Jain Sexual Assault Charges

[Tropicana]

The Crown has dropped two sex assault charges against Jian Ghomeshi, leaving the disgraced former CBC Radio host to stand trial on five charges of sex assault and one charge of choking.Crown prosecutor Mike Callaghan told the court there is no reasonable prospect of conviction on the two withdrawn charges, and that he has been in contact with the two complainants involved.

One of the dropped charges involved an alleged incident at the Owen Sound Summerfolk music festival in August 2002.

The complainant, whose name is protected by a publication ban, told the Star in a previous interview that Ghomeshi kissed her, squeezed her neck, slapped her and roughly forced his fingers into her mouth while they were in his hotel room.

The other alleged sexual assault occurred in May 2003 in Toronto.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/05/12/two-sexual-assault-charges-dropped-against-jian-ghomeshi.html

[Tropicana]

Section 276 of Canada’s Criminal Code, known as the “rape shield,” clearly bans using a woman’s sexual history to prove the “twin myths” of rape — that she is untrustworthy or consented to the sexual acts in question. But this shield is not impenetrable. That was shown this week at Jian Ghomeshi’s trial for sexual assault when the judge allowed his lawyer to cross-examine one of three complainants about her last-minute disclosure that after Ghomeshi allegedly assaulted her, she invited him to her home and consensually EDITED him. The National Post’s Joseph Brean looks at how the rape shield works, how defence lawyers get around it, and what it means for the pursuit of justice.

Why would any woman accept a date with a man who had assaulted her, invite him back to her place and consensually EDIT him.

She hid this from the police until last week.

These women are making NO sense.

Q: How does a judge decide whether to admit evidence of past sex, other than the alleged crimes?
A: The evidence must be about specific instances of sexual activity, it must be relevant to an issue at trial and have “significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.” As in the Ghomeshi case, it is always used to impeach a witness’s credibility, if it contradicts other statements, “but it also often has other relevance,” says Joseph Neuberger, a criminal defence lawyer in Toronto. “In a larger sense, it is relevant to the overall narrative and dynamic of their relationship. So there are many ways that other sexual contact could be relevant to the defence, and not breaching the twin myths.” He recalls a case in which the wife said there was no sexual contact after her husband allegedly assaulted her sexually, despite three videotaped sexual encounters between them. After Neuberger was allowed to cross-examine the woman, the Crown withdrew charges. In weighing a decision, the law says the judge must consider the right to a full defence, society’s interest in encouraging reports of sexual assaults, the dangers of discriminatory bias, and the complainant’s dignity and privacy.
Q: Since the law was enacted in 1992, has it solved the problem it was meant to?
A: Partly. Canada’s laws, as written, are progressive and fair to complainants, and the strategy of going after a woman’s previous partners to prove she is promiscuous is now uncommon, says Elaine Craig, an assistant professor of law at Dalhousie with a focus on sex assault. But the law is still misused in two ways. In one, defence counsel raises prior sexual contact without having made the formal application, and judges do not stop them — Craig says this is common in cases involving married couples. In the other, some of the old rape myths “continue to inform the way the provision is applied, indirectly… You still see those same assumptions emerge.”
Q: Can the Crown intervene to prevent fishing expeditions?
A: It can, but in Ghomeshi, the Crown consented. “That likely means that the conduct that’s at issue is so intertwined with the charged conduct that it did not make sense for the Crown to contest it,” says Robin McKechney, another criminal defence lawyer in Toronto. “The Crown’s doing the right thing,” Neuberger added. “The Crown has to seek the truth. Their obligation is not to seek a conviction.”
Q: Why is this only coming up now in Ghomeshi? Surely the defence knew about this contact and could have raised it earlier?
A:Every indication is that the complainant’s late disclosure of the sexual contact to the Crown last week has put this issue in play. Perhaps there was a tactical decision by the defence not to tip its hand to the Crown, and to let testimony of this sexual contact come directly from the complainant, which does not require a judge’s approval. “Whatever came out (in her late disclosure) must have been outside the history that Mr. Ghomeshi provided (to his lawyers), otherwise the application absolutely would have happened prior to the trial,” McKechney said.

[Tropicana]

The dawgasaurus is going to get off. Clearly he is a scum bucket but I don't think people do jail time for that.

[Tropicana]

Looks like the defense is not calling any witnesses. They don't need to.

[Tropicana]

Well he is only the 3rd man I have come across that deserves the label of "a EDIT" but unfortunately, they don't give out jail time for that.

Two of the women who allege they were physically assaulted also say that before the alleged assaults in his home he introduced them to Big Ears Teddy, a stuffed bear, and he turned the bear around just before he slapped or choked them, saying that “Big Ears Teddy shouldn’t see this.”

The CBC has announced they are investigating the first case, where Ghomeshi allegedly told a CBC staffer he wanted to “hate EDIT” her.

Ghomeshi, in a Facebook posting Sunday evening, wrote in an emotional statement that he has “done nothing wrong.” He said it is not unusual for him to engage in “adventurous forms of sex that included role-play, dominance and submission.” However, he said it has always been consensual. His lawyers echoed this in the statement of claim filed as part of his lawsuit.

In his posting, Ghomeshi writes: “Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. . . . But that is my private life. . . . And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life.

Flippin arrogant.

lame.jpg

He'll get off though.

[Tropicana]

Jian Ghomeshi drops $55m CBC lawsuit

Former Q host must pay $18,000 in legal costs related to suit he filed the day after CBC fired him.

Former Q host Jian Ghomeshi is taking his fight against the CBC to “binding arbitration” after agreeing to drop a $55-million lawsuit for breach of confidence against the national broadcaster.Ghomeshi’s new civil lawyer, Jonathan Lisus, said Tuesday that he is on the case. He’s with Lax O’Sullivan Scott Lisus LLP.

“I represent Mr. Ghomeshi and confirm that the lawsuit between Mr. Ghomeshi and CBC has been resolved on the basis that CBC and Mr. Ghomeshi will address all issues in the lawsuit in binding arbitration in accordance with the collective agreement between them,” Lisus said in an email.

Ghomeshi, a former unionized CBC employee, was fired on Sunday, Oct. 26. The CBC said in a statement issued that day that it had received information which “precluded” it from continuing to employ him.

Ghomeshi took issue with that decision and sued, saying he had showed CBC personal information in good faith and they had used it against him in what he said amounted to a “breach of confidence.”

An ongoing Star investigation has shown that what Ghomeshi showed CBC executives was a video which revealed bruising on the torso of a woman he had dated. He also showed them text messages that referred to a “cracked rib.” A source said Ghomeshi had showed it as an example of how rough sex that causes bruising can be consensual

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/11/25/ghomeshi_drops_55m_cbc_lawsuit.html

[Tropicana]

I disagree with this. How can you be sending a man racy notes and flowers and hooking up with him afterwards and then cry rape?

Complainants’ behaviour afterwards shouldn’t affect credibility, Jian Ghomeshi trial told





The Crown prosecutor at Jian Ghomeshi’s sexual assault trial said the credibility of his three accusers has nothing to do with the way they behaved after the alleged incidents.
Michael Callaghan said the law is clear that everyone responds differently to sexual assault and the way complainants behave after alleged assaults should not be used to assess their credibility.
In his closing arguments, Callaghan said that each of the complainants reacted to the alleged sexual assaults in their own unique ways based on their individual personalities and life experiences.


Ghomeshi’s defence has used the women’s behaviour following the alleged sexual assaults, including their continued involvement with Ghomeshi — one complainant even had a sexual encounter with him — to cast doubts about their credibility.
Under cross-examination, one of the women acknowledged she deliberately misled investigators by not initially telling them about the sexual encounter just days after the alleged assault.
The 48-year-old former CBC Radio host, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges, didn’t testify during the trial and has maintained his silence ever since being arrested in November 2014.
Ghomeshi acknowledged in October 2014 that he engaged in rough sex acts, but said it was consensual.
His defence lawyer, Marie Henein, is expected to make her closing arguments after the Crown, and then Justice William Horkins will decide Ghomeshi’s fate.

http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-trial-closing-arguments

The letter: It is a pretty full account of the night this witness testified to, Robitaille says. There was a focus on the sign off “I love your hands.” But Robitaille draws the judge’s attention to the preceding paragraph:
“I am sad we didn’t spend the night together, I could have been more open with you..” This is her description of the events.
The fact DeCoutere wrote Ghomeshi a love letter is relevant. But what is more relevant is the question of whether or not the Crown proved non consent beyond reasonable doubt, is this witness’s regret that they did not have sex.

Man rape you and then you accept another date with him and give him a EDIT EDIT.

Exhibit 35: This is the email sent 13 days post their date that Friday night in July 2003. She describes a scene in a popular television show and relates it to her feelings for Ghomeshi. “I think you’re magic.” That was DeCoutere’s feeling soon after the event. Exhibit 36: “Getting to know you is changing my mind, in a good way…. You kicked my EDIT last night and that makes me want to EDIT your brains out.”
This was sent mere hours after the alleged assault.

An agreed statement of fact is that during the trial DeCoutere’s lawyer floated a “hypothetical” about post-assault contact with Ghomeshi. The morning of her testimony she sat down with police and told them about sending Ghomeshi flowers, seeing him in Banff the next year and emails sent. She said this was an attempt to normalize the situation, and that’s what she said in chief.Her explanation evolves depending on what she is presented with, Robitaille says.
She talks about normalizing her relationship with him. Then a series of emails were put to her.
First regarding the 2003 Geminis. In examination in chief she said Ghomeshi touched her neck in order to reference the alleged assault. What she did not say was that she was emailing him before the Geminis so she could meet up with Ghomeshi. “Sunday has a slot for you, in my mind.”
Her response was no, she was going to watch his show.
Her description of what she wants from Ghomeshi evolves.
In another email she tells him to “brace yourself” because she wants to “play” with him. She maintains this was a professional dinner.

PUH-LEEZE!!

Jian Ghomeshi trial: Complainant agreed to date and sexual encounter after alleged assault


A woman who claims Jian Ghomeshi squeezed her neck and covered her mouth so she couldn't breathe failed to disclose to police that she had a consensual sexual encounter with the former CBC host in the days after the alleged sexual assault, court heard today.
The complainant, who can't be identified because of a publication ban, told police just days ago that Ghomeshi had gone back to her home after a dinner date where they "messed around" and she EDITed him. The woman had not mentioned those details in her initial 2014 statement to police.


New information

She testified that she provided the new information after she inadvertently heard that emails had been unveiled in a report about the trial on CBC Radio.
Court heard last week that the second complainant, actor Lucy DeCoutere, had failed to initially tell police about her further correspondences with Ghomeshi, including a series of emails, following her alleged assault.
The woman was supposed to be avoiding media reports about the trial.
During cross-examination, Ghomeshi's lawyer Marie Henein seized on the new details the woman had told police.
"I'm going to suggest to you that the only reason you have finally told the truth is because you thought you were going to be caught out," Henein said.
The woman disagreed, saying she didn't want the Crown to be blindsided by something she had omitted.
The witness said she contacted her lawyer days ago to let the Crown and police know she had more details to provide, because she figured it was going to come out and that "it has to be everything or nothing."
Henein accused the woman of lying to police in her initial statement, pointing out that she told police then she would only be in a public setting with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault.
"It was an omission," the woman said.
"You tell the police that the extent of it is we're going to be in public right," Henein countered.
"You do not say to them, 'he did come over to my house, we were not in public,' right?
"Right," the woman said.
"So that is a lie," Henein said.
"Sure," the woman said.


Invited Ghomeshi to events

Henein pointed out that the woman had sent a couple of emails to Ghomeshi inviting him to events, including a stag.


The woman said those emails were in a professional capacity, that she was starting up an artist management company and that Ghomeshi's presence at these events would be beneficial.

[Tropicana]

These 3 women need fe join Janice Dickerson and Beverley Johnson and siddung inna one cornah and kibbah dem mout'.


Can anybody spell pappy show?

[Tropicana]

The inconsistencies and lies of the three complainants in the sexual assault trial of Jian Ghomeshi must lead to an acquittal of the former CBC Radio host, his defence team argued in court today. But the Crown suggested that the "unshaken" allegations of the women show guilt."You've heard the evidence in this case," Ghomeshi's lawyer Marie Henein said in her closing argument. "And for reasons that we have submitted to you, it is our submission that the evidence in the courtroom falls so far short of proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt, it is so riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities and proven lies under oath that it cannot be said to prove anything.
"It's our respectful submission that Mr. Ghomeshi is not guilty and that he's entitled to an acquittal on all counts."

Judge William Horkins said he would reserve judgement and the court would reconvene on March 24
Ghomeshi, 48, who lives in Toronto, has pleaded not guilty to four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking, all related to alleged assaults from 2002 to 2003. The identities of two of the complainants in the case are protected under a publication ban, but actress Lucy DeCoutere, also an air force captain, went to court to lift the ban on her name.

I think he is guilty as sin but entitled to an acquittal due to the behaviour of the complainants.

Crown says evidence on key facts 'steadfast'

The first woman to testify told court that Ghomeshi had pulled her hair and punched her in the head at his home after a dinner date. DeCoutere said the former Q host had choked and slapped her at his home. The third woman said Ghomeshi had squeezed her neck and covered her mouth while they were kissing on a park bench.
But it was later revealed in court that each woman had had contact with Ghomeshi following the alleged assaults and that details of this contact had not been provided to police or the Crown in their initial statements.
In his final argument, Crown attorney Michael Callaghan said Horkins had heard evidence that may have caused him to have concerns about the reliability and credibility of some of the witnesses.
But Callaghan said that's not the end of the analysis. He argued that the witnesses had provided explanations for some of of the inconsistencies, delayed disclosures or omissions in their evidence.
"Not withstanding vigorous cross-examination, all three of the Crown's witnesses were unshaken in their allegations that they were sexually assaulted by Mr. Ghomeshi.

"The evidence on these key points, the very offences being alleged, was steadfast."
But Henein dismissed the significance of their "unshaken" testimony, saying it is of no assistance to the judge.
"Unless the witness gets up and recants on the stand and says, 'You know, when I said it, that's simply not true.' Well maybe that happens on TV but in 24 years practising in these courts, that is a rare event."
Instead, in determining the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, Henein argued that all three women had withheld information from the police, Crown and the court about their ongoing communications with Ghomeshi. She said it was "deeply troubling" that these details were disclosed at "the 11th hour" before trial and only when there was concern the women would be contradicted by objective evidence.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-sexual-assault-trial-1.3443556

[Tropicana]

This sums it up perfectly.

Jian Ghomeshi will be found not guilty. Here's why.

In November 2014, Jian Ghomeshi was charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of “choking to overcome resistance."

Before these allegations, Ghomeshi was a celebrity and self-styled feminist who ran a popular radio program on the CBC. He was well-liked by members of the public and even had a friendly relationship with our Prime Minister. Behind the scenes, however, Ghomeshi seems to have had a dark side.

Exactly how much evidence is there against Ghomeshi, though? All we have are unproven allegations: the testimonies of a smattering of women, some of whom had dated Ghomeshi over a decade ago.

People inundated the media with stories about Ghomeshi. An author claimed Ghomeshi put his “hands around [her] throat” and “violently EDITed” her. A former CBC employee claimed Ghomeshi forced her to “perform EDIT” on him in a hotel room. A fan of Ghomeshi’s claimed that he had beaten her during sex and left her with “deep bruising” on her body.

Interview after interview came out with people who damaged Ghomeshi’s character, including interviews with past coworkers and friends. A male former classmate of Ghomeshi’s even accused Ghomeshi of having “EDITed” him. Everyone wanted in on the bloodbath.

The allegations against Ghomeshi are brutal. But that’s all they are: allegations. And there’s reason to suspect at least some of them are the product of collusion.

Three women brought charges against Ghomeshi. Two of them chose to remain anonymous, and the third was Canadian actress Lucy DeCoutere. DeCoutere claimed that during a date Ghomeshi choked her without her consent to the point where she “could not breathe.”

The other women’s stories were distinctly similar. All three stories detail the women being attacked in the middle of a date by Ghomeshi without their consent. How could so many seemingly unconnected women come up with such similar stories about him? Surely, this must mean Ghomeshi is guilty?

This is actually one of the reasons that makes me question the allegations against Ghomeshi. Because there is an explanation as to why so many “unconnected” women would raise such similar stories against him. They weren’t unconnected.

In an article for Toronto Life, Leah McLaren writes:

“DeCoutere, who was the highest-profile of Jian’s alleged victims to come forward, became a point person for others who wanted to tell their story but couldn’t bring themselves to do it publicly. The way she described it to me, she co-ordinated a covert network of women who have spent the last seven months sharing their assault stories with each other.”

This was premeditation. The women had discussed their stories and had plenty of time to make them align. Perhaps they were colluding to destroy Ghomeshi. Or perhaps it was as simple as a support network for abused women. Either way the idea that these women were unconnected no longer holds true, dispelling at least one of the arguments against Ghomeshi.

There’s something else, too, something else that has me convinced of Ghomeshi’s innocence, at least regarding these accounts.

All of the women who accused Ghomeshi continued to treat him positively after their alleged abuse. DeCoutere sent Ghomeshi a raunchy email which said

“You kicked my EDIT last night and that makes me want to EDIT your brains out” the day after she had allegedly been choked.
One of the anonymous complainants stated that she had a “sexual encounter” with Ghomeshi days after he had allegedly assaulted her.

The other anonymous complainant had sent flirtatious messages to Ghomeshi after her alleged assault, and had even sent him a picture of her in a bikini.
All three complainants conveniently failed to remember these actions when they took the stand.

And how are these “victims” of Ghomeshi’s doing today?
Well, Lucy DeCoutere enjoyed a surge of media attention and gained 25,000 Twitter followers after she publicized her allegations against Ghomeshi. DeCoutere bragged to a friend that she was “to sexual assault what David Beckham was to Armani underwear”. If her experience is anything to judge by, they’re doing just fine.

Yesterday, the court heard closing arguments from the Crown and defense. In the Crown’s closing arguments they addressed the flirtatious messages sent by the complainants, stating “How someone should react after the fact should not be considered”. Ghomeshi’s lawyer Marie Henein closed the defense’s side of the case by stating “All three complainants withheld information from the police and from the Crown and from the court… We were not going to hear the truth.”

There’s no doubt that women have left his bedroom with bruises, as Ghomeshi admittedly enjoys BDSM and rough sex, a fetish that is more commonplace than people think. So the question here is whether the aspects of the accounts were consensual or happened at all.

The messages sent by the complainants are the only reliable evidence given as to whether Ghomeshi’s behaviour was consensual, and they strongly support the defense’s case. The only other evidence provided about the alleged assaults is testimony that has been proven to be riddled with lies.

As usual, the press and public refuse to accept the fact that the real victim isn’t always the person who pressed charges. People lie, and yes, women lie.

I can’t say I like Ghomeshi much. I don’t have an affinity for cocky male feminists who espouse progressive rhetoric and live off tax dollars. I also find his proclivities both inside and outside of the bedroom disturbing.
I won’t say that I think everyone who has come forward is a liar either, I don’t know that. If the complainants are telling the truth, I hope they find the evidence necessary to convict him.

http://www.therebel.media/jian_ghomeshi_will_be_found_not_guilty

These women have set back the clock for real sexual assault victims by decades.

[Tropicana]

The biggest losers in the Ghomeshi debacle

But the biggest losers were not in court. They are the many victims of sexual assault who now, because of this fiasco, will be more reluctant than ever to come forward.

It must also be said that the victim lobby has done itself no favours. Its tone has been both strident and absolute. The notion that we should believe the victims – no matter what – not only is unhelpful, but has been thoroughly discredited by a series of widely publicized cases (e.g., Rolling Stone, in which the victim made it all up). In fact, the public is more sophisticated than the victim lobby seems to think. People have a great deal of sympathy for sexual-assault victims. But they don’t think that means an automatic free pass.

The victim lobby also lacks a sense of proportion. Like it or not, there’s a difference between slapping, hair-pulling and brief incidents of choking (the accusations here) and rape at knifepoint. Bill Cosby is suspected of sexually violating dozens of women after he drugged them. None of this is excusable. But some of it is worse.
Nor is “trauma” a satisfying blanket explanation for every victim’s behaviour. People understand perfectly well why some women placate their abusers. But “trauma” does not necessarily explain why someone who barely knows the guy at all would write lovesick letters, or send bikini photographs, after he slapped her around on a first date. There may be other reasons. Besides, at least one of the complainants in this case wasn’t traumatized at all. She told him to get lost (after giving him a EDIT EDIT ).
We need to have a more honest conversation about why some women – women who, dare I say it, ought to know better – behave the way they do. This is not meant as an excuse for male behaviour. But plenty of women are attracted to men who are mad, bad and dangerous to know, as well as to men who seem quite nice at first but turn out to be predatory jerks. Most of us have encountered men such as these. Most of us have learned to run the other way. Sorry, but if a guy slaps you around on your first date, maybe you shouldn’t go on a second one.
People are not allowed to say such things these days, for fear they’ll be accused of “whacking the victim.” But that is simply what we tell our daughters: Watch out for yourself. There’s enough trouble in this world without inviting more.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-biggest-losers-in-the-ghomeshi-debacle/article28741727/

[Tropicana]

Lucy DeCoutere will probably always be haunted by what she did after her alleged sexual assault.In July 2003, the Canadian actor and air force captain was on a first date in Toronto with Jian Ghomeshi, who would later become the country’s most beloved radio host. They had been flirting over email for a month, and DeCoutere flew in from Halifax for the weekend. Though their dinner conversation was a little awkward – he frequently referenced his own rising fame – she found him charming enough that she decided to spend the night with him.
As she told the court last week during Ghomeshi’s trial, for which he faces four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking, he started to kiss her and with “no buildup”, pushed her aggressively against a wall. Then he grabbed her by the throat and choked her hard enough that she couldn’t breathe. He slapped her twice, paused to look at her, and slapped her again.
Confused about how to act, DeCoutere stayed for another hour while Ghomeshi played his guitar and a record. Her actions in the days and weeks that followed became even more contradictory, given his alleged behavior.
She sent him an email early the next morning that said: “You kicked my EDIT last night and that makes me want to EDIT your brains out. Tonight.” An odd reaction from someone who would later testify she did not consent to his violent behavior.
After the alleged assault, DeCoutere spent the rest of the weekend with Ghomeshi, having brunch, going to a BBQ and taking a photo of themselves cuddling in the park. When she returned home to Halifax she sent him flowers with a note that said “Thanks for hanging out.”
DeCoutere also mailed him a letter less than a week later in cursive writing that ended with: “I love your hands, Lucy.” The same hands he had allegedly used to choke her.

Sounds like consent to me. She is a real pappy show.

Since then, at least a dozen women have accused Ghomeshi of sexual violence.
The way victims behave after a sexual assault is grossly misunderstood by the public and the legal system. Throughout Ghomeshi’s trial, which ended 11 February and will be ruled on in March, his defence lawyer Marie Henein focused on the contradictory actions of the three complainants, two of whose names are protected under a publication ban.

If he violently pulled witness No 1’s hair and punched her three times, why did she later send him a photo of herself in a red string bikini? If he really squeezed witness No 3 by the neck and smothered her mouth while they were kissing, why did she agree to another date in which she gave him a EDIT EDIT? Why would DeCoutere send sexually forward emails to the man who abused her?

Clearly he dumped them and they were ticked.