CBC cuts ties with Jian Ghomeshi after receiving 'information' about host

[Oasis]

His lawyer earned every penny. The prosecutors did not prepare well enough.

Did he do what they say he did? Absolutely.

The workplace harassment trial is in June. I hope he gets nailed. He might enjoy it though!

[o0Amber0o]

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a seriously high standard (which from reading the most recent article it sounds like that's how Canada's court system works - but could definitely be wrong) - unfortunately with cases like this, or any assault natured case, it's very difficult to prove guilt on just testimony alone. Especially if the complaining witnesses are wishy washy themselves.

[whitetigeress]

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a seriously high standard (which from reading the most recent article it sounds like that's how Canada's court system works - but could definitely be wrong) - unfortunately with cases like this, or any assault natured case, it's very difficult to prove guilt on just testimony alone. Especially if the complaining witnesses are wishy washy themselves.

Which is probably exactly the kind of women he went after to exert physical dominance over so that he would never have to deal with any backlash. Not only is he an asshole, he's a Wimp!
He needs a bitch to exert her 4 inch stiletto on his member while reminding him "You do NOT touch me in any way without my verbal consent"


My inner dom is smirking

[NickiDrea]

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a seriously high standard (which from reading the most recent article it sounds like that's how Canada's court system works - but could definitely be wrong) - unfortunately with cases like this, or any assault natured case, it's very difficult to prove guilt on just testimony alone. Especially if the complaining witnesses are wishy washy themselves.

I don't agree that cases based solely on testimony are more difficult to prove BRD. I think a lot of people would be surprised to know that the vast majority of cases (except drug cases and maybe the somewhat rare burglary fingerprint case) are based solely on testimony. In my experience, it's on the rare side that there is physical evidence in a case. It usually comes down to testimony and that's true in assault cases, sex cases, robberies, thefts, even gun cases.

Reasonable doubt is a high standard but can be met pretty easily on testimony alone, assuming, as you said, that the alleged victim is credible in the judge or jury's eyes. Whether you can shake credibility is very fact specific and the rules of evidence, at least in the States, are very strict about how and when credibility can be attacked. That said, our rules of evidence are much better than most other countries' in my opinion, maybe Canada has more lax rules.

[Catty]

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a seriously high standard (which from reading the most recent article it sounds like that's how Canada's court system works - but could definitely be wrong) - unfortunately with cases like this, or any assault natured case, it's very difficult to prove guilt on just testimony alone. Especially if the complaining witnesses are wishy washy themselves.

I don't think they witnesses were wishy washy - from what I heard about the case, they all outright lied and were called out about it. I left like the prosecution thought they had slam dunk case and didn't bother to do due diligence when putting their case together. All he and his lawyer had to do was to not say anything!

[BrowFilla]

I don't agree that cases based solely on testimony are more difficult to prove BRD. I think a lot of people would be surprised to know that the vast majority of cases (except drug cases and maybe the somewhat rare burglary fingerprint case) are based solely on testimony. In my experience, it's on the rare side that there is physical evidence in a case. It usually comes down to testimony and that's true in assault cases, sex cases, robberies, thefts, even gun cases.

Reasonable doubt is a high standard but can be met pretty easily on testimony alone, assuming, as you said, that the alleged victim is credible in the judge or jury's eyes. Whether you can shake credibility is very fact specific and the rules of evidence, at least in the States, are very strict about how and when credibility can be attacked. That said, our rules of evidence are much better than most other countries' in my opinion, maybe Canada has more lax rules.

We definitely do not have lax rules here in Canada. A drunk driver who crashed into a bridge and demolished it, wreaking days of tied up traffic on a long weekend during Caribana was recently found not guilty because the breathalyzer was administered five hours after the accident rather than within the mandated three hours. He was still hammered so the time delay was only to his benefit. Nonetheless - not guilty. We have very high standards in our courts as I assume most developed, Western nations do.

In the Ghomeshi trial the women purposely, deceitfully withheld all of their evidence. They lied to police and the Crown prior to testifying. That he was found not guilty was more than expected and if he was convicted it would have been a very sad day for the justice system in Canada. There is no doubt in the court of public opinion that Ghomeshi did was he is accused of, and he has acted this way for years and years. There is no way he will work under his own name in Canada again. But the witnesses in this case were horrendous, and I don't think the Crown did a good job of prepping them for cross exam, shocking considering who his lawyer was. Justine Henein is one of the most feared lawyers, if not THE most feared lawyer, in the country. She is ruthless and she WINS. She's quite amazing actually.

He has another trial coming up in the summer related to his workplace actions. He was fired with cause from the CBC (video evidence of him beating a woman and breaking ribs), and a vast investigation found a morally corrupt work environment so I am anxious to see what will happen there.

[anna112233]

Justine Henein is one of the most feared lawyers, if not THE most feared lawyer, in the country. She is ruthless and she WINS. She's quite amazing actually.

I think you're a tennis fan like me. Justine Henin was definitely a force to be reckoned with on the tennis court - I think you really mean Marie Henein.

I believe Ghomeshi's lawyer might not be able to save his bacon in the June trial. At least the lawyers saw what happening this time around and will be better prepared.

[BrowFilla]

I think you're a tennis fan like me. Justine Henin was definitely a force to be reckoned with on the tennis court - I think you really mean Marie Henein.

I believe Ghomeshi's lawyer might not be able to save his bacon in the June trial. At least the lawyers saw what happening this time around and will be better prepared.

Lol, you're absolutely right! Love tennis, and love Marie Henein too!

[Annika]

he likes rough sex? i'll go out with him and bite his dick off... ONE FOR THE TEAM, LADIES!!!

[SHELLEE]

but without the humidity and enormous bugs

This is true.

[o0Amber0o]

I don't think they witnesses were wishy washy - from what I heard about the case, they all outright lied and were called out about it. I left like the prosecution thought they had slam dunk case and didn't bother to do due diligence when putting their case together. All he and his lawyer had to do was to not say anything!

I'd say lying under oath is pretty wishy-washy! If the prosecutor is to be blamed for that then that's really too bad - they were the ones responsible for seeking a conviction, in a sense they've let the victims down.

I don't agree that cases based solely on testimony are more difficult to prove BRD. I think a lot of people would be surprised to know that the vast majority of cases (except drug cases and maybe the somewhat rare burglary fingerprint case) are based solely on testimony. In my experience, it's on the rare side that there is physical evidence in a case. It usually comes down to testimony and that's true in assault cases, sex cases, robberies, thefts, even gun cases.

Reasonable doubt is a high standard but can be met pretty easily on testimony alone, assuming, as you said, that the alleged victim is credible in the judge or jury's eyes. Whether you can shake credibility is very fact specific and the rules of evidence, at least in the States, are very strict about how and when credibility can be attacked. That said, our rules of evidence are much better than most other countries' in my opinion, maybe Canada has more lax rules.

I'm just going by what I see/think I guess. I've sat through a handful of trials in recent months (mostly assault types) that were all he said/she said and all returned a not guilty verdict. I understand most cases are witness based, but if you don't have many witnesses or your witnesses aren't lining up - that's a cause for reasonable doubt.

[suzy83]

The fairy tale: the boy that cried wolf many times is exactly this Lucy lady
This Lucy person walked more then a block from the court room to underground parking with cameras & reporters following her, smiling ever so often at the cameras & not talking but hours before going into court she was outside the court talking to protesters with the media