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.


Toronto: The Ghomeshi Trial

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 04:12 PM
I think the average person reading about what Jian Ghomeshi is alleged to have done to women in his life has an image of him in action which might be roughly like the clip from Cape Fear, linked below. WARNING GRAPHIC: Robert De Niro beating and eating Illeana Douglas

The descriptions of activities that he has been charged with are mild in comparison. Did any of the people charging him have to seek medical treatment as a result of an assault by Ghomeshi?

Here is another question. How many charges in this first trial were laid after the normal period of time in which such charges should be laid? What are the technical calculations involved (by both prosecution and defense) in electing to proceed "summarily" with these charges, rather than by indictment?

Could these charges be seen as a way of getting otherwise inadmissible evidence before the court?

If only one charge, that of "choking, overcome resistance" from a 2014 incident had been filed, what would the prospects of successful prosecution be?

These questions are all speculative. I haven't seen the "Information" (which is the formal statement of what all of the charges are.) I am relying on newspaper accounts.

There is a tremendous amount at stake in this trial, both for Mr. Ghomeshi and for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and for the individuals who have laid the charges and, some say, for women in general. This is a very important trial.

edit on 1-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:47 PM
a reply to: ipsedixit

Maybe I'll go in disguise. I have experimented with a blond bouffant wig and women's clothing. With the appropriate application of makeup I could pass convincingly for a combination of David Ferrie and Jada Conforte.

You are killing me LOL .Yea go ,please . Listening to as it happens tonight I get the impression that the lawyer is no slouch and is probably causing discomfort on the other side of this case ,CBC included . But I think it will boil down to the Judge and his level of the system and law . He will need to be very sharp in this case as the defence is going to move this in a direction that will not bode well for the victims . First day gives a half point to defence . I am glad it is getting the spotlight as it will bring out the best everyone can muster . End of the day may not have served justice as sometimes if the glove doesn't fit they end up acquitting . We shall see ....peace

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:47 AM
The front page of The Star this morning is the sort of thing one might expect from Pravda during the Cold War, if Nikita Khrushchev had been defending Lavrenti Beria.

The lumpen proletariat are to be convinced of one thing above all, if they believe nothing else, and that is that Cohmraid Krushchoff is providing a strong defense for that perverted polecat Beria, a defense that he doesn't deserve because Beria is a perverted polecat, as has been shown over and over in the pages of Pravda, and there is nothing wrong with the administration of justice in Russia because Cohmraid Kruschoff is providing a strong defense for that swine Beria, because he, Kruschoff, is the best attorney in all of the Soviet Union, as Pravda has repeated over and over again so each and every cohmraid whether he carries a hammer or whether he carries a sickle knows this as well as knowing that the justice system in the Soviet Union is without peer and is giving even a polecat like Beria the very best defense, which he doesn't deserve, as all regular Pravda readers know, but we are giving it to him because that's the way a great justice system like ours operates. Beria will be executed on Tuesday.

edit on 2-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 09:40 AM
Disclaimer: ATS (this website) is devoted to discussing things in general, mainly from a "conspiratorial" point of view. The discussions are speculative. They are hypothetical. Often they could be seen as "kitchen table rants". There is a lot of, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it is actually a duck".

These discussions are meant to be stimulating and thought provoking. They are not intended to libel anyone. They may suggest conclusions, but usually these conclusions are based on incomplete data and are therefore not completely reliable.

They tend not to account for human error. They tend to read the sequence of events as logical and choreographed, rather than random. They rule out the role of coincidence in life. They often rule out simple incompetence.

Theories expressed on ATS are therefore something of an art form.

They are expected to have the nature of mathematical proof. They are somewhat divorced from life, but sometimes they are very life like, which is why they are so fascinating.

They are almost a species of artificial intelligence. Some might consider them cobbled together nonsense.

With that caveat in mind, let me tell you what my "cobbled together nonsense" is with regard to this court case.

I think that people in the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services office have decided to make sure that Jian Ghomeshi is convicted of at least one of the offenses with which he is charged.

There is nothing too strange about wanting to convict an alleged perpetrator.

Ideally, one would want justice to be done, to the letter of the law. Impartially. But do we always do that?

As a side note, it is interesting to me that the Minister's title has been changed from Solicitor General 1795-2002, a strictly law based appellation, first to Minister of Public Safety and Security in 2002 (after the 9/11 "incident" in New York) and finally to Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services in 2003.

I don't want to bore people to death but I see this as bit of a demotion for the law itself. Officers of the court are in court to serve the law, not the community, not the corporations, not the stakeholders, not the foreign policy of an increasingly divagational ally, not the consequences of any particular verdict.

The statutes of the land are designed to do those other things. The proceedings of the courts are meant to deliver verdicts based on law only. Justice,in my opinion, is meant to be blind to everything but statute and precedent.

Of course, practically speaking, human judgment enters the picture at many points along the road. More to come.

edit on 2-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 03:31 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Here's an update on the lawsuit from Wikipedia:

Ghomeshi filed a $55 million lawsuit against the CBC, alleging that the broadcaster misused "personal and confidential information provided to it in confidence".[61] He also filed "a union grievance alleging wrongful dismissal and defamation,"[62] and stated through his lawyer that he "does not engage in non-consensual role play or sex and any suggestion of the contrary is defamatory."[63] Ghomeshi withdrew his lawsuit on November 25, 2014.[64] The terms of settlement stipulated that Ghomeshi will pay the CBC $18,000 in legal costs.[64]

It is hard to know what to make of this. He turned himself in to police the day after withdrawing the lawsuit. If withdrawing the lawsuit was the result of advice from his attorney, I think the advice was very good. Unfortunately the strategic damage may already have been done. From the day he filed suit his potential to cause a lot of trouble was obvious.

Stick handling around "the situation" in such a way for him to save his career at CBC and for CBC to save an important asset was no longer possible.

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 04:47 PM
A thing that struck me as being very peculiar about this case when it first came up was a statement from the Toronto Metropolitan Police Department that it had been investigating Jian Ghomeshi before any complaints had been made to the police about him.

The investigation was initiated on the basis of credible reports in the media of people complaining about being abused by Jian Ghomeshi. Two experienced officers were assigned to the case, on speculation, so that in the event that complainants came forward the police would have people at the ready. Then an appeal to media outlets was made for them to instruct complainants how to come forward to the police or to Victim's Services Toronto.

I suppose this could be called pro-active policing and showing initiative on the part of the police inspector who made the call.

Sticking your neck out might be another term for it.

From the press conference given by Inspector Joanna Beaven-Desjardins on November 1, 2014, 25 days before Mr. Ghomeshi was charged by police:

Question: "How frustrating was it for the police to have seen all these stories in the media and not have a complainant and not be able to move forward with the investigation?"

Answer: "You know, I don't think it was frustrating. I think it was, uh, it was an opportunity for it to be brought to the forefront in our society um, and the way that our community gathered around it, and they had, they were disgusted by it and knew that something had to be done. It allowed the victims, alleged victims, to come forward and get their story out. Um, and then they ah, I think perhaps the way that the community reacted allowed them to feel more confident to come forward to us, so I don't take it as frustrating at all."

The complete press conference:

According to Wikipedia,

the investigation began on October 31, 2014. By November 26 police were confident enough in the stories of three women, to lay charges, four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking.

In January of 2015 three more charges of sexual assault were laid as a result of complaints from three more women.

Mr. Ghomeshi's attorney, Marie Henein, announced his intention to plead not guilty to all charges.

On the face of it, it looks like a great day for community policing. Inspector Beaven-Desjardins is to be congratulated.

It is a little troubling that this seems to be an anomaly in Toronto policing. It is an odd case.

It is not unheard of for representatives of the media to be intermediaries for the police, assisting them in encouraging complainants to come forward, if that is what happened and Inspector Beaven-Desjardins says it, unless I am mistaken.

Should one be looking forward to a "Finger the Posses" rally at the Jane and Finch mall or a "Mop up the Mafia" day in North York?

I don't think these things will happen. My suspicion is that Ghomeshi is special.

The Toronto Star and the CBC published/broadcast anonymous accounts of abuse by Jian Ghomeshi prior to the laying of charges by the police, prior, in fact to the actual beginning of the investigation on October 31, 2014, according to Wikipedia.

One shudders to think what might have happened if the police investigation had found that accusations against Mr. Ghomeshi were not substantial enough to lay charges.

That did not happen. The police were not encouraging complainants to come forward with unbelievable stories. The stories were believable, but are they provable?

edit on 2-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 05:15 PM
. . . and just because I'm such a mush ball under the armor here is a song for all the "little girls" in this story.

edit on 2-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 10:21 AM
When I read the article in the Winnipeg Free Press a couple of days ago, before the trial had started, I felt sick to my stomach.

I believed that I had found the "poisoned pill" that was going to seal Jian Ghomeshi's fate, and save the day for the likes of the CBC and Pravda, er, I mean the Toronto Star and possibly for the Toronto Metropolitan Police Force, who had started to investigate a private individual, who wasn't a known associate of organized crime figures, largely on the basis of gossip reported in the media and who had even had a press conference announcing what they were doing weeks before charges had been laid.

Canadian law recognizes two broad groups of offenses: less serious summary offenses and more serious indictable ones. A third group, which includes sexual assault, are called hybrid in that the prosecution can choose to proceed either summarily or by way of indictment depending on the gravity of the allegations.

"The Crown has elected to proceed summarily on the (sexual assault) counts that are before the court," said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Going the summary route means the prosecution, after looking at exactly what Ghomeshi is alleged to have done, must have been satisfied the sexual assault allegations were not so serious that, if proven against the first-time offender, would warrant punishment more severe than a maximum 18 months.

However, given that the sex charges involve incidents that happened in 2002 and 2003, Ghomeshi's lawyer would have had to agree to the summary proceedings given that charges prosecuted this way must normally be laid within six months of the alleged offense.

On the straight indictable choking charge, Ghomeshi opted for trial in the province's lowest court, the Ontario court of justice.

"Where an accused elects to be tried by a provincial court judge, the accused's trial will be heard and fully completed in the Ontario court of justice," Crawley said.

There are a number of things that can influence legal strategy in any case. In my own case, being of modest means, a prolonged court case would have been a disaster.

I felt that the charge had been brought against me unjustly. I found out that getting witnesses to the court to substantiate that was not easy. People that you consider friends in the work environment, where "the incident" took place, tend to go neutral in disputes involving co-workers. This is the death of a thousand cuts. One sees one's "friends" laughing and talking amiably with one's accuser.

This is when one begins to separate people of integrity, people with "true grit", from people without that quality. It's just the way things are when the least little stress is applied to the facade of hum drum normalcy (an almost poetic coinage, I wish were my own).

At one time I was bitter about it, but I'm not now. I try not to condemn weakness in others. Every person has a story and reasons for why they are the way they are. Adult elephants are kept in place by puny fetters that they learned as babies, were unbreakable.

My lawyer, William B. Horkins, I realize in hindsight, though not at the time, handled my case like Toller Cranston tossing off a triple lutz, or perhaps one might say, a single putz. Time and especially money, being strictures, at the conclusion of my case I had to eat humble pie and accept a peace bond.

I thank my stars I had the good sense to accept it. I was free and clear and absolved of all future legal follow ups that might have been initiated by "the opposition". The opposition were very dangerous, but I can't say anything about that.

More to come.
edit on 3-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:56 AM
I'm one of those people who is fooled easily, a little like George W. Bush, who is famous for saying something like, "Fool me once and I'm fooled once. Fool me twice and I'm fooled again. Fool me three times and I think you're not fooling."

What I think the ex-President was trying to get at is that being fooled starts to not be noticed if it becomes too much of a habit. He says it much better than me, catchier like.

When former Attorney General of Ontario, Michael Bryant, was charged with with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, in 2009, the Attorney General's office was in a pickle.

They had to prosecute a former Attorney General on charges that were laid as a result of an extravagantly lurid sequence of events that had taken place in full view of the public. One would normally expect alleged criminal behavior by an Attorney General, even an ex-Attorney General, to have been conducted discretely.

Given the set of facts available at the time of "the incident" and the grumblings of those who believed that the former Attorney General was already receiving preferential treatment by the authorities, it was beginning to seem as if, even if they did their usual thorough job of handling this sort of case, the appearance among the public might be that a Crown Attorney employed by his former department, prosecuting the former boss, might be giving him an "employee discounted" prosecution.

The Attorney General's office decided therefore, and, by the way, made a big "to do" about it in the media, to engage a Crown Attorney from from Mr. Bryant's home province, British Columbia, to guarantee impartiality.

Bryant was raised in the Greater Victoria area of British Columbia, where his father Ray was mayor of Esquimalt from 1966 to 1969.[5] Known for his "pugnacious streak," he trained as a boxer from childhood.[6]

He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of British Columbia in 1988, and a Master's Degree from the same institution in 1989. Bryant was also a member of the Sigma Chi Fraternity at UBC.[7]

Given the set of facts as they were originally stated in an article in The Star, I'm not sure they need have feared accusations of favoritism, even if it occurred, because a conviction in the case looked completely unavoidable.

I'm sometimes a little harsh on The Star,

and appear to be singling them out for all kinds of journalistic offenses, but that is only because The Star is the paper that lands on the kitchen table every morning to ruin my breakfast.

Actually, an early article on the Bryant incident serves very well to show what Marie Henein, Bryant's, and now Ghomeshi's, lawyer was up against when she took the Bryant case.

This article must have been written before The Star had "adopted a position" on the case. Read it.

More to come.

edit on 4-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:21 PM
I've decided to clam up until the end of the trial.

See you then.

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 04:44 PM
a reply to: ipsedixit

Thanks for your posts on the subject . I don't get the impression its a for gone conclusion even with most of the evidence we have heard . I do think that there is enough believable evidence to get a conviction but to what exactly I am not sure . Like I mentioned earlier that I felt that a lot of it was going to be in the Judges hands because the defence might have been able to plant a few seeds of doubt to some but not all . The judge may not have bought into it and may tell us why later on in his summary . There may be a bit of deal bargaining being attempted by the defence to reduced charges and sentencing ....

posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:09 PM
The trial having ended, I resume.

In the UK it has been decided to re-examine the policy of automatically believing people who come forward with allegations of having been sexually assaulted.

A policy ordering detectives to automatically believe people who claim to have suffered rape or sexual abuse may be dropped, Britain’s top police officer has said, as he battles fierce criticism over his force’s investigations into high-profile figures.

. . . .

Hogan-Howe warns that there would be an “emotional impact” on victims if the policy of automatic belief were dropped and writes: “A good investigator would go and test the accuracy of the allegations and the evidence with an open mind, supporting the complainant through the process.

“This is a more neutral way to begin than saying we should believe victims, and I believe it better describes our impartial mindset.”

. . . .

Operation Midland’s investigation into claims of a VIP paedophile ring abusing and even murdering children at the Dolphin Square housing block near Westminster and other sites was prompted by allegations from a complainant known only as “Nick”. At one point a Met officer described Nick’s account as “credible and true” but the second part of that statement has been withdrawn. No charges have been brought.

Critics say the allegations that saw Lord Bramall investigated were so flimsy as not to warrant criminal investigation and the distress caused. The investigation into the former military chief has been dropped, . . .

We contrast this with the statements made by the initiator of the police investigation of Jian Ghomeshi, Inspector Joanna Beaven-Desjardins at the time of her press conference, 25 days before Mr. Ghomeshi was charged.

“The Toronto Police Service is committed to investigating this matter fully,” Insp. Joanna Beaven-Desjardins, of the Sex Crimes Unit, said Saturday at police headquarters.

However, she cautioned, “at this point, these are allegations.”

Earlier this week, Chief Bill Blair defended the fact police had yet to launch a probe as the accusations against Ghomeshi piled up.

“When these crimes are committed, we need a complainant,” Blair said Thursday. “We need someone to come forward and say, ‘This is what’s happened to me.’”

. . .

Investigators have not yet spoken to Ghomeshi about the accusations.

“We are trying to get all the information from our victims first, so that we have the best evidence to move forward,” Beaven-Desjardins, adding police will “reach out” to Ghomeshi if the probe progresses to the point where cops are ready to lay charges.

. . .

Beaven-Desjardins also urged other women who believe they have been victimized by Ghomeshi to come forward and assured any allegations would be taken seriously regardless of how the passage of time.

“We believe victims when they come in 100%, we are behind them 100%,” she said, adding “it’s beneficial” to the investigation if more women come forward.

The re-examination of the policy of automatically believing accusations of this sort has come in the UK because the people being accused of sex crimes have enough political influence to force London's Metropolitan Police Force to be even handed in dealing with the alleged offenses.

The idea seems to be that names not be named at least until charges are laid, after an investigation, and perhaps not even until a verdict is reached in a case, although it is granted that the press would undoubtedly assert the right, before the court, to publish details of its proceedings.

More to come.
edit on 11-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:29 PM
a reply to: ipsedixit

I want to touch on another seemly policy change that occurred after my experience with the policy of preferential treatment .It had to do with husband and wife in court . At the time the woman was given the benefit of doubt . This actually had a cause of the husband at the time as deemed guilty and the onus was on him to defend himself against the accusations made . This reverse onus approach is Nazi in its concept . (Papers please) ..the situation in policy did eventually turn to a more neutral place . This came about because of the results of applying such a bias on the judges policy . As the policy changed ,so did the judgements to the point that neither the man or the woman got a free pass to make a allegation without providing lots of evidence to support them .

I remember my time in court and can say that I viewed the judge as a large Kangaroo at the ready to pounce .Any objection I had even if correct in a procedure was considered as putting the judge in a awkward position . In my case the judge ignored the law and made it's decision . I say its as a form as disrespect ,not for the station but for the judges judgement and how She chose to do what she ought not to have done .

posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 06:37 PM
a reply to: the2ofusr1

You have my sympathy. A former police detective of my acquaintance, from New York City actually, when I was facing a charge, told me to avoid a trial at all costs, if I could. It's too much of a dice game.

I believe the judge in the Ghomeshi case (Justice Horkins) has said he will render his verdict on March 24th. I'm sure he will be going over everything with a fine tooth comb.

I have read the Star's twitter feed from the summation statements and I intend to make some remarks on that.

Note: Regarding the charge against me, simple assault, I want to say, in fairness to the police and to commend them, that when my accuser attempted to lay the charge, the police refused to accept it. They either did not believe the incident occurred as described or believed that the incident was too trivial to proceed with a criminal charge. It was only through the offices of a Justice of the Peace that my accuser was able to have the charge laid.
edit on 11-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-2-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 04:59 AM
a reply to: ipsedixit

Hi . Something on the news popped up this morning and I thought of you and wanted to pass it along . Its not related to this thread but I thought you might like to chew on it and get the brain juices flowing .

A constitutional case on duality in school busing got underway Tuesday with New Brunswick's chief justice throwing a potential legal curveball at Attorney General Serge Rousselle.

Ernest Drapeau suggested during a procedural hearing that he might require the attorney general to argue both for and against the constitutionality of dual school busing systems.

The provincial government is asking the New Brunswick Court of Appeal to rule whether the dual-education provisions of the Constitution also require two school bus systems — one for English schools and one for French schools.

NB is the only bilingual province in Canada and the language item has always been used as a wedge and a political tool .The Primer said publically relating to this case that he thought the province had to . The French vote is a very important one and its not hard to imagine as to why he would need a bit of teflon in this case :>).

If nothing else it is a good case study in politicking .It is after all the Primer that has been cutting -cutting services in the province sense he got in .

posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 09:19 AM
As a Torontonian observing the Ghomeshi trial and as a member of ATS, a conspiracy oriented discussion forum, my concern was to watch for signs that the trial might not be a fair one.

The accused in this case, Jian Ghomeshi, had filed a $50,000,000 law suit against his former employer, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, related to the circumstances of his dismissal, which came in the wake of public accusations that he had engaged in improper conduct in his sex life.

Other little tidbits, his boorish behavior on the job, his excessive use of cologne and his "sweaty" appearance were added to these accounts as color highlights of a very unflattering picture of Mr. Ghomeshi, presented to the public for weeks prior to the laying of charges by the police.

I thought the treatment that Mr. Ghomeshi received at the hands of the press, the broadcast media and the police was very questionable. The public was given accounts of his behavior that amounted to no more than accusations. For the most part, it was a lot of anonymous show biz gossip.

The Toronto Metropolitan Police Department told the public that they believed those accusations were true even though nobody had laid a complaint, with them, against Mr. Ghomeshi.

At the time of the press conference given by the police, charges had not even been laid against Mr. Ghomeshi.

Needless to say, all of this has damaged Mr. Ghomeshi considerably. His career has been destroyed and his prospects for employment in the future, in the media, are dim.

However, suppose that he were found "not guilty" of all charges.

Lawsuits filed by Mr. Ghomeshi in the wake of a "not guilty" verdict might amount to more than $50,000,000 and might result in changes in career prospects, negative changes, for people in the media and people in the police department.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not in a position to judge that. It just seems to me that, if there were a possibility of redress in the courts, then Mr. Ghomeshi's scope for redress and his scope for vindictive vindication might be considerable following a not guilty verdict.

I don't think he is going to get it, myself. I think he is going to be found guilty of one of the charges and I think he is going to be given a suspended sentence of some short duration and perhaps directed to a course in controlling objectionable behavior. Maybe his access to a weapon of mass irritation, like cologne, will be restricted.

Considering his already substantial losses; career, salary, legal fees, standing in his community and profession, it would seem to me that placing an additional burden on him, for what, I believe, are relatively minor alleged offenses would border on cruel and unusual, dare I say "American style", punishment.

If things happen as I believe they will, it will be justice in the eyes of many. The allegations against Ghomeshi are widely believed. This is because of press coverage of his alleged abuses that went on for weeks. Ghomeshi was convicted in the press long before his case went to court.

The press also promoted the notion that Ghomeshi was going to get a first class defense from the formidable, stiletto heeled Marie Henein, the courageous, beleaguered attorney who somehow managed ("we don't know how she did it here at The Star!!?!") to get former Attorney General of Ontario, Michael Bryant, off on the charge of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, the death being that of Darcy Allan Sheppard, whose bicycle he had collided with, (Accidentally, or on purpose? It is not entirely clear which.) less than a minute earlier.

My own opinion is that Ms. Henein's skills as an attorney had little to do with getting charges against the former Attorney General dropped. I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is my opinion that Ms. Henein was simply window dressing in that case, or perhaps camouflage for what was being done.

When, in the history of humanity, has someone accused in a dangerous driving causing death case, offered to take a breathalyser test and been refused by the police?!

We are told, by the press, that this is what happened in the Bryant case.

The Bryant case was a case that, in my opinion, based on press accounts, Ms. Henein could not lose. The guy who sleeps on the grate at Victoria and Queen couldn't lose that case.

On the other hand, the question is, "Is the Ghomeshi case, a case that Ms. Henein could not win?"

More to come.

edit on 22-3-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 09:54 AM
a reply to: ipsedixit

I think it will have a lot to do with what is written in his employment contract with the CBC, as you know, the CBC is big on its employees maintaining an excellent public and private reputation so as not to tarnish them by association. As for his lawyer's abilities and a fair trial, that remains to be realized.

posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 10:03 AM
a reply to: InTheLight

I agree about the CBC issue to a point. I think there is room for legal maneuver, though, but I don't want to get into it at the moment.

I have complete confidence in Mr. Justice Horkins, however, it must be remembered that he has to play the cards he is dealt.

posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 11:31 AM
a reply to: ipsedixit

Unfortunately, the witnesses weren't following the rules of the game and will, most likely, now have to suffer the consequences with Ghomeshi getting off due to suspected collusion.

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 12:46 PM
The following addresses a technical aspect of the case and is prefaced with a caveat. I am not a lawyer. I am not qualified to comment on these matters. I am nothing more than a pretty good crammer. I did some reading on line to research this post.

In another thread, Sex Scandal or Libel at the CBC?,

I attempted to demonstrate, among many other things, that despite serious allegations against Jian Ghomeshi, the attorney for the defense would be able to find avenues of counter attack and that Mr. Ghomeshi's position on the chessboard, despite appearances in press coverage, was by no means hopeless.

The stories in the press about Mr. Ghomeshi were full of allegations coming from numerous sources, of abusive behavior on his part.

My opinion of his situation was based on a careful analysis of a story recounted by someone who claimed to have been the recipient of treatment by Mr. Ghomeshi that seemed, in retrospect, to her, to be consistent with stories told by people claiming to have been abused by him.

This kind of thing leads the public to form judgments based upon what might be analogous to something in the law called "similar fact evidence". The rules for admitting similar fact evidence in Canadian courts require judges to decide whether or not the "similar facts" cited are indeed facts and whether they have probative (the effect of proof) value or simply indicate a propensity to behave in a certain way.

An indication of propensity only, without a closer, probative, connection to the particular charge being contested in the court, would not be admissible as evidence.

Another issue is whether the court would be able to determine in a timely fashion whether "similar facts" were actually facts. The potential for numerous trials within the trial is apparent. A judge would decide whether it is in the interest of justice to peek into that potential rabbit hole.

Thus, a lot of the stories that readers of the press used in forming a judgment in this case, might not, by the rules of evidence, be admitted for consideration.

In any event, the Crown Prosecutor did not make a "similar fact" application in this case, so there was no parade of CBC employees and ex-girlfriends of Mr. Ghomeshi marching to the witness box to say what a creep he was.

It turned out that when this case got to court, defense attorney, Marie Henein, had a lot more to work with than anyone reading about the case in the press would have been aware of.

There is no doubt that Mr. Ghomeshi's accusers got a very rough ride from Marie Henein and her associate, Danielle Robitaille.

More to come.
edit on 23-3-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in