Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-judge-ruling-1.3504250




Coulda called this one, never a good thing to lie or omit information to the police/crown/judge. Especially in a case that relies so heavily on testimony. Gotta love the protestor interrupting the lawyer FOR THE PROSECUTION.... does she not whant them to appeal?

 Sigvatr wrote:
So instead of just lying, she chose to lie badly? Yeah...that turnout wasn't a big surprise then.

All three witnesses lied/omitted. Some worse than others it would seem. He probably is guilty of striking/chocking them, just not sure I trust anyone involved to comment on consent.

 feeder wrote:
Disappointing all around. This could have been a flagship case to move forwards the discussion around consent and power structures. Instead we get more anger and ammunition for both sides to continue shouting past each other and further the divide.

If it serves as a warning to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then it will hopefully be positive. My issue is articles like this http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/03/24/jian_ghomeshi_found_not_guilty_of_sexual_assault_in_shocking_proclamation.html. The system is apparently terrible, but there is little the article can offer when it comes to ways to fix the system. Simply trusting allegations is insane, that's just a witch hunt. The best advice for victims of violence, sexual or other, is to contact police asap and be truthful, withhold nothing.

It wasn't a jury trial, just a judge. Even the judge in his final statements made it clear that being found not guilty is not the same as being innocent, it just means the allegations didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt, and most of that was because the witnesses all lied. If the entirety of the case rests of testimony and three witnesses perjure themselves, judge is left with few options. Even if he followed the idiocy of the day and "listened and believed" the women, it would still all get overturned on appeal and he knows that. The judge is now the target of every butthurt feminist in the country it seems.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ghomeshi-verdict-judge-neil-macdonald-1.3506958

Experiment 626 wrote:
Victim blaming & shaming is always the only tactic a defense has in sexual assault cases. Hence why most women (and men) won't come forwards, because who the hell wants to have every last detail of their personal life turned upside down for public spectacle, and/or portrayed as a filthy slut who just asked for it?
The system in this case is set up entirely against victims of sexual harassments/assault/rape, as everything inevitably always circles back to, 'he/she wanted it/liked it/came back for more/never said no/etc...'

I'm sorry but that's total horsegak, for one, we only know the identity of one of the 3 witnesses who themselves chose to waive anonymity. Perjury isn't victim blaming, it's indicative of the downside of just "listening and believing" without scrutiny or skepticism. Had the police or the crown showed the slightest bit of suspicion and skepticism maybe their narratives wouldn't have fallen apart in court because they would have coaxed the whole truth from the witnesses. Righteousness and coddling isn't case prep.

The reason it often circles back to the witness is because they're the sole source of evidence, their testimony is 100% the trial. And again, no one who waits years can expect an easy prosecution.

I was the victim of attempted murder, the idea that someone is espousing that victim shouldn't bother going to police because they can't be assured of a prosecution is insane and dangerous. The only reason the perpetrators were arrested and tried in my case was because police were contacted immediately and managed to arrest the assailant fleeing the scene.


So, as victim of violence myself, had police not been called, I wouldn't have much I could say to convict someone a decade after the incident when all physical evidence is gone. In my case, the weapon was recovered, with prints. I'm not sure a canvas of the area would have found much a decade later.


Presumption of innocence isn't victim blaming, without it, all you have is a witch hunt. Or to quote the modern parlance of the day "restorative justice".

 Sigvatr wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

I've no doubt however that he actually committed the acts. Keep in mind he also has another sexual harassment case still before the courts.
.

So you claim to have superior knowledge of what actually happened compared to the judge / jury in question? That's a pretty far stretch and I wonder why you didn't show up in court having such knowledge.

Snarkiness left aside - that's my point. If you believe in a state of law, then he is not guilty. If you assume him to be guilty, then you can't believe in the concept of a state of law. The state deciding whether someone is guilty or not is one of the best things there are because it takes that responsibility away from individuals who are easily influenced by personal experience / subjective opinions that might then cause tons of innocents to suffer / be on trial.

And exalted, text book good sir