Ghomeshi charged

[Mark Henry]

I don't agree, I think most competent defence lawyers would have sunk the crown's weak case. Obviously Ghomeshi had all his old emails, most people do if they look.
It just wouldn't have been front page news.

[1990C4S]

The Crown's case wasn't that weak. They were ambushed because the women were not reliable and the Crown never figured that out.

When a witness says he pulled her hair and hurt her, then she says she was wearing hair extensions that night, then reverses her story a day later, the Crown should have been aware they had a flakey witness. She also said she was in a specific car when she was assaulted, a car he bought seven months after the alleged assault. The Crown could have checked that detail, they chose not to.


There is a line of logic that the Crown did not want to dig too deep, as they have to disclose what they find, but it is unrealistic to assume Jian is not going to be able to find the emails they sent. One way or another those details were coming out.

In the end, it's hard to feel sorry for women so enchanted with his fame they saw him again (one gave him a manual quickie) and another offered to **** his brains out, all the while claiming he had previously assaulted them.

[Rinty]

I thought this was a fascinating case. But I watched an interview with Marie Henein last night, and she didn't think it was anything unusual, other than the celebrity accused.

The next trial, in June, should be interesting as well. It's totally different from the last case, and I imagine the Crown and police will be working overtime on it.

[JJ 911SC]

Originally Posted by Rinty

... and she didn't think it was anything unusual, other than the celebrity accused...

Agreed, they will have the full interview on the week-end.

[M.D. Holloway]

ok - forgive me for not keeping up on Canadian news but who is this guy and what did he do? From what I gather he is a celeb and was into rough sex?

[2porscheguy]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ghomeshis-lawyer-marie-henein-rejects-suggestions-she-betrayed-024256867.html

MD, basically yes...Jian Gomeshi was a long time CBC Radio talk-show host who was, admittedly, into rough sex....slappin' n chokin' the ladies as a means of some effen sick foreplay....NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT!

Three of his alleged victims (from 2002-2003) came forward with accusations as such, BUT....drum roll please....under cross examination it was found that I believe in all cases, the women continued to pursue Mr. Gomeshi well after the alleged assaults, with one victim sending him thousands of emails, some suggesting they get together so she could "F*** his brains out". She also sent him some shots of her in a bikini. This went on for well over a year after the fact.

Needless to say, Jian Gomeshi was acquitted of all charges, although one more similar case comes up in June.

[1990C4S]

The events were 13 years ago, they 'forgot'.

After seeing them interviewed, all I can say is they 'aren't the brightest women'. One is outright dense.

Due to their inability to recall their correspondence they were deemed to be liars. Most unfortunate that they were not better prepared.

The law is simple: you can't agree to be assaulted. Assault is assault.

[GWN7]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

The law is simple: you can't agree to be assaulted. Assault is assault.

So if you pay someone to dress up in a black leather outfit, tie you up and beat you with a whip Not that there is anything wrong with that You can get your money back?

[JJ 911SC]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

... The law is simple: you can't agree to be assaulted. Assault is assault.

Unless you go back to get some more... again and again.

[jorian]

The witnesses/victims were not credible. The Crown was at best arrogant and at worst reckless in not preparing their witnesses. Jian had great representation, the Crown dropped the ball.

[1990C4S]

Originally Posted by JJ 911SC

Unless you go back to get some more... again and again.

That's not how it works.

Returning made the claims non-credible, but returning did not negate the crime.

It was not a case of 'you liked it, you went back', it was 'I can't believe anything you have said'. Or 'the fact that you went back leads me to believe he never hurt you'.

[creaturecat]

Witnesses conspiring, that didn't help much.

[Rinty]

I'm thinking the Crown really got bushwacked by these complainants. I read a comment by one Toronto defence lawyer that the prosecutor, Michael Callaghan, is very competent.

[1990C4S]

Maybe if the police had actually pursued some important details, like email passwords? Maybe if they asked some follow up questions? Maybe if they vetted the witnesses for weaknesses? Maybe if they explained the concept of 'the whole truth'....

[MRM]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

The law is simple: you can't agree to be assaulted. Assault is assault.

This is a fundamental misstatement of law. Assault is a specific intent crime. People are able to consent to all manner of contact that would be a crime in other context. It is generally illegal to run at a person at top speed and grab him around the middle and try to separate his head and his feet, particularly if he isn't looking, but if you're in a football game you've consented to that contact that would be an assault in other contexts. Likewise, kissing, sexual touching, or intercourse can be rape or a mutually pleasurable experience, depending on the intent of the participants. If the conduct was mutual at the time, or the person later accused of assault has a reasonable basis for beliving the conduct was consensual, there is no mens rea and therefore no crime. Finally, the victim cannot consent at the time and then later decide she (he) was coerced and claim assault after the fact. The issue is whether at the time the conduct took place the defendant meant to, or reasonably should have known, he (she) was exceeding the consent by the other party.

The prosecution is in charge of its case. It doesn't charge cases until it has investigated the charges and determined they can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As the case progresses the prosecutor has a duty to continue to evaluate the witnesses and evidence, to pressure test them, if you will to make sure they stand up. And if at any time the prosecutor thinks he or she cannot obtain a conviction, it is their duty to dismiss the case. A prosecutor is a minister of justice whose ethical obligation is to justice, not obtaining a conviction. If they think the crime cannot be proven, let alone the defendant was innocent, the prosecutor has a legal duty to dismiss the charges.

The Crown was not blindsided. They may have been surprised but the evidence was there for anyone to see. It was all exchanged long before trial. That is required by the discovery process. The prosecutors knew about the emails and other contact. If they didn't pressure test their witnesses and see why they seemed to have consented to the conduct as suggested by their emails and post-sex conduct, then they were truly flying blind and deserve the ringing defeat they received.

I suspect they knew exactly what the evidence was and decided to forge ahead regardless. Sometimes it's easier to take a case to trial, lose it and blame the judge or jury than it is to explain why you dismissed it. I don't envy the prosecutors - they received a bad hand - but they played their cards badly.

[1990C4S]

You do know this happened in Canada,right?

There are all sorts of sports assault cases here, people have gone to jail, NHL players have been charged.

The prosecutors did not know about the emails or the repeated contact. That much has been made clear.

The Supreme court is rather clear on this issue of consent and assault....

But, when it comes to BDSM – or at least its more intense versions – the law doesn’t actually care about consent. The Supreme Court has said that a person cannot consent to an assault that causes bodily harm. While the cases have typically arisen in the context of bar room brawls or hockey violence, other courts have applied the same reasoning to the sexual context. So, if a sexual activity causes bodily harm, a person cannot consent to it.

[MRM]

Yes, I know it happened in Canada. Canada is a common law country. The law on BDSM is the same here. You can obviously consent to contact that otherwise would be an assault, and you can consent to BDSM contact. The exception is that you can't consent to contact that ends up causing serious bodily harm - permanent nerve damage, broken bones, concussions. Serious bodily harm is actually a defined term. It changes slightly between jurisdictions, but that's the basic definition. There's some grey area, but typically even injuries that require an ER visit but aren't life threatening and don't require hospitalization aren't serious bodily injuries. It has to be pretty serious to qualify for an expedition to the general rule that consent is valid if mutually agreed upon.

There have been only two or three cases where a NHL hockey player has been charged with a crime in a game. Each time it's been something completely out of bounds like a two handed axe chop over the head with a hockey stick when the guy want looking. It's really unusual for a football or hockey player to be charged even when they fight or deliberately hurt each other.

[1990C4S]

You must not be old enough to remember some of the NHL charges...

Also, I was not referencing NHL charges specifically, there are a lot charges laid in men's leagues.

[JJ 911SC]

Originally Posted by MRM

... Canada is a common law country...

About 77% of the population are under Common Law system.

Not that it matter here but Quebec justice system is base on Civil Law.

[cairns]

Canadian Foreplay:
Scream and I'll cut your throat.





Sorry I couldn't resist.