the saga of Jian Ghomeshi

[VGThuy]

Can the victims sue him like they can in the U.S.?

 

[LilJen]

I'm saddened and sickened, though I understand that evidence was lacking.

Really, really praying for the court of public opinion to draw an alternative verdict, and that this poor excuse for a human being won't ever get a date or a job in this country again. Of course there will be damaged or twisted women still willing to do the deed with him. I just hope they are not too plentiful. And that his lawyer took a hefty proportion of his money.

Sounds like the court of public opinion has deemed him guilty already, though it's incredibly sad he was found not guilty in this trial.

 

[Japanfan]

://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article29387850.ece

Given how biased sexual assault trials are, and given that this is reflected in media bias, I'd like to hear the other side of this story.

I rather doubt that the alleged victims cooked the story up so they could get all dressed up and enjoy a day in court .

 

[Xela M]

I'm reading the full official court decision on the Ghomeshi case and it's absolutely ****ing disgusting. The judge basically calls the women irrational liars (including saying that one of them demonstrated, through her evidence, "a failure to take the oath seriously and a wilful carelessness with the truth" and accuses her of being a famewhore by hiring a publicist and giving interviews to the media) and then caps it off with this: "However, the twists and turns of the complainants’ evidence in this trial, illustrate the need to be vigilant in avoiding the equally dangerous false assumption that sexual assault complainants are always truthful." SERIOUSLY??!

I'm sorry, but how the hell can someone be safely convicted if the complainants continuously lied throughout the trial and been called up on it by presenting messages/emails etc that they themselves sent?!

They claim to have been assaulted and then send explicit photos and sexual messages to the person who allegedly assaulted them?!

I have a friend who had been raped and no way in hell would she have hired a publicist or sent sexually explicit messages to her attacker after the assault!

You cannot just convict someone of heinous crimes and ruin his life without evidence. A conviction has to be safe and in this case there is no way it could have been safe!

What if it was your son on trial? You cannot convict someone simply on the basis that you think it's unlikely the complainants would make it all up.

 

[Desperado]

As a sanity keeping policy, I don't read Wente but found this article by Carissima Mathen to be quite interesting.

Also read something this morning by Canadaland on Canadian vs international media bias: "Most of our news orgs focused on the witnesses, while international publications zeroed in on Justice Horkins." - link.

 

[Xela M]

In the UK there was a recent case where the defendant commenced a private prosecution against the complainant in a rape case because he had plenty of evidence (text messages/emails etc) that she purposefully made it all up! Shortly before she was due to be cross-examined, she committed suicide. Of course the outcry of public opinion against "victim -blaming" and the "evil" man was incredible and his life was basically ruined by it. Even today after it was shown that he had real and unambiguous evidence that the girl purposefully misled the police and had mental health problems, some people still think "there's no smoke without fire". Sexual assault accusations stick to a person for life!

 

[agalisgv]

I'm not understanding why people think Ghomeshi is guilty, and why victim blaming is going on. It's been shown pretty conclusively the women in question lied. That's not victim blaming.

 

[algonquin]

As a sanity keeping policy, I don't read Wente but found this article by Carissima Mathen to be quite interesting.

Also read something this morning by Canadaland on Canadian vs international media bias: "Most of our news orgs focused on the witnesses, while international publications zeroed in on Justice Horkins." - link.

... But how many of the international publications had reporters in the court room? I'd wager a bet that almost every Canadian media outlet did & thus a different take on the event.

 

[Xela M]

I'm not understanding why people think Ghomeshi is guilty, and why victim blaming is going on. It's been shown pretty conclusively the women in
question lied. That's not victim blaming.

... But how many of the international publications had reporters in the court room? I'd wager a bet that almost every Canadian media outlet did & thus a different take on the event.

Exactly.

No fair court in the world would have convicted him based on the evidence of those girls, which came out at trial.

 

[Desperado]

I'm not understanding why people think Ghomeshi is guilty, and why victim blaming is going on. It's been shown pretty conclusively the women in question lied. That's not victim blaming.

It's been established that the three women part of this trial did not tell the whole truth, particularly about their behaviour after the fact, not that they lied about being assaulted. 23 women accused him, and I believe them.

 

[Jenny]

I'm not understanding why people think Ghomeshi is guilty, and why victim blaming is going on. It's been shown pretty conclusively the women in question lied. That's not victim blaming.

No fair court in the world would have convicted him based on the evidence of those girls, which came out at trial.

Did either of you follow this case from the beginning? Are you aware that more than 20 people have been interviewed in the media describing their experiences with Ghomeshi? Are you aware of the circumstances under which he lost his job?

It's true that the victims in this trial (there is another trial in June) changed their stories (which happens after trauma and after 10 years), and that they chose - or were advised to - leave out certain details of their stories. But the very idea that a couple of women got together and made the whole thing up to ruin someone's life is absurd. He has admitted in his own words to his employer and on his own social media account that he likes violent sex, and more than 20 people have come forward and said yes, he does like violent sex, and importantly - because this is the crux of it - he has on many occasions been physically violent without first confirming that the other person shared his preferences.

Very few are saying that he should have been convicted based on this trial, because the prosecution was unsuccessful in proving his guilt. But that doesn't mean he's not guilty - far from it.

 

[Xela M]

It's been established that the three women part of this trial did not tell the whole truth, particularly about their behaviour after the fact, not that they lied about being assaulted. 23 women accused him, and I believe them.

Their behaviour afterwards? You mean that they thanked him for the sex, said they wanted to fukc him again, sent him pictures of themselves and then sent each other thousands of messages about how to corroborate their evidence?

If it was you on trial, would you want to be convicted on the testimony of witnesses whose credibility was so much in doubt?

 

[PeterG]

I rather doubt that the alleged victims cooked the story up so they could get all dressed up and enjoy a day in court .

I've never been clear about this whole matter/case...not nearly as clear as many people seem to be who are posting in this thread. So this is a great point from Japanfan. But maybe I'm right in being confused because...

It's been established that the three women part of this trial did not tell the whole truth, particularly about their behaviour after the fact, not that they lied about being assaulted. 23 women accused him, and I believe them.

...maybe the truth is that with some of the women there was consensual rough sex, maybe with some of the women there was confusion as to what roughplay was acceptable and/or Ghomeshi crossed a line and went farther than what was either agreed upon or what some of the women thought might happen...and maybe sometimes guidelines were not discussed so a line was crossed with maybe Ghomeshi thinking, "everybody knows I like it rough and should expect...anything to happen".

So maybe the truth is that there are multiple truths, each varied and diverse enough that being clear about the whole situation is not a place one could end up being...

 

[Xela M]

Did either of you follow this case from the beginning? Are you aware that more than 20 people have been interviewed in the media describing their experiences with Ghomeshi? Are you aware of the circumstances under which he lost his job?

It's true that the victims in this trial (there is another trial in June) changed their stories (which happens after trauma and after 10 years), and that they chose - or were advised to - leave out certain details of their stories. But the very idea that a couple of women got together and made the whole thing up to ruin someone's life is absurd. He has admitted in his own words to his employer and on his own social media account that he likes violent sex, and more than 20 people have come forward and said yes, he does like violent sex, and importantly - because this is the crux of it - he has on many occasions been physically violent without first confirming that the other person shared his preferences.

Very few are saying that he should have been convicted based on this trial, because the prosecution was unsuccessful in proving his guilt. But that doesn't mean he's not guilty - far from it.

Actually, it means just that. He's not guilty.

The media don't have the power to convict him. The court heard the evidence and it was quite frankly ridiculously weak.

 

[agalisgv]

It's been established that the three women part of this trial did not tell the whole truth, particularly about their behaviour after the fact, not that they lied about being assaulted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "they didn't tell the whole truth." They gave a version of events that was demonstrably false. That's not an omission, but a commission. And the reason it speaks to the actual assaults is because they tied them together. That is, they said their behavior after the fact was determined by the assaults--i.e. their later aversion to Ghomeshi was a reflection of the non-consensual nature of the alleged attacks.. That was their testimony. So the fact that their behavior afterward showed consensual conduct, that necessarily reflects on the alleged assaults because that was the connection *they* made under oath.

23 women accused him, and I believe them.

I can't say one way or another, but none of it has been established, so there's no basis for belief or disbelief that I can see.

 

[Desperado]

I can't say one way or another, but none of it has been established, so there's no basis for belief or disbelief that I can see.

You can argue whatever you like, but you will not tell me what to believe or not.

 

[Jenny]

Actually, it means just that. He's not guilty.

The media don't have the power to convict him. The court heard the evidence and it was quite frankly ridiculously weak.

So you clearly have not followed this case from the beginning. This trial was one very small piece of a much larger story that is far from over.

 

[agalisgv]

You can argue whatever you like, but you will not tell me what to believe or not.

People can and do believe whatever they want. But that doesn't necessarily mean there's a reasoned or evidentiary basis for those beliefs.

 

[quartz]

Actually, it means just that. He's not guilty.

The media don't have the power to convict him. The court heard the evidence and it was quite frankly ridiculously weak.

There is a big difference between "not guilty" and we "can't prove you are guilty".

 

[Artemis@BC]

^ Exactly.

At times like this I wish we had the 3rd option they do under Scots law: Not proven. Aka, "we think you're as guilty as sin, but unfortunately the evidence doesn't quite support a guilty verdict." (Mind you I think that might only be an option for juries, not for judges.)

 

[Xela M]

So you clearly have not followed this case from the beginning. This trial was one very small piece of a much larger story that is far from over.

I followed the trial. Based on the evidence presented at court, he should have been acquitted and would have been by any other fair court. There is nothing "disgusting" or unfair or "victim-blaming" about the verdict.

When/if other accusations come to trial, I will judge them based on what is presented at court.

 

[Simone411]

There is a big difference between "not guilty" and we "can't prove you are guilty".

ITA. More or less innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Jenny]

I don't think anyone is saying he should have been convicted based on the evidence presented in this trial - that is not in question here.

 

[agalisgv]

There is a big difference between "not guilty" and we "can't prove you are guilty".

In the US, not guilty means exactly that--guilt can't be proven. There's another category of found innocence that is rarely used where someone is found to be actually innocent of charges--not just not guilty. But that's a very high bar to meet.

Going back to PeterG's point--what objections do people have to his rendition?

 

[agalisgv]

I don't think anyone is saying he should have been convicted based on the evidence presented in this trial - that is not in question here.

I thought several posters said he was clearly guilty, and it was a miscarriage of justice that he wasn't convicted when everyone knows he's actually guilty. And the reason he wasn't found guilty was due to victim-blaming rather than the witnesses lying in their testimony.

 

[PeterG]

Going back to PeterG's point--what objections do people have to his rendition?

I feel like a dolt as you're referring to something I said... I googled the definition of rendition - and I'm still not sure what you're referring to! (Guess I need to go back to buying my "new word a day" calendar!)

 

[Desperado]

I thought several posters said he was clearly guilty, and it was a miscarriage of justice that he wasn't convicted when everyone knows he's actually guilty. And the reason he wasn't found guilty was due to victim-blaming rather than the witnesses lying in their testimony.

If you think I'm one of these posters, I would ask that you re-read my posts, including the articles I linked. Believing the accusers does not equal a belief in a miscarriage of justice.

 

[agalisgv]

I feel like a dolt as you're referring to something I said... I googled the definition of rendition - and I'm still not sure what you're referring to!

Your version of events posted here:

...maybe the truth is that with some of the women there was consensual rough sex, maybe with some of the women there was confusion as to what roughplay was acceptable and/or Ghomeshi crossed a line and went farther than what was either agreed upon or what some of the women thought might happen...and maybe sometimes guidelines were not discussed so a line was crossed with maybe Ghomeshi thinking, "everybody knows I like it rough and should expect...anything to happen".

So maybe the truth is that there are multiple truths, each varied and diverse enough that being clear about the whole situation is not a place one could end up being...

 

[PeterG]

Your version of events posted here:

Thank you.

I feel awful that so many people feel hurt by the Canadian justice system. I've written this post now for the third time after deleting a bunch of stuff I wrote. It's tough to know what to say. Someone mentioned that there will be another trial coming up. I'm off to google to find out what that will be about. Possibly that trial will do a better job of bringing what the truth is to light?

 

[Desperado]

A Kinkster's Take on the Jian Ghomeshi Saga - Read through the lens of a BDSM expert, there's so much that doesn't add up.