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

[otto]

LD knew those emails would come out and is testifying anyway. She isn't hiding behind a fake twitter account and putting her name out there. He did what he did and she never asked for it. Her flowers and messages could be seen as ironic IMO.

I don't think she expected that the love letter, emails, and photos would be introduced by the defence. She did not provide that information to the crown, so she probably assumed that the information from 2003-04 was long gone. The Crown was caught completely off guard by the lack of disclosure from Lucy.

 

[otto]

While she recalled vivid details of the incident when questioned by a Crown prosecutor, Henein accused DeCoutere of omitting key details when talking to the police. Now she says she’s revealed new details as recently as Thursday.

Henein asked why DeCoutere hadn’t told police about some emails she exchanged with Ghomeshi after she alleges he assaulted her, noting the actress only disclosed them to the Crown on Thursday, after the first complainant to testify at the trial was confronted with her own emails to Ghomeshi sent 18 months after her separate alleged assaults.

“I didn’t understand the importance of after-contact incidents,” DeCoutere explained.

http://www.citynews.ca/2016/02/05/t...ss-hot-seat-ghomeshi-trial-racy-emails-photo/

I don't believe for a moment that she didn't think her after-contact incidents were relevant. It looks like she withheld that information with the belief that Ghomeshi would no longer have the love letter, the photos, or the emails. She gambled and lost.

 

[otto]

Actually no she didn't know they would be revealed.

The defense lawyer trapped her into testifying before the Judge that she had "absolutely no contact" with Ghomeshi after the alleged assaults, and then produced the emails that DeCoutere had not told the police or Crown about and had just denied in court only moments before. It was a bombshell admission in the courtroom.

In short, she lied and she knew she was lying. Her explanations are trying to cover up for her lies to the court. What else can she say after being caught in the lies ?

She has a Masters Degree in Education, is a Captain in the Air Force, and is financially independent. She is an intelligent and aggressive woman............make no mistake about that.

She knew exactly what she was doing, and emailed a friend she was looking forward to court as "great theatre". She thought she could act her way through it.

To me, it looks like she is the jilted lover and social climber who got angry with Ghomeshi's indifference to her and decided to join in the trial to get even with him.

There is still another complainant in this trial and Ghomeshi faces another trial in the future. I am not saying he didn't commit an assault on anyone, just that I don't believe he did on DeCoutere.

I have nothing against sending abusive men to prison, but we should do everything we can to make sure they are guilty first.

If evidence and credibility don't matter, we might as well dispense with courts and trials and just have the police arrest the accused and drive them straight to prison.

Nicely put! If convicted, Ghomeshi could spend the rest of his life in prison, and that should not happen if there are any questions about the credibility of the witnesses. The first witness also lied about contact with Ghomeshi after the alleged incident. She sent him a string bikini photo - presumably an attempt at seduction. He ignored her. It's not enough for these women to come forward years after the fact, change the facts to suit their agenda, and as a result a man loses his life. The first witness mentioned hair extensions, then no hair extensions. She told one person that Ghomeshi slammed her head into the car window, and another that when he pulled her hair (extensions or not?), her head touched the window. She said that he was driving his yellow volkswagon, but he didn't buy the volkswagon until 3 months after the alleged assault. There's no room for embellishments in a trial like this. At this time, both witnesses have given evidence that has been refuted by fact.

 

[dotr]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...efence+puts+extreme+focus/11702949/story.html

The primary purpose of drawing out details during testimony is to discredit the witnesses. Daniel Brown, a Toronto lawyer specializing in sexual assault cases, says that the inconsistencies in a witness’s story undermine the reliability of all of her evidence.

It’s hard for the judge to separate what’s truthful with what’s false,” says Brown, explaining that the inconsistencies may make it impossible for the judge to accept a woman’s evidence as strong enough to convict, even if she may be truthful about the assault, due to the fact that she has lied about so many other things.

Is there a way to prove a sexual assault occurred without such a vigorous cross-examination of the witness?

“This is one of those cases that only relies on the credibility of the witnesses,” says Brown, noting there is no forensic evidence, third-party witness or confession. “All we have is the word of the witnesses.”

Grant says in many other crimes, in which it’s one person’s word against another’s, the same questions are not asked.

Take a simple assault, she says. “We wouldn’t start questioning the victim about whether or not he likes being punched in the face. Was he dressed in a way that would invite punching in the face? Did he talk to the person after he was punched in the face?

“If you think about these arguments in other crimes, you start to see how absurd it is.”

 

[otto]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...efence+puts+extreme+focus/11702949/story.html

When a witness lies, or misleads the court, about anything during courtroom testimony, credibility is destroyed. That is true of all witnesses, not only those who allege assault. I feel for these women in terms of how horrified they must have felt when Ghomeshi momentarily flipped from the charming celebrity to a violent offender, but I don't understand why they withheld crucial information from the prosecutor. If the prosecutor had been given all the facts, he/she could have managed the information, and perhaps not filed charges at all.

Alternatively, is it possible that the prosecution knew that these witnesses were weak, but they want to set the stage for the real trial, which is the single women who will testify in a separate trial? Is her case different because she did not pursue a sexual relationship with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault?

 

[Ardy]

I think that experienced crime/court reporter Christie Blatchford pretty well sums it up.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...rote-to-ghomeshi-after-she-says-he-choked-her

So far, it looks like a conviction on any of the charges related to the first two witnesses is very improbable. One witness to appear on Monday, although there is some speculation that the Crown announcement of further discovery they have to decipher and release to the defense over the weekend, may involve the last witness and she may not be appearing if her credibility is in question.

We shall see what happens on Monday.

 

[Crosby87]

In addition to sending Jian Ghomeshi emails and flowers, Lucy DeCoutere hand wrote and sent JG a six-page love letter dated July 9, 2003, five days after Ghomeshi allegedly choked and slapped her. When she penned it, she was back home in Halifax, safe and sound.

When Marie Henien asked Lucy DeCoutere if she remembered the love letter she wrote and sent Jian; after viewing the original document she was handed, Lucy said she didn’t remember writing it but admitted it was her handwriting.

<snipped>

It began with an ode to old-fashioned letters, and then told the tale of their &#8216;relationship,&#8217; from first spotting him at a Banff conference, his popularity, her trip to Toronto just to see him, and, a few lines without any noticeable irony, &#8220;We hooked up for dinner and you totally knocked me out. No wonder I couldn&#8217;t eat anything. You scared the hell out of me. Either because you were reading my mind or asking me to read it for you.

&#8220;I mean, really, what on Earth could be better than lying with you listening to music & having peace. Nothing.&#8221;

On and on it went. &#8220;I loved spending time with you this weekend. You are hilarious. And I really loved seeing you becoming progressively more relaxed (with) me.&#8221;

DeCoutere concluded, &#8220;Jian. You&#8217;re great. And I want to know more, have more easy times with you because it is so very rare &#8212; right?&#8230; I am sad we didn&#8217;t spend the night together.&#8221;

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...rote-to-ghomeshi-after-she-says-he-choked-her

 

[Woodland]

Have to admit to being stumped on the post behavior of these first 2 witnesses, until this article from this morning -

Strongly negative or traumatic experiences are processed and encoded through a distinct neural pathway that filters out "peripheral details," says University of Waterloo cognitive psychologist Myra Fernandes.

The more fear or stress that's generated, the more amplified the filtering effect becomes, especially during experiences that threaten our survival.

The brain locks "on the central aspects of the experience at the expense of the peripheral details," she explains. "The gist is maintained but many of the details are lost.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/trauma-brain-memory-neuroscience-1.3431059

The study may not explain all the behavior here, but it did help open my eyes to some of it - hope it will do the same for any detractors not fully aware of human behavior.

I do believe an assault was committed on both witnesses by JG - how to label that or put a number on it with what has been presented - idk. Imo, the outcome will be - to have helped put a stop to these assaults. I wish they had spoken up sooner - but that doesn't happen for many reasons as well.

Fwiw, not a fan of the CB article in the National Post linked in post #426. CB demeaned LC for no reason that I can decipher. CB's point is lost on me - the only thing I remember about CB (since she doesn't mind personal opinions of others being thrown around) is, her apology to another woman she publicly bashed many years ago. This other woman was the mother of a murdered 6 year-old in Toronto. CB didn't like her behavior either, until this mother committed suicide following the conviction of her daughters murderer. Did not feel CB was all that sincere at the time of her apology - this article shows me that instinct was correct. Is CB writing what CB really thinks or the men she reports to? Idk.

 

[Ardy]

Trauma suffered..........yes, but that doesn't explain all the lying to the police and Crown attorneys. Those people were on the women's side.

Each of them was represented by their own capable lawyers. Did they tell their trusted lawyers all the details ? Did their lawyers reveal the information to the police ?

I also question the application of the psychology, since in almost all cases of domestic violence, there is a strict ban applied on contact between the victim and perpetrator.

So it seems to me this doesn't happen as often as some "experts" are suggesting......unless a lot of women are violating court orders to send letters, emails and having dates with the perpetrators.

 

[Ardy]

The tragedy is that this case has done nothing productive towards shining a light on abuse.

It has rather given support to the "spurned woman" theory, which is counterproductive to reducing the abuse.

 

[dotr]

Have to admit to being stumped on the post behavior of these first 2 witnesses, until this article from this morning -

Strongly negative or traumatic experiences are processed and encoded through a distinct neural pathway that filters out "peripheral details," says University of Waterloo cognitive psychologist Myra Fernandes.

The more fear or stress that's generated, the more amplified the filtering effect becomes, especially during experiences that threaten our survival.

The brain locks "on the central aspects of the experience at the expense of the peripheral details," she explains. "The gist is maintained but many of the details are lost.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/trauma-brain-memory-neuroscience-1.3431059

The study may not explain all the behavior here, but it did help open my eyes to some of it - hope it will do the same for any detractors not fully aware of human behavior.

I do believe an assault was committed on both witnesses by JG - how to label that or put a number on it with what has been presented - idk. Imo, the outcome will be - to have helped put a stop to these assaults. I wish they had spoken up sooner - but that doesn't happen for many reasons as well.

Fwiw, not a fan of the CB article in the National Post linked in post #426. CB demeaned LC for no reason that I can decipher. CB's point is lost on me - the only thing I remember about CB (since she doesn't mind personal opinions of others being thrown around) is, her apology to another woman she publicly bashed many years ago. This other woman was the mother of a murdered 6 year-old in Toronto. CB didn't like her behavior either, until this mother committed suicide following the conviction of her daughters murderer. Did not feel CB was all that sincere at the time of her apology - this article shows me that instinct was correct. Is CB writing what CB really thinks or the men she reports to? Idk.

Thinking the comments about murdered child Andrea Atkinson's Mother, were actually written not by CB, but Rosie DM.imo.

“

It’s so easy to ridicule people,” says DiManno. “But you don’t make fun of losers. It was funny, but it wasn’t ridiculous. Here was a man heading for defeat, and he was going to fight till the last minute. These are admirable qualities.”

Who could have foreseen this forgiving slant on a piece by the writer whose coverage of the funeral of a murdered child aroused public fury for its alleged ruthlessness

http://rrj.ca/taking-on-toronto/

 

[Woodland]

Thinking the comments about murdered child Andrea Atkinson's Mother, were actually written not by CB, but Rosie DM.imo.

&#8220;[/B]
http://rrj.ca/taking-on-toronto/

This is definitely not the apology article I remember but it is the AA case. Will try and find it now that you have reminded me of the little girls name.

 

[Woodland]

Trauma suffered..........yes, but that doesn't explain all the lying to the police and Crown attorneys. Those people were on the women's side.

Each of them was represented by their own capable lawyers. Did they tell their trusted lawyers all the details ? Did their lawyers reveal the information to the police ?

I also question the application of the psychology, since in almost all cases of domestic violence, there is a strict ban applied on contact between the victim and perpetrator.

So it seems to me this doesn't happen as often as some "experts" are suggesting......unless a lot of women are violating court orders to send letters, emails and having dates with the perpetrators.

With all due respect - I don't think you absorbed the article with the use of 'domestic violence', 'a ban on contact' and 'lying'. Two out of three are outright not applicable - the third is what the study is trying to tell the reader. Jmo.

 

[Woodland]

Thinking the comments about murdered child Andrea Atkinson's Mother, were actually written not by CB, but Rosie DM.imo.

&#8220;[/B]
http://rrj.ca/taking-on-toronto/

On 14 Aug 1996 (two days after the suicide of AA's mother RW) RDi had zero sympathy for RW in an article in the Toronto Star on page A7. Brutal imo. The apology definitely came from CB but I do not know which paper she wrote for at that time.

 

[Ardy]

These psychologists and others are espousing theories and claims out of court, where they don't matter for much.

Why is the Crown not bringing some of them into the courtroom as expert witnesses ?

 

[matou]

Pretty impressive that Jian kept letters from 2003 and emails from that far back from women he hit. I wonder if it was to reminisce or to save his azz? JMO

 

[Woodland]

These psychologists and others are espousing theories and claims out of court, where they don't matter for much.

Why is the Crown not bringing some of them into the courtroom as expert witnesses ?

Fwiw, when a so-called head doctor gets up on the stand and espouses rhetoric on the mind and thinking of a specific person at a specific time, I'm usually not a fan of what is said. I don't believe that is possible.

On the other hand, when a study is presented outside of court, encompassing the behavior of many people, or many people in a certain situation, I pay more attention and give it more credibility.

Which is the case here - more credibility in that the study does not address the first two witnesses specifically in this case. It addresses the brain activity in those in a traumatic situation.

Feel free to discredit what is said in the study and apply it as you see fit.

 

[matou]

I wonder what he did with all his videos of him with his consenting and non-consenting partners? Did he ditch those? Somehow I believe those must be kicking around somewhere. JMO

 

[matou]

http://canadalandshow.com/article/why-did-jian-ghomeshi-keep-lucy-decouteres-letter

 

[Woodland]

Fwiw, JG kept those letters and pics for his own protection imo. He knew what he was doing was wrong and that it might bite him some day. Jmo.