rightfully so, people were quick to condemn him but when the info all started coming out, these women liked being manhandled. Just read some of the text and emails they sent him encouraging him to continue to beat them up.
Sorry you can't have it both ways. I would now be going after them for not only court and legal costs, but slander and defamation of character.
"The twists and turns of the complainants' evidence in this trial illustrates the need to be vigilant" in order not fall into the assumption "that sexual assault complainants are always truthful," the judge said.
But it's clear that each witness was "less than full and frank" in their statements to media, police and the court.
I guess that's the upside of this trial.
He is facing one more trial on a similar matter. No reason to assume this witness will also be found not credible.
"uwish" said I would now be going after them for not only court and legal costs, but slander and defamation of character.
No you wouldn't. The standard in a civil case is different than in a criminal case. "Not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent" and if he were to sue all the evidence that seemed shaky in a criminal case would amount to a "preponderance of evidence" in a civil case. If anyone will be seeking civil actions in this case, it'll be the victims, not Ghomeshi.
Ghomeshi assaulted these women. That couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but would surely be proven on a preponderance of evidence, just as OJ Simpson was not guilty in his criminal trial, but responsible for damages in the wrongful death suit.
And Ghomeshi faces another sexual assault trial in June. Good luck on that one, Gian.
Accusations of sexual-anything these days are the equivalent of accusing someone of witchcraft where once accused they MUST be found guilty.
My advice to anyone ever accused of such a thing is as follows:
1. DO NOT APOLOGIZE! Don't say you're 'sorry for the misunderstanding' or 'sorry they feel that way' because with the fascists who are going to come after you an apology is not an act of condolence or attrition it is an admission of guilt and they'll only come after you that much harder.
2. GET ANGRY! Get PISSED that someone would lie about you like that! Be OFFENDED that YOU are being sexually harassed and intimidated by this foul accusation! Turn the system against itself and make yourself the victim...the PC jacktards who run these star chambers won't know who to go after and you increase your chances of making the issue go away.
3. GET A LAWYER! Even if it's just some workplace spat go get a lawyer! Why? Because if the jacktards think they can get away with crucifying you and getting you fired or even jailed they'll do it because nothing pleases their sadistic little hearts like frying someone. They're the same mindset as racist cops who like to bully minorities because they get off on it.
And hiring a lawyer right away lets them know you're not an easy target. Bullies don't like victims who fight back so the mere fact you hired a lawyer is often enough to make the problem go away.
Unfortunate but I can't say I'm surprised. His lawyer did a good job of making the accusers look bad. I wish the crown would have done a better job of vetting them before trial. Or that they'd brought in a sexual violence expert who could explain how in many cases women go right back to the their abusers.
"xerxes" said Or that they'd brought in a sexual violence expert who could explain how in many cases women go right back to the their abusers.
Do you mean sexual abusers, or domestic? I can understand the latter because of children, fear, financial dependence, or Stockholm syndrome.
But none of those were the case here, so any "explanation" by an expert would raise serious doubt in me. You just can't claim you were assaulted, didn't give consent, then go back for more - to me it means there is either consent, or vindictiveness after the fact. I mean they all seemed good with it at the time, but once some time had elapsed, all of a sudden it became a violation.
"xerxes" said Unfortunate but I can't say I'm surprised. His lawyer did a good job of making the accusers look bad. I wish the crown would have done a better job of vetting them before trial. Or that they'd brought in a sexual violence expert who could explain how in many cases women go right back to the their abusers.
Yup. He made the right decision, and had the money as well, to hire the person who could be one of the most devastatingly efficient criminal defense lawyers in the country. There probably should be some kind of internal review inside the Crown attorney's office because, minus a couple of murders of course, this is as embarrassing a result for a prosecutor as the OJ Simpson results were in Los Angeles.
"xerxes" said His lawyer did a good job of making the accusers look bad.
His lawyers didn't do that. The witnesses did.
Any time you have a case pending on 'reasonable doubt', and you introduce ever changing testimony, intentionally omitted facts, and the possibility of witness collusion...defendant is walking out un-escorted.
Crown dropped the ball, witness...I got nothing for what the frak they were thinking...Ghomeshi? Probably a pretty sick fuck, but criminally safe.
"Thanos" said Unfortunate but I can't say I'm surprised. His lawyer did a good job of making the accusers look bad. I wish the crown would have done a better job of vetting them before trial. Or that they'd brought in a sexual violence expert who could explain how in many cases women go right back to the their abusers.
Yup. He made the right decision, and had the money as well, to hire the person who could be one of the most devastatingly efficient criminal defense lawyers in the country. There probably should be some kind of internal review inside the Crown attorney's office because, minus a couple of murders of course, this is as embarrassing a result for a prosecutor as the OJ Simpson results were in Los Angeles.
Always good for a laugh when 'the truth and nothing but the truth' runs counter to those who want their feelings to rule the world. An odious and obnoxious little man with a repellent habit found not guilty because his 'victims', every single one of whom hooked up with him again later for some more, turned out to be a co-ordinated tag-team of liars. Oh my, let the heavens fall.
Sorry you can't have it both ways. I would now be going after them for not only court and legal costs, but slander and defamation of character.
But it's clear that each witness was "less than full and frank" in their statements to media, police and the court.
I guess that's the upside of this trial.
He is facing one more trial on a similar matter. No reason to assume this witness will also be found not credible.
I would now be going after them for not only court and legal costs, but slander and defamation of character.
No you wouldn't. The standard in a civil case is different than in a criminal case. "Not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent" and if he were to sue all the evidence that seemed shaky in a criminal case would amount to a "preponderance of evidence" in a civil case. If anyone will be seeking civil actions in this case, it'll be the victims, not Ghomeshi.
Ghomeshi assaulted these women. That couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but would surely be proven on a preponderance of evidence, just as OJ Simpson was not guilty in his criminal trial, but responsible for damages in the wrongful death suit.
And Ghomeshi faces another sexual assault trial in June. Good luck on that one, Gian.
My advice to anyone ever accused of such a thing is as follows:
1. DO NOT APOLOGIZE! Don't say you're 'sorry for the misunderstanding' or 'sorry they feel that way' because with the fascists who are going to come after you an apology is not an act of condolence or attrition it is an admission of guilt and they'll only come after you that much harder.
2. GET ANGRY! Get PISSED that someone would lie about you like that! Be OFFENDED that YOU are being sexually harassed and intimidated by this foul accusation! Turn the system against itself and make yourself the victim...the PC jacktards who run these star chambers won't know who to go after and you increase your chances of making the issue go away.
3. GET A LAWYER! Even if it's just some workplace spat go get a lawyer! Why? Because if the jacktards think they can get away with crucifying you and getting you fired or even jailed they'll do it because nothing pleases their sadistic little hearts like frying someone. They're the same mindset as racist cops who like to bully minorities because they get off on it.
And hiring a lawyer right away lets them know you're not an easy target. Bullies don't like victims who fight back so the mere fact you hired a lawyer is often enough to make the problem go away.
Or that they'd brought in a sexual violence expert who could explain how in many cases women go right back to the their abusers.
I'd like to hear that explanation too. It makes no sense to me.
Or that they'd brought in a sexual violence expert who could explain how in many cases women go right back to the their abusers.
Do you mean sexual abusers, or domestic? I can understand the latter because of children, fear, financial dependence, or Stockholm syndrome.
But none of those were the case here, so any "explanation" by an expert would raise serious doubt in me. You just can't claim you were assaulted, didn't give consent, then go back for more - to me it means there is either consent, or vindictiveness after the fact. I mean they all seemed good with it at the time, but once some time had elapsed, all of a sudden it became a violation.
Unfortunate but I can't say I'm surprised. His lawyer did a good job of making the accusers look bad. I wish the crown would have done a better job of vetting them before trial. Or that they'd brought in a sexual violence expert who could explain how in many cases women go right back to the their abusers.
Yup. He made the right decision, and had the money as well, to hire the person who could be one of the most devastatingly efficient criminal defense lawyers in the country. There probably should be some kind of internal review inside the Crown attorney's office because, minus a couple of murders of course, this is as embarrassing a result for a prosecutor as the OJ Simpson results were in Los Angeles.
Thank God.
Ok, all the white knights can start bashing on me now.
His lawyer did a good job of making the accusers look bad.
His lawyers didn't do that. The witnesses did.
Any time you have a case pending on 'reasonable doubt', and you introduce ever changing testimony, intentionally omitted facts, and the possibility of witness collusion...defendant is walking out un-escorted.
Crown dropped the ball, witness...I got nothing for what the frak they were thinking...Ghomeshi? Probably a pretty sick fuck, but criminally safe.
Unfortunate but I can't say I'm surprised. His lawyer did a good job of making the accusers look bad. I wish the crown would have done a better job of vetting them before trial. Or that they'd brought in a sexual violence expert who could explain how in many cases women go right back to the their abusers.
Yup. He made the right decision, and had the money as well, to hire the person who could be one of the most devastatingly efficient criminal defense lawyers in the country. There probably should be some kind of internal review inside the Crown attorney's office because, minus a couple of murders of course, this is as embarrassing a result for a prosecutor as the OJ Simpson results were in Los Angeles.
True that.
http://jezebel.com/jian-ghomeshi-acquit ... 1766806348
Always good for a laugh when 'the truth and nothing but the truth' runs counter to those who want their feelings to rule the world. An odious and obnoxious little man with a repellent habit found not guilty because his 'victims', every single one of whom hooked up with him again later for some more, turned out to be a co-ordinated tag-team of liars. Oh my, let the heavens fall.