Ghomeshi Trial Begins

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Surprisingly, this isn't in the editorial section, or the funnies; it ran as a straight news piece:

Quote:

With the collapse Monday of the third accuser’s credibility — she might just as well have been wearing a suicide vest, so thoroughly did she blow up — it’s now apparent the case was built upon the self-serving and carefully edited allegations of dishonest complainants, two of whom appear to have been colluding and gleefully anticipating Ghomeshi’s ruination, and raised up on the gossamer wings of unproven allegations in the press and on social media.

Now the trial, merely by continuing to proceed, actually threatens to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-trial-day-6

Considering that the prosecution has had a rough ride of this, why the dire prediction? What are they afraid of that they feel the need to stamp our any consideration that there might be truth to the allegations?

I got banned from this echo-chamber for posting exactly the type of piece you quoted here.  You are apparently going to upset some folks who can't take interventions from the real world. 

It is shitty writing POV. Even as an editorial it is out there. It out-blatchfords blatchford.

It is entirely inappropriate as a news story.

Bringing the administration of justice into disrepute? Give me a break. That is as dumb as the predictions upthread about the prosecution folding up its case, and charges of perjury being laid.

I'll ask it again, given the way this case has gone, why are some going all out to brand it such a threat?

(edit)

Ha! Cross-posted with you k. DIdn't see your blatchford reference.

Yeah, he was a good interviewer.  Just little things that annoyed me about him.  But, as I said, I was surprised by the allegations, so I'm certainly not saying, "I knew it all along!"  He was just that slightly smarmy interviewer who came on after the Current --> turn the radio off, Mr. Special is on again.  And his snub of Brian Eno that I described in a previous post did it for me.  Then the news that he was picking on Lucy and the others.  Good riddance to him.  I preferred Strombo.  I prefer Shad.

I wonder how much JG has invested in PR to turn him from the villain and into the victim.

The average person on the street from my conversations and listening is that if the violence was bad then they would not have continued dating him or communicating with him.

I was not sad to see Monty gone. He was not here to debate.

Misfit wrote:

I wonder how much JG has invested in PR to turn him from the villain and into the victim.

This is why I feel our court system is a business now.

Misfit wrote:

The average person on the street from my conversations and listening is that if the violence was bad then they would not have continued dating him or communicating with him.

Truth be told this is how I feel. 

I also understand that I don't understand anything about sexual assault or the psychology surrounding violence against women (if I'm wording that right?) so my views are biased and uninformed.

Paladin1: I don't know how sincere you are on this thread, but if you are looking for deeper insight into the complexities of women staying in abusive relationships, then I suggest you read Elizabeth Sheehy's book, Defending Battered Women on Trial. There is one chapter in particular dealing directly with the common myth that women can safely leave many abusive relationships. Mark Alfred, earlier in this thread, alluded to the power that JG held in the arts community, and that he had the ability to make and break peoples' careers. This reason alone could explain one reason why these women maintained communication despite having been assaulted by him. A point I tried to bring up earlier is that if these women have a higher tolerance for kinky sex, this does not detract from their right to set limits for their own bodies and what they define as appropriate or not, even if they display behaviours that we do not personally consider logical following an assault.

The Tyee posted a piece that tried to deal with the psychology of abused women and the comments section made my blood boil. So many people are into the victim blaming and believe that if they didn't want it they would never have spoken to him again. Its a really hard prejudice to overcome if you have never been an survivor. I really hope he gets convicted not just because that would be justice despite the unrelenting smear campaign but also because it might cause a particular NP commentator's head to explode

Paladin, it really is important, especially as a parent. Girls are taught to appease after conflict, even in ways that are so indirect that you don't see it happening until you realize the message has been received (I have daughters, too, but mine are teens). Additionally, when something like this happens to you seemingly out of the blue, it's crazy the way your head tries to rationalize or make sense of it. You might not have any idea how traumatic the experience was until much later. The mind does some funny things to protect itself.

I'm surprised at how pessimistic some here are simply because a few journalist jerks like DiManno, Blatchford, and Wente have poo-pooed the case against Ghomeshi.  Of course they have.  It's what they do.  Always.

I'm not at all pessimistic. 

Quote:

[former prosecutor Mike] Huot said expert witnesses to testify on post-trauma behaviour would not likely have been deemed necessary for a trial heard by judge alone, since he would presumably be familiar with the issues at hand and any relevant precedent.

[..]

Huot, meantime, said Crown attorneys familiar with the limits of the system say patterns in witness testimony may outweigh any seeming discrepancies that emerge under cross-examination.

He said Ghomeshi's conduct as described by the witnesses is striking, adding he suspects the consistency in their accounts may be the linchpin of the Crown's case against him.

"I think if you're the Crown, that's the ace in your hole. How probable is it that all three of these women are lying? That's the big hurdle the defence has to overcome."

http://www.windsorstar.com/entertainment/11705769/story.html

Gustave wrote:

MegB wrote:

This is anti-woman and victim-blaming. You clearly have a very limited understanding of the issues around cases of sexual assault and its aftermath. I'm going to ask you to stop commenting in this thread as some of the women here are feeling distressed by your comments.

This sounds like double standard moderation. I have not seen one anti-woman statement in his posts.

Also, I was attacked on my penis size. I'm very triggered by it (what if I had my prostate removed and suffered from erectile problems?). I wonder what would happen if a guy here tryed to make an argument using the size a woman participant's tits.

Have you ever blamed any woman on this forum for all the abuse and bs they throw at men?

Is this forum to become what the skeptics community has become: bleached by political correctness where what, when and how subjects may be discussed is determined by the feelings of some who invoke "triggering" the moment they don't agree with something? If they are distressed by comments here, there is no way they can read the media reports on this trial.

Reading comprehension is really hard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0HZW9JiudY

mark_alfred wrote:

I'm surprised at how pessimistic some here are simply because a few journalist jerks like DiManno, Blatchford, and Wente have poo-pooed the case against Ghomeshi.  Of course they have.  It's what they do.  Always.

I'm not at all pessimistic. 

Quote:

[former prosecutor Mike] Huot said expert witnesses to testify on post-trauma behaviour would not likely have been deemed necessary for a trial heard by judge alone, since he would presumably be familiar with the issues at hand and any relevant precedent.

[..]

Huot, meantime, said Crown attorneys familiar with the limits of the system say patterns in witness testimony may outweigh any seeming discrepancies that emerge under cross-examination.

He said Ghomeshi's conduct as described by the witnesses is striking, adding he suspects the consistency in their accounts may be the linchpin of the Crown's case against him.

"I think if you're the Crown, that's the ace in your hole. How probable is it that all three of these women are lying? That's the big hurdle the defence has to overcome."

http://www.windsorstar.com/entertainment/11705769/story.html

Thanks for that. This comment too is significant:

But Huot also said the abundance of evidence available to Henein could play into prosecution strategy down the line, saying any closing submissions he would make would raise the question of why Ghomeshi felt the need to preserve electronic and hand-written correspondence over more than a decade.

Ghomeshi may have made a mistake going with judge alone. The judge refused to release the bikini picture and has allowed a 4th witness. While some judges are mysogynistic jerks others are keen judges of character not so easily taken in. This is a very high profile case. I'm guessing the justice department was very careful on choosing who would hear it.

It's interesting that Reva Seth is not a part of it as a complainant, given that her story was shared shortly after Lucy's was.  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/reva-seth/reva-seth-jian-ghomeshi_b_6077296...

Came across this from Now Magazine while surfing the web.  Might be useful to some: Where to find support during the Jian Ghomeshi trial -- Daily media coverage and constant social media updates can be triggering for survivors of sexual violence. Here’s where to get help

At the very least I'm hoping that the Canadian public will have a clearer understanding of what is and isn't legal foreplay after the verdict.

The entire editorial is worth reading. But I'll highlight this tidbit at the end.

Quote:

On March 30, Ghomeshi’s lead defence lawyer Marie Henein will be the keynote speaker at a Young Women in Law charity event at the Arcadian Court in Toronto, sponsored by an all-female legal recruiter and four major Toronto law firms. Proceeds of the evening will pay for “work with war-affected communities to help children reclaim their childhood.”

The charity was founded by 10 young women lawyers and helps such lawyers consider career paths, of which “become the men we once detested” is one.

I trust the audience members will be immaculately behaved, unsullied and, above all, silent.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/02/10/dos-and-donts-for-t...

It would seem to me that attorneys, both male and female, regularly represent individuals accused of much more violent or repugnant crimes than Ghomeshi.

I mean it's not like an attorney who represents an accused axe murderer is somehow legitimizing or condoning axe murder.

Quote:

On the other hand, I can't say I haven't wondered how Henein reconciles what she's doing to those witnesses when the day is done.

If I could read Henein's mind, the first thing I'd look into is whether she feels Ghomeshi really is innocent.

She's surely spent considerable time with him, and has access to information that even the court never saw.  So... deep in her heart of hearts, does she think that she's righting a wrong against a good man?  Or does she think (like pretty much everyone else) that he probably did exactly what he's accused of?

There is a way of doing even that difficult job that is ethical.

Pointing out possibleinconsistencies and lies is one thing. Doing everything you can to embarrass and undermine, even regarding things that don't really relate to the core question of guilt? That is over a line, and many people in that profession recognize it for what it is.

Of course, a defense lawyer who isn't willing to do whatever it takes might wind up with very few clients. Certainly not rich.

I know several lawyers who have wrestled with the ethical dilemma inherent in the adversarial system, in that the game isn't primarily about justice, and it can take a toll on those who have a sense of it.

I presume you have a better understanding of this than the rest of us, kropotkin. I just know it second hand, including from someone who quit practicing to teach.

She also defended Michael Bryant.

Actually the closest we have is a healing circle.

I don't have a problem with her taking him as a client. Everyon edeserves a defense, and lawyer who isn't prepared to do that honestly should find another line of work.

When fundamentalists were talking about their right to not recognize marriage equality some of the strongest voices criticizing that were from people like black paramedics who said they would save the lives of racists because that is their job. And to discriminate is to become like THEM.

Her stepping over the line into aggressive cross-examination isn't the same as vetting clients, and whether he instructed her or not, that was her decision.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

She's surely spent considerable time with him, and has access to information that even the court never saw.  So... deep in her heart of hearts, does she think that she's righting a wrong against a good man?  Or does she think (like pretty much everyone else) that he probably did exactly what he's accused of?

I haven't been following the case very closely, but do know the important points.

Henein's main argument seems to  be, how can some of these women have been abused if they came back to their abuser?

And not only came back but asked to be intimate.

Well the literature is strewn with hundreds of cases where abused women do come back to their abusers.

The trial is not about whether or not some of these women returned to Gomeshi, but rather whether he sexually abused them.

It is very possible, even likely that he did sexually abuse them and they did return to him. Does it make his crime less serious?

On another note...

Am I the only one who finds it deplorable that the CBC is not allowing comments on this news story despite it being their number one headline story for over a week now?