Printable View
So the little CBC prince and darling of the progressives has now been officially charged. What I really want to know is how long did the CBC suppress this and how much tax payer hush money was spent paying off his victims? Maybe we can send in the OPP to investigate this? I mean they do investigate Liberals right? I made a funny there, gawd I'm a funny guy.....:ninja:
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/11/26/ghomeshi-charged-in-sex-assaults
Where there was smoke.....
With that said, I have zero sympathy for this arrogant fool. No doubt the CBC enabled this prick to get as far as he did for as long as he did. And no doubt is was Ghomeshi's CBC fueled "I'm a big star" arrogance that turned this into the 'fiasco' it became rather than taking what the CBC was probably offering in severance to go quietly away. Have fun in court, goof.
He had to withdraw his law suit and pay the CBC for their legal costs..about $14,000. As I said to my wife, I never liked the guy and always thought he was a bit slimy. It's good to see that he is now going to pay for what he has been doing for years.
He'll just love this as he will get even more attention.
Not too mention all the rough sex he can get in prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMatthews
Once he was the king of Spain
soon he will be choking on pipe in prison.
And yeah the cbc was gonna let him sneak away saying it was HIS decision to leave.
Hopefully this will go to trial quickly and justice will be served.
Might get interesting. Many times once charges are laid, more victims come out and complain. Time will tell.
I'm with Rick on this, I think the flood gates are open now.
No more victims have come forward (publicly, at least) but some CBC heads have started rolling.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ick=sf_globefb
They were only "suspended",not FIRED. Until that happens,this is just more smoke and mirrors from the CBC brass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddmott
Quote:
Originally Posted by mox72
ROFL!!!
I don't think he was the kind to receive it though.......well here's hoping the little guy can adjust....
Oh,he'll adjust,alright----nice and W-I-D-E with his new room mate,Doc Bubba,the wannabe proctocologist. ROFL!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebulldog
See, right there is why I love you guys. What I predicted in the first post has started. The CBC executives who facilitated him by paying off victims are in the crosshairs. This isn't over yet. I'm glad it happened in an election year. It will be difficult to win support for the CBC which is what Trudough and angry Tom would have done guaranteed.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Wait... what?! Where has anyone claimed, alleged or charged that cbc execs bought any victims' silence?Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
The article i linked to was about 2 cbc execs who were tasked with looking into allegations vs Ghomeshi, did a terrible job of it and failed to speak with more than a dozen employees of the Ghomeshi show...
Give it time, give it time. This cesspool isn't near cleaned up yet. Early in this scandal it was mentioned that women who wanted to work on that show were subjected to his let's call them "indiscretions". This has alot more dung to sift through and is now in the public domain. Unless Trudough becomes PM this fall this won't get swept away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddmott
This is fitting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMHTo4sAYKA
Anymore questions as to why the CBC brought in a team of high priced lawyers a year ago?
/que Meghan Trainor
and its all about that B_, bout the Brass and cya and damage control
3 more accusers have come forward. I believe that brings the official tally involved in the case up to 8.
Next court date is Feb 4
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...96/?cmpid=rss1
Details about the latest victims experiences will not be made public at this time due to the pre-court publication ban.
Three more women and three more charges? His initial PR/legal team dumping his azz did so for (obvious) good reason - someone wasn't exactly 'forthcoming' with complete disclosure. Makes one wonder what kind of story this weasel spun to Henein and why is she still representing him?
She knows what she's there for. And it's not to get him off... He he...
It's to plea bargain things down when the time comes so he gets a slap on the wrist and she gets mega coin and plenty of national exposure.
His lawyers are attractive young women and that is not a coincidence for sure. If found guilty I am sure he will come out of prison with a manhole.
No coincidence that's for sure. Not sure it could be any more obvious why he has a female team.
Regardless, of what she may think is in it for her and there are no gaurantee's it will go her way, it could ruin her to. As a guy, I find it hard to fathom how she could. Just thinking, imagining myself as a female, being privy to details, formulating a defense case, having to look at him, and not let thoughts run through ones mind.
I've always wondered how defense lawyers can for example defend some of the worst murderers, child molesters etc. I imagine for a female defense lawyer, Ghomeshi has to rank up there.
Do you really wonder? There really hasn't been an upswell of angry feminists storm the hardware stores for pitchforks and driveway sealer either? Funny that eh? Wouldn't be because he's a L _ _ _ _ _ _ , ........oh never mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Interesting how Ghomeshi is getting all this coverage.... while I saw on Sun News Benjamin Levin was in court today with his defense lawyer Ruby.
* Part of the education Ministry under McGuinty
* In Dept. of Education when the new controversial sex-ed came out and had to be withdrawn (same one Wynne said they will force through for Sept. this year)
* part of Wynnes transition team
* University Prof.
* 7 charges against him involving children.
Yet Sun News was the only one there with a reporter and camera..... hmmm..... looks like the Liberal Media decide not to cover this.
Huh! Gee,who'd a thunk that. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
I would like to think that the reason that defense lawyers defend some of the worst accused (and often convicted) criminals is because they have integrity. Every single person has the right to defend him or herself in a court of law. And even if it may not be the popular thing, a defense lawyer who defends someone accused of a terrible crime is doing that lest anyone else who might falsely or unjustly be accused also have a defender available to him or her.
It's a matter of ethics.
Granted, some may be doing it for the big bucks, but I hestitate to read into their motivation beyond what they are legally and morally obliged to do.
Difficult to change. Everybody is entitled to legal representation. But let's not kid ourselves. Money and power buys you better lawyers so in many cases the entitled are above the law. The mob have lawyers who represent only the mob. These lawyers know exactly what the situation is. Ethics? Hhhmmm.....Quote:
Originally Posted by FishingMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Check the third paragraph again. :)
I once asked a very learned former Ontario Chief Justice how lawyers got it straight in their minds defending people charged with horrendous crimes that they knew were guilty as sin. He wisely told me that it wasn't the lawyers job to establish guilt or innocence,but,to test the Crowns evidence for accuracy and integrity and to ensure the accused defense was well represented before the Bar. Just because someone has been charged doesn't necessarily mean that they're guilty.
And just because someone is acquitted doesn't mean that they are innocent. If you did it, you did it. I don't give a shyte about whether the cop crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's in his report. I don't care that you feel that you were racially profiled when you were pulled over at 2:00 in the morning in an area known for criminal activity. I don't care about how bad your teenage years were. IMO, to defend someone that you know is guilty means you have no conscience whatsoever and are no better than the person on trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
A few more terminations at the CBC as a result.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ick=sf_globefb
Ghomeshi has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The article provides no new details besides the plea.
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/toro...rges-1.3252077
Ghomeshi trial starts Monday.
It's a Judge-only trial... Which have a very poor (as in sentencing) track record for high profile cases in Canada.
I wouldnt be surprised if he skated
He could always join the Liberal party I'm sure they have room for him somewhere to write policy.:scream:
If Jian Ghomeshi had not fallen from grace, he and Peter Mansbridge would have been tripping over each other to interview Justin on their shows. We could have witnessed public spats between Jian and Peter, resulting from their jealous man-crushes on Justin. Now we'll never know...
Or he could join Phillip Nolan in the band with Harper.
Mustn't be the same Phillip Nolan. ONLY Liberals can possibly have associates whose deepest darkest secrets are unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Yup same guy , played with harper for 3 years, nobody really knows those around you. So I guess we could all be hoodwinked and not even know it.
Your sarcasm detector is on the fritz. My post was dripping with it. I may have started swinging into the conservative spectrum myself the last decade or so... but i still have nothing for contempt for the hypocritical idiocy when it comes to stuff like this. When Levan was caught so many Cons were quick to lambast the Libs and pretend like the same dirtbags don't pervade every political party.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Sorry I missed your sarcasm. That is the point I was trying to make, these sick perverted scum walk among us, and they are from all political parties. How do we know who people vote for when they go into that private booth?
Yes and these sick perverted scum write sex education policy for our children. Fortunately he was caught .
Just look at the coverage..
Does the media get bonus points for all showing up at the same place but only for approved stories??? Makes me wonder where all the press and coverage was for Benjamin Levin and Walid Chalhoub (48 charges, 10 young victims), I guess the reality doesn't fit with what they want to tell people.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=799669
I wouldn't be surprised if he is aquited of all charges. I don't condone his behaviour - but it might end up these women are charging him because he was a bad date. Rough sex is not illegal and proving sexual assault not easy when good lawyers are involved.
He is a CBC personality. He is being tried in Ontario. He has possibly the best lawyer in the country. He's gonna get off.
Of course he will. But like Roper said he'll be acquitted too.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Thus teeing up the ball for his defamation suits against the accusers who went to the media. Still, I have no doubt that he is a dirt bag.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
He will choke in court ( couldn't help it lol )
I was surprised to see that Rev. Brent Hawkes (Pastor-Metropolitan United Church and LGBTQ activist) has been arrested and charged for a historical sexual assault from the 1970's. You're absolutely right. You just never know.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
It will be interesting to see how Jian chooses to defend himself, trying to defend yourself from something 40 years ago would be "interesting" too. Seems like even he is getting more attention to his charges than we saw for Benjamin Levin and Walid Chalhoub and his 10 young victims.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...otia-1.3429452
Ghomeshi's lawyer pretty much annihilated the first accuser without breaking a sweat. I hope the crowns next two have some credibility.
Well, this trial is teaching me one thing - I understand women even less than the little I knew! Seriously, I just don't get it.
After listening to several lawyers say the Crown's case has fallen apart, it's an uphill battle, I won't be surprised if Ghomeshi walks. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind he did what he did but Henein, in my uneducated opinion, has achieved her goal already with the supposed two best witnesses - BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT - that the 'rough play' was not consensual.
Before the trial started I thought, I hope they roast this SOB. Now after hearing the testimony of these two women they were most certainly willing participants that kept going back for more and on their own accord. I can only imagine what this will cost the CBC if this case gets thrown out.
It won't cost the CBC too much. But us taxpayers, that's another story.
Yes - the way the case is going the defence seems to be kicking the crap out of the accusers testimony. So far these so called victims seem like women who are bitter because he didn't want to be with them.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"
Wow!! Maybe,the kindly old Judge's answer to my question was right on the money. I thought this trial would have been a slam-dunk for the Crown. I guess that's why he was a Judge and I was just another dumb flat foot. LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Sadly, it's not uncommon for abused women to stay in the abusive relationship . They think an abuser is all they deserve. or they think they can "fix" the man.
If their father was an abuser that daughter often picks an abuser as a partner . They are familiar with that relationship. Sad.
Sharon - In all due respect - we don't know that is the story behind these womens accusations. What you are saying may be true.
Also - what may be true is - These accusers may be upset that the relationship did not go the way they wanted and decided after the fact to lay charges for rough treatment.
I would think if a person feels they were abused they would be contacting the police soon after the altercation. These women (so far) seem to make accusations after they made attempts to re-date Ghomeshi.
Good point. I was just making a general statement and not connecting it to those women in particular.
Yes about $150 million dollars of taxpayers money.Quote:
Originally Posted by sawbill
Lucy DeCoutere (an accuser) brought up the point that many abused women go back to the spouses that hurt them. Henein coldly pointed out she spent one weekend with him, never had a relationship, didn't share children, she was financially independent and could easily cut off contact with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
If the next witness is as easy to discredit as the first 2 Ghomeshi will win the case but he has admitted to being a woman beater. His reputation and career are still spiralling down the drain.
Terry - Yes agreed. One way or another he is toast. A pariah in that industry.
PreciselyQuote:
Originally Posted by Roper
He is into rough stuff. A little weird that you need to beat up a woman to get a boner but not unheard of.
When one of them writes 'you kicked my a55 last night and I loved it. I want to fu(k your brains out tonight' we have to assume that there's a strong likelihood she at the very least was into it too.
From there her repeated (rejected) advances and emails and texts and letters make it clear she wanted him but couldn't get him.
Then 12 years later she is retaining counsel and coming forward with evidence to the police. Now that he's earning $1 million a year.
All seems a bit odd.
When you lie dozens of times in police and crown investigator interviews, only to have those lies exposed by defence counsel in a courtroom, your evidence is basically worthless. A judge won't convict on her (or the first witness') account.
That doesn't mean #3 won't nail him. We shall see...
No doubt he's a real piece of work,this guy is into some "weird stuff",but,apparently,so were the women. People in that "genre" seem to be able to "find" each other. Maybe,the old adage is true "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
Disconcerting isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by warpipe
I was listening to an experienced defense attorney comment about the lead Crown in this case. He said that the guy is very experienced, very competent and passionate. The Crown, knowing he was going up against one of the most competent lawyers in all of Canada in Henein, you would think that he would have warned the women that she WILL uncover things about them that they had most likely forgotten and they better be sure they are leaving NOTHING out of their stories so they can deal with it first before the cross examination comes. Effectively, these two women torpedoed themselves.
I'm learning a good lesson on how a very skillful lawyer tests the Crowns evidence. Henein has lived up to her reputation.
I find it very strange that the defense lawyer Henein was able to find and uncover these emails to discredit the Crown's witnesses , but the prosecutors could not, or just passed over those incriminating emails.
I don't. Ghomeshi had the smarts to save the e-mails in his own files for whatever reason and they just happened to come in handy. The Crown would have no access to his personal e-mail account and he's under no obligation to divulge them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
Great article by Jesse Brown (who broke this story initially) at CanadaLand. He paints a very dangerous, manipulative picture of Ghomeshi - one of a predator.
"Ghomeshi kept files on women in case they would later accuse him of violence."
http://canadalandshow.com/article/wh...outeres-letter
One would think so. His behavior crossed the line beyond that of his private sex life and spilled over into serious workplace harassment issues that have been so widely publicized that any employer would presumably steer clear of him. Then again, I'm sure we can all think of someone in our respective professions who is well-known as a major screw-up, yet still gets hired. The older I get, the less things like this surprise me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roper
My guess is that he will fall back on his experience to free-lance as some kind of entertainment agent/manager/consultant here or in the States.
Wait for the movie.
There was an article in the Spectator today - with respect to old emails. There are companies that specialize in finding old deleted emails on hard drives. Deleting an email does not make it dissapear. Its still there if you know how to find it.
Yup even the things we post on this site, note to others, who advocate breaking the law.
I know people who are very adept at retrieving all sorts of stuff from the internet. For the average person,it's not easy,at all,but,if you have the programming and knowledge how to use it,nothing can be hidden or deleted. One should never put anything on the internet that they would be embarrassed or ashamed for your Mom to read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roper
And yet, the OPP seem unable to find out what was in emails deleted at QP. Neither who deleted what, how many, nor the content. How very odd.....
My thoughts,exactly. Things that make you go H-m-m-m-m.......Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
If the gifted professional hiding something, is more gifted than the professional looking for something.......
I haven't been following the trial, Just seems too trailer trashy, train wreck watching to me. That said, I do find it odd the prosecution hasn't done more (maybe they have and it hasn't grabbed headlines, or maybe they will later) with respect to the kind of control these people (those who are in that lifestyle) eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by Wahoo
A) Exert
B) Surrender
That life if you will is all about domination and submission, its all about control. Be it a woman who surrenders to a man, or vice versa with a "Dominatrix". It takes the right kind of dom and the right kind of sub who is "mentally weak" ....
Imo, the defenses assertion that she went back etc, etc. Doesn't carry a lot of weight, or worded differently if I was on the jury, that alone wouldn't sway me much. Its akin to a defence lawyer destroying a crack addicts testimony because they keep going back for crack........Its a physoclogical addiction, perhaps little different than pedaphelia.
The testimony of the 3rd complainant has become a familiar refrain...
"The complainant told the court that she went out for dinner with Ghomeshi once after that [incident], saying she's the sort of person to give people many chances. The witness never told police or prosecutors about that date until Friday, and the new information was disclosed to the defence Sunday morning."
This trial is about to collapse and this creep is going to walk. Life has a way of "reconciling accounts" with people like him. Karma,baby,karma!
Yep. He lived life like a little prince. Pretty sure he isn't as appealing to employers and women anymore. Might have to learn to hang on to his shoes a bit longer now.
Don't kid yourselves, he's gonna walk but he is now tainted. Predators like him have a sixth sense and know which ones to separate from the pack.
JBen - I don't think your analogy that this is the same as a crack addict continually going back to the dealer. The crack addict is not suing the crack dealer.
lol, that's true.
However the defence is beating the witnesses/accusers down largely on the basis of going back to him. Most rational people know/understand how hard it is for some (perhaps many) victims of abuse to break away. Well even those abusive long term relationships, theres always a night where the first punches are thrown..................guess what, they obviously go back, often for years.
What law of psychology has established that someone who is "mentally weak" and ripe for the picking by the right type of Dom personality has to be in a relationship for 3 years, 3 months, or 3 weeks in order to be susceptible and thus a victim?
I suppose the good lawyer has never heard the expression
Like a moth to a flame. Hopefully the jurors have and hopefully the crown has a brain between their shoulders and they will shred what ever her name is just as badly.
she actually disgust me
He will find someone to love him, as there is someone for everyone. He might even be more appealing now, for a certain type of person. So sad.
Just curious.
how many choir boys go back repeatedly, after the first encounter.....
if a Boy Scout leader spends a little time seducing a young boy, then invites the boy to go camping for a weekend...even if the boys know it was "wrong"....does it make the leaders action ok if the boy goes back? Once, twice or 50 times over the next 2 years?
i understand it's her job to get him off, but this is why, as stated in the article some linked.....many don't come forward. Their own personal shame and more (being victimized on the stand).
^Big difference between grooming a child and an adult woman.
As for Henein, she is doing her job - testing the evidence.
The Crown is finished. They're just playing this out so they don't have to quit.
Really, I might suggest you do some reading on the subject. A "weak" mind is a "weak" mind. Perhaps your unaware that many young college/university women (adults) are groomed end up in the human trafficking industry...Quite a bit of that currently occurring in Orillia. Pimps from TO grooming young women.............
http://www.simcoe.com/news-story/626...ng-in-orillia/
You were saying?
So, now try to imagine what kind of personality, be they female or male would want or need (and for some its a "need") to be "dominated", and do understand that is all about controlling the other person.
A commentator on the radio this morning said such women often go back because they are seeking to make things "normal" and put the event behind them. Clearly self-doubt and self-esteem issues are present.
And more I might suggest/speculate Ninepointer.
predators are predators and many people of all ages, be they children to Pedaphiles, be they adults that get fleeced out their life savings, be they accomplices in TBs ( is it possible Millard is a predator) murder, fall victim to them all the time. There are those who think, or think it's plausible ( not saying I'm one) that Karla Holmolka.....
Alot don't want to look at the realities, I get to hear some of it from the one woman at Church (Rising Angels) who works with these issues every day of trafficking and prepping. There are extortion, manipulation, threats... so many ways and many are trafficked at an average age of 13.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
22 were arrested here.
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/york-polic...ting-1.2650698
and more cases...
http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...afficking.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...king-1.3398962
http://www.am980.ca/2015/11/10/65459/
http://www.insidehalton.com/news-sto...es/;send=false
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alliso...b_8831834.html
"According to UNICEF every two minutes a child is being prepared for sexual exploitation. 1.2 million children alone are being trafficked every year. This number excluded the millions already being held captive by trafficking. UNICEF also reports that approximately 30 million children have lost their childhood through sexual exploitation over the past 30 years."
For the most part the media is quite complacent, we can look at the recent Walid Chalhoub and his 48 charges and 10 young victims that didn't even warrant most news to even pay it attention.
http://www.therebel.media/muslim_mig...n_media_silent
Personally I think those doing the pimping and trafficking should be taken fishing.... as bait... I hear pig can make good gator or shark bait.
Without getting too far off topic, about the only difference (imo) between a child victim and an adult victim is that children universally are susceptible. Whether its because "mentally" (physcologically) they just aren't as prepared as yet, or they are too trusting/naïve or whatever the reason.
The pool of potential victims is a lot larger, and yes somewhat easier but a "weak" and susceptible mind is still 'easy prey". And predators are usually pretty good at it. Whatever their particular arena is.
And even with that... it doesn't erase the fact that the assault happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninepointer
That's where I can't comprehend what's happening with this case. All the defense is doing is showing that these women lied & forgot about some things. But nothing they've done attempts to disprove that the assaults happened. Yet everyone is acting like it's a given that Ghomeshi is acquitted.
The Crown has a major credibility problem with the witnesses so far, not to mention the witnesses contacting each other prior to trial. I predict this clown will walk ! Was there an assault or was it consensual ??
Showing that complainants lied about the circumstances and openly admitting to contriving statements to Police,it's hard to see where an assault occurred when they kept going back for more raises a high element of doubt which is all that's needed for an acquittal. If he isn't acquitted,here,then,an Appeals Court will. It makes one kind of sick,but,this SOB is going to walk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddmott
Nothing you said clears it up for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Ghomeshi has NOT said he didn't perform the acts the women are claiming are assault. His defense is just proving that some of the other things the women claimed are lies. But the charges are not about follow up dates or non-follow up dates, or attempted contact. They are about assaults that happened on first dates.
Regardless of what the women said or did afterwards... the trial is supposed to be about what happened in those first dates. Either he performed the assaults or he didn't.
^All along, Ghomeshi has said that what transpired was consensual. If the women contradict themselves, forget, or outright lie, to whom is the Judge to give the benefit of the doubt?
I hear ya Mott and I don't think gomeshi is denying the assaults took place his lawyer is questioning if it was indeed assault or consensual and the fact the 2 women were in contact with each other stating in an email that " we are going to ruin this prick" ( something like that ) just looks bad.
He likes the slap and choke kind of sex and he is not denying it and his lawyer is doing a good job of poking holes in the crowns case. Was it truly assault or not ? Only Gomeshi and his accusers know for sure but from what I hear about the trial so far I am betting Mr slap and tickle will walk.
It's not assault where there's consent whether actual or implied,especially,among other things already in evidence to be considered,there's an element of doubt,the benefit of which always MUST go to the accused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddmott
I predict a suspended sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
... and don't forget the wrongful dismissal suit against CBC.... back wages, mental suffering, just because..... all at taxpayer expense.
The defense will never agree to a suspended sentence because it's a finding of guilt. With this trial,as far as they're concerned,it will be all or nothing,going to an immediate appeal. Any finding of guilt,at all,in any way shape or form,will invite lawsuits from accusers and will be sent to civil court where the burden of proof is much lower. With an acquittal,everything is over and done with.Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
Now that's interesting!Quote:
Originally Posted by ninepointer
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
But the defense doesn't have to agree to it. And to appeal it the defense will have to show that the judge made an error in judgement or the appeal will be denied. He then also takes the risk at the new trial of being found guilty with jail time and additional lawyer costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Can you provide examples successful lawsuits in Canada where victims of assault have been awarded anything? They would have to show demonstrate a financial loss as direct result of the assault (which has been mentioned in this case) or to get punitive damages, would have to demonstrate their lives were seriously affected by the assault (loss of ability) in which they apparently were not according to their behavior documented in the current case. They would also be subjecting themselves to a countersuit and end up pay all of his legal costs. I don't think his lawyer works cheap, so it would be a financial nightmare to take him on and lose.
Unless he can prove prior consent was given, he is still in trouble. I know a guy who was charged with assault 6 years after he had split up with his ex. They had actually "hooked up" a few times after she moved out. He was found guilty.
In this case, there is no reasonable doubt that the assaults took place, there is reasonable doubt that victims were as impacted by it as they would have liked to have appeared. This is why I think the judge will find some middle ground to benefit society as a whole.
Judges can't hand out not guilty verdict based on a victim's character.
Where a Judge issues a guilty verdict when most evidence has been compromised and the character of the complainants as liars has been established,an appeal will be a slam dunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
Happen to agree with most here, suspect at this point he's going to walk.
Hypothetical question.
A person dies due to erotic asphyxiation. Should the person doing the choking, avoid charges or be found not guilty?
Just one point..... there is a cavernous difference between not guilty and innocent.
If a Liberal....not guilty of course. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Absolutely. :)
Granted assaulting someone is far less grevious than killing them, but I'm wondering. In a case that featured fatal EA, which is also by "consent"................Great all the Jians of the world have to say is "it was consensual"....Prove it
Unfortunately this case seems to have been decided by a defence attorney whose is known for her brutal Xs and character assignations, and how difficult it is proving such things years after the fact (some articles out there saying how hard it is for crowns). It's kind of sad, because it is known that many victims go back, or struggle to break away. Often are dealing with some form "weakness" ( Don't know quite what to call it) be it low self-esteem other. These people want to be controlled in ways that many of us just can't fathom, some want or need pain to get off. Is a punch to the face different than being bound and having hot wax dripped on? Like a moth to flame imo when they cross paths with a predator. And it will certainly send a broadside for all future victims who already we know often don't come forward for fear of...
Not being believed
Shamed and victimized
And the more powerful the person or the more monied the person (see Bill Crosby).....
"Absolutely :)" Hunter John
A liberal judge would find him guilty only to prevent him from suing the cbcQuote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
lol Interesting twist.Quote:
Originally Posted by B Wilson
What evidence was compromised and how was it compromised? I must have missed it. One would think the very sharp defence lawyer would ask for it to be removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
which aledged victim lied? I am only aware that they didn't provide all details to the police or crown, but nothing solid to support that they lied. Don't get me wrong, these women appear to make a lot of dumb decisions and have embarrassed themselves and the crown.
i would lean towards a slam dunk not guilty verdict if the defence can produce a witness / ex boyfriend of one of the lady's that say yeah she liked it real rough, begged to be punched, choked, etc.
The plot thickens. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Oddmott
Interestingly enough. Can't say I disagree
http://www.macleans.ca/society/whats...ghomeshi-case/
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
When even the left wing imbeciles at the laughing stock Macleans can see an issue..... as usual though in our liberalized legal system the victim will be victimized again by the court and the media by the end of this. The media "leaks" about the women will continue and get worse I am betting and it is obvious he is an a** and abusive but I doubt he will be found guilty. He will probably be suing for wrongful dismissal within a few weeks after it is over if he wins too.
However what really ticks me off most is the for most part the media is quite complacent about sex trafficking, child prostitution etc. and yet 1 celebrity and perverted sex gets all this attention. We see child (Benjamin Levin), we young kids suffering assaults, women trafficked and no serious coverage, yet they waste hours and spend huge speculation on this perv. Just look, we can look at the recent Walid Chalhoub and his 48 charges and 10 young victims that didn't even warrant most news to even pay it attention and I will post the link to this slime for those that missed it.
http://www.therebel.media/muslim_mig...n_media_silent
Why would he sue again? He dropped the case against the CBC, and was ordered to pay costs, back in November 2014.Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
He is still facing another sexual assault allegation (related to his employment at CBC) and that trial is scheduled to start in June.
I didn't know they had split the trials up, trying to pay as little attention as possible. Never watched him while he was on TV, didn't want to watch his court "performance" either. I stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wahoo
I would be a bit more interested in coverage of Walid Chalhoub or Benjamin Levin or the recent arrest of 22 on trafficking charges etc. Some CBC "entertainer" is of even less interest.
Once he gets this trial behind him he will have plenty of ammunition to sue the CBC for wrongful dismissal. This is far from over and he isn't done living on the taxpayer tab. Sunny days....
He could not sue the CBC for wrongful dismissal because he was unionized. The lawyer who filed the paperwork should have known that. His union has to fight to get his job back. If he is not happy with how it was handled by his union, then his only recourse is to sue the union.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wahoo
Completely false.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
The CBC has plenty of valid cause to have fired him, from the complaints filed in the workplace, to these violent sexual escapades. The fired other members of the Q team for covering up his a-holeness... They can certainly fire him for being the ahole.
He dropped the suit because he was told in no uncertain terms it was unwinnable.
Is this for certain? In many workplaces managers & up are NOT unionized.Quote:
Originally Posted by arclight
From what I've read, he was suing the CBC for defamation and breach of confidence. For some reason, he dropped that suit and filed the grievance with his Union for wrongful dismissal. My guess is that he KNEW he would NOT win the lawsuit and would be out a whole whack of cash as a result. Not to mention what he must be paying Henein in this criminal trial. His best odds are probably to try and have the Union negotiate him a severance package to disappear.Quote:
Originally Posted by arclight
And yes, his Union is not obligated to fight for him.
They're obligated to represent him by attending management/arbitration meetings with/for him. That's not to say they'll actually speak. I've seen union reps sit with their arms folded and mouths firmly slammed shut while the member gets sliced and diced for an indefensable violation. It's rare and it's usually a call from the national union office "ivory tower",but,it happens when the Union can be brought into a PR disaster and literally backed into a dark corner. This may be one of those times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wahoo
:scream: :angry: :whacked:
http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto...homeshi-ruling
Jian Ghomeshi found not guilty on all charges as judge acquits him of sexual assault, choking
"Ontario court Judge William Horkins said he simply could not rely on the three complainants given their changing and shifting memories and evidence that at times strayed into outright lies.
All he had to go on — as is usual in sexual-assault cases — was the complainants’ credibility, which he said cross-examination showed to be sorely lacking.
Read the full text of the judgement
“What is troubling is not the lack of clarity, but the shifting facts from one telling to the next,” Horkins said of one of the three complainants.
“In cross-examination, the value of her evidence suffered irreparable damage,” he said of another of the witnesses
"
We covered this during the trial. Will just sum up for me what it comes down to.
A blow for female victims of assault and while I'm sure what's her name is celebrating, not sure how she sleeps at night .
The judges ruling spells it out.
Despite being "illegal". It's clear the "alleged victims" were put on trial.
It was a rough trial. The crown choked, the defence had a stranglehold on the evidence
I think justice won. Witnesses' collaborating behind the scesnes is unacceptable. Many will say it's a blow against assaults on women being believed , but I don't see it that way.
The judge also said that he doesn't believe the accusations the women made did not happen but the crown couldn't prove beyond reasnable doubt that they did. Followin along throughout the trial it was obvious there were credibility issues from the victims, crown and police.
Not surprised ! The credibility of the witnesses/victims was pretty much in doubt right from the start. The fact that the "alleged" victims would pursue him after being "assaulted", is not logical, nor is it reasonable. It's not a case where the women were on trial, but in cases of he said, she said, such as this, the court will weigh the credibility of all witness very carefully. Obviously the judge did not find their evidence credible, and rightly so in my opinion.
Agreed !!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I like to think 95% of my friends are reasonable people. Pretty sure all my friends think he was guilty.
Yet, he's been found "not guilty"
How many blame the judge? Very few, he really didn't have any options.
So if everyone thinks he's "guilty" but most also know the verdict is right.
Doesn't leave much room for why...and why its a blow for victims
Was O.J. guilty? I think we already know that justice is not always served.
He had the best lawyer in the country and the plaintiffs weren't credible but he is still a self entitled woman beater. I think he will have to wear the same shoes for more than a month for a while until he finds a job. Pompous little CBC rat. Maybe JT will make him an "independent" Senator?
I agree Terry.
You mean like Brazeau? LOL..... He worked for the CBC, but how do you KNOW who he votes for?Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantcatchacold
I agree.The defense did a superb job of thoroughly discrediting "victim" testimony. I'm surprised they haven't been charged with collusion and perjury. Maybe,they still might be. Ghomeshi may also be able to sue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
The actions of the accused were neither logical nor reasonable, if all human actions were logical this would have never happened. Think of the countless stories of women returning to abusive partners, a situation I can't even begin to wrap my head around. .. However, that said from the sounds of it justice was done, the system did what it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Now doesn't he have another one to go through?
And yet tens of thousands of abuse victims do exactly that, every single day.Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
With outlooks like yours, it's not hard to see why they're marginalized and victimized even more.
People do irrational and unreasonable things every day. I'm sure you have too. It's not an excuse to victimize them.
I can think of many less stressful, surprising, non-abusive events in my own life where even just hours later - i'm thinking about a time i nearly drowned after spending 4 hrs in a lake in heavy winds, unable to make it to shore - where my recollection was extremely fuzzy. Nevermind now, years after it happened.
This just popped up on my newsfeed, from a woman who works to help battered spouses leave abusive CF enlisted spouses.
https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...79&oe=579893E1
That is so sad. How do they know those numbers of total assaults , once people ( counselors etc.) know about an assault are they not obligated to report it to the police.
I bet 90% of legitimate assaults never get reported.
Very likely higher, but then how do we come up with these total numbers if many victims tell no one?
Apparently it's more than just not credible. Heard on the news at 6 that the women may be charged for " lying under oath and hindering justice."Quote:
Originally Posted by rick_iles
Anyone else notice that Ghomeshi and his lawyer look alike?
There is a huge difference in cases of spousal abuse, where long term relationships are involved. There is no question that it not uncommon for abuse victims to go back into an abusive relationship. However, this was not a long term, spousal situation. These "victims" were casual "hook-ups", where there was no investment into a long term relationship. You can't say they were dependant, or felt dependant on their abuser, as is frequently the case in long term abusive relationships. The fact is, these "victims" perjured themselves, failed to disclose very important facts to the investigators, obviously to bolster their complaint, conspired with each other prior to giving their evidence, and outright gave false misleading evidence under oath. The bottom line is, if you want to make a complaint, tell the truth, disclose all information and don't attempt to alter the direction of an investigation by misleading the investigators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddmott
As far as my outlook goes, it's the result of decades investigating similar occurrences, and hours and hours of training.
With respect to your stressful "event", did you climb out of your boat, then wait for a day with similar winds, and then jump back into your boat to do it all over again ????
I highly doubt there will be any charges laid. Time and time again, "victims" in spousal incidents have outright lied and/or committed mischief by making a false complaint, and the Crown refuses to prosecute....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharon
No, only in cases of child assaults. You also have to realize the definition of a sexual assault. It can be anything from a minor touch to an actual penetration. I would suggest that given the broad definition of a sexual assault, there are not many women, or men for that matter that haven't been "sexually" assaulted at one time or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
How do they come up with the number of unreported assaults, a guess?
Good question !Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
The only possible way would be anecdotally,meaning,some available information,but,not enough to prosecute (as was my personal frustrating experience when investigating complaints). I'll just say that all the protestors aren't doing victims any favors,either. The witnesses lied and fabricated evidence which led to the acquital. Protestors position themselves that it doesn't matter,he's guilty,anyway. They all look foolish.
Exactly... It sure lessens their (protesters) credibility !!Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Being guilty and convicted are two different things. OJ anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
IIRC,that case was more about horrendous investigative techniques,prosecutorial errors in judgement and tunnel vision along with apparently colluded testimony. Note the similarities here?
How long before he's back on CBC radio???
Never , they likely had just cause for firing him due to workplace policy ,but maybe not enough to convict in a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt.
I agree, he is finished as a celebrity personality but I wouldn't be surprised if he sues the complainants to try and recover income lost due to defamation of character.Especially if the crown charges the 3 women with perjury and collusion, I think he would have a slam dunk case.
There's a strong possibity that his lawyer has advised against a lawsuit in civil court. Because the rules of evidence and burden of proof are different,he may find himself on the losing end and have costs awarded to the defendants. That would break the bank and their lawyers would make damn sure of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
May not be finished as a celebrity personality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
Remember Kobi bryant , Mike Tyson , Frank D'Angelo.
The general public either has a short memory or a low IQ.