That, sir, is the real issue!
Usually, it is the sign of an insecure person that constantly needs validation...
From his obstinate nature and 65,000 posts that seems to be a fair and reasonable inference in fuji's case...
Perry
Jian Ghomeshi trial to begin in Toronto Monday
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Usually, it is the sign of an insecure person that constantly needs validation...
From his obstinate nature and 65,000 posts that seems to be a fair and reasonable inference in fuji's case...
Perry
Haven't really followed the trial too much, but once I found it was the girl from the Trailer Park Boys I thought I would check it out.
Talk about art imitating life! She really pulled a "Ricky" on the stand.
The only thing missing was a drunken Lahey stumbling in and disrupting the courtroom.
The cops who took her statement probably wanted to strangle her for "forgetting" so many key details...
Counting number of wrong statements? The OJ example shut him up. OJ was found not guilty in criminal court and then in the civil case was found culpable. This due to the civil case operating on balance of probabilities while the criminal case used beyond a reasonable doubt.
A jury that thinks you probably did it will find you not guilty in a criminal trial, and find against you in a civil one.
I know that Lucy's testimony looks bad on the surface.
But how someone reacts after a crime doesn't necessarily mean the crime did not happen.
So what if she sent emails afterwards, so what if they saw each other afterwards?
I'm lucky nothing that bad has ever happened to me.
But what I can say is there are tons of times when people have wronged me and I continue interacting with them as if nothing happened. How I behave afterwards does not negate what they did in the past. nor does it indicate that I am okay with what they did.
But how someone reacts after a crime doesn't necessarily mean the crime did not happen.
So what if she sent emails afterwards, so what if they saw each other afterwards?
I'm lucky nothing that bad has ever happened to me.
But what I can say is there are tons of times when people have wronged me and I continue interacting with them as if nothing happened. How I behave afterwards does not negate what they did in the past. nor does it indicate that I am okay with what they did.
All part of an illusion to disarm your defenses. Come home late after drinking with the boys and your well constructed alibi will be ripped to shreds before your coat is on the hanger. If I was Hamilton Burger I think I would fear facing her in a courtroom more than Perry Mason (with due respect terb Perry).
Emails from 10 years ago?
Ghomeshi must have kept them.
Its not hard to archive email, Ghomeshi was probably saving them to write a book or something.
On "standards of proof" vs. "facts".
Our legal system uses "standards of proof" as a tool to assist in making legal decisions. Technically speaking a "finding of fact" is not the same thing as "a fact". A finding of fact has relevance to a particular legal proceeding, and in some cases, to other legal proceedings. Our justice system does not determine what reality really is. It just determines what the facts are for the purpose of legal proceedings. Whether courts/arbitrators apply the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard (criminal proceedings) or the "balance of probability" standard (civil proceedings (for the most part, I'll come back to this)), adjudicators can and do "get the facts wrong" from time to time, because they have to rely on the evidence that is presented to them, which is always an imperfect substitute for direct knowledge of the events that are the subject of the dispute. In short, it's an imperfect system, but it's the only system we've got, and the public believes that it works well enough, enough of the time, that there is no serious amount of clamouring for an alternative justice system.
Having said all of this, if the judge in the Ghomeshi case finds him to be "not guilty", such a verdict could arise from the following possible findings:
a) a finding that that the acts complained of did not occur (beyond a reasonable doubt),
b) a finding that Ghomeshi did not possess the mental state required for criminal liability (beyond a reasonable doubt),
c) a finding that the acts complained of, even if found to occur, were not contrary to criminal law.
Whether or not any of these findings are made, it would still be open to Ghomeshi, or the complainants, or others, to seek civil remedies following the trial, whether that might include Ghomeshi seeking reinstatement to his position via a grievance, Ghomeshi seeking a remedy against his union if they will not pursue a reinstatement on his behalf, the complainants seeking civil damages against Ghomeshi for his conduct, actions by or against the CBC, or any other type of litigation. The factual findings and testimony before the Criminal court may or may not be admissible/relevant in some/all of these proceedings (TERB is no place to get into a discussion between the subtleties of issue estoppel, res judicata, protections which may arise under the Evidence Act, etc.).
A civil proceeding will (generally) apply a standard of "balance of probabilities" (although there are many labour arbitration awards suggesting that a somewhat higher standard requiring "clear and cogent" evidence may apply when the conduct which is relied upon as cause for discharge would have a seriously deleterious impact on the reputation and re-employability of the dismissed employee (fraud, etc.)). Even on this lower standard, a legal finding is just that, a finding for the purpose of reaching a legal decision.
As a result:
a) I partially agree with Fuji (but not wholly),
b) I agree with Perry, except to the extent that Fuji is making somewhat of a point (perhaps not clearly), and
c) Everyone is entitled to believe the facts to be whatever they find to be persuasive, and to govern themselves (and their possible future interactions with Ghomeshi
) as they see fit. The legal process is an imperfect one.
Our legal system uses "standards of proof" as a tool to assist in making legal decisions. Technically speaking a "finding of fact" is not the same thing as "a fact". A finding of fact has relevance to a particular legal proceeding, and in some cases, to other legal proceedings. Our justice system does not determine what reality really is. It just determines what the facts are for the purpose of legal proceedings. Whether courts/arbitrators apply the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard (criminal proceedings) or the "balance of probability" standard (civil proceedings (for the most part, I'll come back to this)), adjudicators can and do "get the facts wrong" from time to time, because they have to rely on the evidence that is presented to them, which is always an imperfect substitute for direct knowledge of the events that are the subject of the dispute. In short, it's an imperfect system, but it's the only system we've got, and the public believes that it works well enough, enough of the time, that there is no serious amount of clamouring for an alternative justice system.
Having said all of this, if the judge in the Ghomeshi case finds him to be "not guilty", such a verdict could arise from the following possible findings:
a) a finding that that the acts complained of did not occur (beyond a reasonable doubt),
b) a finding that Ghomeshi did not possess the mental state required for criminal liability (beyond a reasonable doubt),
c) a finding that the acts complained of, even if found to occur, were not contrary to criminal law.
Whether or not any of these findings are made, it would still be open to Ghomeshi, or the complainants, or others, to seek civil remedies following the trial, whether that might include Ghomeshi seeking reinstatement to his position via a grievance, Ghomeshi seeking a remedy against his union if they will not pursue a reinstatement on his behalf, the complainants seeking civil damages against Ghomeshi for his conduct, actions by or against the CBC, or any other type of litigation. The factual findings and testimony before the Criminal court may or may not be admissible/relevant in some/all of these proceedings (TERB is no place to get into a discussion between the subtleties of issue estoppel, res judicata, protections which may arise under the Evidence Act, etc.).
A civil proceeding will (generally) apply a standard of "balance of probabilities" (although there are many labour arbitration awards suggesting that a somewhat higher standard requiring "clear and cogent" evidence may apply when the conduct which is relied upon as cause for discharge would have a seriously deleterious impact on the reputation and re-employability of the dismissed employee (fraud, etc.)). Even on this lower standard, a legal finding is just that, a finding for the purpose of reaching a legal decision.
As a result:
a) I partially agree with Fuji (but not wholly),
b) I agree with Perry, except to the extent that Fuji is making somewhat of a point (perhaps not clearly), and
c) Everyone is entitled to believe the facts to be whatever they find to be persuasive, and to govern themselves (and their possible future interactions with Ghomeshi
) as they see fit. The legal process is an imperfect one.
Last edited:
What a fcuk up. Now the 3rd accuser wants to change her story.
Update: The 3rd accuser is now on the stand. The defense has requested and the Crown has consented to waive the "rape shield" (i.e. the accuser can be questioned about her prior sexual history).
Update: The 3rd accuser is now on the stand. The defense has requested and the Crown has consented to waive the "rape shield" (i.e. the accuser can be questioned about her prior sexual history).
Last edited:
