The Jian Ghomeshi verdict is in. But the story isn't over.

The Jian Ghomeshi verdict is in. But the story isn’t over.

Just as Jian Ghomeshi’s sexual assault trial ended in his acquittal, the judge ignited new controversy with a strongly worded ruling


When Ontario Court Justice Horkins read his judgment in R. v Ghomeshi this morning—acquitting the former CBC radio host of four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance-choking—he was speaking to an audience far beyond the jammed courtroom. Clearly his words were intended to reverberate publicly in that other court that runs parallel to (and usually at odds with) the jurisdiction over which he presides: the court of public opinion. And reverberate his words did, eliciting the inevitably Rorschach reactions that have accompanied the Ghomeshi trial from day 1.

The 25-page ruling—largely a recap of defence lawyer Marie Henein’s “greatest hits” during cross-examination (down to quoting her accusing one witness of “playing chicken” with the justice system)—is more stringent than nuanced. Its focus is squarely on the fact that a finding of “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” was rendered moot by the three witnesses’ lack of “reliability” and “credibility”: “The success of this prosecution depended entirely on the Court being able to accept each complainant as a sincere, honest and accurate witness,” Justice Horkins stated. And, alas, they weren’t: “Each complainant was revealed at trial to be lacking in these important attributes.” He went on to clarify: “The evidence of each complainant suffered not just from inconsistencies and questionable behaviour, but was tainted by outright deception.” There were no dark nights of the soul for him, it appeared: “I have no hesitation in concluding that the quality of the evidence in this case is incapable of displacing the presumption of innocence.” As the verdict was read, a palpable relief was evident among Ghomeshi’s family sitting in the front row; Ghomeshi himself watched without expression.

It wasn’t the witnesses’ behaviour after the alleged attacks that was the problem, the judge ruled; it was the fact they omitted information, were inconsistent in their testimony and lied on the stand.  Yet he also questioned the fact that the complainants “engaged” with Ghomeshi after the assaults, which both Crown and defence defined as normal behaviour after a sexual assault. “Each complainant in this case engaged in conduct regarding Mr. Ghomeshi, after the fact, which seems out of harmony with the assaultive behaviour ascribed to him,” Horkins wrote. “In many instances, their conduct and comments were even inconsistent with the level of animus exhibited by each of them, both at the time and then years later. In a case that is entirely dependent on the reliability of their evidence standing alone, these are factors that cause me considerable difficulty when asked to accept their evidence at full value.”

The first witness, L.R., seemed “rational and balanced,” under examination by the Crown; under cross-examination by the defence, “the value of her evidence suffered irrefutable damage.” She claimed Ghomeshi was driving a yellow VW, the “Disney car,” when in fact he’d bought a similar model seven months later. She’d failed to mention her hair extensions to police and had uttered numerous inconsistencies in media interviews.

Lucy DeCoutere leaves the Toronto courthouse following the reading of the verdict in the Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault trial on Thursday, March 24, 2016. DeCoutere was one three women who accused Ghomeshi of sexual assault, and the only one to go public with her accusations. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young

Lucy DeCoutere leaves the Toronto courthouse following the reading of the verdict in the Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault trial on Thursday, March 24, 2016. DeCoutere was one three women who accused Ghomeshi of sexual assault, and the only one to go public with her accusations. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young

Lucy DeCoutere, the only complainant to waive the publication ban, was subject to the fiercest judicial scolding: she was criticized  for “deceptions maintained under oath,” “suppression of evidence” and “a wilful carelessness with the truth.” The high public profile she cultivated before the trial also came under fire, with reference to her hiring a publicist and conducting 19 media interviews, including one in which she “analogized her role in this whole matter to David Beckham’s role as a spokesperson with Armani.” The judge was not amused by DeCoutere referring to criminal court as “…theatre at its best,” and as a place where someone with her acting background could excel (“…Dude, with my background I literally feel like I was prepped to take this on, no s–t,” DeCoutere boasted to the third complainant). A swipe was also taken at the language employed by DeCoutere and the third witness in their 5,000 online exchanges which gave rise to accusations of possible collusion: “They expressed their top priority in the crude vernacular that they sometimes employed, to “sink the prick,… ‘cause he’s a f–king piece of s–t.’”

The judge went one step further to speculate whether DeCoutere’s testimony had been compromised by her high profile as a victims’ rights advocate which brought her “massive attention”: “the manner in which Ms. DeCoutere embraced and cultivated her role as an advocate for the cause of victims of sexual violence may explain some of her questionable conduct as a witness in these proceedings,” he ruled. “Ms. DeCoutere felt that she had invested so much in being a ‘heroine’ for the cause that this may have been additional motivation to suppress any information that, in her mind, might be interpreted negatively.” He admitted he had no grounds for the assertion: “I do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that this was in fact a reason for suppressing evidence, but in light of the amount of compromising information that she willfully attempted to suppress, it cannot be ignored as a live question.”

Related: Chatelaine‘s exclusive interview with Lucy DeCoutere

The fact the first witness contacted Ghomeshi after the alleged attack (she testified she didn’t remember doing so and that even hearing his voice traumatized her) elicited similar censure, even while acknowledging that it is not unusual for this to happen in sexual assault cases. “The expectation of how a victim of abuse will, or should, be expected to behave must not be assessed on the basis of stereotypical models,” the judge ruled. “Having said that, I have no hesitation in saying that the behaviour of this complainant is, at the very least, odd.”

Jian Ghomeshi arrives at a Toronto courthouse Thursday, March 24, 2016 for the verdict in his trial. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young

Jian Ghomeshi arrives at a Toronto courthouse Thursday, March 24, 2016 for the verdict in his trial. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young

The judgment also exists as a pointed response to the scene occurring Thursday morning outside of Toronto Old City Hall as protesters stood in freezing rain, chanting and brandishing #IBelieveSurvivors signs. Acknowledging that “the courts must be very cautious in assessing the evidence of complainants in sexual assault and abuse cases,” Justice Horkins warned that “[c]ourts must guard against applying false stereotypes concerning the expected conduct of complainants.” These stereotypes extend to believing that all sexual assault victims tell the truth, he said: “I have a firm understanding that the reasonableness of reactive human behaviour in the dynamics of a relationship can be variable and unpredictable. However, the twists and turns of the complainants’ evidence in this trial illustrate the need to be vigilant in avoiding the equally dangerous false assumption that sexual assault complainants are always truthful. Each individual and each unique factual scenario must be assessed according to their own particular circumstances.”

Related: Witness One on what she wishes she’d known before testifying in the Ghomeshi trial

On its face, the remark is unassailable; if we reflexively believed everyone who came forward with an allegation of sexual assault, there would be no need for sexual assault trials. As in all criminal allegations, false statements of sexual assault occur, though the estimated number is somewhere between two and eight per cent, according to the FBI. Why the judge felt the need to highlight this point amid concerns that the Ghomeshi trial will have a chilling effect on victims not coming forward for fear of not being believed is unclear. Early in the trial, in fact, Justice Horkins proved himself sensitive to that very issue when he denied a media lawyer’s application for the court to make public a photograph sent by the first witness to Ghomeshi in which she’s wearing a bathing suit.

The fact the witnesses discredited themselves resulted in virtually no time spent on discrepancies in accounts of the alleged assaults or consent. Where the judge made three mentions of DeCoutere and Ghomeshi sharing a karaoke duet of “Hit Me Baby One More Time,” “consent” was only mentioned once when defining “sexual assault.” It was also noted that the third witness, S.D., lacked clarity in her description of Ghomeshi allegedly choking her: she “was not particularly precise or consistent in the details of the alleged assault,” he said, quoting her confusion remembering how long the assault took place. “Seconds. A few seconds. Ten seconds. I don’t even—I don’t—it’s hard to know. It’s hard to know.”

One line was drawn by Justice Horkins: “My conclusion that the evidence in this case raises a reasonable doubt is not the same as deciding in any positive way that these events never happened,” he ruled. “At the end of this trial, a reasonable doubt exists because it is impossible to determine, with any acceptable degree of certainty or comfort, what is true and what is false.” That sentence, no question, will be the basis of discussion surrounding the Ghomeshi trial in the weeks, months, even years to come.


The Jian Ghomeshi verdict is in. But the story isn’t over.

  1. With all the analysis of the case, I keep asking myself where is Ghomesi’s Facebook entry? He admitted to his fan base that he liked to slap women. He just claimed they liked being slapped. Now everyone is calling these women liars. Come off it. This case came to forefront because Ghomesi ha..d a reporter on his backside chasing a rumor that wouldn’t go away and when Ghomesi couldn’t shake the rumor he went to his employer but his employer had heard all about his poor treatment of women via their HR department and they couldn’t risk the story breaking. Maybe the only brave women to come forth so far have been misguided and damaged…abused women often are. However, Bill Cosby’s count was in the 30’s or 40’s so bring in on. Try to fix this guy’s reputation. More women will come keep coming forth. He admitted he loved to slap them. The judge will shocked the numbers who didn’t love getting slapped.

    • I feel like we have been over this already, but Ghomeshi never admitted that he “likes to slap women”. He said he is into rough sex. Not sure why you insist on making things up.

    • You are fabricating that Ghomeshi “admitted that he liked to slap women. He just claimed they liked being slapped.” He never suggested this in his Facebook post.

      If you are really interested in the facts, you should have read what Ghomeshi actually wrote in his Facebook post: “I only participate in sexual practices that are mutually agreed upon, consensual, and exciting for both partners… adventurous forms of sex that included role-play, dominance and submission. We discussed our interests at length before engaging in rough sex (forms of BDSM). We talked about using safe words and regularly checked in with each other about our comfort levels… I don’t wish to get into any more detail because it is truly not anyone’s business what two consenting adults do… But with me bringing it to light, in the coming days you will prospectively hear about how I engage in all kinds of unsavoury aggressive acts in the bedroom. And the implication may be made that this happens non-consensually. And that will be a lie… And there will be an attempt to pile on. And there will be the claim that there are a few women involved (those who colluded with my ex) in an attempt to show a “pattern of behaviour”. And it will be based in lies but damage will be done. But I am telling you this story in the hopes that the truth will, finally, conquer all… ”From “Full text: Jian Ghomeshi’s Facebook post on why he believes CBC fired him”

      To understand why “everyone is calling these women liars,” read these news articles for the facts:
      Neil Macdonald: “You don’t like the Ghomeshi verdict, fine, but don’t take it out on the judge”
      Christie Blatchford: “The Ghomeshi sex-assault case started falling apart right from the start”
      Margaret Wente: “The Ghomeshi trial turns into a fiasco”
      Christie Blatchford: “With third accuser on stand, Ghomeshi trial enters unsettling new territory”
      Rosie DiManno: “Third witness gets ahead of another courtroom rewrite”
      Michele Mandel: “Ghomeshi’s fortunes have turned”
      Michele Mandel: “Trailer Park Boys co-star not much help to Ghomeshi case”
      Rosie DiManno “Ghomeshi’s lawyer will be crucified for stating the obvious about Crown’s collapsing case”
      Michele Mandel: “Bombshells from Ghomeshi defence”

  2. What I find most amusing (and comical) are people saying “a not guilty verdict does not mean he is innocent”.
    What happened to “presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” ?
    If anything this entire sordid saga tells us that both law enforcement and judicial system have no clue what they are doing when acting on evidence presented to them, or Jian Ghomeshi would have never been charged in the first place.

    • Agreed! Now it is not surprising that MacLean’s is publishing such article with such headlines considering that they are owned by PostMedia morality police propaganda machine.
      What is regrettable is that for this partially made up, orchestrated and possibly criminal (wait for the lawsuits coming from Ghomeshi), but for certain promotional witch-hunt trial is going to make it even harder for those really assaulted to go to the police (the prosecutor for sure to be fired).
      The people behind this care not one bit of abused women. They just wanted headlines, and promote their idea of what sexual encounter is.
      Back to your point and to underscore mine, this was not ‘sexual’ assault, and as simply physical assault it could have a better chance to succeed.

  3. The sentence from Justice Horkin’s decision that will be remembered for years to come is the advice he offered complainants in a sexual assault trial when he stated: ‘Navigating’ this sort of proceeding is really quite simple: tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

  4. Perhaps the judge was technically correct but there were too many accusations of the same nature, by permitting the accused to walk free he has set women in general back over a century. Who will come forward now ? The law in this case is an ass and is in need of repair, immediate repair. I hope the verdicts are appealed.

    • Sexual assault is a serious crime, and deserves the very serious consideration that it gets, and the very serious penalties associated with a conviction.
      Hopefully the people who will come forward are those who are prepared to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As befits such a serious issue.
      They will find there is significant support for women who suffer sexual abuse. But women who lie and manipulate receive the disdain they deserve.
      contrary to the claim that there is no right or wrong way to behave …. there are expectations on behaviour when making serious allegations. It is expected that you will be truthful and fully forthcoming.

    • “there were too many accusations of the same nature”
      and there were enough text messages between accusers to make sure they were the same ..
      How could the prosecutor allow something like this to happen?
      Was it on purpose to take a case with such gaping wholes in it to ‘public’ trial.
      Was this a one person crusade of a disgruntled ‘girlfriend’ who did not get the call she thought she earned by letting herself punched a few times?
      There are many questions that this trial did not have to answer, but the public has the right to know, and therefor the police should investigate. For example the involvement of CBC’s upper management.

    • The judge was “totally” correct. As far as accusations were concerned, unless a guilty verdict is reached why is the defendant’s name always dragged through the mud before hand in ANY case of a sexual nature; while, the accusers identity us always shielded. As for this case, collusion by the accusers before hand to take Ghomeshi down as well as “selective memory” of events, one might even say “lies” led to the downfall of the Crown’s submissions.

  5. KUDOS To Honorable Horkins For an “Invaluable Ruling” That Should Be Used As A Template For The Police, The Crown And The Courts On How To Expedite Sexual Assault Cases.

    FOR those who have actually spent the time to read the Decision, it was clear that the Trial Judge had an eye on the Politics of the Case in the Media and amongst the Women’s Groups; BUT above all “Was Brilliantly Committed To Preserving The Integrity Of Our Criminal Justice System”.


    I watched the Crown Attorney speak in front of the Pro-Convict-Ghomeshi Crowd, being Rallied/Bullied by the Usual Suspects and I sincerely hope that the Crown will use the same “Cool-Headedness” as Judge Horkins to come to terms and deal with the Political Pressure that they may or may not be facing.

    IT is worth noting that all this happened despite the Complainants seeking refuge in “Rape Shield Law” and the ONLY reason(s) we FINALLY ended up having the Truth Disclosed where it counted the most, were that Mr. Ghomeshi had kept a record of his communications with these Women and Ms. Henein’s efforts to obtain the over 5,000 emails Transacted between Complainants 2 & 3 or else we would have had a “Shameful Miscarriage Of Justice”.

    THIS case also should act as a Watershed Event for the Women’s Groups “SO NOT TO BE TAKEN FOR A RIDE” by Women who failed to Disclose Honestly/Fully the sequence of events Before, During and After the Alleged Assaults.

    I also saw with disbelief Lucy Decoutere Lecturing to the Crowd after being “Proven A Liar Beyond Any Doubt In Court” which flies in the face of commonsense which is an “Insult To The True Victims Of Sexual Assault/Violence”.

    AND one thing perhaps Ms. Kingston could do is to interview the “Publicist” that seems to have been an “Integral Part of this Circus” and get to the bottom of this Outrageous & Costly Spectacle (IT seems the Complainants are still offering interviews to the Press & TV).

    AS The Money & The Resources Could/Should Have Been Used To Help The True Victims Of Sexual Violence And Punish The Actual/Factual Bad Actors.

  6. When are these Women going to be Charged with PERJURY ???

  7. I have five things to say about this:

    1. Not knowing the difference between a fact and a belief is the basis of all insanity and incompetence.
    And in this case I would add failure.

    2. It was known as early as back in the days the book of Genesis was written that women get their counsel from snakes.

    Lying, disobedience, manipulation, deceit, trickery, poor judgement, narcissism and every other kind of evil was invented by a woman.

    What is the lesson that society needs to learn from this?

    Women should learn to only say: “Yes dear.”

    And men should never take advice from a woman.

    According to authorities it has been at least 6000 yrs since that was known.

    The judge was evidently fully aware of this.

    3. Dianna Davison, defender of men’s rights, on youtube said this:

    Out of a survey of 100 rape victims, 90% said that the worst thing about the rape was that they did not get a phone call the next morning.

    4. The only women who get raped are the ones incompetent as true women.

    True women operating according to God’s rules on how to be a woman, don’t get raped.

    5. Marriage, home and family are the building blocks of society. Our society is only as sane, stable as our marriages, homes and families. Society degenerates, murder and all crime increase directly proportional to the degree of failure with marriages, homes and families. There is no more important job than keeping homes and families safe and sound and sane. Dysfunctional homes and families equals dysfunctional society, degenerating society.

    The whole future of the race depends upon it’s attitude towards home and children; and a race which specializes in women for purposes outside the home and family , or which believes that the contest of the sexes in the spheres of business and politics is a more worthier endeavour than the creation of tomorrow’s generation, is a race which is dying. It is a race which is headed towards arrmageddon and the apocalypse.

    We have, in the woman (the liberated woman and the feminist) who is an ambitious rival of the man in his own activities, a woman who is neglecting the most important mission she has.

    A society which looks down upon this mission and in which women are taught anything but the management of  home family, the care of husbands  and the creation of the next generation, is a society on it’s way out.

    It is in fact a crime against humanity of the worst kind. It is criminal negligence of the worst kind. It is sexual misconduct and prostitution of the worst kind. It is genocide of the worst kind. The amount of crime and the breakdown of society is directly proportional to failure on the homefront. The breakdown of society, is directly proportional to the number of women leaving the full time management of home and family  and competing in business and politics on an equal basis with men.

    Children who do not have good role models, who are not loved and emotionally nourished, taught life skills, taught everything from ethics and morals, to good social skills, good relationship skills, courting skills, money management skills, a good work ethic and everything needed to be competent and succeed in life, will have problems to the degree they cannot function and succeed in life. The worst ones become terrorists.

  8. The verdict appears based on so-called deception, lies and omission by the complainants without focusing on details of the assault. The stories of Jian’s assaults have been consistent in credibility and reliability from not just the complainants but from others who were assaulted but have not come forward. Even by Jian’s own admission he agrees that violence took place (although he says it was “consensual’). Instead the court focused on details such as reliability of memory (is it that important whether or not it was a yellow VW Bug?). Lucy herself felt that details not considered important to her testimony such as her behaviour after the assault could be omitted. Since many victims continue with a relationship with an abuser Lucy concluded that she needn’t relay those facts. Instead the defense pounced on this as if it legitimizes or even negates the idea of an assault. Its not OK to probe the victim’s sexual history but somehow the history of the complainant after the assault is considered relevant. Probably what got under the skin of the judge was that Lucy, the actor, would dare put on a performance in a court, collude with others (talking with fellow victims- often to corroborate their own story) or publicize her campaign to take down Jian. It is interesting to see how many in the legal community are so quick to defend a broken system- a system that ensures that perpetrators will go free.

  9. The vast majority of observers who are impartial, rational and informed (in all facts of the trial) would agree that Judge Horkins’ verdict and ruling is fair, competent and reasonable based on the facts and well-settled law principles. It’s likely that Judge Horkins had drafts of his ruling reviewed by other judges, lawyers and experts, including women. In any case, a guilty verdict would surely be overturned on appeal.

    For example, G&M’s Margaret Wente wrote: “Justice William Horkins summed up the truth about the case against Jian Ghomeshi. There wasn’t one. None of the three witnesses were trustworthy. The stories they told to the police, the Crown and the court were “tainted by outright deception.” They were manipulative. All three – L.R., Lucy DeCoutere, and S.D. – failed in their most elementary duty: to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but… (The case against Mr. Ghomeshi fell apart) because all three women grossly failed to tell the truth. It was one of the weakest cases that many people have ever seen. No one who followed the trial could have been surprised by the verdict.” (From “Truth and deception: Ghomeshi verdict a good day for justice” Globe and Mail)

    Criminal lawyer Russell Silverstein: “I just really get the sense that the witnesses tried to mould their report and their testimony in a way so as to secure a conviction — and they were caught doing so.” (from CBC: “Collusion allegation could factor heavily in ruling, lawyer says”).

    If further convincing is needed, read “Ghomeshi verdict was magnificent, compared to trial by press or social media” (Christie Blatchford, National Post) and “Justice system prevailed in Ghomeshi case” (Lorne Gunter, Toronto Sun) and “Treating women like victims is not the answer” (Rosie DiManno, Toronto Star)

    As the judge presiding over a trial, Justice Horkins’ first duty is to the aim of that criminal trial (i.e., the discovery of truth, not the frustration of justice) rather than to unproven presumptions (“that the Ghomeshi trial will have a chilling effect on victims not coming forward for fear of not being believed”).

    Given that the complainants made a mockery of the justice system, the judge was wise to remind everyone – including hysterical and opportunistic feminists – what is required for a reliable fact-finding process in order to facilitate the discovery of truth, including “need to be vigilant in avoiding the equally dangerous false assumption that sexual assault complainants are always truthful. Each individual and each unique factual scenario must be assessed according to their own particular circumstances.”

    Regardless, in the big picture, Judge Horkins’ wording of his ruling hit the nail on the head.

    Veteran columnist Barbara Kay noted: “As for the old feminist mantra that women never lie about abuse, can we finally lay that canard to rest? Women have lied about abuse and will continue to lie. When? When they are unscrupulous people to begin with… they will lie when it comes to their own self-interest, when there is some reward they value for lying (even for so tawdry a motive as celebrity), when there is vengeance to be easily taken on a creep they perceive to have humiliated them, and massive public sympathy to be gained, or when there is custody of children to be acquired, or for a variety of other reasons. To add to the temptation – as we have seen in many demonstrably false allegations of rape on campus – there is usually no material consequence for doing so, even when their lies are exposed in courts of law… if (feminists) really wants women to be taken seriously as equals to men, the very last thing we should be doing is assigning them the role of children who are incapable of assuming moral agency in their relationships… And let us stop calling women “victims” before we know the facts. Call them “accusers.” It has a much more grown up vibe to it.” (From “Feminist chickens come home to roost at the Ghomeshi trial” Barbara Kay, Prince Arthur Herald). Ms, Kay could have added that women may also lie about abuse when they suffer from mental disorders or emotional problems.

    In Britain, the Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe recommended the British police should: drop its policy of unconditionally believing every alleged rape victim; investigate the accuracy of the allegations and the evidence with an impartial and open mind; and offer anonymity to accused persons prior to charging them. Public confidence needed to be restored in the wake of criticism of the tarnished reputations, trauma and family distress caused to innocent men falsely accused of sexual assault by untruthful women. Read The Guardian “Suspected sex offenders have rights the police must respect” and The Independent “Bernard Hogan-Howe is right: justice for victims of rape demands the truth” and The Secret Barrister: “It’s not the police’s job to believe victims” and The Guardian “Met police may end policy of automatic belief of sex abuse complaints” .

  10. Near where I live in BC there is a women’s shelter. It large, multi-storey, and packed with women (and children) who are fleeing violence. Not violence in some war-torn land, but here, in Canada, by Canadians.
    Let’s be absolutely clear: Mr. Ghomeshi is a long, long way from being in the clear.

    • Lets be honest, none of the complaints fled from the supposed violence. If anyone was pursued it was Ghomeshi and it would appear as if there was any fleeing it was to get attention from Ghomeshi. It seems that he might have a case for sexual harassment if you review the emails that Lucy sent to him.

      • Good insight, Steve123.

        It is difficult to articulate and evaluate all the different factors (mostly lies, manipulation and deceit) to glean the truth from it. You did a good job.

    • It’s disingenuous and manipulative to bring up the imagery of a women’s shelter. None of Ghomeshi’s accusers were in need of a women’s shelter (or would even qualify for one). None of his accusers were in long-term, dependent relationships with Ghomeshi. They had no financial dependence, no housing dependence, no kids or marriage, no power imbalance – none of the factors that tie women’s shelter victims to their abusers.

      Let’s be absolutely clear: This trial squandered tax dollars and public resources on stories about sexual flings that went bad in the promiscuous arts and entertainment industry. It seems these were three horny women who voluntarily put in a lot of effort to flirt, chase, seduce and seek sexual flings with a horny celebrity bad boy — they even kept chasing him for more after the alleged assaults — then they got vindictive (and even possibly racist) about being humiliated or dumped by the Persian-Canadian.

  11. I don’t understand why the names of complainants are not published?
    Mr, Ghomesi and Lucy DeCoutere’s (by her own permission) names are published but the other two complainants are not.
    If people bring charges against an individual then shouldn’t both have their names published?
    After all, we live under a set of laws that ‘all are innocent until proven guilty’.
    Mr. Ghomesi has been proven innocent in the eyes of Canadian Law but carries the reputation of a guilty man while the complainants get off scot free…then there is also the cost of his lawyers.

  12. One has to realize that the women that would associate with this scum bag are not your everyday nice girls who attended Sunday School; because they are all married and having children. The court must realize that and give the women some leeway. These women do not have a right to be mistreated, and they should not be expect to remember the color of the guy’s car.