Ghomeshi Trial Begins

Northern PoV wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Thats not what i asked.

What is it here that you think is not a crime?

Perjury is a crime!

Why would you say they lied? The reports I have heard don't indicate any reason to believe they were lying. That is taking victim blaming to a whole new level.

They are alleged victims until a court says otherwise.

Trying to win an argument by using loaded terms like 'victim blaming' assumes the accused is guilty and is becoming increasingly shrill sounding in the light of the today's events.  

Yes, good article. 

Though Henein is feeling bold enough that she has accused her of lying, based on nothing concrete. Not surprising that others are following that lead.

The frustrating thing is this insistence on perfect victims, when there is no such thing. Anyone who has been in that position understands what is means to doubt yourself, to blame yourself, to wonder what happened, to enable, and to make bad decisions. Or in some cases not even recognize what happened for what it was until long afterwards.

If you dont get that you dont get it, though anyone who has experienced it knows it clearly. I am curious if those who seem to enjoy picking that apart have ever been in a situation where the didnt know what to do or how to react.

And i gues I'm not getting that answer after all, eh PoV.

I seems like some of these posters feel that if a woman was sexually assaulted against her will but felt aroused during some of the assault that it was somehow less an assault and that the woman cannot claim that she was assaulted because she enjoyed some of assault or other parts of the relationship with the person. The rationale is that consent does not hinge on whether the alleged perpetrator got prior consent to the brutal acts but rather on how the woman behaved or felt afterward with the alleged attacker. In other words, if a woman has any mixed feelings at all, then she was not attacked, and she therefore consented to it all. This rationale also sends a very clear message to all that women who like small levels of kinky sex somehow fall outside the realm of society's protection or concern when interacting with a brutal abuser of women. Women are supposed to accept full responsibility for the actions of male violence directed against them, and if women are not perceived to play a stereotypical victim reaction, then that makes the women solely responsible for the actions and behaviours of the men who hurt them. The more I think about some of these Mens' lines of reasoning, the more infantile and childish their attitudes and expectations of men really are.

monty1 wrote:

As for Northern report's hoping that no perjury charges are laid, I sincerely hope they do. And I sincerely wish the CBC would be punished for the way they handled this on OUR network. It was disgusting and only the nature of Ghomeshi's beharioiur somehow justified it in the minds of the public. That should never have happened even if it was a case of one individual skinning another alive and havinf him/her for dinner. The high road is the only road we on the left must always take.

This post says a lot about your character. It helps me understand why your presence on this board pisses me off so much. I think that everything I have read about JG and the things he writes scream misogynist. I despise people who are misogynist. I am extremely glad the CBC fired his woman hating ass out the door.

Quote:

The following traits are typical of the misogynist:

1. He will zero in on a woman and choose her as his target. Her natural defenses may be down because he’s flirtatious, exciting, fun, and charismatic at first.
2. As time goes on, he begins to reveal a Jekyll & Hyde personality. He may change quickly from irresistible to rude, and from rude back to irresistible.
3. He will make promises to women and often fail to keep them. With men, on the other hand, he will almost always keep his word.
4. He will be late for appointments and dates with women, but be quite punctual with men.
5. His behavior toward women in general is grandiose, cocky, controlling, and self-centered.
6. He is extremely competitive, especially with women. If a woman does better than him socially or professionally, he feels terrible. If a man does better, he may have mixed feelings about it but he is able to look at the situation objectively.
7. He will unknowingly treat women differently from men in workplace and social settings, allowing men various liberties for which he will criticize female colleagues or friends.
8. He will be prepared (unconsciously) to use anything within his power to make women feel miserable. He may demand sex or withhold sex in his relationships, make jokes about women or put them down in public, “borrow” their ideas in professional contexts without giving them credit, or borrow money from them without paying them back.
9. On a date, he will treat a woman the opposite of how she prefers. If she is an old-style lady who prefers a "gentleman" who holds the door for her, orders for both and pays for the meal, he will treat her like one of his male buddies, order for himself, and let her pay for the whole meal if she offers (and sometimes even if she doesn’t). If she is a more independent type who prefers to order her own meal and pay for herself, he will rudely order for both and pay the check while she goes to the bathroom.
10. Sexually, he likes to control women and gives little or no attention to their sexual pleasure. Foreplay, if it occurs at all, is only a necessary means to an end. He likes oral sex but only as a recipient. His favorite positions enable him to avoid looking the woman in her eyes.
11. He will cheat on women he is dating or in a relationship with. Monogamy is the last thing he feels he owes a woman.
12. He may suddenly disappear from a relationship without ending it, but may come back three months later with an explanation designed to lure the woman back in.

Only rarely will a misogynist possess every one of these traits, which makes it harder to identify them. Their ability to lure women in with their charm and charisma adds to the difficulty of spotting the early-warning signs.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mysteries-love/201502/12-ways-s...

I'd bet most folks on this board have a dim view of John Furlong - he omitted 4 years from his autobiography for a reason. Despite all the fawning media repair, most would agree that his credibility is shot.  

Lucy's ommissions from her story changed it entirely.  I can't see how anyone can treat her as any more credible than John Furlong. 

Hey boys, how about dialing it back a whole lot. The legal concept of presumption of innocence does not mean that accusers are presumed to be lying. While I am a strong advocate of dealing with a male assailant by way of trying to crush their testicles with a knee, expert advice (as opposed to my knee jerk variety) is to seek harm/risk reduction... harm to the assailed... usually meaning trying to leave the scene, but if that is not possible, to comply if that is the lesser harm, and to try to calm the assailant.

As to those who are making a deal about any of the accusers/victims having subsequent contact with Ghomeshi, I would strongly encourage them to contemplate the role Ghomeshi and his radio program played as a gatekeeper for the arts in Canada -- it was far from a trivial one. If I remember correctly from the initial reporting, a number of those accusing Ghomeshi were involved in the arts, one even, again if I remember correctly, worked directly on his program. Now perhaps other people's work experience is such that they have never had to continue to have contact with someone in a position of power, a gatekeeper if you will, in their field of employment who has wronged them, even in extreme cases assaulted them -- congratulations if that is the case, but most of us have to continue to deal with assholes in positions of power, gatekeepers if you will, simply to reduce the amount of harm they can do to us in the future if we antagonize them because of what they have done in the past. Simply put, Ghomeshi was not only in a position to assault, he was in a position to do more potential damage if anyone complained. It would be nice if all workplaces were fair. News alert, they aren't, and that is especially true in the "cultural" industries where so many judgments are subjective and "networking" is a major preoccupation.

monty1 wrote:

edit: And I'll also make it clear that my complaint about the CBC is that they used their media platform to be judge, jury, and executioner. Guilt orinnocence aside, that is appalling and an attempt to supercede our judicial system. But as has been noter previously on this thread, some of the perps apparently paid the price for their actions.

No they didn't. They can't put him in jail. Only the court system can do that. Whether or not his activities were legal is for the courts to decide. The public can decide his activities are unsavory.

 

bagkitty wrote:

Hey boys, how about dialing it back a whole lot.

No fucking kidding. Speaking of Ghomeshi's status, it isn't as if there aren't sexual assault trials on a regular basis. And it isn't as if many people particularly like him, but this specific one sure has dredged up a lot of gratuitous trashing of these women. I just dropped into facebook and read the old trope about how if it really happened it was their responsibility to go to the cops right away. And it was their responsibility to tell him not to hit them.

Among a whole pile of other neanderthal shit.

 

Quote:

All that happened after the alleged attack. There is nothing in there to indicate that it did not happen .

I'm not sure any more what you're even saying.  And I'll say again that I'm not scolding DeCoutere for contacting Ghomeshi after the assault.

I'm suggesting that if Henein, or the press, or the public says "she lied" then it's because she claimed she had no further contact with Ghomeshi, but then it was revealed that she sent him several e-mails over a period of years, and one hand-written letter.

What are they supposed to think?  That Gilligan dropped a coconut on her head and she got amnesia?

Quote:

Unlike some of the boys here

This line of reasoning is officially getting old.  Sorry if I have a penis, but it's not why I'm looking at the mechanics of this case.  I'm not judging anyone, other than to say that you can't reasonably expect to make a statement in court under oath, have it shown to be a total fabrication, and expect to NOT be called a liar.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

I seems like some of these posters feel that if a woman was sexually assaulted against her will but felt aroused during some of the assault that it was somehow less an assault and that the woman cannot claim that she was assaulted because she enjoyed some of assault or other parts of the relationship with the person.

I wouldn't suggest that if a victim felt some sort of arousal during an assault, then it wasn't an assault, or it was their fault or whatever.

But did you read DeCoutere's email to Ghomeshi?

Quote:

You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to fuck your brain out. Tonight.

That basically reads to me as "(whatever) you did to me last night turned me on so much I want to have sex with you as soon as possible".  She wasn't even saying "DESPITE what you did last night... ", she was saying "BECAUSE OF what you did last night... ".

I've tried to look for another way to read it, but I can't really see one.  Can you?  Is there a "between the lines" no that I'm missing?

And again, that's fine.  People can be complex.  But you can't send an email like that to someone and then testify that you never contacted them again and expect the law -- or the counsel for the accused -- to say "well, the female heart is a mysterious thing!" and leave it at that.

Yes, I saw Mesley's interview with the expert. So I can now understand how there could have been an assault even though all the rest appears to be the truth. 

But again I say, as I have contended in the past, Ghomeshi is likely to go on to bigger and better things to satisfy his particular mental disorder and that's why he must be stopped. Unfortunately, the court system may fail to be able to stop him. My comments on the woman's part in the whole thing will be reserved until it's just a matter of acknowledging the outcome and why the charges appear to be failing. 

Pondering wrote:

monty1 wrote:

edit: And I'll also make it clear that my complaint about the CBC is that they used their media platform to be judge, jury, and executioner. Guilt orinnocence aside, that is appalling and an attempt to supercede our judicial system. But as has been noter previously on this thread, some of the perps apparently paid the price for their actions.

No they didn't. They can't put him in jail. Only the court system can do that. Whether or not his activities were legal is for the courts to decide. The public can decide his activities are unsavory.

 

Surely you understand that I said the CBC was judge, jury and executioner was not in  a literal sense. But I do maintain that they used their public soapbox to judge Ghomeshi. This being completely aside from their right to terminate his employment. Which I now agree with, but with reservations because of my previous histroy of workinig with union members to fight undue termination for no just cause. Not that any of it had the slightest thing to do with Ghomeshi and the women involved. It's more of a kneejerk reaction on my part to defend any employee who is discharged for cause. Or lack of said cause. Lawyers who have defended workers in arbitration cases will understand.

My remark of the 'perps paying the price' is on the record of this thread so it can't be that you are arguing that. Fwiw, because you didn't specify just what, 'no they didn't' meant.

Pondering wrote:

Even if Ghomeshi walks away from this charge that doesn't mean he hasn't been stopped. The limited number of accusers suggests this wasn't something he did every day to every woman he met, at least the part that is against the law. The public humiliation alone may be enough to stop him from sucker punching and strangling women and if not many women have been forewarned. He will never be hired in a position in which he has authority over women.

I agree that he will never be hired in a position in which he has power over women, if he remains in Canada and doesn't go to another country where his reputation won't follow him. And I strongly disagree that he won't attempt to do the same to women again. He very likely will, just as a pedophile always will, and he may have to perform ever more sadistic acts against women that eventually his onlly satisfaction will come from violent acts, up to and including manslaughter or murder.

JG as industry power monger?

Witness 1 wasn't in the arts industry. She worked as a server for a catered party.

LD was more famous in 2003 than JG. JG was no gate keeper back then.

 

milo204 wrote:

aren't we being a little premature proclaiming ghomeshis innocence here?  I mean keep in mind this is the evidence HIS side is presenting, obviously it's gonna be in his favour....How about waiting until you've seen all the evidence before we presume the outcome?   

We have a rather interesting judicial system in which those who are accused are presumed to be innocent until a court has proven them to be guilty. This is problematic for quite a few people, but the only alternative is to assume everyone is guilty, and let them try to prove their innocence. Proving a negative is near impossible, and that's why for a couple of thousand years (off and on) accusers have had to prove their assertion.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but what we are hearing now is the prosecution's case, with cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses by the defence. Given the testimony so far, I doubt the defence will present any witnesses. 

Or you may just be trolling the waters to see what bites. If that's the case, so be it. It doesn't bother me.

 

milo204 wrote:

aren't we being a little premature proclaiming ghomeshis innocence here?  I mean keep in mind this is the evidence HIS side is presenting, obviously it's gonna be in his favour....How about waiting until you've seen all the evidence before we presume the outcome?   

No - this is the crown's case - his lawyer is doing cross examination and destroying THEIR case. 

What evidence? This is a sordid 13 year old he said/she said .... there is no other evidence.

The crown's damaged case completely collapsed on Friday.  Then, they asked for yet another break to cope with "new disclosure" (presumably from newly schooled witness #3).  They must be examining the legal basis to go forward. 

LD bombed their case Tuesday with new disclosure.  Worse, she left out so much even at that stage that Friday's testimony and new exhibits were fatal to the case.

LD does a huge disservice to victims of abuse by attemping to frame her weird situation as a survivor issue. 

Northern PoV wrote:

which contradicts the oral narrative from the accusers 

How?

Does it say that he didn't hit and choke her, or that she said it was okay for him to do it?

And no, she didn't say that she didn't write any emails, as Magoo claims. She was talking openly in her first day of testimony that she HAD sent them, didnt have them, but was concerned that Ghomeshi might use them to undermine her credibility.

And evidently some people are buying it even though there is nothing in them indicating permission.

And to repeat, Henein has accused DeCouture of lying about the assault.

DeCouture did point this out, though:

Quote:

She added that Ghomeshi was funny and cool, but he also assaulted her and she was a different person when younger.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/02/05/cross-examination-of-lucy-d...

And one thing that seems to be being ignored here is the consideration that can happen when one learns that someone has a pattern of abusing other people, and that encounter that might have appeared one way takes on an entirely new meaning.

 

 

 

The problem this thread seems to be having is a lack of understanding of the survivors mentality. If someone claims a priest abused them and they were one of many who made that claim would the fact that at least one of his victims asked him to officiate at his marriage, a number of years after the abuse ended, detract from the abuse.  People who have been abused do many things to try and get on with their lives and reconcile what was done to them by suppressing it and trying to gloss over it.

monty1 wrote:

Alright, that's a reasonable answer and on topic enough to which I can say something. It's impossible for me to say how we would have handled it because of the facts of the circumstances that the court of arbitration wouldn't have accepted it to begin with. The CBC appears to be within their rights. However, if that not being the situation I think that in retrospect with what we now know, it would have been a mistake to have not taken it up on his behalf.

And don't take that as a vincication of Ghomeshi for the purpose of demonizing his supporter, because I'm definitley not. Think of it in it's proper perspecitive as a defence lawyer would think of it. It's starting to look like Ghomeshi will walk. Although I'm not as confident of saying that as some of the people before us on this thread who pretty much have their minds made up.

Would you mind telling us what union you worked with and whether you were an outsider or a member? Your comment on spending union members' money makes me curious.

Are you unaware that Ghomeshi showed the CBC executives a video of himself enjoying breaking a woman's arm?

monty1 wrote:

Would you mind telling us what union you worked with and whether you were an outsider or a member? Your comment on spending union members' money makes me curious.

LMAO  Someone who plays silly bugger with something as trivial as his age wants me to post my resume on a chat site. You are a prize sir. Prior to going to law school I served on the executive of my own union local. As counsel I have represented numerous unions both as in house council for a couple of unions and as independent council for another half a dozen. The first thing a good lawyer does is study the facts of the case and recommend whether the union should go forward. The reason why many unions hire lawyers early in the process is because otherwise they get stuck spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on the knee jerk reactions of their executives who are generally not well informed about the nuances of the law. I have on a rare occasion been told to go ahead anyways because of the internal politics of the union required that the person get a hearing. I think all of those cases went badly and the best outcomes where when I got enough leverage to do a back room settlement that didn't include a return to work.

Whatever. What exactly do you think gives you the right to ask me for my resume? The post I responded to of yours contained a blanket statement that union side lawyers would understand your viewpoint. As a retired union side lawyer I responded directly to that point and then you demanded my credentials. Did you not believe me?

I was a witness once at a sexual assault trial and it left a very polarizing view of our courts and justice system.

The lawyers sounded like they were speaking a whole different language. To me it sounded more like they were debating the merits of selling a used car. It felt like it was more business where they were in a rush to get it over with and on to the next case.

The judge actually nodded off to sleep with his chin resting against the palm of the hand while the victim was giving her testimoney and the lawyers didn't seem to give a shit.  Nor did anyone give a shit when the accused was making faces at people on the stand.

 

We don't have a justice system, we have a justice business.

Hear that, Pondering?

You must come to understand what the man is explaining.

And Paladin, somehow I don't think you throw up your hands in the same way when it is about your concerns with the legality of firearms.

If you feel so passionate about your possessions, consider how people feel about being assaulted.

I know there are attempts from a number of sides to push this into a theoretical marshmallow goo.

Sorry, but it is about people being choked and hit in the head.

(and... to remind people of the photographic evidence, bruised arms and cracked ribs)

 

 

 

 

i have to tsay, this case is very intriguing to me because for whatever reasons, I am into bdsm. I have met men who have been kind of rough with me, id ont think they always ask for consent, but i wouldnt rat them out and later say i am assaulted. but if a man who had done that to me, and was later found to have  a known history of abusing women who dont consent to it, than i might speak up about my experience with that man but i would still never want to file charges against him.

 

 maybe i am sick in the head or something , i dont know, but it sounds like this lady lucy decoutere did kind of enjoy it or at least she found the experience interesting..i dont know. i never had a man punch me in the face, but something smilar maybe, like slapping me etc,  it would be a turn on for me in a way, but than again maybe i am sick in the head oh well. i am definitely a mascohist.