Exclusive: Lucy DeCoutere on the Ghomeshi disaster
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/lifestyle/...n-the-ghomeshi-disaster/ar-BBqSkeK?li=AAggNb9
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/lifestyle/...n-the-ghomeshi-disaster/ar-BBqSkeK?li=AAggNb9
Jian Ghomeshi, well known, well respected radio host fired for Sexual Assault
- Thread starter Snoopster
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
IN IN - Blake Brown, 34, poss. in Marion area, Kokomo, 8 Aug 2024
- Latest: citizen_sleuth
Thank goodness that the law works! I hope this sends a message to complainants in the future that accusing a man of assault is not something to joke about between complainants, and that only the facts count. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but it serves the complainants right for treating sexual assault like a silly game where violating court rulings is the first rule.
What I wish I’d known before testifying in the Ghomeshi trial
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/lifestyle/...g-in-the-ghomeshi-trial/ar-BBqSClb?li=AAggNb9
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/lifestyle/...g-in-the-ghomeshi-trial/ar-BBqSClb?li=AAggNb9
It's shocking that anyone would suggest that the Judge was out of line regarding the verdict. The Judge obviously understands sexual assault, and the law, and, based on law, liars cannot be viewed as reliable witnesses. Had the witnesses been forthcoming and honest, and had they followed the instructions of the courts, the verdict would have been different. There is no excuse for the behaviour of the women, and advocates should not blame the courts for upholding the law while excusing dishonest, disrespectful women on the basis that "assault victims are allowed to be dishonest and disrespectful".
I'm not going to read the article, as I suspect that the witnesses are now blaming the courts for their mistakes, but I will say that I sure hope what the witnesses wish they had known that when the courts make an order to prevent collusion, witnesses need to respect that order. Furthermore, I hope the witnesses wish they had known that it's not okay to withhold information and lie under oath.
That's true, so that witness is also tainted. The prosecution has to think carefully before going forward with the trial in June because, based on today's ruling, there's a very good chance that the next trial will have the same result - especially if the testimony given to prosecutors is in any different from what will be testified to at trial.
If prosecutors drop charges for the fourth victim, Ghomeshi will go forward with his $15 million lawsuit against the CBC.
Thanks. I have now read the article. It explains that reporting a criminal incident to police is exactly that, and that providing police with a formal, signed statement means that whatever is contained in that statement better be comprehensive, complete, and accurate. Yes, that is something that everyone should know. In fact, witnesses are required to sign a statement, prior to the statement being accepted, that everything that they have provided in a statement is complete and accurate. There's no room for "maybe", or "I imagine" in a police statement.
The car was not yellow, but she imagined it was. That's a problem. Isn't she also the woman who had sexual activity with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault? That's a problem, and it has nothing to do with being nervous in court, or spilling her guts at the police station. It has to do with the willful and deliberate omission of crucial facts.
Additionally, the article explains that testifying in court can be stressful. Let's look at it this way. There's an interview style where you are presented with 60 questions in 60 minutes, and the interviewee has 1 minute to answer each question. The candidate is assessed on each 1 minute answer. There's no way to prepare for this type of interview, and the only option is to keep one's wits about them, and answer honestly. Attempting to anticipate each question and mentally prepare an answer is impossible, and extremely stressful. In this trial, if the witness was prepared to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, there's no reason for stress. The truth is easy to tell. What most likely caused the witness undue stress was the fact that she had violated the order of the court related to collusion and omitted crucial facts, thus trying to second guess defence questioning and panicking about her precarious position. Violating a court order prior to appearing in court would indeed cause a great deal of stress. Anyone with a clean conscience will not experience anything more than normal anxiety associated with testifying in court.
What this woman really wishes she knew prior to appearing in court is that the court cannot be taken for a fool, and that she, and she alone, is responsible for the false testimony that she gave under oath. She alone is responsible for misleading the justice system, and she alone caused herself unnecessary stress.
It might not show, but I am really disappointed with these women. We all know that what they experienced with Jian Ghomeshi was very likely an assault. If they had acted responsibly, reported the assault, followed the order of the court, and remained truthful, there would have been a conviction. They had a responsibility to themselves, and as the voice of victims of partner violence, to make better choices - especially the air force caption.
Snoopster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2010
- Messages
- 9,211
- Reaction score
- 27,889
otto, I agree with your comments.
I am sadly disappointed with the female accusers. I was ready to be on their side, but I understand why the court didn't rule in their favour. I have difficulty understanding why, if you were abused (not including spouses here), you would reach out and keep in contact with your abuser. I'm not saying that there can't be rational reasons, but to have it happen in three separate cases, I have more difficulty believing that.
I still think Gomeshi is a jerk, but that isn't really relevant here.
I don't believe (in my admittedly limited understanding of the case, based solely on media heresay) the judge had any other verdict he could go with.
I am sadly disappointed with the female accusers. I was ready to be on their side, but I understand why the court didn't rule in their favour. I have difficulty understanding why, if you were abused (not including spouses here), you would reach out and keep in contact with your abuser. I'm not saying that there can't be rational reasons, but to have it happen in three separate cases, I have more difficulty believing that.
I still think Gomeshi is a jerk, but that isn't really relevant here.
I don't believe (in my admittedly limited understanding of the case, based solely on media heresay) the judge had any other verdict he could go with.
Montjoy
Inactive
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 5,230
- Reaction score
- 58
Jesus Christ, do you have absolutely no understanding about how difficult it is for someone to report a rape?
What's with the silly CBC news claiming that the courts were at fault, that dishonest women are a part of the "sexual assault" experience? Clearly there is a problem with the witnesses, and liars should stop wasting taxpayer's money.
I know the difference between a drunken holy schitt we had sex and I was assaulted, yes. Women who were assaulted do not act like "holy schitt we had sex", but that is what these complainants did.
The witnesses claimed that they were raped, and at a later time (immediately and up to 10 years) they had sex with the man they accused of rape.
So, some women had sex with a celebrity creep they met and, after they felt assaulted and were mad at him, they had sex with him again?
WTF?
What role did "celebrity" have in having sex with a sex offender for these women?
WTF?
What role did "celebrity" have in having sex with a sex offender for these women?
Excellent, the CBC has made clear that Ghomeshi cannot sue for 15 million dollars because he violated the employee code of conduct - independent of Jian Ghomeshi's criminal charges. I guess Canada isn't ready for hitting a woman in the head and claiming she likes it - ISIS. That saves the Liberal government 15 million dollars, and stands behind evidence that Ghomeshi beat a woman while he was a CBC employee.
This wasn't rape. It was hair pulling and slapping while kissing. Sex was not involved at all.
There was no sex during the incidents in question. They were making out, that's all, and apparently they were not on the same page.
Some of them apparently did have sex with him, but that was later, some time after these assaults supposedly happened. And in at least one case, the complainant did not consider what happened to be assault at all at the time. It became "assault" later on, presumably after their relationship soured.
I
It doesn't really matter what happened. Today, we have four women who colluded during a criminal trial, lied under oath, violated a court order, and withheld crucial information from the crown. After they were heard at trial, they were found non-credible, and the accused was acquitted.
That's how the law works.
There is no lesson to learn other than: don't try to pool the wool over Canadians. Common sense prevails.