It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

It is a good point, but people make their own choices. Ghomeshi's accusers all kept trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

An interesting side light to this story is that Ghomeshi is of Iranian ancestry. Is he Muslim? Is his family Muslim? Is the Muslim attitude to women operative in his psychology. You can beat her but don't leave marks, according to Islam.

I tend to agree that the Crown might have done a better job on this case. Somebody didn't have a real heart to heart with these women. As Danielle Robitaille implied, the pattern of disclosure in this case was koo koo bananas.




posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Koo koo bananas is right on accurate. I am not sure where his fetishes stem from, but to me any type of physical assault is assault and is against the law. Period.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

The Crowns preparing the case for June 5 (?) might turn the tables on him by researching his own emails looking for any sort of systematic misogyny expressed. The pattern of allegations against him might not be admissible in court but it certainly would be admissible in investigations.

I don't think Ghomeshi has a split personality. I think he is an ideological misogynist and liked to toy with women. He's a smart man obviously, but how discrete was he about expressing his ideas about women? Emails or witness testimony along those lines might have put the trial that just finished under a completely different light.
edit on 24-3-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit




The Crowns preparing the case for June 5 (?) might turn the tables on him
Do you plan on another thread for that ? ...This ones conclusion was both a bit of a surprise and not really a surprise for me . I think the Judge was between a rock and a hard place .He chose a easier way out as it could be left in appeals courts .If the next trial gets a guilty verdict or if their becomes a offer to plea bargin ,this might go away quietly into the night . Ghomeshi will be doing a lot of thinking over the next few months .He is the one now that is between that rock and hard place now,imo If convicted ,the appeal for this one might take a different course from the way the original one took . He could basically spend a lot of time ,effort, and money for a long long time ....Or take the the poison pill and get over it ......hard call either way ....I kind of feel for him but ,this next trial might get some closure for any of the true victims , if there is any .......thanks for following this one ...peace



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I think the charges or the case due for trial in June is going to be dropped.

I don't have a clue about the reasoning that went into Henein's decision to lump the three cases into this one trial. It was her call. She could have opted for three trials instead of the one that just took place.

I think it was a risky decision. There must have been some reason for it. I had some dark suspicions about that decision.

I'm not as familiar with the upcoming case and I don't know why it was separated from the other cases. If the Crown decides to proceed with it, or if they decide to appeal the decision that was just handed down, they are going to have to get another game plan, particularly in the case of the upcoming trial, if the complainant was as silly as the three involved in this trial.

I'd be willing to bet that the next trial will not happen.

You are right about the judgment though, I think. Part of me thinks that Judge Horkins, to a degree, took the shortest line to a decision. Why he did that, might have something to do with the idea that a guilty verdict would likely have been overturned on appeal. The complainants in this case were so inept and clueless in virtually everything they did and said that a not guilty verdict was easily defensible. It's really a no brainer.

definitions.uslegal.com...


Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus is a legal maxim which means false in one thing, false in everything. A Roman legal principle indicating that a witness who willfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter. The underlying motive for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court: the principle discredits the rest of their testimony if it is without corroboration.


This situation is really the fault of the Crown. These kinds of accusations, by the nature of the offense, usually committed in private, will lack corroboration. Somehow, the Crown failed to communicate the message to these complainants that they MUST NOT LIE ABOUT ANYTHING in this kind of "He said. She said." case.

The Crown should have made a better case, based on another kind of evidence, or, having ascertained what these women actually, in fact, did with Ghomeshi, after the alleged assaults, not gone to trial, particularly in the instance of DeCoutere.

(Surely, if they had known the truth, the Crown could have made her understand that she was on the way to a lot of humiliation, if she proceeded with the charges and a very small chance of success. The choking charge should never have been laid. That was complete incompetence, in my opinion. As Henein noted, the Crown didn't even refer to it in closing.)

It makes me wonder how many lies the Crown itself caught them in before the trial started.

Having said all that, it is not impossible that Lucy DeCoutere will wind up dining out as a feminist heroine for years to come. She may have lost the battle but set herself on the way to winning the war in her career.

Will Ghomeshi sue her and the other complainants? Will he sue the CBC? I haven't a clue.
edit on 25-3-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

What happens with the next move in this will be a very crucial one .I hadn't though that the Crown might drop it .I was thinking that if it went ahead then they mush have a good case and a plea bargain might solve or at least satisfy all the parties .One thing Ghomeshi and his lawyers would know for sure is that if he gets convicted then a MAX sentence will probably follow . A Max sentence can open the door to expand sentencing in charges for the future. We shouldn't have to wait too long to find out .



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

One lawyer interviewed on camera after the verdict was announced said that he thought there was a possibility that in the next month or two, at some point, a quiet announcement would be made that the Crown was not going to proceed in the other trial.

If the first trial is not appealed and if the second trial doesn't happen, Ghomeshi will then undoubtedly take advice on a suit against the CBC. It has been commented that terms of his contract with them may not have been violated by his dismissal (for conduct unbecoming?) but that might not be so cut and dried as people think.
edit on 25-3-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Hey Ip, thought you might be interested in reading what one accuser learned from all this koo koo bananas proceedings (half way down page).

www.comingforward.ca...

Let's see if the next round will be any different.

www.macleans.ca...
edit on 16-4-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Crown will not be appealing the first case.

Jian Ghomeshi ruling on sex assault charges won't be appealed



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420
Crown will not be appealing the first case.

Jian Ghomeshi ruling on sex assault charges won't be appealed


Of course not, it's a losing battle the way it allows the accused to refuse cross-examination.



posted on Apr, 30 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

But, the upcoming June trial involves alleged sexual harassment where no romantic relationship existed, only professional and there is a witness that, hopefully, will take the stand.




There are differences between the two trials, however, which Silverstein said may bolster the prosecution's second case — the most significant point being the possibility of a witness. The complainant has claimed that a colleague witnessed one of the incidents, which included Ghomeshi allegedly groping her and grinding himself against her. An internal investigation conducted by Janice Rubin for the CBC also noted that several witnesses "had knowledge of" these events.


www.cbc.ca...



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Ghomeshi is to appear in court this morning to be placed under Section 810 recognizance, i.e., be the subject of a "peace bond" between himself and another employee of the CBC who brought a sexual assault charge against him. In this case at least one of the incidents was witnessed.

According to the press, the criminal charge against Mr. Ghomeshi will be dropped in exchange for a statement of apology and the imposition of the peace bond. No conviction will be entered and there will be no criminal record.

Peace bonds are explained at the following link:

www.duhaime.org...

When this step is taken, I wonder what avenues might be available to Mr. Ghomeshi, in terms of seeking redress for the destruction of his career, loss of income, etc. I wish this case had gone to trial, myself. From what is described about the incident in question, it seems like something that could have been defended against. If one were to change the name Jian Ghomeshi in the charge to, let's say, Miley Cyrus or Madonna, would the incident be viewed in the same way?
edit on 11-5-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 05:22 AM
link   
It appears this peace bond is similar to a restraining order and he should count himself lucky he is getting off this easy.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

I had a feeling that some kind of a plea barging would be reached at some point .This tells me that a counter claim against the CBC is not likely to happen . They wont need to defend their decision with him agreeing to the peace bond in a case that has sexual misconduct within the CBC ....time to put this to bed I guess ....thanks for the thread and following this OP .....



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
This ending leaves me unsatisfied. I want to know all the lurid details of the last charge. I want to hear the witness of the incident. I want to hear his expression of shock at witnessing the outrage, and right in the office!!

I want to know it all. I want to see Ms. Henein in action again. I want to hear the assertions of the victim, undoubtedly a person of excellent character and modest disposition, who would never encourage, in even the subtlest way, the attentions of such a brute as Mr. Ghomeshi. I am absolutely certain that what was witnessed was not the following.

www.barnorama.com...



But I can't help wondering if Ms. Henein might be successful in a court case if she were to suggest that many of Mr. Ghomeshi's exuberances around the office were not simply a spill over of the drooling dance floor mentality one expects of an ex musician. Shurely.
edit on 11-5-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Yep, we will never know if it was really a dry hump.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

I hope they haven't signed any sort of non-disclosure agreement. Mr. Ghomeshi is going to admit something in court, I believe, according to the press.

Why didn't the complainant go to trial with this case? Surely, with a witness, an accuser would have him dead to rights. No?

On the other hand, why did Mr. Ghomeshi make a deal? Maybe it was legal fatigue.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

I believe the accuser asked for an apology from him, so it appears she was not out for blood.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Mr. Ghomeshi has already lost a lot of blood. It seems to me that the complainant would have taken anything she could get from him, but that she must have had some reason to fear a trial.



posted on May, 11 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

We will never know, but I hope he has learned a valuable life lesson about respecting boundaries.

www.canada.com...
edit on 11-5-2016 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join