Jian Ghomeshi trial to begin in Toronto Monday

[radagast]

Danielle Robitaille is a cutie, especially when she is wearing glasses.

Danielle Robitaille is a legitimate bad-ass, and she should not at all be taken lightly.

 

[IM469]

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).

I have no doubt something was up when the prosecution wanted to consider new evidence.

I am surprised he would not put up more resistance about waiving the rape shield. Unless the next witness worked as a paid submissive, her previous sexual history does give Ghomeshi the right to assault her. Second, the way the defense has been ripping the prosecution's case up - she wouldn't make the request unless she has an objective and why help her ? If the defense has the green light to put the witness on trial - she may capitulate and fabricate the testimony to end her public humiliation.

Of course as it has been pointed out, I'm not a lawyer but at this stage of the case the same could be said about the prosecutor.

 

[SkyRider]

The defense probably does know something about the 3rd accuser's sexual history that is relevant to the case.

Anyway, the 3rd accuser has testified under oath that while necking (petting?) on a bench (in public?) Jian put his hand(s) around her neck and squeezed so hard that she couldn't breathe. True? False? Maybe partly true?

 

[GPIDEAL]

I never claimed to be a CEO. I spend about nine hours a day at work out of which I do about six or seven hours of actual work on a typical day. That leaves me with two or three hours a day some days to fuck around reading news and posting on forums. At my job so long as I deliver on all my goals actual hours don't matter. Some days I am there sixteen hours and still haven't got time to breathe, other days I have a lot of free time.

I also check terb when I'm lying around at home. I use my mobile phone exclusively with images suppressed so its pretty discreet, I can lie on the couch posting on terb while talking to my wife and she would never know. Flip to Google news if she comes within twenty feet. Right now she is in the next room binge watching TV. I never watch TV.

Some people watch TV a couple hours a day, some play video games, I surf online, read things and post on forums.

While you're at it, are you really Japanese? (Just kidding he he)

Yes, you're right about OJ being found guilty at a civil trial based on the lesser standard. Marco Muzzo could be guilty in both cases, if there are two.

(I've only joined in now. What is the argument with the others about?)

 

[GPIDEAL]

The problem with the crown's case is that there is no track record of emails indicating that the women had changed their opinion of Ghomeshi if he "went too far" with rough sex. Everything indicates that they pursued him desperately. He tired of them and moved on and years later, they come forward with lurid allegations. It reeks of marginal people who pursued a celebrity with money and influence and them sought the limelight much later when he rejected them and there was the possibility of cashing in with a potential damages suit.

Fill in the blanks. The entertainment industry is a rough venue filled with frustrated and ambitious people who are more than prepared to sleep with a guy who can advance their careers. In my short time in the entertainment biz, I soon learned that women on the margins of the industry threw themselves at any guy with position. Probably what happened here. They may have liked the rough sex. Or they may have just thought it was a price to pay for time with a guy who could help them. In any event, they appear to have consented and CONSENT is the all important word here. If you have consent, it ain't assault.

My thoughts exactly Oagre!!!

(We talked about this yesterday during the SB game. JG is still an asshole though.)

 

[GPIDEAL]

No, it's not a mathematical correlation.

He will be found guilty or not guilty.

Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

True, but the standard of proof has been compared to statistical confidence levels of certainty.

In fact, a JFK assassination researcher who has written 3 books on the JFK assassination, specifically about the alleged case against Oswald, establishes from U.S. case law, that the threshold for the burden of proof, in a criminal case, means that there must be a confidence level of AT LEAST 95%.

Meaning, more than 95% sure that someone is guilty.

 

[GPIDEAL]

If I found out that an employee was abusive to women or animals, I would terminate them immediately. If only for my sanity!

And more to the point, to protect the reputation of your company. The fact that this individual was extensively documented to be harassing other employees only strengthens the case for termination.

Agreed!

 

[frankie6]

My thoughts exactly Oagre!!!

(We talked about this yesterday during the SB game. JG is still an asshole though.)

I just spent the last ten minutes trying to find a YouTube video of Lucy, as she described the difficulties of landing regular acting work in the East Coast. Sarah, of TPB, joined her in the video that I'm referring to but can't find. I initially though there were in character, but as the video went on it appeared that she was talking increasingly about her real life situation. I ran into the vid a couple of years before the Ghomeshi situation came to light, but as I watched it, I also came to the impression that she seemed rather bitter and desperate. I don't mean to imply that I conclusively believe that she wasn't assaulted (although the recently released emails certainly make it appear as such), but sometimes desperation has a way of making ordinarily good people do bad things. As it rest today, regardless of how the trial turns out, I think poor ole Lucy's credibility has been significantly and irreparably harmed. There will still be those who will support her and her allegations, but with the emails and my initial impressions from that vid I mentioned, I've already made up my mind. I think she was just out for an easy payday.

 

[GameBoy27]

5000 messages between DeCoutere and the third witness, including one that says "Let's get him"...

TORONTO — Jian Ghomeshi’s sexual assault trial is hearing that two of the complainants who testified against the disgraced broadcaster discussed the allegations in thousands of messages they exchanged before and after they went to police.

The third woman to testify against Ghomeshi said earlier on Monday that while she and Trailer Park Boys actress Lucy DeCoutere — who testified last week — were friends, they did not discuss the sexual assault allegations involving the former CBC Radio host.

But during an intense cross-examination, the woman, who can not be identified, said that she did in fact discuss the allegations with DeCoutere.

Ghomeshi’s lawyer Marie Heinen noted that the two women had exchanged 5,000 messages, beginning on Oct. 29, 2014 _ the same day DeCoutere went public with her allegations.

Heinen said the woman reported the alleged assault to police in December 2014, and the correspondence with DeCoutere continued until September 2015.

In some of the messages, DeCoutere instructs the woman to contact the actress’s lawyer and her publisher. In others, she gives the woman a “detailed and lengthy breakdown” of her own meetings with the Crown.

The woman testified earlier on Monday that Ghomeshi bit her shoulder and put his hands around her neck as they were making out in a Toronto park.

The woman, who was 32 years old at the time, said she had consented to the kissing, but she had not agreed to what followed.

“He was kissing my neck and I just felt all of a sudden I felt his hand on my shoulders and his teeth. And then his hands were around my neck and he was squeezing,” the woman said in a trembling voice.

“Some kind of switch felt like it had happened. It wasn’t the same person there. I tried to get out of it and then his hand was on my mouth, sort of smothering me.”

The woman said the alleged incident happened in the early 2000s, shortly after they first met at a dance festival in Toronto.

She was with other people at the community event when Ghomeshi approached her from behind and rested his arms on her shoulders. When asked by someone how they knew each other, she said Ghomeshi replied “We’re engaged.”

“We weren’t,” the woman told court on Monday “It was taking ownership of me in some way that was just surprising. It was a familiarity that was surprising to me.”

Ghomeshi and the woman went out for dinner after that interaction, and on another night, met in an isolated part of a city park where they began kissing on a bench.

It was while they were kissing that the alleged assault took place, court heard.

She said as soon as she freed herself from his hold, she left the park without saying a word, got into a cab and went home.

“My instinct was to just sort of get out of it physically,” she said. “There was nothing about this that I wanted to be a part of. It didn’t feel safe or sexy.”

She met again with Ghomeshi for dinner and drinks and then they went back to her place for “romantic” interactions.

The woman said she did not tell police about that night when she initially came forward because she had been embarrassed and didn’t think the encounter was relevant.

When pressed further on why she would have Ghomeshi come back to her place after he had allegedly assaulted her, the woman said the former CBC host was a charmer.

Some time later, the woman said she went to a party with Ghomeshi where he repeatedly berated one of her close friends. The incident set off “warning bells” for the woman and resulted in an argument.

“I got out of the car, slammed the door, told him he was crazy, told him to never call me again,” she said.

The woman said she didn’t go to police with her allegations in 2003 because she wanted to put the incident behind her.

“I just wanted it gone. I wasn’t sure that there was anything to go on,” she said, adding that she also didn’t want to jeopardize the career of her brother, who was in the arts industry.

“I didn’t want to be the hysterical sister … I thought if I just keep myself out of the line of fire then it’s probably best for everybody.”

It was only when she read news reports about other women making similar allegations following the CBC’s dismissal of Ghomeshi in October 2014 that the woman decided to speak out.

“I realized that I wasn’t an isolated incident,” she said. “It was time to talk.”

The 48-year-old former CBC Radio star has pleaded not guilty to four counts of sexual assault, and one count of overcome resistance by choking.

He acknowledged in 2014 that he engaged in rough sex acts, but said it was consensual.

http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-trial-day-5

 

[mandrill]

I have no doubt something was up when the prosecution wanted to consider new evidence.

I am surprised he would not put up more resistance about waiving the rape shield. Unless the next witness worked as a paid submissive, her previous sexual history does give Ghomeshi the right to assault her. Second, the way the defense has been ripping the prosecution's case up - she wouldn't make the request unless she has an objective and why help her ? If the defense has the green light to put the witness on trial - she may capitulate and fabricate the testimony to end her public humiliation.

Of course as it has been pointed out, I'm not a lawyer but at this stage of the case the same could be said about the prosecutor.

The motion to dispense with the rape shield might have overwhelming merit and the Crown forced to concede the issue without a fight. The rape shield is dropped if the witness has made a practice of leveling fake rape allegations in the past and the defence wishes to cross examine on this stuff. Look out for something along those lines tomorrow.

 

[Kenny-sauga]

Two very interesting articles in Toronto Star today. Should there be a different standard for victims? Easy convictions! System not broken, true.

The analogy of rape victim and a male leaving curtain open does not make sense. Its apples and oranges to me.

I also am convicted that there is lots of professional jealousy among lawyers in the way Marie Henien is conducting the cross-examination. What scares is that we already have a slap on the wrist type punishment for young offenders...victims suffer emotionally because the punishment is not inline with the crime due to age. Its can be a separate debate but you get the idea.

What if this case brings radical changes where convictions are easy....that will be another fuck up in the system. Do you agree?

Read the articles at your leisure.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/02/08/no-right-to-a-discriminatory-defence.html

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/02/08/no-right-to-a-discriminatory-defence.html

 

[Perry Mason]

I have had a bit of time on my hands these past few days so, every once in a while, I catch up with the running reports of the evidence on The Star...

Let me say (without bragging) that I "have been around" when it comes to trials, etc., and I have seen and heard the very best trial lawyers at work .... and what I want to say is that, based on what I have been reading, Marie Heinen is a masterful cross-examiner and tactician. Cross examination is a difficult art and science that not many lawyers -- not even highly experienced ones -- ever master.

Perry

 

[waslooking]

Marie Heinen has truly made a name for herself here if she hasn't....she just basically torn apart all three witnesses...this is crazy

 

[nottyboi]

Perry is wrong. A famous example from the US: OJ was found not guilty in criminal court but subsequently held responsible in civil court. He won the criminal case but lost the civil one due to the different standards of proof used between the two.

You are comparing 2 different verdicts from courts from 2 trials. In the eyes of the state OJ was innocent. In the civil trial he was found financially liable for wrongful death. But in the eyes of the state still innocent of murder. GEEZUS!!!!!

 

[nottyboi]

back to gomeshi, the accusers seem to be doing their best to destroy their own credibility omg!!!

 

[AK-47]

This trial should be broadcast live on the comedy channel

 

[Scarey]

I just spent the last ten minutes trying to find a YouTube video of Lucy, as she described the difficulties of landing regular acting work in the East Coast. Sarah, of TPB, joined her in the video that I'm referring to but can't find. I initially though there were in character, but as the video went on it appeared that she was talking increasingly about her real life situation. I ran into the vid a couple of years before the Ghomeshi situation came to light, but as I watched it, I also came to the impression that she seemed rather bitter and desperate. I don't mean to imply that I conclusively believe that she wasn't assaulted (although the recently released emails certainly make it appear as such), but sometimes desperation has a way of making ordinarily good people do bad things. As it rest today, regardless of how the trial turns out, I think poor ole Lucy's credibility has been significantly and irreparably harmed. There will still be those who will support her and her allegations, but with the emails and my initial impressions from that vid I mentioned, I've already made up my mind. I think she was just out for an easy payday.

I know exactly the one you are speaking about.They shot it on the Halifax Waterfront on the boardwalk.I remember when she was brought up in this, how damning this video might look.She did seem bitter and sketchy in it.Found it.In three parts .Just from one to the other two.The comments on clips 2 and 3 are pretty rough.The defense might like these vids

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUP-V2gsG7Y

 

[katsrin]

1. When can we expect a verdict?

2. If Jian is found not guilty, will the Crown have grounds for an appeal? Even if it does, will it bother?

3. Will Jian (jokingly, of course) invite his cute lady lawyers to his victory orgy?

 

[shakenbake]

1. When can we expect a verdict?

2. If Jian is found not guilty, will the Crown have grounds for an appeal? Even if it does, will it bother?

3. Will Jian (jokingly, of course) invite his cute lady lawyers to his victory orgy?

Cooment from Ms. Henein;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/meet-...iant-lawyer-defending-jian-ghomeshi-1.2851592

“As criminal lawyers we represent people who have committed heinous acts. Acts of violence. Acts of depravity. Acts of cruelty. Or as Jian Ghomeshi likes to call it, foreplay," Henein said, according to the Toronto Star.

I adore a woman with strong character!

 

[black booty lover]

I have had a bit of time on my hands these past few days so, every once in a while, I catch up with the running reports of the evidence on The Star...

Let me say (without bragging) that I "have been around" when it comes to trials, etc., and I have seen and heard the very best trial lawyers at work .... and what I want to say is that, based on what I have been reading, Marie Heinen is a masterful cross-examiner and tactician. Cross examination is a difficult art and science that not many lawyers -- not even highly experienced ones -- ever master.

Perry