Jian Ghomeshi, well known, well respected radio host fired for Sexual Assault

[Crosby87]

Charlie Angus: Jian Ghomeshi's Trial Is About Him, Not The Women

An NDP MP has taken to Facebook to share the lessons he's learned from the trial of Jian Ghomeshi, a man he has known for 25 years and now sees as a predator.

Charlie Angus' post — now going viral — highlights how Ghomeshi's defence lawyer has called into question the credibility of the three women behind the sex assault allegations against the disgraced former CBC Radio host.

The Ontario MP suggested it is an example of how the legal system fails women.

"Nobody close to Jian even pretends he is innocent, and somehow this isn't an issue — the women are," Angus wrote.

Charlie Angus: 15 hours ago

"I have known Jian Ghomeshi casually for 25 plus years. What did I learn from the trial? 1) That a woman who remembers being beaten is not considered credible because she didn't know the make of his car. 2) That famous people can afford lawyers known as "Hannibal Lecter" for their ability to take sexual assault witnesses apart. 3) That Jian won't bother to refute any of the charges because as some law expert says: "There are many reasons why an accused elects not to call evidence. One of them is that the complainants have been destroyed in cross-examination.'' 4) That Jian flourished as a predator in what should have been the safest organization in the country and that the legal system continues to fail women and 5) that nobody close to Jian even pretends he is innocent, and somehow this isn't an issue -- the women are."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/11/charlie-angus-jian-ghomeshi-facebook_n_9208488.html

 

[Crosby87]

The trial resumed at the Old City Hall courthouse in Toronto at 10 a.m. Thursday morning.

The prosecution will begin its closing arguments today in the Jian Ghomeshi trial, summarizing the testimony of the three women who allege the former CBC Radio host sexually assaulted them more than 10 years ago.

Defence lawyer Marie Henein told the court Wednesday that she's also prepared to present her closing arguments, but it's unclear how long Crown attorney Michael Callaghan will need.

Ghomeshi, 48, of Toronto, has pleaded not guilty to four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking connected to incidents alleged to have occurred in 2002 and 2003. The accused will not testify.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ghomeshi-trial-1.3442848

 

[dotr]

http://www.cp24.com/news/consider-t...hi-crown-says-in-closing-submission-1.2773436
Consider 'totality' of evidence against Ghomeshi, Crown says in closing submission

The judge presiding over the Jian Ghomeshi sex assault trial should focus on the totality of the evidence rather than inconsistencies in the testimonies of the three women who pressed charges against him, the Crown said in its closing submissions Thursday.

Crown Attorney Michael Callaghan went over the testimony from three women who testified that the former CBC radio host had become violent with them during intimate encounters.

All three witnesses have never wavered in the fact that a sexual assault took place, Callaghan said.

“When you look at the totality of evidence, you will see beyond a reasonable doubt the truth about the allegations,” he said as he wrapped up his closing arguments.

Callaghan on Thursday blamed inherently fallible memories and understandable embarrassment from people who had suffered a traumatic experience.

The defence is expected to begin their closing arguments this afternoon

rbbm.

 

[Ardy]

The Crown's summation offered not one shred of evidence that a crime took place.

No pictures, no police report, no hospital report, no witnesses. The whole trial came down to the credibility of the witnesses and unfortunately they have none left.

The Crown summation can be summed up.....Ignore everything that happened in the court this week. The complainants said it happened so Ghomeshi is guilty.

Now it is the defense turn at summation, and they have exposed the onerous extent of constant lies and collusion among all 3 complainants. They lied, lied and lied again.

Did MP Angus follow any of this trial at all ?

Perhaps he agrees with the Crown and the protesters. Women never lie and men must be punished.

 

[Ardy]

Henein has taken over the defense summation and isn't mincing any words...........

Henein says that evidence should not just come out when it's forced -- "the court should not be a game of chicken" -- and that the testimony must be credible and reliable.
by Laura Fraser 12:35 PM

"So the relevance here is not, 'How do we expect people to behave?', the relevance is that you, as a witness said this is what I did and the evidence shows that was a lie."
by Laura Fraser 12:34 PM

"The truth was not told in examination in chief in this case," Henein says.
by Laura Fraser 12:33 PM

Henein: We know -- "and this is not news" -- that women will continue to spend time with their abusers.

But, in this case, the issue is that these women tried to corroborate their evidence of the assault by saying they did not continue relationships with Ghomeshi, Henein says.

"And that was untrue."
by Laura Fraser 12:31 PM

What's most troubling would be the fact that all three complainants withheld information from the police and, "more troubling" the courts, Henein says.

"That the truth and portions of it are only to emerge only when these complainants knew they would be confronted with objective evidence," she said. "And were it not discovered independently then were not going to hear the truth on Feb. 2, or Feb. 4th or at all."

 

[Ardy]

The issues is that these witness have "reserved the authority for themselves" about what's relevant and when and what they disclose, she said.

And they have only done so when been confronted with their own words contradicting previous evidence, Henein says.
by Laura Fraser 12:44 PM

The first complainant did not forget that she had emailed the accused, Henein says. Nor did DeCoutere forget she continued to have romantic feelings for Ghomeshi.

Nor, Henein says, did the final complainant forget that she invited the accused to her home after a dinner.
by Laura Fraser 12:43 PM

"There is not an expert who [would] testify that perjury is indicative of trauma."
by Laura Fraser 12:42 PM

"The way that people are traumatized in long-term relationships has nothing to do with [DeCoutere] and her dishonesty under oath," she said.

It's very different than a case in which a woman has a long-term relationship with someone, or financial dependence on someone.

 

[Ardy]

Henein rests her case.
by Laura Fraser 12:47 PM

Henein says that although this case has attracted a great deal of attention and generated "strong public emotion," but it's the court's purpose to ensure that fairness presides.

"The evidence in this courtroom falls so far short" of proving the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, she said. "It is our submissions that Mr. Ghomeshi is not guilty on all counts and should be acquitted."
by Laura Fraser 12:47 PM
Permalink

"The greatest legal engine for discovery of the truth is a trial," Henein says. "Witnesses testify, their arguments are tested, sometimes it is believed, sometimes it is not, but it's [assessed] by an impartial judge."
by Laura Fraser 12:45 PM

It is all up to the Judge now, but I don't see any way in Hades there will be a conviction........JMO

The Judge will render a decision on March 24.

 

[Ardy]

The NDP and some activists sometimes have some strange priorities and beliefs.

On Facebook, Douglas Elliott, a prominent gay rights lawyer, argued Hawkes might only be facing charges because his accuser was too young to consent legally at the time, thanks to discriminatory laws. And gross indecency “was the law under which Oscar Wilde was convicted,” he observed.

“The police and prosecutors are consciously or unconsciously carrying on the shameful centuries old legacy of using the criminal law to target gay men,” Elliott wrote. Yet he freely admitted he had no idea how old the victim was. In 2014, former Maple Leaf Gardens usher Gordon Stuckless was convicted of two counts of gross indecency for abusing children far too young theoretically to consent. No one argued it was persecutory.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...weigh-in-twitter-justice-is-no-justice-at-all

 

[Crosby87]

Henein says DeCoutere's testimony related to one of the charges — overcome resistance by choking — doesn't meet the elements of the offence, since she testified that she was not resisting when Ghomeshi was allegedly choking her.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/ghome...arch-24/ar-BBpnwsk?li=AAggNb9#image=BBoJDiJ|8

 

[dotr]

Wonder what is next for JG and LD when all of this is over?

If indeed the case was held together by the flimsiest of evidence, the outcome practically a slam-dunk for the defendant ect, ect...
why did G hire such an expensive, high profile, top-drawer lawyer?
Wouldn't "any old " lawyer do?
speculation, imo.

 

[Ardy]

Well you know what they say, and it is true...........there is a justice system for the rich and a different justice system for the poor.

Without a good lawyer, most of the evidence of lies and collaboration would never have seen the light of day. The women certainly didn't intend to reveal it and the Crown didn't know it existed.

 

[Crosby87]

Jian’s second trial is set for June of this year and at some point he will have to deal with his dismissal from CBC.

Even if the Judge finds Jian Ghomeshi “not guilty”, thanks to the trial, women now know what he’s like, and this information will enable them to decide before they date him, whether they want to accept his invitation or say no. Now they know what may happen should they say yes.

Due to the trial, women have a choice they didn’t have before so imo, the trial served an important purpose and Justice was served. This trial was not a waste of tax payers money imo.

It’s extremely difficult to trust a man who said he openly discussed his desire to have rough sex with the women he dated and he had their consent when all of the victims that came forward said he didn’t ask and they had no idea he was into rough sex.

Some witnesses said Jian became a different person when he assaulted them so he might not be able to control himself and there is a chance he will do it again if he 'can't help it'.

Reva Seth, who met Ghomeshi in 2002, claims the pair 'kissed' a few times before the 47-year-old became 'a different person, super angry, almost frenzied and disassociated'.

Ghomeshi has plenty of money and Henein, who holds a reputation for being rigorous and well-prepared in the courtroom, has a number of high-profile wins to her name. She is best known for representing former attorney general Michael Bryant, and more recently, the 27-year-old woman accused of assault for tossing a beverage at Mayor Rob Ford at the Taste of Little Italy festival in 2013.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...fended_exattorney_general_michael_bryant.html

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...homeshi-abused-hand-throat.html#ixzz3ztXjqCFF

 

[otto]

Charlie Angus: Jian Ghomeshi's Trial Is About Him, Not The Women

An NDP MP has taken to Facebook to share the lessons he's learned from the trial of Jian Ghomeshi, a man he has known for 25 years and now sees as a predator.

Charlie Angus' post — now going viral — highlights how Ghomeshi's defence lawyer has called into question the credibility of the three women behind the sex assault allegations against the disgraced former CBC Radio host.

The Ontario MP suggested it is an example of how the legal system fails women.

"Nobody close to Jian even pretends he is innocent, and somehow this isn't an issue — the women are," Angus wrote.

Charlie Angus: 15 hours ago

"I have known Jian Ghomeshi casually for 25 plus years. What did I learn from the trial? 1) That a woman who remembers being beaten is not considered credible because she didn't know the make of his car. 2) That famous people can afford lawyers known as "Hannibal Lecter" for their ability to take sexual assault witnesses apart. 3) That Jian won't bother to refute any of the charges because as some law expert says: "There are many reasons why an accused elects not to call evidence. One of them is that the complainants have been destroyed in cross-examination.'' 4) That Jian flourished as a predator in what should have been the safest organization in the country and that the legal system continues to fail women and 5) that nobody close to Jian even pretends he is innocent, and somehow this isn't an issue -- the women are."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/11/charlie-angus-jian-ghomeshi-facebook_n_9208488.html

I completely disagree with not only the opinion, but the fact that a politician thinks it's his place to comment on the pending decisions of the courts. Angus should stay out of matters that are before the courts, and he should not imply that Ghomeshi is guilty regardless of the pending court decision.

 

[otto]

The Crown's summation offered not one shred of evidence that a crime took place.

No pictures, no police report, no hospital report, no witnesses. The whole trial came down to the credibility of the witnesses and unfortunately they have none left.

The Crown summation can be summed up.....Ignore everything that happened in the court this week. The complainants said it happened so Ghomeshi is guilty.

Now it is the defense turn at summation, and they have exposed the onerous extent of constant lies and collusion among all 3 complainants. They lied, lied and lied again.

Did MP Angus follow any of this trial at all ?

Perhaps he agrees with the Crown and the protesters. Women never lie and men must be punished.

I'm surprised that the Crown did not have the dignity to withdraw charges. How can it be argued that The People want to find the truth when the voice of the people is resounding deceit and manipulation?

People want to make Ghomeshi the face of spousal/domestic abuse even though this trial has nothing to do with domestic abuse, and Ghomeshi was little more than a acquaintance with the witnesses. It's truly unfortunate that some women, including very well educated women, remain in domestic abuse relationships (sometimes for years), but those battles have to be fought one by one, not en masse against a celebrity who was charged with assault on the basis of false testimony.

 

[otto]

The verdict is due in six(6) weeks.

 

[Ardy]

I am not convinced the prosecutor lived up to his reputation of being a truth seeker in this trial.

Christie Blatchford said the police and Crown were led around by their noses by the complainants............and it certainly looked like an apt description.

 

[otto]

I am not convinced the prosecutor lived up to his reputation of being a truth seeker in this trial.

Christie Blatchford said the police and Crown were led around by their noses by the complainants............and it certainly looked like an apt description.

Between NDP politicians inciting media opinions on pending court cases, The Crown representing The People (of Canada) with manipulative, dishonest celebrity groupies, Blatchford unforgiving, Ghomeshi's lawyer necessary for the lazy Toronto Police force and ... more lawyers should follow in the same footsteps while politicians stay out of the courts.

Good to know that Canada has journalists who tell it like it is with some degree of humour and insight.

 

[Tugela]

Henein says DeCoutere's testimony related to one of the charges — overcome resistance by choking — doesn't meet the elements of the offence, since she testified that she was not resisting when Ghomeshi was allegedly choking her.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/ghome...arch-24/ar-BBpnwsk?li=AAggNb9#image=BBoJDiJ|8

The law regarding that particular charge requires intent, which in this case would be intent to overcome resistance. In other words, what Henein is saying is that because she was not resisting him at the time, he could not have been attempting to overcome resistance, hence the charge does not meet the standard set forth in the legislation.

 

[Tugela]

Wonder what is next for JG and LD when all of this is over?

If indeed the case was held together by the flimsiest of evidence, the outcome practically a slam-dunk for the defendant ect, ect...
why did G hire such an expensive, high profile, top-drawer lawyer?
Wouldn't "any old " lawyer do?
speculation, imo.

When it comes to potentially spending a long time in prison, "any old" lawyer will not do. You want the best you can afford.

 

[Tugela]

Jian’s second trial is set for June of this year and at some point he will have to deal with his dismissal from CBC.

Even if the Judge finds Jian Ghomeshi “not guilty”, thanks to the trial, women now know what he’s like, and this information will enable them to decide before they date him, whether they want to accept his invitation or say no. Now they know what may happen should they say yes.

Due to the trial, women have a choice they didn’t have before so imo, the trial served an important purpose and Justice was served. This trial was not a waste of tax payers money imo.

It’s extremely difficult to trust a man who said he openly discussed his desire to have rough sex with the women he dated and he had their consent when all of the victims that came forward said he didn’t ask and they had no idea he was into rough sex.

Some witnesses said Jian became a different person when he assaulted them so he might not be able to control himself and there is a chance he will do it again if he 'can't help it'.

Reva Seth, who met Ghomeshi in 2002, claims the pair 'kissed' a few times before the 47-year-old became 'a different person, super angry, almost frenzied and disassociated'.

Ghomeshi has plenty of money and Henein, who holds a reputation for being rigorous and well-prepared in the courtroom, has a number of high-profile wins to her name. She is best known for representing former attorney general Michael Bryant, and more recently, the 27-year-old woman accused of assault for tossing a beverage at Mayor Rob Ford at the Taste of Little Italy festival in 2013.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...fended_exattorney_general_michael_bryant.html

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...homeshi-abused-hand-throat.html#ixzz3ztXjqCFF

That is not really much of an argument since they dated him again afterwards, and even engaged in sexual activities (the allegations he is currently accused of did not involve sex - apparently they were kissing at the time).

So they already knew what he was like (supposedly).

I am totally confused by all of this. If you go on a date with someone, and when you are kissing them they suddenly start punching or strangling you, why on earth would you see them again??? At the time all of this happened, he was not a celebrity, he was a nobody. They were not beholden or committed to him, he didn't have any power over them, so why do it?