the saga of Jian Ghomeshi

[PRlady]

OMG, not guilty of all charges!!

This is terrible news for victims of abuse and violence. These women came forward bravely and subjected themselves to public scrutiny, and this result - and what they went through on the stand - will no doubt convince others to keep quiet now and in future.

Yes, several of the women changed their stories, left things out, talked to each other - but in the end I think this falls squarely on the prosecution. As the trial rolled out, it was obvious that the defense attorney was very, very skilled and that the prosecuting team were not up to the job.

Shite. That is all I have to say. I followed this closely because it started towards the end of my Toronto sojourn. I agree this is a terrible precedent.

 

[Erin]

With the caveat that I only followed very loosely, this reminds me of the OJ verdict (perhaps because I've been watching the FX tv show). The prosecution is no match for the best defence money can buy.

 

[Scrufflet]

Gag.

 

[algonquin]

OMG, not guilty of all charges!!

This is terrible news for victims of abuse and violence. These women came forward bravely and subjected themselves to public scrutiny, and this result - and what they went through on the stand - will no doubt convince others to keep quiet now and in future.

Yes, several of the women changed their stories, left things out, talked to each other - but in the end I think this falls squarely on the prosecution. As the trial rolled out, it was obvious that the defense attorney was very, very skilled and that the prosecuting team were not up to the job.

The fact that women talked to each other (5000 or so messages) and changed their stories was a blow to the Crown's case. The judge said that

.. were serious inconsistencies in the complainants’ testimony, and a “carelessness with the truth.”[\QUOTE]

 

[Jenny]

Here is an interesting analysis of what happened - published on Feb 13 after the trial concluded but before today's verdict.

 

[skatesindreams]

How unfortunate for the women who were victims.

 

[dramagrrl]

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??!

 

[VALuvsMKwan]

Part of me wants to say so much for your enlightened Canadian justice system, but it is a very sad result.

Surely though, no respectable media company will give the defendant a position?

 

[Jenny]

Yes that bothered me too (the quote about truth in dramagrrl's post). I agree that we can't always assume that an accuser is telling the truth, because sometimes they are not. However, to make that statement in the conclusion of the decision certainly does imply that these women lied. While they may have omitted some details, I don't think there's any question that Ghomeshi is sexually violent as he has admitted as much himself on several occasions.

I can see how the judge felt that he could not convict though. The crown presented no evidence other than the word of the victims (and I think a psychologists testimony - but personally I don't see much value in that kind of testimony), and the defense was successful in calling their word into question.

That's why I'm pointing fingers at the prosecution. It sounds like they did not spend enough time with the victims reviewing their story and preparing for what might come out, and they didn't do the research that the defense did. It seems as though the prosecution took the victims at their word, and expected the court to do the same.

It would be interesting to know what counsel the victims got from their own lawyers.

 

[Rock2]

For my education, I'd love to have a question answered. And I'm asking politely for people to do their utmost to strip emotion out of their reply for the sake of my learning. Because I'm asking around and people refuse to answer me clearly.

First off, my gut tells me he's guilty. But that's just me. That means nothing to the courts.

Secondly, I believe a lot more sexual assault goes on than we'd ever be willing to believe. And I truly believe it takes a ton of courage for women to come forward. I truly can't imagine how painful it would be to not only admit this has happened to you but also go into detail about it publicly.

Now we turn to the court of law and this is where it gets dicey. My question then becomes, what should it take to secure a guilty verdict? Should courage be enough? Should just knowing in our hearts that he's guilty be enough? Or, since 'testimony' is the only evidence on which to convict, to what extent should it be consistent and convincing? To what extent should it be open, complete and transparent and not be left up to the defence to bring to the court the remaining evidence that was withheld by prosecution?

So I'm trying to understand what is expected of the testimony to have a conviction? Or is it just enough to come forward? I'm not sure what the takeaway is.

Please help me with this. As I said, it's a learning experience for me. I want to learn from this to be able to properly support any women I know who may in the future have to come forward. I'd like to guide them and support them with the right feedback for them to come out on the right end. While being angry and hurt is completely understandable, I just don't see it as being enough, unfortunately.

PS, just read post from @Jenny . I definitely have some questions for the prosecuting lawyers...

 

[dramagrrl]

While reading the judge's decision, I was struck by how much of the victims' evidence was "disproven" (in the eyes of the judge) by "evidence" from the hundreds of emails that Ghomeshi kept over the years.

Since Ghomeshi stayed off the stand, no one was able to question him or his defence on why he had kept such a meticulous record of evidence in the first place. I know the judge could not have commented on this matter because the emails were one of the only pieces of actual hard evidence in the trial, but to use them to pick apart the victims' statements seems extra-harsh when there is clearly (without factual evidence to make it "official") something shady about the fact that he had saved years of emails from women he casually dated.

 

[MsZem]

While reading the judge's decision, I was struck by how much of the victims' evidence was "disproven" (in the eyes of the judge) by "evidence" from the hundreds of emails that Ghomeshi kept over the years.

Since Ghomeshi stayed off the stand, no one was able to question him or his defence on why he had kept such a meticulous record of evidence in the first place. I know the judge could not have commented on this matter because the emails were one of the only pieces of actual hard evidence in the trial, but to use them to pick apart the victims' statements seems extra-harsh when there is clearly (without factual evidence to make it "official") something shady about the fact that he had saved years of emails from women he casually dated.

Everything I've read about Ghomeshi makes him sound extremely shady, but some people just don't delete emails, and he could be one of them.

My concern with this case is what appears to be the expectation that rape survivors display perfect memory and react in ways that non-survivors consider reasonable. But human memory is imperfect, and someone who's experienced a trauma might not react as others would expect. Beyond that, I don't know enough about the investigation or the trial to really comment.

 

[Jenny]

dramagrrl what further perplexes me are the several thousand points of communication between two of the victims - Ghomeshi couldn't have known about that, or at the very least would not have had hard evidence in his possession. Clearly the defense team's investigators did a much more thorough job than the prosecution's.

This might be the biggest question for me at this point. Did the victims keep all this from their own lawyers and the prosecution? Or were they advised to keep it to themselves because it would harm the case?

Because surely if it had been out in the open, there would have been some understanding that it makes sense that two victims of the same person might reach out to one another in an effort to understand and come to terms with what happened to them? To me it's not that they were in contact, but that the defense was able to turn it into a weapon so easily.

 

[Jenny]

Here is an interesting analysis: Five Important Takeaways from the Ghomeshi Trial.
I must say it is somewhat heartening that throughout, the public discussion on this has been thoughtful and considered, rather than simply

 

[overedge]

Here is an interesting analysis: Five Important Takeaways from the Ghomeshi Trial.
I must say it is somewhat heartening that throughout, the public discussion on this has been thoughtful and considered, rather than simply

Don't go on Twitter. The discussion there that I've seen today is "men are always wrong and they hate women" vs. "yay, another blow against the feminazis"

I haven't read the judge's whole decision, but - you know, where there's smoke, there's fire. How likely is it that each of these women independently made up similar stories? Unfortunately the judge has to rule on the merits of the individual charges, and I agree that the prosecution didn't do a good job of making sure the testimony was consistent before the witnesses went on the stand.

I sincerely doubt that any media outlet in Canada will be hiring Ghomeshi soon - if only because he has another charge coming to court in May. The only thing I can see him doing in the future is writing a "how I overcame my problems and became a better person" confessional-type book. That is, if he actually does become a better person....

 

[quartz]

My understanding is that the not guilty verdict does not necessarily mean he is not guilty, but rather the prosecution failed to prove that he is.

 

[Rock2]

Don't go on Twitter. The discussion there that I've seen today is "men are always wrong and they hate women" vs. "yay, another blow against the feminazis"

I haven't read the judge's whole decision, but - you know, where there's smoke, there's fire. How likely is it that each of these women independently made up similar stories? Unfortunately the judge has to rule on the merits of the individual charges, and I agree that the prosecution didn't do a good job of making sure the testimony was consistent before the witnesses went on the stand.

I sincerely doubt that any media outlet in Canada will be hiring Ghomeshi soon - if only because he has another charge coming to court in May. The only thing I can see him doing in the future is writing a "how I overcame my problems and became a better person" confessional-type book. That is, if he actually does become a better person....

For real. I made that mistake. I mean, tried to promote a silver lining in that Jian is now exposed for what he likely is and will be living in a form of hell for eternity (my mental reference was OJ but I didn't go there).

So yeah. So while there's mounds of evidence, it can be excused if you don't remember all details. But I would say what you DO remember needs to be consistent without question. The prosecuting lawyers own this on behalf of the clients, to keep the talking points consistent.

And as for Jian not taking the stand, I have always been reminded that defendants never need to prove their innocence so they never need to take the stand. It's all on the prosecution. Always.

 

[PeterG]

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??!

Is it possible that the judge believed the interactions were rough, consensual sex rather than sexual assaults? Someone posted about hundreds of e-mails presented as evidence, which maybe included a lot of discussion about how the intereactions were to go??? (I don't know, just playing devil's advocate as a way to figure things out...)

I sincerely doubt that any media outlet in Canada will be hiring Ghomeshi soon - if only because he has another charge coming to court in May. The only thing I can see him doing in the future is writing a "how I overcame my problems and became a better person" confessional-type book. That is, if he actually does become a better person....

He could write a book from this perspective...and not have changed in any way. Not all autobiographies are told from a place of truth (and/or awareness). A Million Little Pieces by James Frey is one glaring example.

 

[Jenny]

PeterG I haven't read everything on this by any means, but from what I have the question of whether it was consensual doesn't seem to be part of this verdict. One of the arguments put forward by the defense was that based on post-incident behaviour, the women did not appear to act like they had been victimized. Since then, there has been a lot of discussion about how one is supposed to act following sexual assault.

It seems to me that the judge simply didn't think that the prosecution had proven that the testimony of the victims was true beyond doubt, and therefore could not convict.

 

[overedge]

I read something a few weeks ago to the effect of, when someone's house gets broken into and the robber goes on trial, the homeowner doesn't get asked questions in court like: why did you have all that nice stuff in your house? Why did you have doors and windows where someone could get in? After the robbery, you bought replacements for everything, so doesn't that mean you didn't care too much about what got taken? Etc. Etc.

The point being that victims of sexual assault get asked questions that would never be asked of victims of other alleged crimes - especially about their behaviour after the event, which isn't always relevant to what happened during the event. And maybe that double standard needs to change.

 

[PeterG]

I read something a few weeks ago to the effect of, when someone's house gets broken into and the robber goes on trial, the homeowner doesn't get asked questions in court like: why did you have all that nice stuff in your house? Why did you have doors and windows where someone could get in? After the robbery, you bought replacements for everything, so doesn't that mean you didn't care too much about what got taken? Etc. Etc.

The point being that victims of sexual assault get asked questions that would never be asked of victims of other alleged crimes - especially about their behaviour after the event, which isn't always relevant to what happened during the event. And maybe that double standard needs to change.

Are questions such as "what were you wearing?" and "had you been drinking that night?" still being asked in Canadian courts in 2016?

 

[Artemis@BC]

^ No. But the prosecution did ask many, many questions along the lines of "Didn't you go with him willingly" and "Didn't you approach him first?"

 

[liv]

I knew that he would be found not guilty once the defense showed that the women were still in contact with him after each event and also spoke to each other. It was just the easy decision to make. So many people would believe that after such an assault you should never want to contact the guy again, so by doing so it looked like they weren't that upset. And if you contact other victims, well, you must be colluding with them to bring a famous person down.... I think he's guilty, 100%, and the actual behaviour of a victim is a very complicated thing... and my gosh, what is wrong with speaking with the other victims, to feel that support? But nope, that's not how this judge saw it. Wow. Disappointed. He's got such a high creep factor, I can't even look at him.

 

[PRlady]

FWIW, I've been reading Sandy Garossino who seems objectively horrified by the damage the women witnesses did to their own credibility and the mistakes by the prosecution. It's possible he's guilty as hell and the case against him was very faulty. Not every victim is a good witness.

 

[overedge]

Everything I've read about Ghomeshi makes him sound extremely shady, but some people just don't delete emails, and he could be one of them.

I think there's more to it than that. Judging by the reports of people who worked with him at the CBC, he is (or was) a paranoid control freak who was extremely vigilant about his image and maintaining his star status. E.g. once when he was on vacation from Q, somebody posted a video on the show's website of one of the fill-in hosts conducting an interview. Ghomeshi phoned the show's producers and threw a screaming fit about how he was the star of the show, and ordered that the only videos of interviews posted on the site should be interviews that he did.

So if he did something that he knew might be seen as wrong - like, say, punching someone he wanted to have sex with - I can easily see him holding onto every bit of evidence of his interactions with that person, in case he was ever called to account for his actions. And I don't think this would just apply to his personal life - I'm sure he has saved records of all his work-related communications as well.

 

[algonquin]

This is a good quote from the Globe's Margaret Wente. (Can't link the article, sorry.)

The case against Mr. Ghomeshi fell apart not because the system is rigged against the victims, not because he had a clever defence lawyer who knew all the tricks, not because sexual assault victims are not believed. It fell apart because all three women grossly failed to tell the truth. It was one of the weakest cases that many people have ever seen.

The message for genuine sexual assault victims should be very reassuring. The message is that if you come forward, the police and the courts will treat you with great respect. It will be hard. The bar for a criminal conviction is reasonably (but not unreasonably) high. If you’re honest and forthright you’ll get a fair shake in court.

As for Mr. Ghomeshi, does this verdict mean he didn’t do it? Not at all. The judge made no judgment about that. What he found was that there was not enough evidence to convict. That is a very different thing.

 

[viennese]

I'm sort of sickened, right now, but it sounds like the defense was far better prepared to rip apart the accusers' testimony.

The prosecution should have been better prepared to deal with the fact that at least two of the women had corresponded with each other. They should have been ready to respond to that with the women on the stand - when you discover, as a victim, that there are other victims of the same perpetrator, it is normal to get in touch - not to line up your stories, as the judge suggested, but to go oh my god, it happened to me, too, i am am here for you - no wonder the women started referring to each other as "sisters."

 

[attyfan]

This is a good quote from the Globe's Margaret Wente. (Can't link the article, sorry.)

I found the article here; I hope this link works:

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

 

[PeterG]

I'm sort of sickened, right now, but it sounds like the defense was far better prepared to rip apart the accusers' testimony.

The prosecution should have been better prepared to deal with the fact that at least two of the women had corresponded with each other. They should have been ready to respond to that with the women on the stand - when you discover, as a victim, that there are other victims of the same perpetrator, it is normal to get in touch - not to line up your stories, as the judge suggested, but to go oh my god, it happened to me, too, i am am here for you - no wonder the women started referring to each other as "sisters."

Maybe from the hundreds of e-mails the judge had as evidence he saw people lining up their stories more than he saw people seeking solace in one another.

 

[Japanfan]

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.