Jian Ghomeshi and the CBC

[The Unknown Poster]

Toronto Star

 

 

Jian Ghomeshi pleaded not guilty Thursday at his pretrial hearing on sexual assault and choking charges.

 

The 48-year-old disgraced former CBC radio host has elected to be tried by judge alone at a trial that is to start in February.

 

Ghomeshi was accompanied by his lawyer and police as he walked up the steps to court at Old City Hall around 9:15 a.m. and he did not speak to the media.

When the hearing began, Ghomeshi stood and formally pleaded not guilty to four charges of sexual assault and one charge of choking to overcome resistance.

His plea, which he had to repeat for the benefit of the court reporter, marked the he has spoken in court so far.

 

Ghomeshi appeared in a dark suit, sitting beside his lawyers Marie Henein and Danielle Robitaille. His face remained impassive as the details of the charges were read to the court.

 

t was nearly one year ago, on Oct. 26, 2014, that the CBC announced it had fired the high-profile radio host.

 

At that time, Ghomeshi published a long Facebook defence of himself that described his interest in “a variety of activities in the bedroom ... “that are mutually agreed upon, consensual and exciting for both partners.

 

CBC subsequently said Ghomeshi was fired after executives saw what they described as graphic evidence that he had physically injured a woman.

 

On Nov. 26, Toronto police charged him with four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking. Three more sexual assault charges were added in January.

[The Unknown Poster]

And so it begins...

 

TORONTO - Former CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi is accused of inflicting violence on three women — including Trailer Park Boys actress Lucy DeCoutere — while on dates with them.

Ghomeshi, 48, faces sexual assault and one count of choking charges stemming from allegations about his conduct between Dec. 1, 2002, and July 2, 2003.

Follow along on Day 1 of the trial... 

[The Unknown Poster]

           

The lawyers for Jian Ghomeshi say they plan to argue that testimony from one of the complainants in his sexual assault trial was fabricated.

The former CBC Radio host's lawyers accused a complainant of lying on the sixth day of Ghomeshi's trial. Ghomeshi is facing four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking.

He has always denied any wrongdoing and claimed his sexual relations were consensual. He is being tried by judge alone.

Lawyers Marie Henein and Danielle Robitaille told the court Tuesday morning that they plan to argue that actress Lucy DeCoutere "lied about events" while on the stand last week.

The Crown said it plans to call a fourth witness, who would refute the allegation that DeCoutere was untruthful.

On Thursday and Friday, DeCoutere testified that Ghomeshi had choked her, then slapped her three times while they were in his bedroom in July 2003.

DeCoutere said she had consented to kissing him, but not to the violence.

When she was cross-examined, the court learned that DeCoutere had sent multiple emails to Ghomeshi following the alleged assault. In one email, referenced in court again Monday, she wrote: "You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to f**k your brains out tonight."

DeCoutere acknowledged that she had sent the email, but said she didn't remember writing it.

"I totally forgot about it. I guess I wanted to forget about it," she said.

DeCoutere also sent Ghomeshi a hand-written letter, that ended with the phrase: "I love your hands."

Henein and Robitaille said Tuesday that they believe that DeCoutere lied during her testimony, and alleged that she told the story "for fame." The defence said they believe she may have colluded with the other two complainants in the case.

The defence is also questioning inconsistencies in DeCoutere's testimony and police statement, including whether Ghomeshi allegedly choked her with one hand or two.

The Crown said its witness would support DeCoutere's version of events, but the witness lives in Nova Scotia so would not be able to testify until Thursday.

On Monday, the court heard from the third and final complainant in the case, who became friends with DeCoutere more than 10 years after their alleged assaults.

The woman, who cannot be named, is a dancer who spent time with Ghomeshi in 2003.

The complainant described several encounters with the former broadcaster, including one occasion when she said he put his hands on her throat while they were kissing.

She said she felt unsafe and had difficulty breathing during the incident.

During cross-examination, the woman revealed that she had discussed the allegations with fellow complainant DeCoutere. The women met and became friends more than 10 years after their alleged assaults.

Another complainant took the stand early last week, telling the court of her experiences on dates with Ghomeshi. She said she was punched in the head by the radio host while on a second date at his home.

Cross-examination revealed she had also emailed Ghomeshi after the alleged assault, and sent him a photo of herself in a bikini. She said the emails were "bait" meant to lure Ghomeshi into talking about what had happened.

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by The Unknown Poster

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Not guilty verdict today and the judge pointed fingers at accusers.

CBC boss says he's not coming back due to code-of-conduct.

Fraser? Still ready to punch?

Edited March 24, 2016 by FrostyWinnipeg

[The Unknown Poster]

59 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Not guilty verdict today and the judge pointed fingers at accusers.

CBC boss says he's not coming back due to code-of-conduct.

Fraser? Still ready to punch?

Not surprising.  Once the defence ripped holes in the one accuser, it was over.  And that's the right thing as far as the law goes.  Reasonable doubt = not guilty.  Now whether he actually is guilty is another story.

Will be interesting to see how many left wing folks race to embrace him again.

[Atomic]

I don't blame the judge, the crown did a **** job.  The man is guilty, no doubt.

[The Unknown Poster]

The witnesses all lied to varying degrees.  I think the psychology of victimization can account for it.  But in this case, I cant imagine convicting someone with this evidence.  It doesnt change that Jian seems like a real POS and did these things.  It doesnt even change that maybe the women didnt want it and felt abused.  But by their own words and actions they either said they enjoyed it or went back for more.  The fact they specifically omitted those facts from the police and crown clouds their testimony. 

[Atomic]

Right, that's why I don't blame the judge.  He made the only reasonable judgement under the circumstances.  I do believe the crown could have done a better job with their case, though.  And I wouldn't necessarily say the witnesses "lied."  I mean if someone asked me what I had for lunch a week ago I would have trouble giving a consistent answer.  We're talking about the distant past and traumatic circumstances.  Of course the witnesses don't have everything rock solid.

[The Unknown Poster]

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

Right, that's why I don't blame the judge.  He made the only reasonable judgement under the circumstances.  I do believe the crown could have done a better job with their case, though.  And I wouldn't necessarily say the witnesses "lied."  I mean if someone asked me what I had for lunch a week ago I would have trouble giving a consistent answer.  We're talking about the distant past and traumatic circumstances.  Of course the witnesses don't have everything rock solid.

Well they specifically said (if I have correct info) that they never conversed with him again.  They were specific enough to say they only saw him at industry events, or would only be comfortable seeing him in public.  Once the Crown got the emails (and I assume they did due to discovery), they should have been better prepared.

I think victims can act very different then we would think in normal circumstances.  The lead witness (the actress) is somewhat shady though because she's the one that wanted her name public, she wanted the notoriety.  And she's the one that emailed Jian to say she liked him roughing her up and wanted to sleep with him even more as a result.  The other one who emailed Jian a year later and seemed to be flirting, sending a bikini pic etc, that goes to Jian's defense that she was a spurned woman. 

[Fatty Liver]

22 hours ago, Atomic said:

I don't blame the judge, the crown did a **** job.  The man is guilty, no doubt.

Enough doubt not to convict in this case, happy to see that the courts did their job and didn't fold to public pressure. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by Throw Long Bannatyne

[iso_55]

The actress that played Lucy in Trailer Park Boys must be as loopy in real life as she was on that show. She kept in touch & saw him AFTER the sexual assault? Well, with complainants like that, no wonder he won.

[The Unknown Poster]

1 hour ago, iso_55 said:

The actress that played Lucy in Trailer Park Boys must be as loopy in real life as she was on that show. She kept in touch & saw him AFTER the sexual assault? Well, with complainants like that, no wonder he won.

The other side of this is that victims don't always act the way we think they should. Women get beat up every day and stay with their abusers and help hide it. So the thing about this case is that the behaviour of the victims doesn't preclude them from being victims. But it also fits the narrative of this beinf either consensual or at least acts that the women didn't and ended up spurned lovers. So once you have that to overcome the only result could be not guilty 

certainly doesn't mean he's innocent 

[iso_55]

This isn't The Stockholm Syndrome where a kidnapped victim identifies with her captors. She wasn't a credible witness on the stand.

[The Unknown Poster]

10 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

This isn't The Stockholm Syndrome where a kidnapped victim identifies with her captors. She wasn't a credible witness on the stand.

I think you're ignoring an awful lot about victimization.  

[iso_55]

5 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I think you're ignoring an awful lot about victimization.  

And you're making an awful lot of assumptions. The Crown's case didn't have credible witnesses. They never proved that he was absolutely guilty. It's up to the crown to PROVE there was victimization & they didn't.

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, iso_55 said:

And you're making an awful lot of assumptions. The Crown's case didn't have credible witnesses. They never proved that he was absolutely guilty. It's up to the crown to PROVE there was victimization & they didn't.

Well I guess wrapping your hands around a women's throat might be fun for some people but not me. 

But that's not really the point. You can't dismiss accusations by the actions of the accusers because their actions are reasonable for victims. Unfortunately they are also reasonable for people who are "spurned lovers". And once there was that doubt you can't convict. 

But dismissing the accusations as false because the women continued to have contact with him isnt fair.  

Undoubtably he did it. The issue was consent. 

[iso_55]

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

Well I guess wrapping your hands around a women's throat might be fun for some people but not me. 

But that's not really the point. You can't dismiss accusations by the actions of the accusers because their actions are reasonable for victims. Unfortunately they are also reasonable for people who are "spurned lovers". And once there was that doubt you can't convict. 

But dismissing the accusations as false because the women continued to have contact with him isnt fair.  

Undoubtably he did it. The issue was consent. 

Look, I have no idea what this guy is like other than what I've read & watched. You may not like the outcome but the criminal justice system maintains innocence until proven guilty.  The Crown never proved their case because the witnesses weren't credible. I think that the women maintaining their contact after the alleged assaults was the main reason Ghomeshi was acquitted. Maybe one woman but what was it, three? Like I said, this was not The Stockholm Syndrome.

[The Unknown Poster]

12 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

Look, I have no idea what this guy is like other than what I've read & watched. You may not like the outcome but the criminal justice system maintains innocence until proven guilty.  The Crown never proved their case because the witnesses weren't credible. I think that the women maintaining their contact after the alleged assaults was the main reason Ghomeshi was acquitted. Maybe one woman but what was it, three? Like I said, this was not The Stockholm Syndrome.

I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing since my first post after the verdict was that it was the correct verdict. Stockholm syndrome isn't the correct comparison.  

[iso_55]

I didn't say it was. Why are you even arguing with me?? I know exactly what I was arguing. Once again, you make assumptions.