Discussions

Just for anyone who is interested.  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-judge-ruling-1.3504250

This is just what many expected. Now he is free to do it all over again and maybe end up killing someone. I honestly believe there will be riots over this, and likely some politician somewhere promising to amend laws. Just my opinion, but from what I have read , it seemed to be a 50/50 possibility one way or the other.  
 
 
Edited by mcginty, 2016-03-24 10:56:52

Well, perhaps he is innocent as he has stated from the start!

Sure he was found not guilty in a court of law, but the court of public opinion put the last nail in his coffin many months ago.

that Ghomeshi is innocent. He had a good lawyer. Plus the fact that the ladies went back for "more" helped acquit him, imo.

Johnbisonbear said "that Ghomeshi is innocent. He had a good lawyer. Plus the fact that the ladies went back for "more" helped acquit him, imo. "

Unfortunately our justice system was bound by the poor testimony of the witnesses involved and the fact that the countless other complaints made over the years that showed poor character on his part were inadmissible. He had a good lawyer who knew how to use that.  
 
I feel it mirrors the Bill Cosby issue - a much loved and powerful celebrity outweighs good judgement, and scares people off of complaining for fear of losing face against such a big persona.  
 
One good thing that will come of this - while he may be truly innocent of these charges, I believe where there is smoke there is fire (and there are a LOT of smoke in this case) hopefully the media coverage will mean no woman is put in a compromising situation by this person again.

Funny how one employee of CBC is convicted of a criminal offence and made a living singing songs about degrading women and is never fired or even sanctioned. And now is a star candidate for the NDP.  
The other was fired immediately for doing something so bad that three out of three "victims" came back for more .

Gof said "Funny how one employee of CBC is convicted of a criminal offence and made a living singing songs about degrading women and is never fired or even sanctioned. And now is a star candidate for the NDP.   The other was fired immediately for doing something so bad that three out of three "victims" came back for more . "

Exactly... them women came back for more. This was an open and shut case. He never should have stepped foot in a courtroom.

The courts cleared him of the charges but the naysayers already have his noose setup what are they gonna do? They already convicted him before the trial started.  
 
What happened to victims rights? And in this case as proven in court was the man.  
 
His life is forever ruined because someone wanted revenge/money

painted him guilty immediately after the initial story broke. And before any information was available. Mainly because it's a guy allegedly doing something to a woman.  
 
Let the courts decide guilt or innocence. They are the ones who are getting all the information where as the media and public only get snippets. And in these situations emotions can't decide guilty or innocence.

Some people practice it. A communication issue? .  
 
5000 emails between to of the accusers. More women should have spoken up unless like these three the testimony is tainted big time.  
 
I think the Judge believed them. He just pointed out how bad their decision making after was. 26 pages of pointing out problems.  
 
More women speaking up with media bans on ID could have sunk him if they were of a quality of charge(s) that a Judge or Lawyer could not tear apart like they did.  
 
IMO though the Media and public have done far worse to this man that any jail time would have done as others on this tread has said.

Good for Ghomeshi. Perhaps the tide is turning, so not every accusation made against a man is taken as fact. It only costs about $100,000, and the loss of a career to attain that level of justice though, so completely out of reach for 99+ % of men.  
 
The personal toll on him emotionally, and to his reputation and career will never be compensated or recovered, so it's hard to see how he's won.

Trevor B said "painted him guilty immediately after the initial story broke. And before any information was available. Mainly because it's a guy allegedly doing something to a woman.     Let the courts decide guilt or innocence. They are the ones who are getting all the information where as the media and public only get snippets. And in these situations emotions can't decide guilty or innocence. "

Do you believe that Ghomeshi didn't engage in rough and violent sex?  
 
I think he did and enjoys this kind of sex. He got acquitted not because he was innocent but rather the testimony from the ladies fell apart. If someone scares the hell out of you then stay away, end of!

Johnbisonbear said "    Trevor B said "painted him guilty immediately after the initial story broke. And before any information was available. Mainly because it's a guy allegedly doing something to a woman.     Let the courts decide guilt or innocence. They are the ones who are getting all the information where as the media and public only get snippets. And in these situations emotions can't decide guilty or innocence. " Do you believe that Ghomeshi didn't engage in rough and violent sex?     I think he did and enjoys this kind of sex. He got acquitted not because he was innocent but rather the testimony from the ladies fell apart. If someone scares the hell out of you then stay away, end of! "

doesn't matter weather I believe he engaged in rough sex or not. It's just that he was instantly labelled as guilty without any facts in the public. It was basically a man ALLEGEDLY did something to a woman, so that means he's instantly guilty no matter what the evidence that says otherwise.  
 
And in this case it was the prosecutions job to prove what he did was criminal and they didn't. The women's testimony seemed to be cooked up after the fact and the judge saw that. And ya, they kept going back for more even knowing how he was.

Johnbisonbear said "    Trevor B said "painted him guilty immediately after the initial story broke. And before any information was available. Mainly because it's a guy allegedly doing something to a woman.     Let the courts decide guilt or innocence. They are the ones who are getting all the information where as the media and public only get snippets. And in these situations emotions can't decide guilty or innocence. " Do you believe that Ghomeshi didn't engage in rough and violent sex?     I think he did and enjoys this kind of sex. He got acquitted not because he was innocent but rather the testimony from the ladies fell apart. If someone scares the hell out of you then stay away, end of! "

Women enjoy rough and violent sex too... but you don't have to tell Ghomeshi that.

In rendering a not guilty decision, Ontario court of justice Judge William Horkins said he simply could not trust the three complainants, given their shifting memories and evidence that at times strayed into outright lies..........  
 
......."I have a firm understanding that the reasonableness of reactive human behavior in the dynamics of a relationship can be variable and unpredictable," the judge said. "However, the twists and turns of the complainants' evidence in this trial  
illustrate the need to be vigilant in avoiding the equally dangerous false assumption that sexual assault complainants are always truthful."  
 
i think it may have been a communication issue. some people do engage and enjoy rough sex and if you do communication HAS to be great or it can be taken too far BUT as trevor said the Judge knew the full details and made his ruling, based on what the news article said the judge had more then enough evidence to disregard the women's statements and i do think that we have to be very careful about believing any sexual assault charge, while we want people to come forward we also dont want accused to become victims easily just on the say so of someone unhappy, after all thats why the court system was put in place

Trevor B said "    Johnbisonbear said "    Trevor B said "painted him guilty immediately after the initial story broke. And before any information was available. Mainly because it's a guy allegedly doing something to a woman.     Let the courts decide guilt or innocence. They are the ones who are getting all the information where as the media and public only get snippets. And in these situations emotions can't decide guilty or innocence. " Do you believe that Ghomeshi didn't engage in rough and violent sex?     I think he did and enjoys this kind of sex. He got acquitted not because he was innocent but rather the testimony from the ladies fell apart. If someone scares the hell out of you then stay away, end of! " doesn't matter weather I believe he engaged in rough sex or not. It's just that he was instantly labelled as guilty without any facts in the public. It was basically a man ALLEGEDLY did something to a woman, so that means he's instantly guilty no matter what the evidence that says otherwise.     And in this case it was the prosecutions job to prove what he did was criminal and they didn't. The women's testimony seemed to be cooked up after the fact and the judge saw that. And ya, they kept going back for more even knowing how he was. "

freely admitted to the rough and violent sex, so he should be considered guilty.  
 
On the other hand, obviously the ladies didn't hate the sex that bad or they wouldn't have contacted him over and over again.  
 
That's why JG was acquitted not because he didn't commit the violent sex acts.

still has another trial in June for the case with former CBC co-worker.  
 

Just for the record there is no law against engaging in the sort of sex that this case focussed on.  
 
The charges had nothing to do with "rough violent sex" but were entirely about consent.  
 
Sadly the salacious details overshadowed the fact that this was about him doing something he thought THEY would consent to.  
 
It wouldn't matter if he had tickled them with unicorn feathers - if they said "no" then it was assault.  
 
The fact that their testimony was riddled with holes and lies led to the judge concluding that there could be no conviction.  
 
Let's leave the style of sex and attendant moralizing out of it and focus on the actual issue.  
 
E

Johnbisonbear said "    Trevor B said "    Johnbisonbear said "    Trevor B said "painted him guilty immediately after the initial story broke. And before any information was available. Mainly because it's a guy allegedly doing something to a woman.     Let the courts decide guilt or innocence. They are the ones who are getting all the information where as the media and public only get snippets. And in these situations emotions can't decide guilty or innocence. " Do you believe that Ghomeshi didn't engage in rough and violent sex?     I think he did and enjoys this kind of sex. He got acquitted not because he was innocent but rather the testimony from the ladies fell apart. If someone scares the hell out of you then stay away, end of! " doesn't matter weather I believe he engaged in rough sex or not. It's just that he was instantly labelled as guilty without any facts in the public. It was basically a man ALLEGEDLY did something to a woman, so that means he's instantly guilty no matter what the evidence that says otherwise.     And in this case it was the prosecutions job to prove what he did was criminal and they didn't. The women's testimony seemed to be cooked up after the fact and the judge saw that. And ya, they kept going back for more even knowing how he was. " freely admitted to the rough and violent sex, so he should be considered guilty.     On the other hand, obviously the ladies didn't hate the sex that bad or they wouldn't have contacted him over and over again.     That's why JG was acquitted not because he didn't commit the violent sex acts. "

There's nothing illegal or wrong about consensual rough sex, the issue is whether or not there was sufficient consent.

Whether he was guilty or not who would make a complaint of assault now knowing they will be judged for their past. I don't care what the victims did before or after if he hit them he should be charged with common assault. This ruling tells victims that they will be judged by their past but the accused can't have his past brought up. Double standard set up by Judge.

Read the decision.

The only thing this ruling will do is make anyone who has been assaulted not come forward. If there is no witness or physical evidence then its one persons word against the other.

Hayfield said "The only thing this ruling will do is make anyone who has been assaulted not come forward. If there is no witness or physical evidence then its one persons word against the other. "

you report it immediately, not 10 years later. And don't keep going back or sending him flowers. Don't send e-mails to the other complainants comparing notes and discussing how to make it look worse. Those women cooked their own goose.  
 

Trevor B said "still has another trial in June for the case with former CBC co-worker.     "

with this case. Fingers crossed the co-worker didn't "moon" over JG after their encounter. That's what sunk this last case.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-lawyers-judge-decision-1.3506613  
 

Trevor B said "    Hayfield said "The only thing this ruling will do is make anyone who has been assaulted not come forward. If there is no witness or physical evidence then its one persons word against the other. " you report it immediately, not 10 years later. And don't keep going back or sending him flowers. Don't send e-mails to the other complainants comparing notes and discussing how to make it look worse. Those women cooked their own goose.     "

i agree with Trevor  
 
But i also ask, if the witness was caught lying and manipulating and looked like they were conspiring to secure a conviction and there is NO evidence, should the witness still be enough to convict?  
 
doent matter if the crime involves sexual assault I would hope there would be a higher standard before we decided to punish a person

Johnbisonbear said "    Trevor B said "still has another trial in June for the case with former CBC co-worker.     " with this case. Fingers crossed the co-worker didn't "moon" over JG after their encounter. That's what sunk this last case. "

this was the original case against him. The RCMP then asked for any others and the 3 from this last case spoke up.

how many women also enjoy and initiate rough sex? Are they victims? Or is it only when a man does it? Or if a woman enjoyed and participated multiple occasions it at the time, then figures 10 years down the road says she was sexually assaulted and goes after the guy.  
 
Events like this cloud and obscure the true sexual assaults. And yes the woman's past sexual history needs to be told.

Never read the book or saw the movie and have no interest in doing so, but wasn't that guy involved in some pretty kinky stuff?  
So how come he's a romantic hero and this guy's life is ruined.....