Another Canadian Icon Sullied (2014 Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault discussion)

And now, as with O.J. and Franz Biberkopf, the punishment will hopefully begin. (That Maclean's link above isn't cause for optimism, though.)

@BorkowskiNews
Judge: "We must fight against the stereotype that all sexual assault complaints are truthful"

I post on the Toronto subReddit - and they are going to have a field day with that one.

Not surprising. That said, I would be surprised to see him bounce back, at least in the public sphere.

jesus that judge quote.

[136]
Each complainant in this case engaged in conduct regarding Mr. Ghomeshi, after the fact, which seems out of harmony with the assaultive behaviour ascribed to him. In many instances, their conduct and comments were even inconsistent with the level of
animus
exhibited by each of them, both at the time and then years later. In a case that is entirely dependent on the reliability of their evidence standing alone, these are factors that cause me considerable difficulty when asked to accept their evidence at full value.

[137]
Each complainant was confronted with a volume of evidence that was contrary to their prior sworn statements and their evidence in
-
chief. Each complainant demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion. It is this aspect of their evidence that is most troubling to the Court.
[138]
The success of this prosecution depended entirely on the Court being able to accept each complainant as a sincere, honest and accurate witness. Each complainant was revealed at trial to be lacking in these important attributes. The evidence of each complainant suffered not just from inconsistencies and questionable behaviour, but was tainted by outright deception.
[139]
The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness can no longer expect the Court to consider them to be a trusted source of the truth. I am forced to conclude that it is impossible for the Court to have sufficient faith in the reliability or sincerity of these complainants. Put simply, the volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence leaves the Court with a reasonable doubt.

[140]
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. The standard of proof in a criminal case requires sufficient clarity in the evidence to allow a confident acceptance of the essential facts. In these proceedings the bedrock foundation of the Crown’s case is tainted and incapable of supporting any clear determination of the truth.

[141]
I have no hesitation in concluding that the quality of the evidence in this case is incapable of displacing the presumption of innocence. The evidence fails to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Full text of the ruling, for anyone who is interested.

Not guilty on all charges. Great job, prosecutors.

Man, I don’t know. Have you read the judgement?

Do you not think the ruling suggests that the prosecution might have been able to do this better?

when part of prosecuting is coaching the witnesses you have to assume they didn't do their job properly here.

when part of prosecuting is coaching the witnesses you have to assume they didn't do their job properly here.

Good point. However, if the prosecutors didn’t know about the e-mails or the extent of their relationship, what could they have done? (Genuine question, I don’t know anything about anything.)

Wait was the judge the finder of fact? was there a jury?

So much admiration for the women who were bold & resolved & felt supported enough to come forward and endure these legal grindwheels. I hope all of them were prepared enough for this verdict that they never wholly regret the process and its impact on their further lives.

anticipating some revolting hot-takes on this verdict so going to have to keep away from any Canadian newspapers in the next few days to preserve my sanity

Avoiding Canadian newspapers is something that we're all experts on here in Canada.

I hope this does not deter women of reporting abuses, but I just can't see how.

was there a jury?

No:

Why will it be decided by a judge, not a jury?
A judge alone is the norm in criminal cases. The Crown proceeds summarily in many sexual assault cases, which means a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice rather than the Superior Court,” one defence lawyer explains: “I don’t criticize that. It means a complainant doesn’t have to testify at a preliminary hearing and a trial. The penalties are lower but it’s worth the trade-off.”

Well it wouldnt be the first time. This shit is why women hardly ever report let alone take to court. I did like that one of the witnesses stayed calm and said "regardless of what i did afterwards, he still assaulted me that night", which is, basically, the point.

OTM and still unfortunately worth repeating

@BorkowskiNews
Judge: "We must fight against the stereotype that all sexual assault complaints are truthful"

I don't think this is an actual quote btw. I didn't find it in the text of the ruling.

thank god

trusted source BorkowskiNews exposed as fraud

actual quote:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeVSVX9WQAECZ1k.jpg

Actual quote was worse: “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. Each individual and each unique factual scenario must be assessed according to their own particular circumstances.”

xp

"The equally dangerous false assumption" equally dangerous to what? I wonder.

"If you crunch the numbers, the judge's statement that a "false assumption" that a woman is telling the truth about a sexual assault is "equally dangerous" means that the ~450,000 rapes that go unpunished are "equal" to the ~500 false accusations (both figures are for a year in canada). That means that the statement mathematically suggests that a false rape accusation is about 900 times as dangerous as a rape." - a friend from Facebook

I disagree that saying we need to be vigilant to avoid a false assumption is worse than saying we need to fight against a stereotype, even if "equally dangerous" is debatable.

i think the whole "equally dangerous" thing is a trap -- how would one even begin to tabulate the relative dangers??

other than that, out of context, that quote isn't terribly objectionable. in context, it's pretty awful.

@BorkowskiNews
Judge: "We must fight against the stereotype that all sexual assault complaints are truthful"

Pretty sure that quote was actually the satirical headline from the Beaverton.

Peter Mansbridge interview with Ghomeshi's lawyer, Marie Henein.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/jian-ghomeshi-marie-henein-lawyer-interview-1.3510762

http://canadalandshow.com/article/ghomeshi-judges-son-works-marie-heneins-brother

Oh Canadaland. "I don’t actually think this affected Justice Horkins’ view of the case, his judgement, or the way he decided on the case" said the anonymous source, plus everyone else.

Tom Mulcair ‏@ThomasMulcair 5h5 hours ago
I believe strongly in the presumption of innocence and the right to a strong defence but I also believe survivors.

Generous of Mulcair to gift his opponents so much ammo to use against him.

This, from last Friday, was the first thing I read that actually suggested alternative ways of dealing with cases like this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/trial-by-battle-tradition-fails-to-meet-the-needs-of-sex-assault-survivors/article29391597/

His proposal that the accusers (ie. his client) get to choose a civil trial and instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt" becomes "balance of probabilities" would have made no difference here. Still would've lost. Isn't it apparent that this case is not one that merits any reforms?

Even if that's true, and it may be, I can see an argument as to why it might at least help with other sexual assault cases.

Wow, I just watched the Henein interview. She's kind of compelling.

Yeah she's really something. On the other hand, Peter Mansbridge's supposed reputation and appeal remains a mystery to me.

This author seems to agree with you and makes some fair points imo: http://www.chatelaine.com/news/mansbridge-botched-marie-henein-interview/

The question about whether men are seen as traitors to their gender seemed exceptionally dumb to me. A better comparison would be about whether members of a visible minority group could be seen as betraying their community, which could definitely happen.

The Canadian version of O.J.'s many post-acquittal projects:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/jian-ghomeshis-ideation-project-marks-a-less-than-triumphant-return/article34654018/

He probably saw the pics of Casey Anthony at the Women's March and figured it was his time for a comeback too

god the title of this thread is the absolute worst

I can't tell whether it was originally about Gretzky or Keith's. Guessing the latter.

Sarah Polley speaks publicly about it:

Filmmaker Sarah Polley tells us why she's now embracing things that once kept her up at night — from why she didn't come forward in the trial of Jian Ghomeshi, to the trauma of her career as a child star.

Read more https://t.co/QC3KCIRKA5 and tune in on CBC Radio One at 9:10am

— CBC Radio: The Current (@TheCurrentCBC) February 28, 2022