Jian Ghomeshi scandal

[googe]

May as well be a guilty verdict, dude is finished

[revelations]

Summary - IMO:

- Gomeshi is a weirdo with emotional health issues of some type who abuses women for disjointed pleasure.

- some of the women he was with are bat-shit crazy but some probably weren't and may not have come forward because they did not want to re-live the episode.

- a female judge may have been more appropriate as the ruling would have carried more "emotional" weight with the public; now the feminists can use this as an argument (eg. male judge was biased) for their cause.

[lilmira]

We have gender neutral washroom, why not judge?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by revelations
IMO:

- Gomeshi is a weirdo with emotional health issues of some kind who abuses women for disjointed pleasure

- some of the women he was with are bat-shit crazy but some probably weren't (and may not have come forward to re-live the episode)

- a female judge may have been more appropriate as a ruling would have carried more "emotional" weight with the public; now the feminists can use this as an argument (eg. male judge was biased)

Yep, and noted that you started it with IMO.

Problem is, even if you're not guilty, you're done.

[Seth1968]

Further to that, what's this bail shit?

So if you have the money, you can at least temporarily avoid prison?

WTF?

[revelations]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Further to that, what's this bail shit?

So if you have the money, you can at least temporarily avoid prison?

WTF?

Um, bail is set according to the defendants income/assets/flight risk/crime, etc.

Being poor and killing someone means a lower bail amount than a rich person charged with the same crime.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by revelations
- Gomeshi is a weirdo with emotional health issues of some type who abuses women for disjointed pleasure.

Some people (men AND women) get off on rough sex and the whole dom/sub thing. Just because you aren't doesn't make it illegal (as long as there is consent).

Originally posted by revelations
- some of the women he was with are bat-shit crazy but some probably weren't and may not have come forward because they did not want to re-live the episode.

Perhaps. However there are tons of men who are sexually abused by women and never come forward out of fear of being labelled as "fags" or "pussies". If women want to see him behind bars they should come forward. However this time they should probably tell the whole story to the cops up front without leaving out the facts that they still pursued him after the offense.

Originally posted by revelations
- a female judge may have been more appropriate as the ruling would have carried more "emotional" weight with the public; now the feminists can use this as an argument (eg. male judge was biased) for their cause.

So then explain the fact that he had a female defense attorney (who owns a firm of mostly female lawyers) that systematically destroyed the witnesses stories. Shouldn't she have refused the case if she knew he was guilty?


» Click image for larger version

[googe]

Originally posted by sputnik


Some people (men AND women) get off on rough sex and the whole dom/sub thing. Just because you aren't doesn't make it illegal (as long as there is consent).



Perhaps. However there are tons of men who are sexually abused by women and never come forward out of fear of being labelled as "fags" or "pussies". If women want to see him behind bars they should come forward. However this time they should probably tell the whole story to the cops up front without leaving out the facts that they still pursued him after the offense.



So then explain the fact that he had a female defense attorney (who owns a firm of mostly female lawyers) that systematically destroyed the witnesses stories. Shouldn't she have refused the case if she knew he was guilty?


» Click image for larger version

Maybe you're not an abused woman and you should probably shut up about what they should and should not do. It's a complex issue and you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

Also, female lawyer and female judge are totally different.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by googe
Also, female lawyer and female judge are totally different.

What if was a female judge that was an outspoken anti-feminist or a male judge that claimed to be a feminist?

That said. Regardless of gender the judge is supposed to be unbiased and will review the case according to the evidence presented.

Where in this case were the women even able to prove that they were hit or harmed in the first place?

[msommers]

After reading a bit of those posted court notes, I have mixed feelings. Ghomeshi is a narcossistic douche who properly flirted with the line of consent on multiple occasions. On the other hand I am happy to hear that the decision came down to reliable evidence, or lack thereof in this case.

Had the prosecution done a better job here I think he could have been found guilty. I'd hope the judge, whether male or female, would have produced the same result but I guess we'll never know if that was a genuine influence on this decision.

[revelations]

I dont think the judge being male made a huge difference in the judgement itself, I just feel that a female judge finding a ruling of "not guilty" would have carried more emotional weight with the feminists.

Similarly, it could have been argued that a male judge would have been more appropriator for a "guilty" verdict.



Again, emotion not logic - which is what the criminal system is NOT based on, thankfully.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by msommers
Had the prosecution done a better job here I think he could have been found guilty.

From what the judge said when handing down the verdict it sounded like the decision had more to do with the credibility of the witnesses than anything else. I'm not saying the prosecution was perfect in this case, but even if they were, from what the judge said it probably wouldn't have mattered.

[Xtrema]

Neil MacDonald summed it up nicely.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ghomes...nald-1.3506958

In fact, Horkins only made the observation after describing in relentless detail how Ghomeshi's accusers had colluded, misled and lied, to reporters, to police, to prosecutors and ultimately, to the court itself.

"Each complainant," he concluded, "demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion."

Referring to a witness whose excuse was that she was merely trying to "navigate" the proceeding, Horkin aridly replied that " 'Navigating' this sort of proceeding is really quite simple: tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

The lies destroyed the value of the complainants' evidence, he said, and created reasonable doubt. And that was that.

The list of falsehoods, many of them under oath, have been repeated endlessly in earlier accounts of the trial; they may be titillating, but they aren't worth repeating here.

What matters is that they were told, and, as Horkins put it, "The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness can no longer expect the court to consider them to be a trusted source of the truth."

Judge basically said it may have happened, it may not but the lying from the complaints discredited themselves.

Originally posted by revelations
Again, emotion not logic - which is what the criminal system is NOT based on, thankfully.

I think this decision is good win for logic. But the general public is not going to understand that and hope real victims are not going to shy away from reporting it just because these 2 idiots lied in court.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by msommers

Had the prosecution done a better job here I think he could have been found guilty. I'd hope the judge, whether male or female, would have produced the same result but I guess we'll never know if that was a genuine influence on this decision.

Only so much the prosecution can do when their complainants are being withholding or outright deceptive. The most probable outcome is if the prosecution had done a better job less charges would have been filed.

It was a case that lacked physical evidence and almost exclusively relied on witness evidence. That is an uphill battle to start with. But when the prosecution is going forward with the idea that there was a pattern and using the various complainants to try and corroborate that, then have it revealed they were colluding (maliciously at that) the verdict was decided then.

I can understand why victims are complaining, but it is unfounded in this case. The fact the complainants contacted Ghomeshi or even said they liked what he did wasn't the issue, it was that they lied. It wasn't that it was a relationship or wasn't a relationship, it was that the idea of a pattern being established became unreliable when two complainants were in regular contact with eachother (without letting authorities or prosecution know) with the intention of 'destroying him' being discussed. The trial did set siome things back for sexual assault victims, but it was because of the actions of the assault victims and not Ghomeshi or his lawyers. The legal system operated as it should have and the judge, however reluctantly, gave the proper verdict.

[msommers]

Yep I absolutely agree.

[BrknFngrs]

Originally posted by googe


Maybe you're not an abused woman and you should probably shut up about what they should and should not do. It's a complex issue and you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

Also, female lawyer and female judge are totally different.

... you're disagreeing with a statement that suggests a victim of abuse should contact the police and tell the whole truth when they do?

IMO the judges decision was exceptionally well written and outlined more than reasonable expectations of the witnesses; explicitly acknowledging that people handle trauma differently, etc.

Can't really ask for more than that unless you're one of the crazies that believes "victims" should always just be taken at face value and the other party automatically found guilty.

[A790]

Originally posted by googe


Maybe you're not an abused woman and you should probably shut up about what they should and should not do. It's a complex issue and you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

Careful Googe, your inner SJW is showing...

[Buster]

Originally posted by googe


Maybe you're not an abused woman and you should probably shut up about what they should and should not do. It's a complex issue and you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

Also, female lawyer and female judge are totally different.

It's not a complex issue.

Tell the truth to the cops and the court.

[LOLzilla]

Originally posted by googe


It's a complex issue

Oath: Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (so help you God/under pains and penalties of perjury)?

[googe]

Not sure what some of you are talking about. I wasn't commenting on the verdict.

If women want to see him behind bars they should come forward.

This is a dumb thing to say. It should be obvious why. For those who haven't come forward, whether or not to do so and subject one's self to this media circus is a complex issue.