# Ghomeshi's Case **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2016, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghomeshis-case/750561 "2016-03-29T19:25:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2016, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghomeshis-case/750561/41 "2016-04-02T22:57:12Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > The prosecution interviewed the women multiple times, and took sworn statements from them. What else could they have done? One thing would have been to check when Ghomeshi acquired that VW - something the defense clearly did. Another would have been to check email records. I don’t see why it’s necessary - or smart - to inherently trust the accuracy of anyone’s statements. ---
**Author:** ![CCitizen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@CCitizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CCitizen)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2016, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghomeshis-case/750561/42 "2016-04-03T00:14:01Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > It’s just the newest entry in the continuing series: “Women are evil.” Marie Henein is a hero who defends Constitution, Due Process, and Presumption of Innocence – and Linus agrees. ---
**Author:** ![CCitizen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@CCitizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CCitizen)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2016, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghomeshis-case/750561/43 "2016-04-03T00:15:43Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > [There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/madeleine-albright-campaigns-for-hillary-clinton) Madeleine Albright is not a religious authority and definitely not a prophet. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2016, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghomeshis-case/750561/44 "2016-04-03T10:18:58Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Fuck right off. Telling another poster to fuck off is not appropriate in Great Debates. This is a Warning to avoid such behavior outside The BBQ Pit. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2016, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghomeshis-case/750561/45 "2016-04-03T10:26:32Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > . . . even if she was a gender-traitor. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > Why is she a gender-traitor? This was LinusK’s attempt at irony. He does not actually regard her as such. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2016, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghomeshis-case/750561/46 "2016-04-03T10:51:52Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, I can buy that a witness’s memory of the events might not be so great, over a decade later. But that doesn’t change the reasoning. if her memory of things like the car he drove was so fallible, then her memory of the alleged criminal acts could also be fallible. The long delay before prosecution introduces reasonable doubt. This sort of thing is exactly why our constitution recognizes a right to a speedy trial, and why most crimes have a statute of limitations. Yes it does. People forget insignificant details. They remember significant ones. They especially remember those charged with emotion. I don’t in any way entertain the idea that these women were mistaken about whether these things happened. Oh, and, becuase I don’t feel like wading through this thread again to quote it: it is not the job of those who notice the flaws in the system to propose the solutions. That’s just a tactic to prevent improvements. Those noticing the flaws are not going to be experts. The only thing I can personally push for is not allowing one judge who is buys into rape myths preside. Get a jury, and stop with this bullshit where the jury aren’t experts. Have the jury be people who are experts on rape. And, so you don’t get upset at me, I’m not planning on sticking around and discussing this. I’ve said what I have to say, and if you think it’s stupid, you can point out why. That’s how I tend to roll, as otherwise I get angry, say stupid things, and then people make fun of me. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2016, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghomeshis-case/750561/47 "2016-04-03T15:08:24Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > They especially remember those charged with emotion. Though not always accurately, as seen in this case. > [@](#): > > The only thing I can personally push for is not allowing one judge who is buys into rape myths preside. What myths? It sounds as if the judge principally buys into the requirement for a presumption of innocence, and the idea that witnesses whose testimony is shown to be false are an unreliable source of truth. > [@](#): > > Have the jury be people who are experts on rape. How would that be arranged? > [@](#): > > I’m not planning on sticking around and discussing this. So sad. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghomeshis-case/750561/48 "2016-04-03T21:35:34Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Hey, I hear ya. It is hard when you are betrayed by your witnesses. But to an extent, it’s a lawyer’s job to be prepared for that, distasteful as it is. > > I leaned that lesson early on - if I may be forgiven a little war story. All details have been changed so no individuals could be recognized … > > Years ago, when I was still doing some general litigation as a beginning associate, I got a little wrongful dismissal case assigned to me by a partner who was mostly doing it as a favor. The facts were great. A woman was dismissed from her job and it was obvious she was fired because the company got tired of her taking mat leave to have kids. Their “cause” was bullshit - I forget what they alleged, but it was nonsense. > > We had them on the ropes, and I had no doubt we were going to take them to the cleaners. The client would I knew make a wonderful witness - she was charismatic, plausible, a hard working mother of several kids, the company that fired her were talking settlement, all was going well. > > Then came the day before examinations for discovery. She has cold feet about testifying. Why? Well, she knew the cause they alleged was bullshit, but she was still scared. Of what? Well, she said, would it matter to the case if they found out she’d been [doing something highly unethical]? > > Well, after that, we knew we couldn’t have her testify - can’t risk counseling perjury. What if on cross they get into her [alleged highly unethical behavior]? She’s be destroyed. > > So we did what we could - we settled for a little cash (a lot less than we were asking for), an acknowledgement that there was no cause alleged, and a mutual release of all claims. > > Ever since then, I’ve been wary of trusting witnesses, even those who appear impeccable. Mind you, if she hadn’t 'fessed up, there was no way I’d ever have known of the problem. Also, I don’t do much in the way of litigation any more. Good story, thank you. Stuff like this is always entertaining, too bad you can’t divulge more details! But it just goes to show that in a civil case like this the complainant’s lawyer doesn’t normally grill their own client, even when the client has a pecuniary interest in the outcome. In the Ghomeshi case, there was even less reason to be suspicious since the multiple complainants had no obvious motivation other than justice, and the police had laid charges on the basis of the evidence they had. Unless of course one is on the “evil women looking for revenge” bandwagon like the OP. > [@Xema](#): > > When at a trial attorneys on the other side know substantially more about your witnesses than you do, an inference of something less than full competence seems reasonable. Depends on the details. It’s often unsurprising that the defense will find flaws with the prosecution witnesses, since they are hugely motivated and extremely well paid to do precisely that. > [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Linus is just fucking with you. He doesn’t have any real interest in the case. It’s just the newest entry in the continuing series: “Women are evil.” Now becoming an epic series! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2016, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghomeshis-case/750561/49 "2016-04-03T23:36:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > OK, I can buy that a witness’s memory of the events might not be so great, over a decade later. But that doesn’t change the reasoning. if her memory of things like the car he drove was so fallible, then her memory of the alleged criminal acts could also be fallible. This simply doesn’t follow, except in the sense that all memories are fallible to some degree. A person’s failure to remember some things has little implication for whether or not they’ve successfully remembered other things. We’ll remember things we’re paying attention to, and fail to (or misremember) things we weren’t paying attention to, even if it all happened at the same time in the same incident. Moreover, over the course of many years it’s very common for memories from different times to be confabulated. So if an accuser thinks two things happened at the same time when in fact they happened at very different times, this is by _no means_ indicative that either or both events did not occur. It’s just part of how our memories work. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2016, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghomeshis-case/750561/50 "2016-04-04T14:23:01Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > This simply doesn’t follow, except in the sense that all memories are fallible to some degree. > > A person’s failure to remember some things has little implication for whether or not they’ve successfully remembered other things. We’ll remember things we’re paying attention to, and fail to (or misremember) things we weren’t paying attention to, even if it all happened at the same time in the same incident. Moreover, over the course of many years it’s very common for memories from different times to be confabulated. So if an accuser thinks two things happened at the same time when in fact they happened at very different times, this is by _no means_ indicative that either or both events did not occur. It’s just part of how our memories work. In this case, though, they were memories of the very events in contention. To give but one example - one of the complainants at one point remembered being assaulted in Ghomeshi’s car (though she changed the details of that assault twice). She described the assault, and the car, in detail (the interior details were important, because she claimed he smashed her head into a window of the car; she later said she ‘rested’ her head against that window; at another time, she claimed he pulled her hair in the car). The _outward appearance_ of the car was also important, because she asserted that its ‘cute and funny’ appearance induced her - unwisely as it turned out - to trust Ghomeshi and get in the car: it was a bright yellow VW (she described it as a “love bug”). So having her head smashed inside the very ‘cute’ car that induced her trust him made a very memorable, poignant account. Turns out it could not have happened that way, because he bought the car months after the alleged attack. Now, it is entirely possible for someone to mistake what kind of car a guy was driving years later - but this goes beyond that. She mistook the very details of the place where an alleged attack took place, and the details that lead up to that attack, and even what kind of attack it was - in a way that looks more like fabrication (deliberate or not) based on stuff she’d learned about him after they broke off. It is hard to say that getting such basics as where and how you were attacked totally wrong or inconsistent do not create a “reasonable doubt”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghomeshis-case/750561.md?page=2)