Ghomeshigate

Boots said:
I think the worst thing about all of this is if he gets acquitted the "victims" of this trial who were obviously called out on their lies are going to get off scot-free.
Not to mention I heard some talks of a protest happening on the day of the verdict if he's found innocent... They claim the system is broken. Yeah, I'd say they're right, only in a broken system would an innocent person lose their livelihood and reputation on obviously false accusations.
Click to expand...

Obviously false accusations? How can you be so certain? I don't know if anyone can say that for a certainty about the accusations unless they were actually there at the time.

Regardless, he cannot be found "innocent" of the charges. Unlike the Scottish legal system, we do not have anything resembling an innocence verdict as a possible outcome in a criminal trial. Ghomeshi may be declared not guilty, but a "not guilty" verdict in Canadian Courts is not the same as a strong declaration of factual innocence, as would be the case of a "not guilty" verdict in a Scottish court.

Instead, our "not guilty" is actually more accurately the equivalent of a Scottish "not proven" verdict, meaning only that guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unless the judge makes a strong statement that his verdict was based on total or near total disbelief in the complainants' accusations in total, that will be a far cry from Ghomeshi being exonerated of the charges. A "not (proven) guilty" verdict is not a declaration of factual innocence and everyone knows that. A "not guilty" verdict is not proof that the basic accusations against him did not happen, only that Ghomeshi was able to raise reasonable doubt that he "might" not have committed a crime. He could still in fact be factually guilty of the accusations even if the available evidence was not substantial or consistent enough to prove it.

Yes, he lost his career, but what is the alternative? No such charges allowed unless there is a third party witness? You know what that would mean, right? No publication of the accusations and no open trials or reporting of same? How would that play to the premise that we are nation that lets all see justice being done in open view, and a nation that does not practice hidden star chamber trials?
 
Last edited:
DJM said:
If your co-workers say you're a misogynist POS, chances are that you're a misogynist POS...
Click to expand...

If some do, maybe. If many do, quite probably. The greater the amount of smoke, the better the chance that a fire is about to erupt or even already underway.
 
griff2 said:
Allegations don't come out of a vacuum and when serious need to be investigated. You can't just dismiss an allegation as being complete fabrication from the outset.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, in this case, the accusers didn't do themselves any favours. They concealed facts that were material to the prosecution of the case. They spoke together about their experiences, potentially colouring their own recollections of events. These things bring their veracity into question and it's this, that is the issue. Since you cannot consent to an assault the events, in and of themselves, are all that is at issue. If they had been fully forthcoming, their word would not be at issue.
 
Did Jian treat co-workers like crap? yup (and so do hundreds of 'celebrity'). Was Jian a very bad man on a date? seems so. Did the girls that brought the case supposedly withhold a LOT of info from the crown and not help themselves when it was all pulled out ? Yup, they did.

I don't envy the judge in this case. My two cents is Jian is a ****** and got wrong signals from his dates and pushed comfort levels. That the girls kept coming back for more, that sure complicates whether or not it was a crime or a bad date.
 
crankcall said:
Did Jian treat co-workers like crap? yup (and so do hundreds of 'celebrity'). Was Jian a very bad man on a date? seems so. Did the girls that brought the case supposedly withhold a LOT of info from the crown and not help themselves when it was all pulled out ? Yup, they did.

I don't envy the judge in this case. My two cents is Jian is a ****** and got wrong signals from his dates and pushed comfort levels. That the girls kept coming back for more, that sure complicates whether or not it was a crime or a bad date.
Click to expand...

I don't envy him either. He's got witnesses who concealed information that they continued to have contact with Ghomeshi, after the incidents. He's got media who are going to roast him alive, no matter which way it goes. He's got case law which tells him that an assault is an assault, whether or not consent was given (which is denied by the witnesses at any rate).

This case is going to hinge upon the credibility of the witnesses and, I predict, he will be walking free on that account. That's not the end of his troubles though.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Unfortunately, in this case, the accusers didn't do themselves any favours. They concealed facts that were material to the prosecution of the case. They spoke together about their experiences, potentially colouring their own recollections of events. These things bring their veracity into question and it's this, that is the issue. Since you cannot consent to an assault the events, in and of themselves, are all that is at issue. If they had been fully forthcoming, their word would not be at issue.
Click to expand...

True to a point, but the fact remains that the police could not simply ignore the allegations from the outset. They had to investigate, and were obligated to lay charges when a string of similar fact evidence of illegal behaviour arose from multiple complainants. How could they not do so in such circumstances. The Crown in turn, prosecuted based on that evidence.

Yes, inconsistencies in evidence and matters that should have been disclosed to police by complainants later came out at trial, but that is exactly what trial is for.

As for consenting to assault, a given act is assault only if it is unwanted or causes bodily harm requiring medical intervention. This even covers rough sex involving erotic asphyxiation, as per a SC ruling mentioned earlier in one of these threads.
 
DJM said:
If your co-workers say you're a misogynist POS, chances are that you're a misogynist POS...
Click to expand...
Because no one has ever lied in the hisoty of human race.
Lets use that logic from now on. If someone says something is, then it must be lol
I think youre a paedophile. Guess it must be true.
Lets all forget innocent till proven guilty which is the foundation of the civil world's justice system since Magna Charta!
 
griff2 said:
Allegations don't come out of a vacuum and when serious need to be investigated. You can't just dismiss an allegation as being complete fabrication from the outset.
Click to expand...
I didnt say we should ignore them. Yes allegations should be investigated but until there is evidence to back them up, they should stay as nothing but allegation and they do. But some people here don't understand the difference between allegation and indictment.
 
griff2 said:
Allegations don't come out of a vacuum and when serious need to be investigated. You can't just dismiss an allegation as being complete fabrication from the outset.
Click to expand...
Allegations should be investigated but lets not forget the countless false accusations that did in fact come out of a vaccum. You dont just throw people in jail because someone said something.
Investigate it and until they are found guilty beyond any resonable doubt, they are innocent. This is the law btw not my personal view. But i do agree with this process rather than just punishing people arbitrarily and based on nothing but the word of mouth.
 
griff2 said:
True to a point, but the fact remains that the police could not simply ignore the allegations from the outset. They had to investigate, and were obligated to lay charges when a string of similar fact evidence of illegal behaviour arose from multiple complainants. How could they not do so in such circumstances. The Crown in turn, prosecuted based on that evidence.

Yes, inconsistencies in evidence and matters that should have been disclosed to police by complainants later came out at trial, but that is exactly what trial is for.

As for consenting to assault, a given act is assault only if it is unwanted or causes bodily harm requiring medical intervention. This even covers rough sex involving erotic asphyxiation, as per a SC ruling mentioned earlier in one of these threads.
Click to expand...

My post in no way reflects upon the actions of police. They acted as they were required to. The issue is with the witnesses, who were not forthcoming. If they had been forthcoming, to their own detriment, this would play out much differently. As a point of law their later actions might raise questions in the mind of the judge, but the fact that they were willing to admit to it would likely weigh against any doubts that the judge might have.
 
ashkan said:
I didnt say we should ignore them. Yes allegations should be investigated but until there is evidence to back them up, they should stay as nothing but allegation and they do. But some people here don't understand the difference between allegation and indictment.
Click to expand...

In this one there was more than enough similar-case evidence to support laying charges.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
He's got case law which tells him that an assault is an assault, whether or not consent was given (which is denied by the witnesses at any rate).
Click to expand...

To me this is pretty cut and dry based on the case law. Assault is assault. Did an assault happen should be the only question.

Considering JG showed CBC brass footage of him assaulting a woman that was so disturbing that they fired him based on what they saw. JG has openly admitted that he gets off on beating women. Going back to him doesn't mean that an assault didn't happen and we are back at the point where the case law points out an assault is an assault period.
 
griff2 said:
In this one there was more than enough similar-case evidence to support laying charges.
Click to expand...

Yes, laying charges is fine. I have no problem with laying charges and investigations. My problem is even when people are found innocent, specially in a case like this where these women were clearly lying and witholding information, some still blame these men.

They dont seem to understand that while sexual assault does happen and is real, so does false accusations for a number or reasons from financial gain to jealousy and revenge.

My point is, dont base judgement on how you (not you specifically) feel. Look for evidence because one day you might be falsely accused of something you didnt do. And thats when you wish people looked at facts rather than siding with women simply because they're women.
 
ashkan said:
Investigate it and until they are found guilty beyond any resonable doubt, they are innocent. This is the law btw not my personal view.
Click to expand...

I can't believe someone is actually this naive. Just because someone isn't convicted of a crime does not mean they're innocent. Case in point (which you blindly dismissed because it didn't fit your narrow, misguided view) is the crash on the Burlington Skyway. The accused was acquitted of impaired driving on a technicality because the blood sample was taken 5 hours after the arrest because of the mass confusion the accident caused, and the legal window is 3 hours. At the time the sample was taken the accused was 3 times over the limit. He was in custody the whole time. Do you think he magically became more impared while sitting in a cell than he was 2 hours previously? Yet according to your insane logic, the accused was 100% innocent of impaired driving because he wasn't convicted. Seriously, this is like arguing with an infant over his bedtime.
 
Last edited:
FullMotoJacket said:
I can't believe someone is actually this naive. Just because someone isn't convicted of a crime does not mean they're innocent. Case in point (which you blindly dismissed because it didn't fit your narrow, misguided view) is the crash on the Burlington Skyway. The accused was acquitted of impaired driving on a technicality because the blood sample was taken 4 hours after the arrest because of the mass confusion the accident caused, and the legal window is 3 hours. At the time the sample was taken the accused was 3 times over the limit. According to your insane logic, the accused was 100% innocent of impaired driving because he wasn't convicted. Seriously, this is like arguing with an infant over his bedtime.
Click to expand...
What do you suggest? Throw people in jail because he was accused of something?
How would you like to be treated if a jealous ex came after 10 years and said you abused her while plotting with other exes to get their story straight (as they did in this case with 5000 messaged that they were hiding from court)?
What kind of a dangerous precedence would that set? That a woman's word is simply god's word and gold and should be taken without any questioning?

What's your solution?

because im 100% against punishing people based on the word of mouth,
 
ashkan said:
because im 100% against punishing people based on the word of mouth,
Click to expand...

So the driver of the dump truck wasn't impaired, and it was only word of mouth since the charges were dropped. I retract my "this is like arguing with an infant over his bedtime" statement. Infants are far more rational.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
So the driver of the dump truck wasn't impaired, and it was only word of mouth since the charges were dropped. I retract my "this is like arguing with an infant over his bedtime" statement. Infants are far more rational.
Click to expand...
Stop dodging the question. Your argument has nothing to do with the sexual assault cases.

How would you go about such cases where there is no evidence against the defendent and there is a mountain of evidence against the accusers, proving they lied?

Would you start incarcerating men because you assume women never lie?

yeah, sound logic buddy. One hell of a grown up mind lol
 
What part of "you can be acquitted of a crime and still be guilty of it" don't you understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom