I stopped reading about six pages in. The judge was focused on irrelevant aspects of testimony from the first victim that happened 10 years earlier. I can see why the activists are upset. That is not to say I think Ghomeshi is guilty (I have no idea).
Huh? 10 years earlier than what?
She was testifying and giving statements about an alleged attack by Ghomeshi that occurred 10 years before the trial.
All the charges were from around 2002, brought forward following the removal of Ghomeshi from his position at the CBC in 2014.
Rule 1. No Exceptions.
So the judge was reviewing evidence concerning the actual events at issue, that are alleged to have happened in 2002-2003. The trial was in 2016; the charges were brought in 2014. So more like 13-14 years prior to the trial. The “10 years” is a bit confusing.
Not sure what the problem is with the judgment. Isn’t a judge supposed to hear evidence concerning the events at issue, no matter when they happened?
I read the judgment and did not see anything obviously irrelevant. Perhaps I missed something.
What specific aspects of her testimony do you believe were irrelevant?
There’s an interview with the defense attorney here: Marie Henein, Jian Ghomeshi’s lawyer, denies she has betrayed women.
Looks like Ghomeshi had a good lawyer, even if she was a gender-traitor.
Why is she a gender-traitor? Are you saying that simply because she’s a woman she should not have vigorously cross-examined the complainants, should not have exposed their outright lies and omissions, should have let her client be convicted because, well, he’s a man? That’s quite outrageous. You wouldn’t convict a dog on the evidence of these women. Ms Henein has nothing at all she should feel guilty about.
Read the thread. All will be revealed.
Fuck right off. She did a good job of defending her client. Whether or not we think he is a creepy fucking bastard shouldn’t factor into the ultimate legal decision.
Are you really arguing that all accusations of rape should be believed at face value? Or are you saying no woman should ever defend an accused rapist? Are you aware that laywers are obliged legally to do the best job they can defending their client even if they believe they are guilty? Requiring women to never defend rapists would seem to be stripping women of their own ability to decide for them selves. It would seem a bit misogynist and paternalistic to me, wouldn’t you say?
You know, sometimes when a person asks another to read the thread, the person is asking the other to read the thread. Perhaps I should have been more specific and asked that the person read post 3.
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.
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.”
The prosecution interviewed the women multiple times, and took sworn statements from them. What else could they have done?
If a female attorney is a gender-traitor for arguing against a female plaintiff, then is a male prosecutor a gender-traitor for leading the prosecution against a male defendant?
No. The special place in hell is women-only.
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.