Jian Ghomeshi trial to begin in Toronto Monday
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Even if his lawyer fees add up to $3 mill that still wouldnt leave him broke. He probably would have to liquidate most of his assets though
I am not a lawyer but if I was asked to present a case, I would put the weakest link first just to put the thought in the juror's minds. You certainly wouldn't want doubt that strong in their minds as they head to the jury room for a verdict. You lead the jurors along a path that gets darker and darker with the most damning testimony at the last part of your case. If I'm right - there is much more harder testimony to come. If I'm wrong - JG should come out with law suits firing out every direction..
Having been a couple of decades plus in the very line of work, I would disagree with you. You want the jury eating out of your hand from the get-go. If they buy into your story enough in the first couple of hours, they will ignore the contradictions and fumbles that come later and explain them away to each other. Basic human nature.
Start weak and the jury will find holes in your subsequent witnesses, even where none exist.
So you lead with your best witness and work down the line to the liars and weasels.
Blatchford writes: "But when Henein said her client didn’t own a VW Beetle at that time (rather a GTI, which bears no resemblance) and in fact “didn’t buy a ‘love bug’ until months and months later” and asked the woman if that didn’t mean her memory was wrong, she replied, “If he didn’t own it then, I was mistaken. I’m not a connoisseur of cars.”"
So he did own a VW at a later date. I wonder if he wasn't test driving a VW when he met her?
Of course, there are still other inconsistencies.
This is he said she said situation. The details are the only thing that can establish credibility.
What Henein is working towards is showing that JG and the complainant had an ongoing consensual relationship and the comp only tried to nail JG to cash in when he lost interest in her. Showing that the comp cannot keep her dates and facts straight indicates that she had little concern about the rough sex to the point where details of the supposedly shocking and painful incidents made no impact on her - because they either never happened or she enjoyed them. Stuff like if she was wearing extensions when he pulled her hair is pretty important in its own right. A woman would be concerned that he might damage the extensions. And comp made the VW issue a significant one by flagging it herself.
There are "core details", not irrelevant details. Combined with other revelations about her character, they indicate that she is lying and attempting to exploit the trial for her own ends.
There are "core details", not irrelevant details. Combined with other revelations about her character, they indicate that she is lying and attempting to exploit the trial for her own ends.
I read the positioning of Ghomeshi's case a little more subtly than the proposition that "all the Crown's witnesses are liars or delusional".
Bear in mind, an assault such as pulling someone's hair, or even punching them in the face, usually meets with only the most minor of sanctions in the criminal courts (absolute or conditional discharges are not uncommon). What makes Ghomeshi's conduct so "offensive" is the sexual context. In short, it's a "shocker" when you are expecting sex, but instead receive a punch to the head.
However, what I think is likely, and where I think Ghomeshi's lawyer is going, is towards the idea that "rough sex" is a process of examining one's own limits (if you're on the receiving end of the roughness). As the submissive, you move along the continuum until you reach your limit. That's when you firmly say no. In such relationships, it would be inevitable that some people will not know their limit, or express what it is, until their line has already been crossed. If that line is "good enough" for the dominant partner, the couple stays together. If not (his/her threshold is too low), they break up.
The evidence of the alleged victim attempting to reconnect with Ghomeshi after the assault is consistent with her being unsure and unclear about what her limits were/are.
I think the theory at the end of the day will be that all of the women were willing to travel at least part of the way along the "rough sex" road, so Ghomeshi kept pushing their limits. When they finally said no, that's when Ghomeshi stopped pushing, and said goodbye to these women.
Now this may seem to run afoul of the idea that anything other than a clear, informed yes equals an absence of consent. But what if the nature of the "consent" is "it's ok to test my limits - I'll tell you when you've crossed them"?
I think the courts understand that negotiating the parameters of a sexual relationship is not like negotiating a contract. No one would ever get laid if they demanded a (legal) release as a precondition to sex! It will USUALLY be the case that there will be misunderstandings in a relationship, including misunderstandings about what each partner enjoys or would tolerate. In my view, it may be difficult to establish a case for assault in that context UNLESS the victim clearly communicated that the behaviour was not acceptable, yet Ghomeshi persisted. The evidence of the first witness would not satisfy that test. What the evidence seems to be (based on reports) is that the victim was up for a little hair pulling, but was not prepared to put up with being "punched" (unless she changed her mind about that as well when she attempted to contact him months later?). I don't believe there was evidence that he persisted after she made her limits clear. Rather, it appears that he dumped her shortly afterwards.
Does this analysis mean that I sympathize or agree with Ghomeshi? Not by a long shot. I think he's a hypocritical, entitled, arrogant, overrated, self-absorbed a-hole. I'd like nothing better than to see this guy go down in flames. I think the CBC will be better without him, and that, in turn, we'd all be better off without the CBC and his ilk. However, I think the problem with these legal proceedings will turn out to be that the women he was involved with were not that much different than Ghomeshi. Put another way, they were fellow travellers on his road of self-absorbed self-indulgence and, as such, are not really victims. They just weren't prepared to go as far down that road as he would.
Bear in mind, an assault such as pulling someone's hair, or even punching them in the face, usually meets with only the most minor of sanctions in the criminal courts (absolute or conditional discharges are not uncommon). What makes Ghomeshi's conduct so "offensive" is the sexual context. In short, it's a "shocker" when you are expecting sex, but instead receive a punch to the head.
However, what I think is likely, and where I think Ghomeshi's lawyer is going, is towards the idea that "rough sex" is a process of examining one's own limits (if you're on the receiving end of the roughness). As the submissive, you move along the continuum until you reach your limit. That's when you firmly say no. In such relationships, it would be inevitable that some people will not know their limit, or express what it is, until their line has already been crossed. If that line is "good enough" for the dominant partner, the couple stays together. If not (his/her threshold is too low), they break up.
The evidence of the alleged victim attempting to reconnect with Ghomeshi after the assault is consistent with her being unsure and unclear about what her limits were/are.
I think the theory at the end of the day will be that all of the women were willing to travel at least part of the way along the "rough sex" road, so Ghomeshi kept pushing their limits. When they finally said no, that's when Ghomeshi stopped pushing, and said goodbye to these women.
Now this may seem to run afoul of the idea that anything other than a clear, informed yes equals an absence of consent. But what if the nature of the "consent" is "it's ok to test my limits - I'll tell you when you've crossed them"?
I think the courts understand that negotiating the parameters of a sexual relationship is not like negotiating a contract. No one would ever get laid if they demanded a (legal) release as a precondition to sex! It will USUALLY be the case that there will be misunderstandings in a relationship, including misunderstandings about what each partner enjoys or would tolerate. In my view, it may be difficult to establish a case for assault in that context UNLESS the victim clearly communicated that the behaviour was not acceptable, yet Ghomeshi persisted. The evidence of the first witness would not satisfy that test. What the evidence seems to be (based on reports) is that the victim was up for a little hair pulling, but was not prepared to put up with being "punched" (unless she changed her mind about that as well when she attempted to contact him months later?). I don't believe there was evidence that he persisted after she made her limits clear. Rather, it appears that he dumped her shortly afterwards.
Does this analysis mean that I sympathize or agree with Ghomeshi? Not by a long shot. I think he's a hypocritical, entitled, arrogant, overrated, self-absorbed a-hole. I'd like nothing better than to see this guy go down in flames. I think the CBC will be better without him, and that, in turn, we'd all be better off without the CBC and his ilk. However, I think the problem with these legal proceedings will turn out to be that the women he was involved with were not that much different than Ghomeshi. Put another way, they were fellow travellers on his road of self-absorbed self-indulgence and, as such, are not really victims. They just weren't prepared to go as far down that road as he would.
Last edited:
Proof that representing yourself is having a fool for a lawyer !
I would be a bad juror - having a witness like this at the end of the trial would have me reflecting on the previous testimony for similar flaws. It would be like eating a delicious meal then finishing it with a bad tasting dessert. My recollections of the entire meal would be tainted by the last bitter taste of the dessert.
That she knows JG had a VW Bug some time after the incident took place could show either they were involved for some time, or she was a jilted ex stalking him.
Like Cosby - a few too many complaints to believe he is "innocent".
I guess we should wait to hear all the evidence. Sometimes when your liar is as good as Henein, they can make an honest witness story look less credible. Witnesses can often be outsmarted and allowed to contradict themselves without realizing they are doing it. A skilled trial attorney can paint a very unique picture of the evidence. Of course prosecutors play dirty tricks all the time as well.
My guess is that if he gets off, he will think the $1 million + in fees was worth it.
I guess we should wait to hear all the evidence. Sometimes when your liar is as good as Henein, they can make an honest witness story look less credible. Witnesses can often be outsmarted and allowed to contradict themselves without realizing they are doing it. A skilled trial attorney can paint a very unique picture of the evidence. Of course prosecutors play dirty tricks all the time as well.
My guess is that if he gets off, he will think the $1 million + in fees was worth it.
That's a thought worth exploring. Aren't famous/wealthy people more prone to these kinds of complaints? Don't these complaints often lead to nuisance settlements due to the cost (in legal fees and otherwise) of defending against such complaints in court? Isn't it human nature to become more "bold" with allegations that may not be 100% solid if there are others making the same allegation? Doesn't the media play a large part in developing these group complaints? Isn't it in the media's interest to do so, as "additional developments" extends the life and outreach of a news story?
As I've stated earlier in the thread, I'm no Ghomeshi supporter, far from it. However, anyone who is drawing conclusions about the truth of any allegation based on the number of complainants needs to consider all of the reasons that such mass complaints might not be reliable.
Me, I'd rather believe aspects of the complaints for other reasons that I trust more. I've watched/listened to Ghomeshi's show/interviews on many occasions, not because I'm fan of his, but because I am fan of who he was interviewing or interested in the topic being discussed. Based on his own words and behaviour, and long before these allegations came to light, he came across to me as a hypocritical douchebag (you know, like all those evangelist preachers who turn out to be perverts, etc.). It's for that reason that my instinct is to believe he is lying about at least some aspects of his story, even if his accusers are also not telling the entire truth. He's shown himself to be so self-righteous. People like that, in my experience, never believe they are in the wrong and don't accept responsibility for their mistakes/misdeeds. They rationalize that everything is the fault of others. Classic psychopathic/sociopathic behaviour.
The problem is that I also believe that many of the women he's been involved with are cut from the same cloth, so in the end these charges and trials are a massive waste of public money being spent solely to allow broken sociopathic people to wage war on one another and to sell a few more newspaper ads.
Aside from the criminal complaints - there is plenty of similar fact evidence regarding his behaviour and comments that would lead one to believe he is not "innocent". If he is convicted, I would not be surprised if more women came forward with similar stories, especially if their privacy was guaranteed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similar_fact_evidence
Sheehy said the latest statistics suggest the rate of rape reporting is falling, from which she concludes that women’s confidence in the system is “plummeting.”
And therein lies one of the possible messages Canada will take from Ghomeshi’s prosecution, that after all the soul-searching, this blockbuster sex trial might not be a turning point at all, but rather, as Sheehy put it, “the same old same old, wrapped up in a new package.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...evance-of-jian-ghomeshis-sexual-assault-trial
Of course there's a possibility that JG, while maybe a pig and into kinky shit, might be completely innocent.
It is possible - just unlikely.
Let's face it - there are a lot of women who want a man to be sexually dominant. Why? I think "letting go" and "surrendering" to a sexually dominant man leads to more pleasure and easier orgasms.
I have had SP's and few other ladies that have told me they like it rough. I don't recall if I ever got explicit prior consent before spanking, giving them playful slaps, restraint hold positions or mild hair pulling. There were never any objections or complaints during or after, in fact to the contrary, they all expressed more pleasure and encouragement.
I don't really think punching them in the head or choking them would be consensual in most cases. You would have to be pretty fucked up to do that without explicit prior consent. Even with consent - it seems really fucked up to me.
I have no opinion on his guilt or innocence and speculation is the mother of all fuck ups in a case like this. I do have opinions on the process. The media have been buzzing about JG's lawyer playing rough. I find that notion disgusting. The man, without being convicted, already had his livelihood flashed down the toilet. He's on trial for his very existence. People who want to use him to drive in their agenda put him and the process in an impossible position. If he walks away from this, they'll just say it will prevent other victims from stepping forward. As already it's being said simply because his lawyer is doing her job. Even if he's found innocent, he'll not get his job back. Can he sue his accusers and to what end? The TPS' policy does not look so bad, all of a sudden. Personally, I'd rather see a hundred guilty people go free than to see one innocent convicted.
