Ghomeshigate
- Thread starter shanekingsley
- Start date
Probably unreasonable. Low to mid- six figures would be my guess given Ghomeshi's means and celebrity status.
In the mid-90's a friend of mine was represented by Toronto's Allan Gold (then president of the Canadian Criminal Lawyers Association) on a sex assault accusation. Gold was then and is still regarded as one of the top criminal trial lawyers in Canada. He's been called "a legend" and a "dream team" lawyer many times in his career.
This accusation was a little different in that there were two other witnesses to the supposed assault which supposedly happened over a span of several minutes in a very public place with two others within spitting proximity the whole time. One witness said it happened exactly as the complainant described, and provided great detail as to what she had seen. The other witness said that no such thing happened. Both were within 10 feet of the accused and complainant at all times, all dead sober.
There was no physical evidence. Classic "they said, they said".
Police interviewed the complainant and the one supporting witness, then laid charges. They did not interview the other witness until several weeks later.
That trial lasted 5 or 6 days in court including the date everyone was brought back for the judge's verdict. In the course of the trial, the witness supporting the complainant actually admitted that she had really not seen any assault at all. Of course even with the witness recantation the verdict didn't go the way the friend wanted, so Gold also handled the follow-up submission to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which fortunately for my friend was successful. Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge failed to "understand the evidence". The CoA set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial. The new trial that never ever happened.
Total bill for all those days in trial, prep work, interviews of direct witnesses and character witnesses, and filing the appeal was in the $20 to 25K range. A lot of the prep work was done by a couple of articling students and I have no doubt that Gold adjusted his fees somewhat for what was a client with limited means. It still hurt, but a whole lot less than what a standing conviction would have done to him.
Last edited:
Blows me away that she and people like her don't seem to understand how foolish they look. Maybe they don't know credibility boundaries because they always go unchallenged? Who hasn't had a boss or other superior who constantly blows smoke up your Azz when they know it's not in your best interest to challenge them. It's like marketing, you just expect to get lied to. It's an open secret. If I give women enough rope they always hang themselves, every time. And they think we don't know. And we don't let them know that we know. Ay carumba!!
Last edited:
Inreb, YOU'VE officially indicted into MGTOW
Coincidence that happened just when transitioning from angry young man to angry old man. Get your pu$$y off my lawn.
-D-
Banned
That pic is a dis service to our justice system.
Those 3 women were caught lying complete with their own emails, photos, and hand written 6 page letter.
He was not guilty because he had nothing to be guilty of.
When a judge says he does not find your credible and you are playing chicken with the police/law then you have some serious issues.
Was thinking the same thing. Ghomeshi apparently liked "it" rough and so too did these women, at least until years later, when they collectively decided they didn't. While there's no law against rough consensual sex, drugging and then assaulting women, as Cosby is alleged to have done, is.
Yep, the girl from trailer park boys was just trying to use this to further her career. What a ****. Hope her career goes down the drain after this and people refuse to go see whatever she has a part in because of the type of person she is.
A cartoon with -D-'s nose planted firmly in Goshemi's butt would have been more appropriate for this thread.
I agree on all points. And since it's kind of a guessing game anyway I'd go ahead and guess that Goshemi punched and choked himself to orgasm at least once per sweetheart. And everybody knows once is never enough. I guess that would explain the furious flurry of emails.
What's with this idea of " he is innocent but not really"
People need to cut the crap, innocent until proven guilty and he was not proven guilty so he is innocent. Period.
Some like it missionary, some like it up the ass, he likes it rough and so did these woman since they came back. People need to get over it.
Bill Cosby put stuff in girls drinks and abuse them while they were drugged. Associating real victims like crosby's and these gold diggers is insulting to those woman.
What is wrong with people?
People need to cut the crap, innocent until proven guilty and he was not proven guilty so he is innocent. Period.
Some like it missionary, some like it up the ass, he likes it rough and so did these woman since they came back. People need to get over it.
Bill Cosby put stuff in girls drinks and abuse them while they were drugged. Associating real victims like crosby's and these gold diggers is insulting to those woman.
What is wrong with people?
-D-
Banned
ahhh the moment has arrived yet again
clearly your reading comprehension once again escapes you
I made it clear a few posts back my position on Ghomeshi.
but hey, once again you failed, at least you are consistent.
No, that's not quite what the judge said. He didn't say anything pertaining to Ghomeshi's innocence or lack thereof. He simply said that he cant determine what is true or false, period, hence reasonable doubt.
This is what he said: "My conclusion that the evidence in this case raises a reasonable doubt is not the same as deciding in any positive way that these events never happened. At the end of this trial, a reasonable doubt exists because it is impossible to determine, with any acceptable degree of certainty or comfort, what is true and what is false."
I read that as him saying "I can not declare him guilty but my not declaring him guilty doesn't mean he is innocent".
-D-
Banned
I get that also.
He is focusing on the EVIDENCE and the ACCUSER. Their evidence holds no water therefore it leaves one wondering if the events happened as the accuser is trying to have the court believe.
Let's get real, they had sex, he pulled her hair, ooooh...but then again did that happen because she stated he had the VW beetle when she was with him only to find out he got the car several months AFTER he was with her.
Did you guys read the 6 page hand written letter from liar Lucy?
