You guys all foaming at the mouth with claims of "innocence", false accusations, criminal conspiracy and defamation of character!
If you read the Judgement, the Judge essentially said that
1. The accused comes to court with a presumption of innocence.
2. The Crown must provide evidence that an offence occurred, beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. The Crown's evidence was supplied by witnesses statements and testimony.
4. The witnesses attempted to deceive the Court on several matters (mostly after the fact of the alleged assaults) that essentially made them not credible witnesses, therefore their evidence was not reliable.
5. Without reliable, credible witness evidence, there was essentially no admissible evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
6. Not guilty is NOT THE SAME AS INNOCENT!!!!!!!
Innocent means the accusation was DIS-PROVEN.
NOT Guilty means that the accusation was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
7. The Judge specifically said that this finding does not mean that the alleged assaults did not occur, just that the witnesses' own dishonest and deceptive conduct on the events that occurred after the alleged assaults resulted in them having to be deemed as non-credible witnesses.
As for suing for "defamation of character"
Ghomeshi can sue for whatever he wants. Nothing to stop him from suing the women for making a false accusation, for defaming his character. Just write up the Statement of Claim, file it in court and serve the women.
Now.... when they defend themselves by using Ghoemeshis own words that he enjoys and practices rough sex, including punching, slapping and choking I think they'd end up winning the lawsuit and getting their lawyer's costs awarded to them for Ghomeshi wasting their time, the courts time and all that money.
There is no doubt in my, or most people's minds that he did indeed slap and/or choke them without advance consent, to see if they would respond positively to this. But the women in trying to somehow demonstrate they they weren't bad irls for continuing to pursue or see him afterwards, have only themselves to blame for his acquittal.
Had the women admitted they tried to keep in contact with him, pursue him etc but that it still bothered them that he slapped or choked them earlier, then they would likely have succeeded in him being found guilty. But they lied so they exposed themselves to being humiliated for not pursuing him, but lying about it.
