Ghomeshi?
- Thread starter notthemama
- Start date
canada-man
Well-known member
Ghomeshi faces another trial in June on the one remaining count of sexual assault relating to a workplace incident.
Wonder how many "believe the survive " supporters will be on the sentencing of Marco Muzzo...I suspect zero!
Last edited:
why do people give a shit?
I'm sure there are more serious cases.
We will never hear about them.
Is it because he is/was somewhat famous?
What is it about people. Are we crows, attracted to something shiny?
Seriously, I am sure, somewhere in the big smoke last night more serious sexual assaults happened.
The police and legal system will be loath to do anything about them.
Here we are wasting millions, killing trees by the thousand in papers and electricity by the megawatt reporting this case.
Wha...?
Can someone explain this to me.
I think I can explain this, at least for some.
Ghomeshi was a media figure with a publicly funded broadcast that he was able to use as his own personal platform for comment. He was an outspoken critic of many conservative values and personalities. He was an outspoken advocate of many liberal positions and agendae, including having a lot to say about discrimination and harassment of women, as well as women's rights in general.
He sat in judgment of many others.
Apart from the reliable principle that no one is ever as saintly as they attempt to appear or believe themselves to be, there was always something subtle about Ghomeshi that seemed to betray that there was hypocrisy lying close to the surface. Anyone who spent much time listening to his sanctimonious, condescending prattle believed that this guy's true colours would eventually show through.
Et voila! It turns out that he is a world class asshole.
Naturally, anyone with that perspective wanted to see if it was provable and if there would be any consequences for such a vile weasel.
This case has taught us all a lesson. If you're going hunting for psychopaths, best not to rely on the emotionally and mentally damaged to make your case. Didn't Silence of the Lambs teach us anything?
Let's see if any of the other accusers (in the remaining criminal trial, or those interviewed in support of his dismissal) have all of their marbles. It's early days, so I'm jumping on the opening betting line here, but I think it's unlikely that he's going to be able to dodge all of the remaining bullets.
Lets say a false accusation could lead to an individual spending 5-10 years jail time. That should be the automatic penalty for a false accusation. And ALL false accusations should be prosecuted.
BTW the SlutWalk organization is organizing a march to support the lying, possible victims. This sort of thing has the potential to cause sensible people to be less concerned about true assault
Last edited:
Exactly, we will never know.
Let's pretend our justice system works and this is the truth.
Can he not sue the ones who were trying to bring him down. Why can't our system prosecute the real abusers, the real monsters, the sheep in wolves clothing.
If this is in fact the truth isn't Gomeshi the victim here?
If this is true this is the perfect example of wolf in sheep's clothing... I am talking about the ones who tried to conspire to bring him down. There should be some consequences to this, no? If they did conspire to bring him down, why can't they be treated equally and prosecuted accordingly. I guess its all a game in the end and the ones who morph best and play on current political trains stay on top.
Don't get me wrong, I am strongly against abusers of any form, but why is it automatically so easy to side on the side of the women without knowing all the facts.
What does this say about us, the enablers, the soft accessories to allow such conspiracy to thrive and spread like posion?
Where there was proof of collusion between the witnesses is there not a potential charge of conspiracy to commit something? Probably Section 465 (b)?
"465 (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:
(a) every one who conspires with any one to commit murder or to cause another person to be murdered, whether in Canada or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum term of imprisonment for life;
(b) every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or
(ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to imprisonment for less than fourteen years;
(c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable; and
(d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-465.html
"465 (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:
(a) every one who conspires with any one to commit murder or to cause another person to be murdered, whether in Canada or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum term of imprisonment for life;
(b) every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or
(ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to imprisonment for less than fourteen years;
(c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable; and
(d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-465.html
Justice was served. That's 3 out of 3 lying accusers.
Makes you wonder how many of Bill Cosby's accusers are simply liars. Probably a majority. Sadly, text messaging didn't exist in the 70s and 80s.
Why do they do it? Regret. Spite. Envy. Other.
Makes you wonder how many of Bill Cosby's accusers are simply liars. Probably a majority. Sadly, text messaging didn't exist in the 70s and 80s.
Why do they do it? Regret. Spite. Envy. Other.
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.
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.
Why would they do it?
Maybe because he did rape them?
Why is it so hard to grasp that although witnesses may lie about or even just misremember certain events or details, it does not make their BASE allegation untrue. It does make their credibility in the eyes of the Court open to scrutiny so their testimony will be viewed accordingly. But just because a victim or witness lies about one thing, does not make the other 10 things they said they say untrue.
You can say you love your wife and lie to her about seeing escorts but still love your wife.
Exactly!
But it does not mean that he didn't hit or choke them. That their accusations were not true. Or that he is "innocent" as many people want to believe
I believe he did indeed hit or choke them by surprise, without their consent. However, I am glad that the system worked the way it was supposed to and that he was not convicted based on their testimony.
Oh no... not all this bullshit all over again!
We just went through it in the Forcillo case...
The logic is plain, fucking stupid: Gomeshi goes to Court as an innocent man. He is innocent unless and until proved guilty. He is not proved guilty. Therefore, he is not innocent.
Perry
Why would they do it?
Maybe because he did rape them?
Why is it so hard to grasp that although witnesses may lie about or even just misremember certain events or details, it does not make their BASE allegation untrue. It does make their credibility in the eyes of the Court open to scrutiny so their testimony will be viewed accordingly. But just because a victim or witness lies about one thing, does not make the other 10 things they said they say untrue.
You can say you love your wife and lie to her about seeing escorts but still love your wife.
Maybe???
What if he didn't? What if they conspired to bring him down just because they found A REASON?
I had an ex GF who wanted me to choke her just to the point before passing out. She said her ex used to do it a lot to her and brought on such euphoria. I never did this despite her requesting this many times and telling me how good it feels. She also used to cut her arms because it felt good. So how do you really know it was not consentual based on their unique relationship.
I personally would never engage in anything like this cause it is just NOT something I can do. But there are many people out there who get off on this and partake in this consensually.
So I guess if you consent to do this, the person asking you to do it has a free ticket to file a lawsuit against you or charge your criminally.
If he did abuse then he deserves the worst, however, what if he didn't. I will use your statement and say maybe it was consentul and part of their routine fun play.
Maybe just maybe in my opinion sounds like a very weak argument to condem someone without knowing the actual facts ruin their career or even worse lock them up.
Why do we always side with the perceived victim without considering all possibilities. How prone to manipulation are we? If he was guiltily the judge would have had a different verdict. There is a evidence of a lot of collusion and conspirational and tinkering here to clearly pick the victim and abuser. So maybe we consider all possibilities cause we just don't know all the facts.
Bill Cosby's case is completely different. His victims are women that he had casual encounters but he was never in a romantic relationship (at least not while they were conscious). Fifty independent women are not going to subject themselves to ridicule as assault victims for a lark plus Cosby has already admitted in a signed affidavit that he uses drugs on women so that he can have sex with them.
Why would they do it?
Maybe because he did rape them?
He didn't rape them - they never said that he did. They claim that he physically assaulted them.
Why ? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. They pursued him, continued to date him and only complained after they broke up.
What I can't figure out is why the protesters aren't upset with the 'victims' for accepting the abuse and then lying in court. They have abused the system and have made it that much harder for abused victims to step forward.
His interview of the Billy Bob Thornton got some extra media attention. I knew of him in bits and drabs before that.
Why would they do it?
Maybe because he did rape them?
Why is it so hard to grasp that although witnesses may lie about or even just misremember certain events or details, it does not make their BASE allegation untrue. It does make their credibility in the eyes of the Court open to scrutiny so their testimony will be viewed accordingly. But just because a victim or witness lies about one thing, does not make the other 10 things they said they say untrue.
You can say you love your wife and lie to her about seeing escorts but still love your wife.
It could because lying can taint what else they said even if they may be true (unless independently corroborated).
In this case, it seems there were many inconsistencies. Not just what they said, but how they behaved after the alleged incidents.
I believe the system has worked.
People must complain sooner and preserve any evidence that is still fresh.
(I had a woman call the cops on me, and I never approached her, just told her off over the phone - long story, she is someone I know and was trying to get info or otherwise out of me, which was improper. I explained myself to the cops and it went away. I think the cop's call was based on a double standard, not on merits. Maybe he knows her too. And yes, it was a real cop.)
