It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


CBC Sex Scandal: Ghomeshi's Choice

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 08:49 AM
Jian Ghomeshi has chosen an attorney to defend him if charges are laid against him in connection with alleged assaults connected to sexual liaisons in which he participated. I'm not sure he has made the right choice. The attorney in question is Marie Henein, who is highly regarded, we are told, in Toronto legal circles.

She is certainly a looker.

According to the Toronto Star she made a joking reference to the Ghomeshi case at a dinner attended by numerous lawyers and judges not long ago, presumably before she had been engaged to represent Mr. Ghomeshi.

“As criminal lawyers we represent people who have committed heinous acts. Acts of violence. Acts of depravity. Acts of cruelty. Or as Jian Ghomeshi likes to call it, foreplay,” Henein said at a gala on Oct. 29 to big laughs from the crowd of about 450 lawyers, including judges of both the provincial and superior court where his case might be heard if charges are laid.

The Star article includes an endorsement from former Attorney General, Michael Bryant:

In 2010, she got all charges dropped against Michael Bryant, including criminal negligence causing death, after bike courier Darcy Allan Sheppard died. In his book, the former attorney-general of Ontario heaped praise on the “finest barrister I ever met.”

She “seemed to channel Hannibal Lecter,” Bryant wrote in his 2012 book, 28 Seconds. “So able was she to find a person’s deepest frailties and exploit them.”

I'm not sure that getting Bryant off was quite the achievement it is being made out to be, but I think I do know why this would be portrayed by the Ontario Establishment as a Herculean task. People who are wondering about how hard Ms. Henein had to work to accomplish that "miracle" might want to check out my thread, Bizarre Dragging Death in Toronto at the following link:

I think Ghomeshi's ego is getting the better of him in his choice of lawyers. She has already made one joke in public that has led me, at least, to believe that she thinks her client is guilty. Now, she has a good record of getting people I think were guilty, off, but I don't remember reading about jokes on the subject of these clients being cracked by her, in public, in front of an assembly of judges.

If I were Ghomeshi, I would be worried about that, particularly if his trial is not conducted in front of a jury. However the trial is conducted, it is bound to be "technical". That situation favors a trial by judge alone. To me, this begs the question, is Ghomeshi an "establishment" favorite. I should say "no". There is every indication that the establishment intends to hang him out to dry.

Is a judge, or jury for that matter, hearing this case, likely to be thinking, "This very smart lawyer believes her client is guilty and is trying to pull the wool over my eyes."? I would be thinking that very thing.

Ghomeshi's press coverage is precisely the opposite of the coverage that the former Attorney General received. Ghomeshi should not delude himself. He is not an "insider" in Toronto. The "establishment" is giving every indication of wanting to make an example of him and score cheap points with the public.

Also, the linked Star article is full of praise for Henein, perhaps too full. My spider senses are tingling. Before Bryant went to trial, in camera, in the imported (from B.C.) Crown Prosecutor's office, the press was full of the elaborate lengths to which the Ontario legal establishment was going, to make sure that Bryant did not get a soft ride. We all know how that turned out.

If I were Ghomeshi, I would be very tempted to hire another attorney, on the sly, to keep a careful eye on Henein. When the visiting "crown from out of town" didn't file "failure to remain" charges in the Bryant case, the handwriting was on the wall, but Darcy Allen Sheppard's lawyer wasn't in court to object.

edit on 6-11-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 09:36 AM
I don't think her joke sounds like she believes he is guilty. He can admit to acting violently, but if it was in the context of consensual s&m "play" then that violence is foreplay.

One could interpret the joke as saying "context matters"... She'll have to establish consent, of course.

Anyway, she is likely just as sleazy and ego-driven as her client. I'm sure everyone is excited to get a future book deal out if this.

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 10:20 AM
a reply to: VegHead

I see your point but I hope Ghomeshi is taking things more seriously than that.

I think she is drawing attention, in her joke, to the difference between "heinous acts" and "foreplay". The mere fact that everyone laughed at the joke indicates to me that merely calling something foreplay would not be a defense to a charge of assault, no matter what the context. There are complainants in the case after all. Even if consent were acknowledged, which it has not been, a complainant could say that her assailant "went too far".

posted on Nov, 6 2014 @ 10:58 AM
Please add to existing thread.

edit on 11/6/2014 by yeahright because: (no reason given)

top topics

log in