:dubious:
He signed a peace bond, the Crown withdrew the charge and there was no admission of guilt. After the shitshow the first trial was, little surprise that they would do so.
That is about as far from “guilt is harldy in question” as is possible.
Yes, you can tell I know this because I posted a link to where it said just that. “settled” is a perfectly fine gloss for that.
He issued a formal apology, including an admission of his actions. “His guilt is hardly in question” is quite accurate, TYVM. CBC clearly agrees, given that they also issued their own apologyto his victim.
Or, to put it another way - by all means, Red Pillers, try and use Jian Ghomeshi as a poster boy for the falsely accused. I’m sure that’ll go swimmingly for you.
:rolleyes:
Considering his accusers lied under oath, colluded with each other and had at best only a passing relationship with the truth, it probably will.
Contrary to what the poster might think, many falsely accused aren’t exactly pillars of the community. I think Ghomeshi is a despicable person. But a bad man can have a good case. The Duke Lacrosse Boys were the defination of frat boys. Ronald Cotton was a small time crook. And the Central Park Five, well their defence was that they were beating up people elsewhere when the rape happened. Still, does not make the charges true.
As it is, I don’t think rape accusations necessarily result in a life long exile. Mike Tyson recovered just fine, his later problems were not related to his rape conviction. And the quoted poster will be aware that Makhaya Ntini, landed on his feet, and his eventual exoneration is one I do have doubts over.
His reputation was not damaged by a false accuser who was later found to have lied. His prosecution was based on a case built by the police and the state, not statements from the victims, who were dead. One could argue that an acquittal repairs the damage to one’s reputation. The irreparable damage was done by the state of his reputation prior to the crime; the public’s view of the preponderance of evidence, some of which was not available to the jury during the trial; and last but not least If I Did It.
:rolleyes: right back at you.
Kathryn Borel was *not *part of the first trial. Your calumnies against her aren’t helping rehabilitate Ghoreshi’s reputation in the slightest.
His firing from the CBC was not because of the criminal charges either, but because he brought in video evidence and showed it to his employers under the “it’s just I am into rough sex” explanation.
I’m not going to derail this with anything else, but Ghomeshi’s career was in the toilet before the criminal charges, and for good reason.
Not guilty is not the same as innocent. Anyone that is involved with prosecuting sexual assaults will tell you that the burden of proof is very (and necessarily) high, and that can cause a lot of heartbreaking acquittals.
That’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how the burden of proof works.
High burden of proof does not mean the amount of evidence presented. It means that there is sufficient evidence to prove all the elements of an offence to a trier of fact.
You can have a case with little evidence and properly record a conviction; see for instance most drug offences. You can also have a case with a lot of evidence and properly fail to secure one, for instance, the OJ Simpson case. The analogy used often at the Bar is that of a chain. It does not matter whether the chain is heavy or long. What matters is all the links are there, no matter how big they are. Once the trier of fact is satisfied that all the links are present, well nothing else matters. WHat an accused s trying to do is to say that there is a break in the links, or one of the links don’t fit and the prosecution rebuts that, showing that infact all the links are present.
Whats often forgotten is that a person can absolutely be convicted solely on the word of a complainant. And there is nothing wrong with that, legally or morally. Yet that raises another issue. If a complainant sticks to their story on the stand, chances are that the Court will believe them.
In the satanic abuse and the recovered memory cases, there was little evidence besides the claims of the complainants. It was properly enough to convict, as the Court was convinced that the complainants were credible and the accused could show no reason why they would lie. Of course, the fact was, that most of the claims were bunk, no matter just how honest and believable the complainants appeared to be. It turned out that evidence which was thought to be reliable was in fact no so much, or that the links which appeared to be unbroken was in fact not so.
It doesn’t mean the amount of evidence presented- but a “not guilty” verdict means that was not sufficient evidence to prove guilt to a specified standard to a trier of fact. There may have been sufficient evidence to prove the same facts in a different sort of proceeding with a lower burden of proof - for example, a person can be acquitted of murder but still found liable in a civil suit for wrongful death because the burden of proof in a civil case is lower than that in a criminal case.
Yes, sorry, I wasn’t using Gian as an example of someone falsely accused - simply someone who was accused and the charges dropped. On the theory of innocent until proven guilty, such as it is, somewhat like OJ Simpson, that should have meant some form of “back to business as usual”. (Perhaps we should have the Scottish verdict option, “not proven”). In fact, he is, as I said, persona non grata. All the lack of convictions in the world won’t set the clock back.
Maybe a better example is Michael Jackson. He acted in an incredibly suspicious manner, is still the butt of jokes, but never convicted. His first accuser was leverage in a custody battle - the boy’s father wanted to prove the mother was unfit for letting him hang out with Jackson. The second accuser- it came out the whole family was blackmail artist/gold diggers who couldn’t keep their story straight. Jackson was around a huge number of children all the time, and the local prosecutors scoured the woodwork for anyone who would make a claim, and those were the only examples they could produce.
So did he? Who knows. Nobody has proven anything. But… there’s no way to put the reputation genie back in the bottle.
Yeah true, but only part of the picture. Criminal and Civil cases also operate under different procedures, which makes the “lesser burden of proof” much reduced as a factor.
In a civil case after perusing pleadings, a Court will frame issues. The number and type of issues will vary in every case. In a criminal case, the issue are known ahead of time, typically limited to proving whether the elements of a particular offence are present, with occassional tweaks to accomodate things like affirmative defences, mental health claims etc. In a civil case, both sides might have the burden of proof depending on the issue (for instance, a Court might say 6 issues are to be proved by the Plaintiff and 2 by the Defendant), while in a Criminal case it is rare for the Accused to have to prove anything. In a civil case the State is an impartial, disinterested observer, in a criminal case, the State is leading the prosecution. In a civil case, the parties are in theory at least on a even footing, both are expending their own resouces. In a criminal case, you have the State, with all its resources on one side versus a private individual, who has limited funds and if he is under detention during a trial, will have difficulty in accessing those. In a civil case, the Complainaint is a party. In a criminal case, the Complainaint has a very limited role if any.
So to say, “but, a Civil case has a lower burden of proof, so xyz evil offender will doubtless be found responsible”, is very misplaced. Civil cases, are not criminal cases with a lower burden of proof and no jail time, they are almost a different planet.
The OJ Simpson case has given people a warped view of civil v criminal.
In late 2016 my then-wife and I separated - she wanted me out, she wanted sole custody of our two kids, and wanted me to grant her our house and farm.
She wanted me to walk away with nothing, after 16 years together. I refused - so she got NASTY!
She alleged domestic violence, alleged I stole money and jewelry, alleged I stalked her after the separation, alleged a host of other crap - and then finally she alleged that I abused my 6yo daughter.
I was initially interviewed by police over domestic violence, and then immediately my ‘Criminal Record’ showed 'Pending charges of domestic violence". I am a Medical Professional, so I had to explain this to my medical board, and as a consequence I stood down until the investigation was over.
Now over one year later I have just been informed the Police have closed all the investigations, and there are No Charges At All. None.
I have not seen my kids since this started, my reputation in our small community is below zero, I lost a years salary. I started seeing a new woman a few months ago, my Ex wrote to her with a list of my alleged crimes.
I don’t know what the answer is. No form of violence is acceptable, and our society is becoming more aware and less tolerant of violence against women and children in particular - but the system can be now be used as a weapon, with the accused named and shamed before being found guilty.
I don’t know what the answer is…
There were far more accusers against MJ than just a couple of children; like other sexual predators Jackson was good at choosing his victims. Corruptable parents tell us nothing about whether sexual abuse happened. His staff have many shocking stories. An overview from this Datalounge thread:
https://www.datalounge.com/thread/19231369-michael-jackson-was-my-lover-stories