What really went wrong in Jian Ghomeshi’s trial

A chorus of voices claims the Ghomeshi trial exposes the flaws in courts’ handling of sexual assault. But ‘the system’ isn’t the only party that bungled it.


 
TORONTO, ON - FEBRUARY, 1  - Ghomeshi arrives with his lawyer, Marie Henein First day of the  former CBC hosJian Ghomeshi trial at Old City Hall court. (Richard Lautens/Toronto Star/Getty Images)

Jian Ghomeshi arrives with his lawyer, Marie Henein, at the first day of his trial. (Richard Lautens/Toronto Star/Getty Images)

Everyone was primed for the Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault trial to train a spotlight on flaws within the Canadian criminal justice’s treatment of sexual assault. What no one anticipated was that the eight-day spectacle would illuminate the role of the complainants—and perhaps even their power— in determining the “reasonable doubt” required to convict in all criminal cases.

There’s no question that the legal system in place to deal with sexual assault is deeply flawed. But it’s also the only system able to provide the justice the three women sought when they went to police with their allegations. R. v. Ghomeshi was a textbook lesson in how not to navigate that system. It revealed how complainants can squander what power they do have; the three complainants did not appear to understand—or else chose to flout—the courts’ most elemental rules. This compromised the quest explicitly expressed in messages between two of the witnesses, texts they should not have been exchanging, read aloud for effect by defence lawyer Marie Henein: “I want him f–king decimated,” said one. “Let’s sink the prick,” read another.

As it turned out, if anyone was submerged over the course of the trial, it was Ghomeshi’s accusers, who ignored the common-sense rules given by police and prosecutors: Don’t talk to the media. Don’t communicate with the other complainants, even if they provide support, lest it give rise to allegations of collusion. Try to remember every detail of the assault and what happened after, even those that might prove embarrassing. Comb over old emails, correspondence or interactions with the accused that could be used to contradict or undermine allegations. Don’t consume media about the trial before you testify. And, most important: Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Related from Anne Kingston: ‘Well, it’s over.’ Ghomeshi’s trial draws to a close

The fallout played out day after day, as the gallery gasped with bombshell disclosures of crucial facts withheld. Reversals in testimony were commonplace. Two of the witnesses made last-minute adjustments to testimony, suggesting they were consuming media about the case. Only hours before taking the stand, Lucy DeCoutere told Toronto police and Crown prosecutors that she’d sent flowers to Ghomeshi shortly after he allegedly kissed her, squeezed her throat and cut off her air, and slapped her hard three times across the face in the summer of 2003. It all provided glorious fodder for defence counsel: “The constant late-breaking changes make me feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone,” Henein griped at one point.

Such vertigo-inducing revisions were debilitating to Crown prosecutors Michael Callaghan and Corie Langdon, serving to hamper their ability to prosecute the most difficult type of sexual assault case: historic allegations made by acquaintances.

It’s not surprising that a chorus has emerged, claiming the Ghomeshi trial will result in victims of sexual assault being even more unwilling to come forward than before. Perhaps. The filleting that each of the witnesses endured at the hands of Marie Henein may certainly discourage other women from entering the legal system.The trial also laid bare the reality that the Crown is there as the people’s representative and, contrary to common assumption, not as the complainant’s lawyer. In fact, the complainant is only a witness, with no standing in the court. But there’s another lesson to be learned here: That for justice to prevail in sexual assault cases, complainants need rigorous preparation for the adversarial tenor that accompanies all criminal prosecution. That begins with basic understanding of both the definition of sexual assault and consent. On the stand, DeCoutere said she didn’t think her experience qualified as sexual assault: “I thought you had to be broken and raped,” she said.


The Ghomeshi charges originated what now seems a very long time ago, in the face of shocking evidence including a video, according to CBC management, that allegedly showed a woman being “physically hurt” by Ghomeshi, then host of the radio show Q. The CBC fired its marquee star; hours after, Ghomeshi took to Facebook in self-defence, claiming a penchant for consensual BDSM. The Toronto Star then ran a story featuring numerous unnamed women claiming Ghomeshi had sexually assaulted them; the story ran before the women had reported to police—practically unprecedented. Twitter was a sea of #IBelieveThem and #RapedNeverReported hashtags. The overwhelming support on social media—along with then-Toronto police chief Bill Blair’s press conference encouraging victims of sexual assault “to come forward and report”—paved the way for a number of women, including the four facing off against Ghomeshi in court, to brave the system and report.

But the trial revealed the disconnect between the court of public opinion and the courts adjudicating laws of the land. Ontario Court Justice William B. Horkins made this clear on day one: “My focus is on what happens inside this courtroom,” he said. What the courtroom saw was witnesses who had been celebrated and intrinsically believed outside of the courtroom being undone, not so much by Henein’s legendary cross-examination as by their own words.

The case proved that the “he said-she said” descriptor used in sexual assault cases is a misnomer. There was no “he said”: Ghomeshi, presumed innocent, did not have to testify. The burden was on the Crown to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on four counts of sexual assault and one of “overcoming resistance by choking.”

That also put a burden on the witnesses, who do not appear to have received adequate coaching, even though two of the three complainants retained independent counsel (the third witness’s lawyer dealt with a third-party record application). While the Crown’s mandate includes witness preparation, it doesn’t “coach” witnesses or prepare them for cross-examination, as a defence attorney does. Its goal is to lay out the facts of the case plainly and without prejudice.

Related from Chatelaine: How are witnesses prepped for sexual assault trials?

The Crown can only do so much, says one criminal lawyer. “I can assure you they would have told the complainants, ‘Do not communicate with each other.’ But they can’t stop them,” he says, adding, “Do you want Callaghan to take away their cellphones?” Nor will the Crown advise complainants to track down emails; anything unearthed has to be shared with the defence. That said, with more rigorous pretrial interviewing by both Crown and police, some of the surprises in court could have been avoided.

Among criminal lawyers there’s also criticism the complainants’ lawyers did not properly prepare them. Clearly the witnesses had been advised not to cower in the face of Henein’s withering cross-examination. What they didn’t seem to grasp is that Henein’s confident interrogation rests, in part, in the intensive prior investigations that unearth the sort of “gotcha” moments that abounded in Ghomeshi.

“The first thing I tell clients is to go back and get every single email and every single text you have ever exchanged with the defendant,” says one criminal lawyer who represents complainants in historic sexual assault cases. “You review them with the client; if I think they’re of benefit to prosecution and wouldn’t help the defence’s cross examination, I’d disclose to the Crown; if not, your client is perfectly prepared to explain on the stand.” He’s baffled by DeCoutere’s explanation that she forgot her Hotmail account password and couldn’t remember if she sent notes to Ghomeshi; they should have accessed the account via a third-party record application, he says.

The fact complainants’ lawyers talked to media and were on social media before the trial has been raised as another concern. “Look at how Marie handled media,” says one lawyer. “There was no comment. Anyone with any experience representing a victim in criminal prosecution knows that.” A lawyer talking about the case on TV and Facebook isn’t leading by example, says one lawyer: “How are you going to say ‘shhh’ to your client?”

Related at macleans.ca: Lucy DeCoutere on nightmares, healing and Ghomeshi

It seems clear the complainants had entered a system they had been conditioned to fear; how they acted on those preconceptions proved to be damaging. The complainants’ plentiful, often conflicting statements to media and police allowed Henein to pick away at inconsistencies and falsehoods to raise reasonable doubt. The problem here was of the chicken-egg variety: the women had gone to media rather than police because problems in the prosecution of sexual assault are so well known. But going to media first opened them up to evisceration on the stand. The unravelling began with the first witness, who accused Ghomeshi of yanking her head back on one occasion in late 2002 and punching her three times on another in 2003. As Henein told the court, the woman had given four media interviews that omitted the kissing that had taken place before the first alleged attack.

DeCoutere, the former Trailer Park Boys actor who became the face of the Ghomeshi scandal, had given 19 media interviews and issued four press releases, some before any charges were laid. But she also spoke publicly after. A June 2015 Toronto Life story about Ghomeshi’s life after charges had been laid (Ghomeshi declined comment) portrays DeCoutere as a self-appointed ringleader of women intent on bringing Ghomeshi down: “The way [DeCoutere] described it to me she coordinated a covert network of women who have spent the last seven months sharing their assault stories with each other,” the author wrote, saying DeCoutere claimed that “over a dozen [women] who never went to the police or the media” had been assaulted by Ghomeshi, one of them “hospitalized.”

As it happened, nothing Henein unearthed or presented to the court was categorically inconsistent with the complainants’ testimony that Ghomeshi sexually assaulted them. And none of the complainants’ behaviour after the alleged sexual assaults, revealed to the court, was unusual, as both Henein and Callaghan made clear. It was their prevaricating and withholding of information that damaged their credibility and reliability.


Lucy DeCoutere and Jian Ghomeshi and shown together in 2003 in this exhibit photograph from Jian Ghomeshi's trial. (CP)

Lucy DeCoutere and Jian Ghomeshi are shown together in 2003 in this exhibit photograph from Jian Ghomeshi’s trial. (CP)

No behaviour was more damaging to the case than the incessant communication between two witnesses. DeCoutere and the third complainant exchanged some 5,000 emails between Oct. 29, 2014 (the day DeCoutere went public with her allegations) and September 2015, some discussing the specifics of their allegations—contrary to denials made on the stand. The charge of possible collusion prevented the Crown from mounting a “similar fact” case, one that would use the similarities of the three situations to contend that Ghomeshi had a propensity to act in the ways described by the complainants.

Certainly, themes emerged. All of the complainants were taken by Ghomeshi, then the host of a late-night pop culture show on a CBC cable channel—the “perfect gentleman” and “charming,” as the first witness testified. All were shocked by the suddenness of the alleged assault. “He was kissing my neck and I just felt, all of a sudden, I felt his hand on my shoulders and his teeth,” the third witness testified. “Then his hands were around my neck and he was squeezing.” It was like a “switch,” she said: “It wasn’t the same person there.” Denial and confusion were also common.The first witness said she considered the first violent incident “a one-off.”

But the complainants’ testimonies shared another trait: It wasn’t only the court that had entrenched, retrograde notions of how the perfect sexual assault victim should behave—i.e., immediately report the assault and break all ties with the abuser. The complainants had absorbed the message.

Related from Anne Kingston: How Ghomeshi got away with it

Two adopted the script of trauma, even when it wasn’t true, to make their stories more believable. The first witness was so “traumatized” she couldn’t watch Ghomeshi on television or hear his voice; she couldn’t even listen to the new Q, she said. Moments later the court was shown two emails she’d sent long after the alleged assaults, one with a photo of herself in a bathing suit. It was intended to provoke a response, she testified, so she could ask him why he had punched her. The third witness, who claimed she was afraid to be alone in private with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault, invited him back to her place where, in Henein’s words, she “gave him a hand job,” a salient detail absent in her December 2014 police report. The witness said she didn’t know police wanted to know everything, only the “bad stuff.” She was ashamed, she said: “It’s an embarrassing thing to say.”

DeCoutere fared even worse. The woman who inspired #IBelieveLucy appeared blasé toward Ghomeshi on the stand. She denied having any romantic interest in him, a statement detonated by the defence’s presentation of multiple emails she had sent Ghomeshi hours and years after the alleged assault. These went from expressing a desire to “f–k your brains out” to telling him “I think you are magic.” In a handwritten letter written days later, she wrote, “I love your hands.”

Courts understand that delays in reporting sexual assault are common—and, as both the defence and Crown noted, it’s not unusual for victims of sexual assault to communicate with an abuser, to try to smooth over perceived misunderstanding, even to have conflicted feelings. The problem lay not in what the witnesses did after the assault, but in what they told (and didn’t tell) police and the court about it. That message was delivered too late to benefit complainants in the Ghomeshi trial. But it could be seen as the beginning of a new awareness for many others.


 

What really went wrong in Jian Ghomeshi’s trial

  1. You’ve got to hand it to Ms. Kingston. She has her narrative and she’s sticking to it, facts be damned! There are a couple of issues that I have with this article (more than a couple actually, but I don’t think I have the energy nor the skill to go full Marie Henein and dissect this drivel for the nonsense that it is).

    First, there is the bold claim that “there’s no question that the legal system in place to deal with sexual assault is deeply flawed.” Certainly that was the belief flogged by many (or perhaps by only the most vocal) before the trial began, but if you are honest in your assessment about what we have seen at its conclusion, you should be able to at least concede that a question has in fact been raised. Three witnesses provided inconsistent, untruthful testimony, and two of these witnesses appeared to be colluding with one another in an effort to “sink the prick.” Yet, it is Ms. Kingston’s contention that it was the legal system that failed here? This appears to be evidence of the system working as it should, rather than its flaws.

    My second issue is with the notion that “nothing Henein unearthed or presented to the court was categorically inconsistent with the complainants’ testimony that Ghomeshi sexually assaulted them.” Except that isn’t true either. Regarding the first witness, she claimed that the first time that Ghomeshis assaulted her, they were in a car that Ghomeshis did not own at the time. She claimed that her hair was pulled violently by Ghomeshis but then admitted that she was wearing hair extensions that were not pulled out through this so called violent act. Third, Henein showed that the first witness was inconsistent in telling her version of the events regarding whether her and Ghomeshis were kissing or not just prior to the assault. That last point is important because if they were not actually kissing, the first incident would no longer be considered “sexual” assault. Perhaps Anne was too focused on Ms. Henein’s shoes when that portion of the trial was being discussed…

    • Yes – the legal system in place is deeply flawed when it comes to sexual assault. Unfortunately, short of strapping a camera to everyone’s head at all times – it probably always will be.

      The victims have to prove a crime was committed, the defendant can say it was all consensual. Unless it causes a complete nervous breakdown in the victim, or they went straight to police (both unlikely if it was caused by an acquaintance) it becomes a he said-she said.

      • The legal system is no more flawed for sexual assault victims than for victims of any other assault. Do you think it’s not traumatizing for the victim of a violent assault to face their accuser?.
        .
        The legal system is not to be expected to redress every wrong that may befall a person. Minor issues, while technically fitting the definition of a crime are routinely dismissed. If a small amount of money is stolen or a minor fender bender occurs, the police barely investigate. Have your bike stolen, call police, see how far it gets you.
        .
        That was why the after effects of the alleged assault were important, and part of the reason the witnesses took great pains to make clear how traumatized they were. I’ve seen else where the phrase “de minimus”, which basically means there was little harm so a crime does not warrant punishment.
        .
        People lock their bikes to ensure they don’t lose them. There is a parallel to be drawn.

    • Anne was out her her depth and should never have been assigned this trial.
      Another more competent and legally knowledgeable writer would have given a more clear and unbiased account of what really happened here.
      Bad choice on the part of MacLean’s editors!

  2. I don’t think anything went wrong. These women got what they deserved.
    And Ghomeshi didn’t “get away with it”, he simply defended himself against unfounded accusations by resentful past conquests.
    It’s sad to see how female journalists/contributors lose objectivity and even when they know that the women are at fault, they still carefully word their statements to shame the man.
    I say, shame on you.
    #neverbelieveascornedwoman

  3. Regardless, they won.

    Jian has been judged guilty in the court of public opinion. He is unemployable in pretty much any media capacity.

    Isn’t it great that lynch mobs are alive and well?

    • Yup

    • “Let he who has never sinned throw the first stone.”
      ~Jesus Christ

  4. The real eye-opener for me in the last year and a half is how deeply flawed Canadian journalism has become. Take this article here from someone with a regular forum on a national newsmagazine. “Everyone was primed’ to find “flaws” in the court system …”There’s no question…the court system is “deeply flawed”. I couldn’t get away with unsubstantiated statements like that in high school essays. The Toronto Star just gave a column to someone with a similar tirade about how everything went “wrong” in the Ghomeshi trial with analysis so amateurish I found myself actually resentful that the writer probably got paid.

    Myself, I think the court system worked. They guy has been tried and convicted in the media, including mainstream media, and he’s living the sentence that was imposed. None of them seems to have really done any soul-searching about how they handled it. Instead, they’ve invested so completely in the narrative that they can’t backtrack. (I found it odd that his staff complaining he was a horrible boss generated as much heat as the sexual assault allegations.) As for the police, finally there’s some light shed on just how inappropriate their public appeals for women to come forward and attestations of “we believe them” were.

    I can believe Ghomeshi crossed the line. Do any of the incidents as described warrant 25 years in prison? I really don’t think so. The fact that Heinen established doubt in people’s minds — we don’t know about the judge yet — makes it seem even less just, as a sentence.

    Going to court, testifying, even serving on a jury, no matter what the charge, is a significant life event for anyone. Instead of treating it with gravitas, the witnesses instead seemed to rely on very bad advice, or maybe just thought they were smarter than the Crown and police. Maybe everyone was lulled into complacency because they had lawyers, but those lawyers seemed a little compromised. Only the third witness’ lawyer seems to have avoided the camera. Whatever. I did learn two things I didn’t know over the last couple of weeks, that the Crown doesn’t represent the Crown witness, and defendants don’t have to disclose their information.

    Anne Kingston does seem to be struggling with what she saw in court vs. her fixed opinions of how it should have played out. It’s a long journey, Anne, but a worthwhile one.

    • I understood that the third witness had the same lawyer as Lucy.

      • Right. I thought when this article referred to the lawyer helping with the third-party release it was a whole different lawyer. So there were two lawyers, and both talked to the media, I guess. It’s a mystery to me, really, what either one of them did for the witnesses.

        • We’ll probably never know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if their lawyer told them to do exactly what they did.
          .
          Either that or they lied to her as well.
          .
          I expect there is much more to the story of how they came to lie to the court than we have heard. Maybe they’ll face a perjury charge and we’ll get an answer.

          • I think they got bad advice from the wrong people about court. That is, the support groups etc. who can really commandeer an issue with the media, but aren’t really who I’d look to for legal advice. I speculate about that because of the way they tried to use that language on the stand. But I’m fascinated now by the question of what their lawyers were offering by way of services. My first thought was, a primer on the legal system they were entering into. But apparently not.

      • Yes she did…a very biased and lousey lawyer who made things worse by giving her own interviews to the press prior to and during the trial.
        That lawyer was an air head.

    • It’s is absolutely shocking that even MP Charlie Angus expressing disrespect for due process. Which country do we live? Russia? North Korea?

      • Angus is a politician and he says things for political reasons, not because they are “right”. He was playing to the Feminist wing of the NDP.

  5. I love to abhore the notion that somebody whose reputation has been trashed by himself is the basis for not prosecuting him. That is the essence of sophistry, stupid thinking, absence of actual reason. JG may avoid criminal consequences, but he is unlikely to do as well in civil court where the standard of proof is “more likely than not.” Civil court is about skilled attorneys who are not hamstrung by rules that govern the Crown prosecutor. It is a much more dangerous place than criminal court, and my guess is that the four complainants and their other sisters will take every penny JG has. Same thing for Bill Cosby. One could ask the question, why bother with a criminal trial? Just take everything they have and will ever have.

    I enjoyed reading this article. As a civil litigator in the US for 35 years who lives half the year in BC, I appreciate the author’s incisive understanding of the legal and cultural issues this case is drawing into examination in North America.

    It is impossible for me to ignore the most stunning comment that “they got what they deserved.” Ignorant, stupid, braindead. It’s 2016. Please wake up and accept that abuse is a problem in our societies. Those comments are garbage, in my opinion, but seem to be acceptable north and south of the 49th. They perpetuate abuse. If it was your daughter . . .

    • What is I.possible to ignore is your ridiculously ignorant remarks. Please educate yourself.
      I AM a victim of sexual assault so I believe I know a thing or two about such situation. And it’s precisely because of that experience that I fully stand by my comment: they got what they deserved.
      They were masterfully discredited in a court of law, and I hope that they learned their lesson: be truthful.
      I don’t need pseudo-intelectuals to tell me to wake up. I woke up a lot, in tears, when nightmares came to visit. And you dare to call me garbage? How dare you? Have you been victim of abuse? I guess not. So shut up. You know nothing.
      And finally, if that ever happens to my daughter, I am confident she will come forward with the truth and not personal agendas… Let me know how you feel when it happens to yours.
      Try to make your two functional neurons to think before you speak, you troll.

      • I really appreciate your response NGD. I cannot imagine what inspired him to respond so viciously to your post. I guess it’s because he’s a “civil litigator” (I.e. Ambulance chaser), he is used to ripping into people, shredding their reputations and casting aspersions on their character whether they deserve it or not. He’s been doing it for 35 years apparently. It’s how he makes his living. Other than his baseless attack on you, the most revealing part of his comment was this: He much prefers the outcome of a trial to be determined by “skilled attorneys who are not hamstrung by the rules that govern the Crown…” That says everything we need to know about him. I cannot imagine what kind of loathesome creature would wish for guilt or innocence of the accused to depend entirely on the results of “skilled attorneys” duking it out, as opposed to a careful weighing of the evidence according to strict rules of admissibility. Lawyers with such callous, reckless views of what constitutes proper criminal proceedings perpetuate abuse of the justice system. If it was his son…

      • Sorry, but the fact you are a victim of sexual assault does not give you more credibility on the law than an actual lawyer. Futhermore, your attack on this poster for not knowing you were a victim of sexual assault is baseless and unfair. You clearly did not disclose that in your comment.

        Finally, saying they “got what they deserved” is a vile and appalling thing to say. First, because you really have no idea whether or not he is guilty (sure, he may survive the onerous standard of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, but that does not mean he is not guilty of doing what they said he did). Second, because if you are truly a victim of sexual assault then you should know how hard it is to come forward. Comments like yours makes that even harder.

    • hey look …. there goes an ambulance!

    • Naturally, as a civil litigator for 35 years in the most absurdly litigious country on earth, you would prefer the “preponderance of evidence” of civil trials to the “reasonable doubt” of criminal court. No doubt that lower burden of proof helped you win many a judgement over the years, lining the pockets of both yourself and your clients, some of whom may have been deserving victims, others just vindictive, litigious leaches out for revenge or a big score. But you did what you were paid to do. I hope your courtroom summaries were more thoughtful than your comment. Because until you actually came out and stated you were a civil litigator, there was nothing in your post that would have led me to believe that you had any special knowledge of the court system at all. The burden of proof is lower in civil court. No $hit Sherlock. Any high school business law course teaches us that much. Thank you so much for this educational pro bono moment. Because I badly needed a reminder of what I learned in grade 10.

    • Unlike the others who respond to your comment, I will deal with the content rather than baseless attacks on your character as a result of your profession.

      This is by far the most balanced and credible response to this article. Thank you for your professional insight.

      • Nonsense…

        • Right. This from a guy who, not too far above this comment, complains that the authour of this piece does not have sufficient legal knowledge.

          Clearly, you are not looking for anyone who is unbiased or who has legal knowledge. You are only looking for someone who shares your flawed views of the system and this trial.

          Nice try though.

          • If he was truly unbiased he would look at who has suffered the most significant damages as a result of this trial. Assuming JG is guilty, clearly the damages to the accusers were minimal as shown by their subsequent actions. The damages to his career are much more significant. Given the lower burden of proof of a civil trial, one could envision a scenario where he can prove a case against them.
            .
            But one would need to be unbiased to see the possibility.

          • You have proven my point.

          • You don’t seem to know what your point is gayle

          • I see you are having trouble so I will spell it out. People like Phil, and apparently, you, seem to believe the only ones who are without bias are those who share your bias. It is hard to see any bias at all in the original comment, coming as it is from an educated legal perspective. Perhaps that is why so many responded with personal attacks.

            In any event, some personal introspection might do you some good.

          • repeating yourself ad nauseum does not make you any more correct “gayle”.
            .
            The OP seems to think there are damages to be won from ghomeshi in a civil trial. What do you think those damages would amount to “gayle”. Given their subsequent actions, how were they harmed?
            .
            If you leave YOUR bias at the door, you may find he op didn’t have much of a point.

          • What makes you think these complainants are responsible for what happened to his career? These charges had not even been contemplated when he was fired for his conduct towards the women at CBC, and even that was not made public until he hired a publicist and then wrote about his inclination for violent sex on facebook (after which his publicist fired him). After that came an article in the Star, and after that official police complaints and charges.

            These complainants did not destroy his career. He did that all by himself.

            And the OP did not limit his recommendation to go through civil court to these complainants. There are a lot of other women out there who have indicated they were assaulted by Ghomeshi – perhaps he was suggesting they avoid the criminal court.

            As for damages for the complainants, like you, I know very little about what kind of damages would be available, but I most certainly would not speculate they would be limited based on others buying into rape myths.

          • Personally his FB post was enough that I will not be listening to him again.
            .
            But this isn’t about me, it’s about what damages could be claimed. He wouldn’t work at CBC before the trial, but after he may not work ever. There is a big difference.
            .
            The point is, your support of the OP shows both your (and his) bias against JG when you assume the women have damages to claim, when it is likely not the case.
            .
            Got it yet?

          • I “get” that your bias is blinding you to reality. But I have already explained that and apparently you don’t like it when I repeat myself.

          • do try to be specific gayle. or has it finally occurred to you that you can’t?

    • Yes abuse is a problem…
      But the problems these so called witneses had in court ate ones they ( and their own lawyers ) created for themselves.
      As a litigator you should be able to see that !

    • You consider due process as being “hamstrung by rules that govern the Crown prosecutor”.

      What a sleazy little litigator you are…if you really are..

  6. Easy solution. Call rape (rape) and don’t confuse society with sexual assault having many various degrees.
    Society acts like animals towards people charged with rape. To confuse the issue could be considered criminal defamation.
    Investigate both sides when there is any sign of motivation. Excluding obvious random attacks.
    Keep it out of the media until the trial is under way. Will limit the involvement of extremists.
    In this case the crown should have told the girls that the trial wouldn’t go forth if they spoke of it to one another.
    Direct them to victim support groups.
    Never make an attack, an after thought. Go to the police right away…. not decades later…unless it was a youth case.
    Society has changed and we need to protect the person being charged as much as the victim.
    The level at how these extremists victimized the accused goes far beyond the charge in some cases. Sexual assault meaning rape to these people and it might have been an accidental touch that was misinterpreted. Still it would be considered sexual assault.

    That is a major flaw.

    • “In this case the crown should have told the girls that the trial wouldn’t go forth if they spoke of it to one another.
      Direct them to victim support groups.”
      But they were talking to each other well before they talked to the police. That’s one of the things they lied about.

    • “Direct them to victim support groups.”

      Defence counsel can get a court order to have all the counseling records of the victim disclosed to the alleged perpetrator. Therefore I believe a lot of women do not seek counseling as they do not want to risk this.

      • Victim support groups do not have to keep any counselling records. Do you actually think all counsellors write everything down?
        You are being naiive.

        • Nope.

  7. Actually, this doesn’t show that the justice system is flawed when it comes to sexual assault complaints. It shows that the attitudes around making sexual assault complaints by women are flawed. Its not that I’m not sympathetic to the victims, personally I think Ghomeshi is guilty as sin.

    The flaw in the justice system is that it allows old, historical complaints and that there is no statute of limitations whereby it’s just too late to come forward like with other crimes. Years or decades old complaints come with fuzzy memories, lost evidence, and dubious facts. And I know – I’ve been involved in one as the accuser.

    The flaw in the attitudes of accusers/victims is that they choose not to come forward right away. I see this in women all the time, in big ways and small. The boss who is outright flirtatious, the “victim” who tolerates it by not clearly saying “NO”. The gropey touchy friend or teacher, the victim who says nothing and just squirms silently away. The guy who takes a girl on a date, touches her privates and gropes her, the girl who says nothing but just never dates him again. The woman who gets date raped and tells nobody but a few friends behind closed doors. The NDP women who made allegations against the two Liberal MPs.

    The unifying theme in all of these cases is that the woman didn’t (a) resoundingly oppose the advance, and (b) come forward to make the accusation, and (c) decides to maybe persue it years down the road, when the accused has probably completely forgotten what happened, and maybe thought the lack of an explicit rejection was an implicit acceptance.

    Where the attitudes are flawed is that there has to be a point where at which you just let it go. “Yes, that guy punched me in the face six months ago, and yes it hurt, but now my bruises are gone, and I am going to just forget it.”

    Of course, we can say sexual assault is different than physical assault and is more mental in nature, but dwelling on it for years only makes it worse, not better. In many ways, if your not ready to come forward right away, it’s better to just do your best to forget the entire thing happened and move on.

    I got beat up in elementary school a few times. Will I remember those moments vividly for the rest of my life? Yes. Does it do me much good to stew about it decades later? No.

    We have to do more to educate women to come forward right away. If they aren’t ready to come forward, maybe it’s not quite as bad as they are thinking it is. Or maybe they should just try to forget it ever happened, learn from it, and move on.

  8. I do like Ms. Kingston’s writing style as she has a wonderful command of the English language, however in my view she is more suited to writing Fiction than reporting on Facts.

    IN my view this Trial was Mis-labeled as there seem to be NO Assault(s) & NOT much Sex involved!???

    What is amazing here is that the three Women who Allege that Mr. Ghomeshi had Punched, Strangled and Slapped them, NONE seem to suggest that there were “Visible Signs Of Violence On Their Head Or Face” as is evidenced by the pictures available from Lucy D. the Day After!???

    Those of us who have had head/face injuries know that it doesn’t take much to have “A Blue Face, A Black Eye or A Swollen Head”.

    What is strange here is that there seems to be a well orchestrated effort to destroy Mr. Ghomeshi by outlandish and corroborating Allegations that took Lucy D. and Complainant 3 over 5,000 email/text messaging transactions to manufacture.

    I also find the comments by Lucy D’s Lawyer suggesting that the Core Allegations of Sexual Assault were not challenged, “Very Strange” as Ms. Henein “Explicitly” said following her Cross Examination(s) and Introducing Evidence: “It Never Happened, Right!???”.

    There is little doubt that the Complainants engaged in “Collusion and Perjury” and sincerely hope the Judge will charge them for making a Mockery of the Justice System (At times they sounded as if they were just gossiping after a bad date on the Witness Stand!???).

    AS for the Organizations that support “Real Victims Of Sexual Violence”, they should “Distance Themselves” from the Complainants as this Fiasco has done great harm to Women’s Rights, Self-Respect and Dignity.

    THE only two Women that I am Absolutely Proud of at this Trial are Ms. Henein and Ms. Robitaille and the two Women that I feel Truly Sorry for are Mr. Ghomeshi’s Mother and Sister that had to sit through this “Tragic Spectacle”.

  9. “it’s not unusual for victims of sexual assault to communicate with an abuser, to try to smooth over perceived misunderstanding, even to have conflicted feelings.”
    Is it unusual for them to want to fuck the rapists brain’s out? Or give them handjobs?

    “The problem lay not in what the witnesses did after the assault, but in what they told (and didn’t tell) police and the court about it.”
    No the problem is that they behaved exactly like people who have had consensual sex would behave. This meant that the only evidence of rape was an unconfirmable claim that didn’t explain any of the events before or after the alleged rape. Events that don’t explain why anything happened are generally untrue.

    ” That message was delivered too late to benefit complainants in the Ghomeshi trial. ”
    But they were surely aware that their actions after the alleged rape could be used to question their story. They just didn’t expect that he would have kept the evidence. The message delivered too late was that some people actually do investigations.

    “But it could be seen as the beginning of a new awareness for many others.”
    Hopefully any increased awareness these women have of the trauma of sexual assault will be delivered by Large Marge, who reads a lot of Gertrude Stein.

    • “Is it unusual for them to want to fuck the rapists brain’s out? Or give them handjobs?”

      Is it unusual for women to stay with their abusive husbands. despite years of assaultive behaviour, broken bones and hospital visits?

      There are reasons to doubt the credibility of these witnesses. This is not one of them.

      • The lying to police, the Crown and under oath, on the other hand…

        • Please re-read my comment and tell me where I suggest otherwise.

          • Revelatory of your discontent with the adminstration of justice in this case is not your failure to have suggested otherwise, rather, your conflation of “women who stay with their abusive husbands …(for)…years” with the vindictive ships that passed Ghomeini in the night.

          • I see there is no point in explaining simple English to you.

          • There are many more other things there is no point in you explaining.

          • Wow. Admitting your shortcomings is a big step. Good for you!

          • I would not list “comprehension” among your strong suits. Incoherent lashing out, on the other hand…

      • I happen to believe the supreme court decision should not apply to the relationships on display in this trial. It was not argued by either side however so it is a moot point.

  10. The fact that this perv will never worked in any media again sits well with me. He’s going to get off because of shoddy work by the crown and 3 really bad liars.

  11. Did an assault as defined by our criminal code take place? Should Gomeshi be punished or was he a victim of an orchestrated slander? Another element is the ability of citizens to accuse other citizens of crimes in Canada. What are the grounds for charges to be laid-reasonable belief based on a witnesses or victims statement to police that a crime took place. It is possible for bogus charges to be hung on an innocent citizen.

    However, Gomeshi with the help of high-priced lawyers never personally answered the charges, he never said more than ‘not guilty’. Gomeshi never faced his accusers and answer a straight-forward question–“Did you strike and or choke these women”??? Gomeshi plead not guilty because of his interpretation of what constitutes an assault, or consent. His guilt or innocence is a matter of conjecture-we are left to wonder if he is dangerous or a victim himself.

    The fact that his lawyer chose to not face a jury and thus avoided Jian testifying speaks volumes. His own admission of engaging in ‘consensual’ rough play is another fact. Most criminal lawyers advise their clients to tell them everything-why? because it is the lawyers job to interpret the law. Many defendants are guilty of something but a good lawyer can manipulate the circumstances to favour their client. The interpretation of the criminal code is on trial-not the defendant.

    Will women feel reluctant to go to court and press sexual assault charges now? It is a shame Jian couldn’t just explain in his words what happened- simple, a Judge could decide whether the charges are frivolous. Instead everything is filtered through the Crown and Defence lawyer’s perception and trial skill. Bottom line we have a new ‘star’ lawyer in Canada yet to be named.

    • The fact he did not testify is significant. It means nothing in the context of a criminal trial, given that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is on the crown. However, this was his opportunity to say none of these things never happened. And he didn’t.

      • if you want to read facts into his decision then you must allow the review of the accusers post assault actions. It is not appropriate to have such one sided seeking of truth

        • This makes no sense. The complainant’s post assault behaviour was evidence at the trial.

          • you are confused gayle. The accusers conduct was not evidence in relation to the accusations. Both the crown and defense stated this in their closing argument.
            .
            It was introduced by the witnesses and was then refuted by their own actions. It illustrated the unreliability of the witnesses when they were shown to have lied.

          • That is because that conduct had nothing to do with the allegations. It has everything to do with their credibility. Suggesting a woman who has been sexually assaulted must have consented because she engaged in consensual intercourse after the assault is like saying battered women who return to their spouses, only to be battered again, want to be battered.

            The post offence conduct was introduced by defence counsel in cross examination, which was proper and legal.

            Unlike the witnesses, the accused did not have to answer any questions, which is his right and as I stated, no legal conclusion may be drawn from that. So we never heard him deny these allegations. This discussion might be different if we had.

          • you are going in circles gayle. You suggest some conclusion should be drawn (in a non legal context) by the his decision not to testify, yet you reject that conclusions can be drawn (in a non legal context) by the accusers actions, by relying on the legal standard to exclude those actions from deliberations.
            .
            you are sucking and blowing at the same time. Try to stay consistent.

          • Not at all inconsistent.

            There is plenty of evidence available to explain why someone who has been sexually assaulted will continue to maintain a relationship with the abuser. That is why the courts are not permitted to draw a legal conclusion from that. It is also why people should not reach any non-legal opinion from that.

            As for not testifying – I have not heard of any academic studies on “not testifying myths” that would gravitate against drawing a common sense conclusion that someone who does not testify may not want to do so because he does not want to be exposed to the rigours of cross examination.

          • your bias is showing again gayle.
            .
            the witnesses in this trial are not in any way related to those who have been studied. If you have actually reviewed them, then please point to one.

            Or are you simply trotting out your own rape myths?

          • Sigh – you do not have to “study” these witnesses to understand that you are applying rape myths to your assessment of their stories.

          • which ones in particular gayle? simply wimpering rape myth over and over does not make a case. See if you can manage that

        • Meant to add: the fact he did not testify cannot lawfully be used against him when weighing the credibility of the complainants, unless the judge concludes the evidence calls for an explanation from the accused (which is not the case here).

          No lawyer will allow her client to testify if he is guilty, because he cannot lie on the stand. That in itself does not make him guilty, however if he was truly not guilty, he could have testified and denied it all. He didn’t.

    • The reason Ghomeshi did not testify is not due to “The fact that his lawyer chose to not face a jury” – the key reason is the lack of witness credibility and integrity. Given his accusers were discredited, Ghomeshi did not need to testify to the accusations of discredited complainants. Ghomeshi probably would not have needed to testify in a jury trial either – since the lack of witness credibility and integrity would have resonated even greater with jury members.

      You have to wait until his book is published (presumably later this year) to read Ghomeshi’s side of the story about what really happened as well as bombshell details about each of the complainants, other accusers and those vultures who jumped on the bandwagon to beat up on him. A

      In the hands of a judge, this trial is more likely to have higher-quality outcomes in terms of truth revealed and justice served. A criminal trial should aim to discover the truth, not frustrate justice. When a professional judge presides over a trial, it makes for a more reliable fact-finding process as well as more competent and impartial adjudication of the case. On the other hand, jury members do not have experience in adjudication. The average jury member is unable to handle many complex issues in litigation. Jury members tend to decide by emotion and intuition, rather than using logic and reason. The risk of injustice is greater with an abhorrent crime, an unlikeable defendant or widespread pre-trial publicity.

      It is worth reading “Lee Kuan Yew’s Opposition to Trial by Jury” (by George P. Landow): When Cambridge-educated Lee was a lawyer, he successfully defended four murderers by doing what any advocate does: He “worked on the weaknesses of the jury — their biases, their prejudices… he employed “the simple tricks of advocacy — contradictions between one witness and another, contradiction between a witness and his previous statement to the police and the preliminary enquiry.” Lee “had no faith in a system that allowed the superstition, ignorance, biases, and prejudices of seven jurymen to determine guilt or innocence” and decided not to employ this “foolish, completely incongruous system” once he became prime minister.

      • There was no jury in this case.

  12. The fact is that this kind of apparent collusion between witnesses happens in all kinds of criminal cases. It is not limited to sexual assault cases. When witnesses do this, they give the defence all the evidence they need to cast doubt on their credibility. The consequence is that guilty people are properly acquitted.

    • “The consequence is that guilty people are properly acquitted.”

      That the acquittal of someone who is guilty is “proper” is not an unexpected thought from this particular poster.

      • And it is not unexpected that you would expose your ignorance, once again.

        The standard required for a finding of guilt in a criminal courtroom is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard necessarily means that sometimes guilty people walk free, because the crown is unable to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Kind of like when witnesses collude, casting doubt on their credibility, even when they may very well be telling the truth about the offence.

        But hey, don’t let the facts, or reality and stuff, get in your way. Why start now?

        • What clearly needn’t be started now is again pointing out your addled thought. Someone who is acquitted is not, in fact, “guilty” and their walking free is therefore rather in order. Unless, of course, one views one’s own concept of “guilt” to be on sounder moral ground to that adopted by the justice system upon which our civil society is based. Such is the case for the “I believe so and so” hashtag crowd, whose ranks I have no doubt include you.

          • Still having problems with that English I see.

            Someone who commits a crime may not be convicted. That does not mean they did not commit the crime.

            It is really not that hard.

    • Besides perjury, which at least one of these women committed under oath in court, is there any other penalty for witnesses who knowingly collude to stack the deck against the person they accuse, or to “get the prick” as DeCoutere said so classlessly?

      • Collusion is not the same as perjury.

        Collusion is not illegal. It just destroys your credibility.

  13. AS I am reading the comments here and in the Press at large, it seems some Folks still Do NOT understand or want to accept that so far ALL of the “Claims Made By The Complainants Are MERE ALLEGATIONS” as they have produced “NO EVIDENCE”.

    AND also Bashing the Criminal Justice System, The Police and the Crown is Shameful as the “Hysteria Created In/By The Media”, in practice “Emasculated/Victimized The Authorities & The Justice System” and afforded the Complainants a Free Ride to say what they please!???

    IN Fact the Real Villains in this Fiasco are the Complainants as NONE of them were/are Simpletons or Inexperienced Teenagers.

    AND I am not surprised that Mr. Ghomeshi avoided Lucy G. in particular as I do not know any Sane Man that would Again Date a woman who writes to him after the First Date: “Last night you kicked my ass, and I want to F*&k your Brains out tonight”!???

    MOST of us have known all sorts of women in our lives, but this statement surely Wins the Prize hands down with “Red Flags All Over The Place”.

    ALSO it is rather astonishing that no one has questioned Lucy G.’s Publicist and why Complainant 3 had to go see Lucy G.’s Publicist especially that in one of the 5000 emails transacted between the two, Lucy G. says that “The Publicist thought that Complainant 3 was awesome, or something to that effect”!???

    AND If This Doesn’t Sound The Alarm Bells For “Collusion & Perjury” To Assassinate Mr. Ghomeshi’s Character, Nothing Else Would.

    • Sigh

      Their testimony is evidence. Often the only evidence in any trial, and particularly in SA trials, is the testimony of the witness.

      • A Testimony Is A Mere Allegation In The Absence Of Any Witnesses Or Physical Injuries.

        SO The Judge Can Only Rely On The Complainants Credibility & Reliability And In This Case They Have NONE Beyond ANY Doubt.

        WE Should Not Defend Indefensible Acts Of Collusion & Perjury As WE Are All In This Together No Matter The Gender.

        • And yet, it IS evidence. Which is all I am saying, and completely different from what you said in your original post.

          If a man has non consensual intercourse with a woman by threatening her with a gun, leaves no bruises as a result and no one else witnesses it, has he not still committed rape?

          If she testifies, and has nothing but her testimony to back up her story, should he be convicted?

          • MY Dear Lady, the ONLY Evidence of ANY kind at this Fiasco was produced by the Defence in forms of over 5000 emails/text messages, Photos and a hand written Love Letter.

            I am also curious to find out how many Victims of Violence, Male or Female, Sexual or otherwise go and Hire a Publicist, not to mention share the same Publicist and Compare Notes!???

            THIS is very Odd and needs more Scrutiny and hope Ms. Kingston would be kind enough to explore this “Remarkable Circus” by the Complainants.

            AND Finally, Those Who Know Ms. Henein Well, Have Suggested That Not Only She Is A Very Brilliant & Capable Lawyer, But Also Is “Absolutely Ethical” And My Sense Is That If She Was Not Convinced That Mr. Ghomeshi Is Innocent After Seeing All the Emails, The Letter, The Pictures And Cross Examining Him, She Would Not Have Taken Him On As A Client.

            AND THAT MUST SPEAK VOLUMES.

          • No. The testimony of the witnesses is evidence. Look it up or take a law class or something. That may help you understand.

            Also, defence lawyers represent people they know to be guilty all the time. Kind of hard to make a living at it if they don’t.

    • @GAYLE1

      IF you think by “Trolling the Media” you are going “Intimidate/Bully” well educated people to submit to your Bias, you are Brilliantly Mistaken.

      I do not wish to brag about my knowledge of the Law and how the Legal System Works, but I can assure you that as a Professional, I have forgotten more in this Field than you will ever mange to learn.

      AND that by creating “Mind-Bending Hypothetical Scenarios”, you are only exposing your “Flawed Hyperactive Imagination”.

      AS for Evidence, if even the Court considers what you Hopelessly are trying to Sell as Evidence, by now it is clear that by the Virtue of producing over 5000 pieces of “Hard and Defensible Evidence”, the Complainants Credibility and Reliability are Stuck in the Mud.

      JUST for your own benefit, you ought to remember that in a “Civilized Social Contract; ONE IS INNOCENT TILL PROVEN OTHERWISE”.

      IN ESSENCE YOU ARE SUBJECTING THE DEFENCE TO “PROVE A NEGATIVE”; WHICH AMOUNTS TO “ACTING IN BAD FAITH”.

      WHICH IS IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE SPIRIT OF JURISPRUDENCE IN A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.

      • “I do not wish to brag about my knowledge of the Law and how the Legal System Works, but I can assure you that as a Professional, I have forgotten more in this Field than you will ever mange to learn.”

        Hilarious.

        • it is obvious from your posts that you have forgotten many things

        • Please, educate us all.

      • study your notes from your legal “education” and try to remember all the things that you said you forgot.
        .
        once you’ve done that, we can talk.

        • In other words, you have nothing.

          That is what I thought

  14. It appears to me that these women colluded for with malice to destroy Ghomeshi because they thought they could. Perhaps they felt ignored or rejected or were angry about who knows what! They succeeded in destroying this man’s career and life regardless of the legal outcome. They represent the worst womanhood and THEY will do more to deter legitimate assault victims from coming forward because THEY have set a significant precedent to fall back on by future defense councils! I sincerely hope that these women will be charged with some form of wrong doing!

    • Oh God, stop being a drama queen. The three female complainants did not just wake up one morning and decide to destroy Ghomeshi’s career for the random thrill of it. Obviously something happened between Ghomeshi and these women, probably involving something like assault. The problem is that these particular women in this particular trial do not have a strong enough case. There are still over twenty other women who have come forward to accuse Ghomeshi of the same thing as these women. Maybe a few of these women would have made better witnesses with stronger evidence.

      No need to go on a tirade to bash these women in trial 1, or call for their arrest.

      • Correct…No they didn’t wake up one morning…they colluded and schemed for months before the trial started.

  15. Well Ms. Kingston is beginning to “get it”…
    to realize why this trial and the testimony of these 3 flawed complaintants went south and went there fast!
    It’s taken Anne months to begin to realize what was wrong from the very start with the accusations that were made by these three women, particularly DeCoutere’s allegations which were fraught with lies, deception, revenge motives for being “rejected” by Mr. Ghomeshi and DeCoutere’s unique and disturbing penchant for public attention and the limelight.

  16. Kingston says that these women had gone to media rather than police because “problems in the prosecution of sexual assault are so well known.”
    NONSENSE !

    They went to the media to brand him as an abuser in the court of public opinion.
    In DeCoutere’s case she also clearly showed an unhealthy and possibly pathological obsession with Ghomeshi and a very Narcissistic need to be acknowledged in a very public way through the giving of not one or two, but MULTIPLE public media interviews.
    If Ghomeshi is sick then DeCoutere is just as sick, but in her own unique way!

  17. The trial “really went wrong” only for those close-minded feminists, victims’ advocates and journalists who had rushed to judgment on Ghomeshi’s guilt based on their naïve belief in the alleged victim’s accusations (one side of the story). Comments such as “That for justice to prevail in sexual assault cases…” imply justice did not prevail in this case and are based on the presumption of guilt. What no feminist, victim advocate and journalist anticipated was the role and power of the TRUTH in determining the outcome of any criminal case, even in sexual assault.
    On the contrary, nothing went wrong with Jian Ghomeshi’s trial: it serves justice if it exposes false accusers who exploited the sexual crimes justice system (unfair to all accused men) to punish the man who dumped them. Search You Tube for “Blatchford: Ghomeshi closings – a wonderful day for justice” on February 12; Karen Straughan’s analysis on Jian Ghomeshi on February 13, 2016 (start at 2 mins); Feminism LOL’s “The Truth About Jian Ghomeshi” on February 14, 2016 and also “Jian Ghomeshi: The collusion to destroy his life” on February 7, 2016.
    This trial squandered tax dollars and public resources on horny people’s sexual flings. To satisfy their egos, these three complainants chose to have a risky sexual fling with a bad boy – and now they expect tax payers to pay for the cost of their revenge against the bad boy who spurned them.
    It is a travesty to hard-working tax payers that these three easily-discredited complainants are the prosecution’s best evidence of victims — given the large pool of women who had sex with Ghomeshi. Being a celebrity in the entertainment industry, Ghomeshi probably has had sex with over 3,000 different women – many of these women were probably rougher, kinkier and more promiscuous than he is.
    Women looking for sexual flings are looking for ‘bad boys’. Yes, yes… most women profess to want a nice, charming gentleman (“All of the complainants were taken by Ghomeshi…the “perfect gentleman” and “charming” “). But what most women really desire to do – by their actual choices and actions – is to flirt with, date and have mind-blowing sex with ‘bad boys’. Women are willing to compete for confident men who: are assertive; exude power and control; are dominant; are good talkers; are exciting; have a busy dating life; are secure; are sure of themselves (e.g., have the guts to go for the first kiss); are mysterious and unpredictable; are indifferent and hard to please; etc.
    Driven by their competitive instincts, women willingly behave in unladylike ways to compete (against other women) for the bad boys. No wonder the three complainants were attracted to Ghomeshi like flies to honey, and then proactively tried to seduce him for sexual flings before and after the unproven assaults – even when he lost interest in them. When they invest so much to snare a prize like Ghomeshi, some scorned women can become vindictive.
    Those in denial about what women really want should search for “Why Do Girls Like Bad Boys?” and “Why women can’t resist bad boys” and “Why women love bad boys: People with pathological traits have a better chance of finding love, claims study” and “Why women love bad boys, according to science” and “There’s a Scientific Reason Women Like Bad Boys, So You Can Tell Your Mom To Get Off Your Case Already” and “Science Reveals Why Women Like Bad Boys“ and “Why do nice girls fall for bad boys?” and “12 Brutally Honest Reasons Why Nice Guys Just Don’t Get The Girl” and “Why Girls Never Want Nice Guys — And Why It’s Too Late When They Do” and “Why Women Fall For Jerks” etc.
    Close-minded feminists, victim advocates and journalists do not comprise “everyone”. It is hubris for them to believe it. So it is not true that “everyone” was primed to opportunistically use the Ghomeshi trial in order to train a spotlight on the ‘deep flaws’ within the Canadian criminal justice system’s treatment of sexual assault.
    I suspect a valid and objective poll will show that most ordinary Canadians had a more open mind because they logically saw it as a sexual assault trial involving one celebrity – instead of opportunistically morphing this trial into an avatar for how Canada’s justice system’s deals with ALL sexual assaults in a deeply flawed way.
    The Canadian public had to screen out the intense ‘brainwashing’ by the pro-feminist mainstream news media which, for over a year, inundated news channels with poorly-investigated stories and pro-victim commentary as well as silenced dissenting voices by prohibiting public comments (except for Macleans, which should be cheered for having the integrity to allow the comments here). All the old news articles from fall 2014 (e.g., “Jian Ghomeshi: How he got away with it”) read like an alternate reality in the context of the proven truths just revealed at this trial.
    This is why the primary blame for the fallout goes to the opportunistic mainstream news media, especially Toronto Star (Jesse Brown and Kevin Donovan) and the CBC, whose relatively one-sided reporting and commentaries sensationalized the allegations (against Ghomeshi) into a monster and ‘brainwashed’ a lynch mob’s mindset into some of the public.

    • A profoundly ignorant and sexist diatribe.

      • Keep it civil. You are attacking the messenger with profoundly abusive remarks. Did you resort to this because you lack the factual, logical and principled arguments to back your claim and rebut my message?

        In her article “Feminist chickens come home to roost at the Ghomeshi trial”, NP 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. And it is precisely this temptation, and this human weakness, that… ideology-based, double-standards proposition would encourage… if (a feminist) 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.”

        In any criminal case, some accusers turn out to be false accusers who resort to lies and misinformation in their sworn testimony to navigate the legal system towards their desired judgment. There have been calls for false accusers to be considered predators and charged with perjury for wasting tax dollars and public resources There should not be double standards for one special class of assault complainants. Search You Tube for “Lucy DeCoutere, The Face of False Accusers” on February 8.

        Our sexual assault justice system is biased against and unfair to men. It’s come to a point where men might have to use audio, video or third-party surveillance to make and keep a permanent record of the evidence/truth pertaining to their interactions with women in order to protect themselves from vindictive false accusers. Perhaps men will have to use a national registry of female predators to check and screen any woman who is seducing him for a sexual fling.

        Britain has seen the negative consequences of going the way demanded by Canadian feminists of Canada. The Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said 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 (search for “Suspected sex offenders have rights the police must respect” in the Guardian, “Bernard Hogan-Howe is right: justice for victims of rape demands the truth” in the Independent, “Met police may end policy of automatic belief of sex abuse complaints” in the Guardian, and “It’s not the police’s job to believe victims” in the Secret Barrister). Commissioner Hogan-Howe suggested 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.

        Search You Tube for “Blatchford: Ghomeshi closings – a wonderful day for justice” on February 12; Karen Straughan’s analysis on Jian Ghomeshi on February 13, 2016 (start at 2 mins); Feminism LOL’s “The Truth About Jian Ghomeshi” on February 14, 2016 and also “Jian Ghomeshi: The collusion to destroy his life” on February 7, 2016.

        • “Keep it civil.” Followed by more another long and sexist rant.

          Snort

          • If you don’t like a long post, why do you keep returning to read more? Since you are unable or unwilling to debate rationally, use your common sense: don’t read what I post, stop taking cheap shots, and move on.

            DeCoutere’s lies and misinformation discredit her claim that she was naïve (“she didn’t think her experience qualified as sexual assault: “I thought you had to be broken and raped” “). It is disingenuous to pretend DeCoutere does not understand sexual assault and consent given she is a former air force captain, highly educated as well as a professional actress who worked in the promiscuous entertainment industry. How can someone who does not have a “basic understanding” of sexual assault and consent seek to be the public face of sexual assault victims?

            Yes, the three complainants are certainly partly to blame for their discredited claims. Though their testimony is evidence, their testimony must be believed by the judge in order to support a conviction. Each complainant surely understood the “common-sense rules” of what they needed to tell the police and court. It is plausible their transgressions of the rules were calculated since, after all, as Barbara Kay observes, “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”. The complainants’ litany of actions and comments just don’t add up. The complainants had the monumental bravery to jump fearlessly into the media limelight – instead of opting “to brave the system and report” in the protection, quiet and privacy of a police station. Kingston explains this dissonance with an incredulous rationalization: “because problems in the prosecution of sexual assault are so well known” (as if babbling to the media could change that). The aforementioned Barbara Kay’s insight seems more plausible: “the media circus that actress Lucy (“I love your hands!”) DeCoutere encouraged and wallowed with delight in, and which did so much to further her image of traumatized, immaculate victimhood.”

            So did they flout the common-sense rules due to lack of guidance and naivete? All complainants are educated, mature and experienced enough to know exactly what they were choosing to do. All three were coached, advised and/or supported by the massive resources of the Crown prosecution, Toronto police, Halifax police, feminist/victim lobbies and advocates, and mainstream news media – as well as by their own personal lawyers and publicists in the case of the two most-discredited complainants.

            However, no amount of “rigorous pretrial interviewing by both Crown and police” can compel any complainant to disclose emails and other information they do not want to reveal. These complainants wrongly presumed that (a) their dubious stories would continue to be given the benefit of doubt and (b) no hard evidence of the truth existed after 13 years.

            Instead of contemplating wasting more tax dollars on a complainant’s lawyer and special sexual crimes court – which will only pervert the truth and justice even further – the simple solution is to treat sexual assault complainants the same as other complainants when it comes to telling the truth and playing by the rules. Complainants who commit perjury must be charged with the crime of perjury. This is not a game as lives and reputations are at stake.

            On the other hand, what if the complainants had disclosed all the “gotcha” moments” long before the trial (there are probably other gotcha moments not yet revealed by the defense)? It’s likely the police or prosecution would have realized the case was dubious or weak, therefore withdrawn or stayed the charges – in other words, this case would never have made it to trial.

            The complainants and cottage industry of feminists and victim’s advocates should thank their lucky stars that Ghomeshi did not testify in the aftermath of the hard evidence and discredited complainants.

            Had Ghomeshi testified, it’s likely he would have built upon the proven story revealed by the hard evidence (originally created by the complainants themselves) as well as added more new hard evidence of his own. For example, perhaps he might have revealed that one complainant, after the alleged assault, did far more on him at her home than just a hand job. Or perhaps another complainant squeezed his genitals too hard, which caused him to bit or slap her. Or perhaps he would submit a photograph of a complainant using a whip on him or doing worse. And so on. The possibilities are limitless. It’s likely Ghomeshi would have been able to offer plausible explanations to counter the allegations he choked, slapped, bit, smothered and/or pulled the hair extensions of any of his accusers – as well as further revealed the agenda of his accusers.

          • I was merely laughing at your suggestion that I be the one to keep it civil, after you posted a long sexist woman hating rant.

            It is not that hard.

          • Gayle1, gosh, you keep coming back to read more of my charming ‘bad boy’ posts. Now I have to keep a permanent record of this thread to protect myself in case you get vindictive and make false accusations of ‘sexist assault without consent’ in 20 media interviews and to the quisling police.

            But first, I suggest you find out the meaning of some words (“civil”, “profoundly ignorant”, “sexist”, ‘diatribe”, “rant”, “woman hating”) before you misuse them in your cheap attacks.

            And second, if you stop snorting (do you mean cocaine?) in your replies, eventually you might also be able to stop hiding behind the ‘sexism shield’ smokescreen to evade addressing the realities of horny adults looking for risky sexual flings with other horny adults (this case has wasted society’s precious tax dollars and public resources).

            And third, ponder on insights, such as…

            Reid Rusonik: “In defence of rigorous sexual assault defences” .

            John Snobelen: “Public plays jury in Ghomeshi case”.

            Christie Blatchford: “Defence team a contrast to over-delicate view of women around Ghomeshi trial” and “The Ghomeshi sex-assault case started falling apart right from the start” and “With third accuser on stand, Ghomeshi trial enters unsettling new territory” .

            Margaret Wente: “The biggest losers in the Ghomeshi debacle” and “The Ghomeshi trial turns into a fiasco” .

            Michele Mandel: “Ghomeshi defence confronts critics in closing statement” and “Trailer Park Boys co-star not much help to Ghomeshi case” and “Ghomeshi’s fortunes have turned” and “Bombshells from Ghomeshi defence” .

            Boris Bytensky: “Acquittal would be just result in Ghomeshi case” .

            Friedman: “The numbers contradict Ghomeshi case rhetoric” .

            I wanted to add an educational You Tube video (“The Ins and Outs of BDSM – The Ghomeshi Files”) but this may not be appropriate for you IF your feminist sisters have assigned you “the role of a child who is incapable of assuming moral agency in her relationships”.

            And don’t forget to read The Engineer’s post below.

        • WHEN It Comes To Sexual Assault, “The System Demands Men To Prove A Negative”, Especially If There Is NO EVIDENCE Beyond What The Women Allege, As Is Evident In This Fiasco Of A Trial.

          AS With Each Passing Day, It Became More Clear That The “Prime Victim” In That Court Room Was Indeed Mr. Ghomeshi As Ms. Henein Held The Complainants To Account One-By-One Without Allowing The Usual Suspects To Embark On Lynching Her For Badgering The Witnesses.

          AND It Is Evident By Now That These Women Are Devious, Vicious And Malicious Sexual Predators AND If It Wasn’t For Rape Shield Law, Which Camouflages Their Sexual History And Character, They Would Be Exposed FULLY For Who They Really Are; As At This Point We Are Only Seeing The Tip Of The Iceberg.

          IN FACT “IF” Ms. Kingston Is Serious About “A Conversation Post Mortem” As She Has Suggested In One Of Her Many Emotional Videos On This Circus; It Should Be Titled: “WHY The Women Should NOT Do What Lucy (“I love your hands!”) DeCoutere Did”.

          UNFORTUNATELY The Feminist Movement(s) Have Degenerated Into “Incurable Sociopathic Sexist Jihadism” As Barbara Kay Finds With Some Highly Educated Feminists “Advocating Murdering The Men While They Are Asleep In Self-defense”!???

          ON A “Positive & Hopeful Note”, I Am Optimistic That “Mr. Ghomeshi’s Wrongful Media Lynching” Would Serve As A Wake-Up Call And A Watershed Moment With The Feminist Movement(s) That Men & Women Are In This Together And Would End This Notion Of “Indiscriminate Feminist Victimhood” Once And For All That Has Destroyed So Many Lives & Relationships Alike.

  18. Regardless of possible Not Guilty… The justice system may exist for sexually abused victims. This trial is a huge lesson for victims do’s and don’ts. These witness, post event, with accused, behaved in ultimate stupidity AFTER clear instruction from the police. However, we will forget the trial, the judge, the witnesses,the lawyers, but the nation will remember a very nasty little fellow who was.

  19. “WHEN It Comes To Sexual Assault, “The System Demands Men To Prove A Negative”, Especially If There Is NO EVIDENCE Beyond What The Women Allege, As Is Evident In This Fiasco Of A Trial.”

    Well, excuse me for questioning your vast and endless legal knowledge (evidenced by your need to capitalize every second word), but it is apparent that you require more lessons in this area. Though I am impressed you finally understand that testimony is evidence, so good for you!

    Here is the thing – in this trial the accused did not testify. He did not have to testify. He did not even call evidence. You know why? (Brace yourself, because I am about to discuss basic legal principles here). He did not have to testify because the accused does not have to prove anything.

    If, as you suggest, he has to prove his innocence, then why did he not take the stand and do so? Why did he not go under oath and tell the world he did not do these things?

    The answer is readily apparent to those of us who understand basic legal principles. One may assume he did not testify because he is in fact guilty, however he cannot be convicted on that basis.

    That is your legal lesson for today.

    • THIS IS A Brilliantly Revealing Case Of Bigotry: ” The answer is readily apparent to those of us who understand basic legal principles. One may assume he did not testify because he is in fact guilty, however he cannot be convicted on that basis”!???

      HERE Are My Thoughts On “BASIC LEGAL PRINCIPLES” Which You Claim To Be An Expert In!???

      I. IN Our Social Contract, EVERYONE IS DEEMED INNOCENT TILL PROVEN OTHERWISE.

      II. IN OUR JURISPRUDENCE, AN ALLEGATION IS NOT AN ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TILL IT IS TESTED IN COURT.

      III. THE Burden Of Proof Is On The Accusers And NOT The Defendants.

      IV. THE Three Complainants Must Be Charged For “Collusion & Perjury” In Order For Justice To Be Served.

      Mr. Ghomeshi Did Not Testify, Because There Was No Need As Fortunately With The Body Of Real/Factual/Defensible Evidence That Was Accumulated By The Defence As Opposed To The “Fabricated Allegations” Made By Your Heroes, It Would Have Amounted To Badgering The Women Who Lied, Conspired And Launched a Malicious Criminal Case Against The Defendant.

      NOW Back To Your Mastery Of “Basic Legal Principles” And That How YOU Can Claim ANY Credibility, When Confronted By Allegations Of Three Women Who Are Proven Serial Liars In Court And Dare To Discount Over 5000 Pieces Of Defensible Evidence.

      IF Anyone Should Have Been Called To Testify, It Should Have Been The “Lucy D.’s Publicist” And How On Earth ANY “Real Victim Of SA” Will Go And Seek Advise/Direction From A Publicist And Collude With Another Witness To Do The Same Using The Same Publicist!???

      SOMETHING That I Hope The Honorable Judge Would Address In His Deliberations And Instruct The Crown To Expedite The Truth.

      AND Finally, I Sincerely Hope That You Are NOT A Legal Counsel To ANYONE Interested In Fair & Honorable Delivery Of Justice.

      AND ON THAT NOTE, I WISH YOU A PLEASANT SUNDAY.

      • I wonder if you are aware that you have just contradicted your original post, and agreed with mine.

        • REALLY!???

          MY Only Reaction To Your Unwarranted Self-Indulgent Celebration Is: “Stay Away From Sharp Objects”.

          • First you claim he had to prove his innocence. And then when I said that if he had to prove his innocence he would have had to testify. Since he did NOT have to testify, as I point out numerous times, he also did not have to prove his innocence. An argument you clearly agree with. So thanks!

      • By the way, there is no charge of “collusion”, and given your vast legal knowledge it surprises me that you should think otherwise.

        Mr. Ghomshi has options. He can certainly sue. Of course, if he does that he will have to testify, so I would not bet on that happening.

        • YOU Are A Funny Girl, And I Don’t Mean That As A Compliment….

          YOU See What Happens When YOU Climb The “Tree Of Ignorance & Arrogance”, Now YOU Don’t Know How To Get Down.

          I Suggest YOU Lock Up YOUR “Feminist Jihadist Handbook” And Throw The Key Away.

          AND Find Yourself Some Other Hobbies Than Stalking People On The Internet.

          AND Above All, “Learn How To Live & Let Live”.

          • I take it from your failure to even attempt to rebut my point that you concede it.

    • The answer is readily apparent to those of us who understand basic legal principles. One may assume he did not testify because he is in fact guilty, however he cannot be convicted on that basis.

      That is your legal lesson for today.

      Here’s yours:

      Any person charged with an offence has the right…
      (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against …(himself) …in respect of the offence;
      (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal

      Notwithstanding your professed skill in legal matters, I won’t assume you know what the above is excerpted from, so here’s a hint – it starts with a capital “C”. The excerpt supports the proposition that an accused asserting his right not to testify against himself if eventually acquitted is not “…in fact guilty”, regardless of whatever “one may assume” about his guilt.

      As a public service, it would be helpful for you to reveal the jurisdiction within which express your understanding of basic legal principles, as lawyers practicing therein can reasonably expect a liability premium increase at some point during your tenure.

      • Apparently you are unaware that you have just agreed with me.

        From my comment you quoted above:

        “he cannot be convicted on that basis”

        As in – he has a right not to testify so his failure to do so cannot be used to convict him.

        There is no legal rule that says the general public cannot look at the fact he refused to take the stand and deny the allegations under oath as evidence that he did, in fact, commit the acts alleged.

        • Unsurprisingly, you are oblivious to your mental tic that sees you repeatedly use the word “guilty” to describe someone found innocent in a court of law. There are, in fact, legal rules that frown upon doing this.

          • And if I used the term in the context of a conviction, you would be correct. But I am not, so you are wrong.

            Next!

          • Considering the preponderance of your posts is to bestow us all with your sage understanding of the criminal justice system, the actual context of your usage is not to be found. A better explanation is “cognitive dissonance”, a malady also afflicting the PM that answered your dreams.

          • Actually, I was pretty clear on the context for anyone with basic English language skills.

  20. Anne Kingston’s repeated support for people who falsely accuse men of rape and assault damages real victims. People like her care only about the narrative they have constructed and are more than happy to see innocent men caged.

    I believe that in the decades to come, Mrs Kingston and her ilk will be held up to scrutiny and viciously ridiculed for their hateful views and actions.

  21. “Now I have to keep a permanent record of this thread to protect myself in case you get vindictive and make false accusations of ‘sexist assault without consent’ in 20 media interviews and to the quisling police.”

    An interesting point. You believe, based on my taking issue with your bigotry, that you need to protect yourself and save this thread.

    It makes me wonder, then, why Ghomeshi found it necessary to retain emails he received 13 years ago, from someone who was clearly NOT accusing him of anything in those emails. Why, then, did he feel he needed to keep them? Is it possible that he felt he had to protect himself in case future allegations were made about something that was not in those emails? Or maybe men routinely save emails from women they dated one or two times over a decade ago.

    • Satire is lost on you :)

      You are not “taking issue with” my viewpoints at all.

      You evaded debating the issues I brought up by resorting to ‘name-calling’ to smear my viewpoints. Name-calling fallacy means labeling my viewpoints/arguments with emotionally-loaded, negative terms (e.g., “bigotry”, “sexism”, “woman hating”) without providing further explanation. You have resorted to name calling in order to influence readers to summarily dismiss my viewpoints on the basis of your negative symbol rather than by examining my arguments and evidence.

      What’s amusing is that your constant attempts to silence and dismiss opposing viewpoints (that are different from your own mindset) smacks of bigotry. Bigotry is stubborn and complete intolerance of any opinion, belief or creed that differs from one’s own.

      If the truth and justice had really mattered to you, you would have been happy that Ghomeshi had the emails to provide hard evidence of what really happened. But you don’t seem happy that the truth was proven to be on his side, so now you are cynically attacking why he protected the truth.

      Your speculation “Ghomeshi found it necessary to retain emails he received 13 years ago” is your convenient speculation to fit your stubborn prejudices pertaining to Ghomeshi. You have no proof that he intentionally retained these specific emails. Perhaps a digital forensics firm was hired to find the emails (even deleted emails can often be recovered by a digital forensics firm, read “Ghomeshi emails reveal growing importance of ‘digital debris’ to trials”). Or perhaps Ghomeshi had the good habit or obsession of backing up everything (from work to personal) on his hard drive onto an external storage device or diskettes. Or perhaps he kept his old computers in his storage room because he was too lazy to throw them away. Or perhaps he left his old computers at an ex-girlfriend’s home and she kept it for him, hoping he would return.

      • Oh, I know you were attempting something in the nature of satire. It just raised an interesting issue. Of course, we know he had the old emails. How he came to have them is speculation on your part.

        In any event, I have have learned there is no point “debating” someone who clings to such utter nonsensical sexist dogma. Clearly you have no interest in facts or reasoned debate.

        • There’s a difference between knowing and understanding (and not just when it comes to satire).

          For example, your speculation “of course we know he had the old emails” is your way of side-stepping to avoid addressing your original speculation that Ghomeshi intentionally kept the emails for implied nefarious reasons (“Ghomeshi found it necessary to retain emails he received 13 years ago, from someone who was clearly NOT accusing him of anything in those emails”). The truth is you don’t know whether or not Ghomeshi had the emails (e.g., digital forensics might have been used to recover the emails from deletions or CBC’s storage) – you’re just assuming he always had the emails. To question your speculations, I merely offered several plausible explanations of how the emails might have been found even if Ghomeshi had not retained the emails and even if he had kept the emails for another purpose.

          Nice try yourself. Those emails do provide hard proof of “what really happened” in significant parts of the real, actual interactions (between these sets of horny people who had sexual flings) that the judge will find relevant to determining judgment in this court case. Furthermore, an open-minded person would consider that the alleged sexual assaults might never have happened at all – the allegations could all be just lies created by the accusers, just as other parts of their testimony have been found.

          You keep name-calling my posts as “sexist” (“utter nonsensical sexist dogma”) obviously because you have no productive argument’s to refute what I posted.

          You even smeared as “sexist rant” my quotes from Barbara Kay (“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. And it is precisely this temptation, and this human weakness, that… ideology-based, double-standards proposition would encourage… if (a feminist) 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… “the media circus that actress Lucy (“I love your hands!”) DeCoutere encouraged and wallowed with delight in, and which did so much to further her image of traumatized, immaculate victimhood.”)

          If you really believe in your principles, are you willing go into a small locked room with Barbara Kay (columnist and mother of the managing editor of the National Post) – and call Ms. Kay “sexist” to her face? Let’s see how long your mindset survives a real person with wisdom and rationality.

          • Women can be sexist too. You have quoted from a few of them.

            Someone who operates on the premise that women who continue to date their abuser must be lying about being abused is sufficient for me to label you sexist.

      • PS – those emails did not prove what “really happened”. Nice try though.

        • It’s a delusion of grandeur to believe you are the final arbiter on what and who is sexist (whenever it contradicts your ideology and bigotry).

          Now put your money where your mouth is, and prove your claim: “Someone who operates on the premise that women who continue to date their abuser MUST BE lying about being abused is sufficient for me to label you sexist.”

          First, exactly when did Barbara Kay explicitly say this? Barbara Kay was clear: “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.” You must be imaging this wise woman spewed an absolute (all women lie about abuse all the time) — when she did not. It’s obvious she meant some women have lied about abuse and some women will continue to lie.

          Second, explain your proposition to demonstrate you actually understand it: why do you presume that horny women must always be telling the truth about their accusations of abuse during their transient sexual flings with horny men — whenever the horny women return (or seek to return) for additional casual sexual flings with horny men?

          • I was talking about you, not Barbara Kay.

          • IN MY VIEW, Ms. Heinen HAS More Damaging Evidence and she kept her Powder Dry as the three Complainants Royally Self-destructed when Confronted with Objective Discovery (IN essence she is a Good Sport and decided not to engage in Scorch-The-Earth Practice).

            OUR RESIDENT JIHADIST is way out to lunch as calling the Defendant to Testify is the “Nuclear Option” that proved to be Unnecessary.

            AS I wrote before, the Testimony and the email Transactions between the Publicist, Lucy D. and Complainant 3 are crucial to establish the sequence of events and who else was involved in trying to Destroy Mr. Ghomeshi.

            AND I wouldn’t be surprised that the Defence already has or is planning to have access to the subject email trails so to establish the clear lines of accountability in the event Mr. Ghomeshi elects to seek Justice and bring those responsible for this Fiasco to face the Music.

  22. Despite the court room wrangling the perp has been found reprehensible in the media. The word more public than ever of his terrible and unacceptable behaviour and he is living with that “public sentiment” over and over again.

  23. pardon my bad flow and typing I’m brain-damaged

    The above article only serves to facilitate mass moral panic and the popularization of unethical opinions.

    Colluding and lies to make a sexual assault accusation is illegal. The resulting damage of one such accusation is so totally immoral and destructive in a he said she said scenario because they typically have no physical evidence of injury and primarily rest on opposing emotional narrativized testimonies and the subjective judgment of the presiding judicial officials.

    Portraying the Ghomeshi trial in this way delegitimizes victims of very violent crimes with lasting physical damage.

    For example, the carjacking and coma inducing pipe beating attempted murder, I endured. Broadcast by many news outlets (CBC, breakfast television, the sun, etc.) it was being framed by police as “unsolved gay sex in a car parking lot”.

    Instead of believing the victim that it was “street gang drug-related attempted murder,” I was forced to take a 6-hour polygraph-lie-detection-test to prove I was telling the truth and that I wasn’t out to have gay sex in my car with the people that put me in a coma…

    Did these women have to do a polygraph test to prove their victimhood in these cases?

    I am not gay and have never had gay sex, and my attempted murder was because of drugs and expensive cars. However, in the past I had a young woman with severe mental disorders (only partially diagnosed at the time) accuse me of a variety of wonderfully false things the morning she got fired from her job.

    I was poor and couldn’t afford a lawyer, and trusted the police. I interviewed without any legal representation. When I got a lawyer, I realized I was being charged with, 25+, years worth, of crimes including a few formerly capital crimes I would have hung for 100 years ago.

    I was completely mentally broken at this point from stress, had been put in jail unlawfully, and emotionally destroyed. How could the police be siding with such an uneducated and downright immoral person while I told the truth? Why was I being victimized while I was innocent?

    I plead out as quickly as I could to avoid hard prison time or an insane court trial like Ghomeshi’s. I was totally innocent, and I plead guilty to a crime that couldn’t be physically verified with an injury report and where the accuser was clearly caught lying multiple times on many social media outlets, and in her video testimony.

    The criminal record I incurred from one partially diagnosed mentally ill and particularly malevolent womyn’s selfish lies has effectively put me into the lowest class system of poverty in Toronto, permanently.

    Not only that but when it came to talking to the police about my own completely separate victimization in an entirely unrelated crime I had 100% been the victim in, I was profiled a certain way because of this past legal matter.

    Instead of going on the truthful leads I provided police, my attempted murderers, part of a violent, street-gang got away clean and free.

    The lie detection officer said he had never met a person like me that just was incapable of lying and enjoyed telling the truth in a very measurable polygraphic way.

    Why then is it that when I told police that the crazy chick accusing me of all kinds of heinous crimes was a straight-up liar and provided proof did I have to plead out to avoid a media trial by fire or sex offender registration?

    I’m not here to discuss my particular case in more detail because I find NOW magazine to be quite slanted in this instance. And pending the Ghomeshi trial’s verdict, I might just get out of Canada because there is no point in supporting a society where collusion and lies can trump beyond a reasonable doubt or where emotional crimes are taken more seriously than Murder/Attempted Murder/Aggravated Sexual Assault.

    Rape used to be a capital crime; now the word rape has been so fully deconstructed and appropriated it means something entirely different and often colloquial.

    We are entering a society of micro-aggression sexual assaults and torts.

    These are things better suited for civil court or mediation and not criminal trials.

    When you enter into planned consensual sexual relations with another human being, you must have the resolve and responsibility to understand that communication, and consent, are important but also that your partner is a human, not an object. People cross each other’s lines, push boundaries, and make mistakes. If we police this environment of the bedroom to the point where collusion and lies of multiple women are enough to put a man in prison or force him to a plea bargain to avoid it, we have facilitated creating an injustice system, not a justice system.

    Sociologically this only continues the pattern of victim revictimization that sexual assault activists try to prevent. Just the same way that uneducated pundits want people to believe being proven liars by Ghomeshi’s trial lawyer has victimized these women.

    It hasn’t.

    The real victim here is Ghomeshi and people seem to be missing this key point.

  24. Perjury, collusion and personal lawyers quivering to file lawsuits. That is what went wrong. And the police, under Blair who was planning on running for the Liberals. He saw an opportunity to appear to be a supporter of women who had been abused and maybe earn some Brownie points. Investigation didn’t count. Sad for all those women who really are abused and need help. These three dames are an example of greed and opportunism aided and abetted by too many women with nothing else to do.

  25. OK here’s a thought (I’m not endorsing it, just throwing it out there)>
    Defence lawyers have an obligation not to withhold INCRIMINATING physical evidence and are given all sorts of advice as to how to make sure it makes its way to the Crown in a timely manner. That’s not the case with EXCULPATORY physical evidence. They don’t have to produce that, or can produce in the gotcha fashion that the canoodling pics, the bikini pics, the hand written notes, the E-mails (etc?) were produced in this case. Perhaps there should be reforms regarding the issue of timely disclosure of exculpatory physical evidence in sex assault trials?
    What do you think?