleading feminist brouhaha about low reporting and conviction rate of sexual assault is based on (a) an overinflated estimate of sexual assaults and (b) 78% of claimed sexual assaults that are for minor things such as unwanted kissing and touching. (By this wide definition, most men have also been sexually assaulted by women who had kissed the men, punched men’s arms; grabbed men’s butts, testicles, nipples; fingered their men’s orifices; and/or squeezed men’s heads with their thighs, all without their consent – and men are even less likely to report being sexually assaulted than women)

    On the other hand, criminal lawyer Solomon Friedman explained that Canada’s conviction rate for sexual assaults (45%) is similar to ordinary assault (47%) and higher than the more serious crime of attempted murder (20%). Only 9% of all accused persons charged with sex assault are acquitted after trial. Ghomeshi is one of the 9%. Read “The numbers contradict Ghomeshi case rhetoric”.

  17. AS I Am Reading The Comments Here, The Blame Game Seems To Be Engulfing The Interviewer!???

    IN Fact Peter Mansbridge (P.M.) Tried Hard, But She Is Too Smart To Fall For Such Machinations.

    I watched the Interview Tape again and here is my take….

    THE reason Ms. Henein said she was thinking of the Next Case was that SHE realized that P.M. was “Fishing” for her to show that she was “Gloating In Victory” but SHE did NOT take a Bait and instead SHE offered a very “Dispassionate/Professional” response: “SHE Was Thinking Of The Next Case”.

    SHE then Cleverly addressed the Fact that despite the Allegations in the Press, the Complainants’ were Over-resourced and they had more that Fair/Usual Support from the Police/Crown/Lawyers/Women’s & Victims Groups to name a few and She Implied that they can NOT Blame the outcome on Mr. Ghomeshi having Hired the “It Lawyer”.

    AND then suggested that Over-resourcing High Profile Sexual Assault Cases, HURTS the Less Publicized Cases (HOPE The Women’s Groups Are Paying Attention).

    EVEN when P.M. pushed her again if there was anyone who was NOT “HEARD”, she Cleverly turned it around and said that: “HER Client was Hurt, without calling him a Victim (WHICH sets the stage for follow up Lawsuits against all those who Destroyed his Career/Life that could include the CBC. I also noticed a Pro Ms. Henein Editorial at Toronto Star which may be Sued as well) and then SHE Skated around PM once more by Widening the Net and including the Complainants/Witnesses, which a Testament to her Dispassionate Approach to the Case, that: “No-one’s Life Is Going To Be The Same After A Criminal Trial Especially A Highly Publicized One”.

    AND SHE saved the best for her last comment that: “Isn’t It Great That Press/People/Politicians Can Express Their Opinions And Object To Court Rulings ENJOYING The Rights Afforded In Our Free Society Based On The Rule Of Law”.

    IN SHORT, She Schooled Peter Mansbridge on our Criminal Justice System, Professional/Dispassionate Behaviour, the “Difference Between Justice and Social Justice & Trial in the Media, Mob-Lynching et al” and Spanked him when he was trying to Bait her to say something that the likes of Ms. Kingston could Celebrate.

    AND I Don’t Think It Would Have Mattered If The Interviewer Was P.M. Or Any Shark Investigative Journalist As Ms. Henein Has Her Ethical Principles And A “Strong Personal Constitution” And She Knows What SHE Wants And What SHE Stands For.

  18. Eddie Greenspan serving predator, ex-Nova Scotia Premier, Gerald Regan. Marie Henein serving ex-CBC Radio personality Jian Ghomeshi.

    We have long been stuck with a failed system for dealing with sexual assault in Canada.

    Hopefully in this internet age we’re more aware of the unfairness and injustice and the harm caused by these failings. And, may we have the determination to bring about reforms.

    PM Justin Trudeau and our Minister of Justice and AG Jody Wilson-Raybould need to fix things.

    • Watch these You Tube clips:

      – Karen Straughan “Unpacking comments on my Jian Ghomeshi video” (fast forward to 1:25 min)

      – “Rex Murphy Marie Henein Interview”

      – Feminism LOL “Ghomeshi Accusers Are Liars“

      – Feminism LOL “The Truth About Jian Ghomeshi”

      – “Jian Ghomeshi: The collusion to destroy his life”

      – “Jesse Brown and Kathryn Borel lied about Ghomeshi and the CBC”

  19. Don’;t expect that women who would fool around with guys like Ghomeshi would be saints. So to cross examine them and expect that their word and memory would be consistent on all but the big things stretches credulity. So cross became like shooting fish in a barrel to find inconsistencies.

  20. @Michael Youxia:

    Michael thank you for pointing to the Clips on Youtube as this morning I had a quick look and I think everyone should watch:

    I. Feminism LOL: “Jesse Brown and Kathryn Borel lied about Ghomeshi and the CBC”;

    II. Karen Straughan: Videos on “Due Process”.

    THE Identity of Complainant in June/2016 Trial is under “Publication Ban”, but the Video suggests it is her Voice in the Video-I!???

    AND my sense is that in the “First Trial” Marie Henein ONLY had to “Scratch the Surface of the Information in Her Possession” so to PROVE the “Lack of Reliability & Credibility Of The Accusers”.

    AND IF the Voice belongs to Complainant No. 4, I wonder what else Ms. Henein has in store when she starts her Cross Examination in June/2016.

    ALSO there is an Op-Ed in the “National Post By Conrad Black That Is A Must Read”.

    COME July/2016 And “IF” Mr. Ghomeshi Is Cleared, Hope The “Groups Supporting Due Process and Wrongly Accused” Would Support Mr. Ghomeshi Or Anyone Else For That Matter, Who Has Been A “Victim Of Trial/Lynching By And In The Media”, IF He Needs Financial/Legal Resources To Deal With ALL Those Who Savaged/Destroyed His Career And Life.

    SO Our Tax Dollars & Law Enforcement Resources Could Be Aimed At Seeking Justice For “True Victims Of Sexual Violence As Opposed To Sexual Revenge At Taxpayers Expense” And Punish The Real/Factual Bad Actors.

    • I’m also watching them one by one. Thank you, Michael Youxia. If we weren’t there we don’t know what really happened. Let the court decide and may there never be another public flaying.