# Jian Ghomeshi acquitted



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2016/3/24/Judge-expected-to-deliver-decision-in-Jian-Ghomeshi-trial.aspx


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

From the beginning this story was fishy


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

And hardly presumed innocent until proven guilty either, just because he has a supposedly hot lawyer.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Well apparently the process is flawed and against women. This is just another example of the war against women. This is why women don't complain. People check their stories. Darn. If people didn't check their story the truth would prevail...or something like that.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The problem is the women acted somewhat irresponsibly after the incidents (making further contact, including in some cases solicitations) and per the judge, did not tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth throughout. Nor did they disclose everything to police at the time of reporting the incidents. Credibility of witnesses is everything in any kind of criminal trial. So notwithstanding the judge saying the incidents were likely true, there was no way guilt could be established without reasonable doubt.

Watch the CBC National News segment of Mar 25th to get a feel of what went wrong. That said, I suspect this case has a positive to it.... Both spouse and I agree this case will help 'survivors' understand they have to be precise and accurate in their statements to police and in their testimony....and consistent.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

It seems that this was incompetence in action by The Crown. Were they afraid to drill down to reveal these emails? Did they accept testimony with a lie detector? Did they give up the search for more credible witnesses?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Yes, I see your point. I watched 5th Estate. He was smart to save emails and letters. I think it is possible the accusers were banking on him not saving the correspondence. Then it would be his word against theirs. Obviously this was a manipulation of the police and courts. 

I'm shocked that the police and crown did not seek his side of the story before charging and prosecuting.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

The problem is that if Ghomeshi is aquitted in the second trial, he will sue CBC and win millions of dollars. And we, the innocent taxpayers, will pay. And the only way to stop this idiocy would be to privatize CBC, which would be a good thing anyway.


----------



## JC66 (Apr 6, 2011)

As a union member (CMG) he can not directly sue the CBC... and I seriously doubt the union will sue on his behalf.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

If he wins the second case then he can and will initiate a civil case against the CBC. And CBC will happily pay up hush-hush money because it's not theirs.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Yes, I see your point. I watched 5th Estate. He was smart to save emails and letters. I think it is possible the accusers were banking on him not saving the correspondence. Then it would be his word against theirs. Obviously this was a manipulation of the police and courts.
> 
> *I'm shocked that the police and crown did not seek his side of the story before charging and prosecuting.*


That is the first time I have seen that point brought up anywhere, despite all the media stories and blog articles.

In normal criminal procedures, a complainant would go to the police and they would investigate the allegations. They would interview the accused and ask if he had anything that would like to reveal.

I know a young guy who was falsely accused of rape, and if not for a police detective investigating and discovering she was lying and bragging about in texts to her friend, he would have been charged.

When an accuser makes a claim and the police automatically lay charges, that is a serious flaw in the system, but it happens all the time in some types of criminal charges.

In domestic assault cases it is the policy of many police departments to lay charges, and the policy of the Crown to proceed with charges................regardless of the circumstances.

Their viewpoint is to "let the courts sort it out". The circumstances of the event may not even be considered by the Crown until well into the court process.

It is a good example of "bad law" when a high profile case or two put pressure on governments and agencies to make sudden changes in reaction to social pressure.

The Ghomeshi trial is a danger of doing the same thing again. Some people aren't happy with the verdict and want to change the system to tilt it in favor of an accuser.

With no other evidence, it is difficult to tell if the complainant is telling the truth. It would not be acceptable to society if the police seized their computers and got a search warrant to go through all their records.

When accusers are caught in lies, collusion and convenient omissions, especially when they only apply to negative information for the accusers, it challenges the whole system of justice.

PM Trudeau is talking about "changes" to the system. Let's hope they are carefully thought out, with input from the broad legal community rather than a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

kcowan said:


> It seems that this was incompetence in action by The Crown. Were they afraid to drill down to reveal these emails? Did they accept testimony with a lie detector? Did they give up the search for more credible witnesses?


As the crown prosecutor said, it is the police who are supposed to collect all the evidence and seek witnesses prior to trial commencement. The prosecution, at least in Canada, has no mandate to investigate. They simply use the material given to them by the police. IOW, it is not like TV fiction and/or reality shows, and/or the prosecution has more authority/investigative powers in the USA. The comments by the prosecutor on the CBC National News segment a few nights ago was enlightening.....and I suppose disappointing. 

P.S. It also appears that in Canada, all the evidence of the prosecution must be shared with the defence, but not necessarily the other way around. What a country!!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> As the crown prosecutor said, it is the police who are supposed to collect all the evidence and seek witnesses prior to trial commencement. The prosecution, at least in Canada, has no mandate to investigate. They simply use the material given to them by the police. IOW, it is not like TV fiction and/or reality shows, and/or the prosecution has more authority/investigative powers in the USA. The comments by the prosecutor on the CBC National News segment a few nights ago was enlightening.....and I suppose disappointing.
> 
> *P.S. It also appears that in Canada, all the evidence of the prosecution must be shared with the defence, but not necessarily the other way around. What a country!!*


I agree it is odd, but there is a good purpose for it. If a defense lawyer had to reveal all information to the Crown, the accused wouldn't be able to say anything to their own lawyer.

It also isn't entirely a true statement. In cases where the defense lawyer is in possession of certain kinds of information, they must turn it over to the Crown.

Remember back to the Bernardo trial, when the defense lawyer knew of the existence of the video tapes ? It is a complicated issue for defense lawyers.

http://www.criminal-lawyers.ca/criminal-defence-news/the-ken-murray-case-defence-counsel-s-dilemma

The basic premise is.........you are the powerful State with unlimited resources. If you are charging me with a crime you must be able to prove it without my help.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mordko said:


> If he wins the second case then he can and will initiate a civil case against the CBC. And CBC will happily pay up hush-hush money because it's not theirs.


He can try to sue, but as in his first effort to sue the CBC for wrongful dismissal, I doubt he will stand a chance of winning. Regardless, of whether he was found innocent of the accusations from several females he was involved with, even in a civil trial, any monetary award has to be determined by judge (and jury if that is the case), on the preponderanance of evidence..and in this case, even if the witnesses/victims come forward, it's still tough hill to climb. 

There can be a lot of inaccuracies in "she said-he said"...unless there was a security camera that the court can refer to.

One has to look at the Bill Cosby accusations, twenty years or more later..not much evidence to convict him, but most of us believe what the victims are saying..he is being tried in the court of public opinion.

In any case, he (Ghomesi) can kiss his "broadcasting-hosting" career goodbye. None of the networks or radio stations will hire him because they could not trust him around any females employed by them. Can a leopard change his spots?

preponderance:


> n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favour of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The CBC has distanced themselves from this trial. They say the termination was for conduct that didn't reflect the values of the corporation.

The sphere of termination for conduct outside the workplace is shaky ground, as Ontario Hydro discovered. The CBC appear to claim the termination was due to workplace misconduct.

The next trial may be more relevant to the CBC as the complainant was a fellow employee at the CBC. If Ghomeshi wins the case or it is dropped, he would have grounds for arbitration.

Under employment law, a termination is a measure of "last resort" and an arbitrator will decide if the CBC followed their own policies of constructive discipline.

Example.......were verbal warnings, written warnings, or suspension not viable options for the CBC.

If the CBC dismissed Ghomeshi without any prior discipline record, they have a weak case and will likely offer a cash settlement to Ghomeshi.

The CBC won't want to drag themselves through the mud along with Ghomeshi, with their policies, inaction on complaints etc.........all being revealed in the media for public consumption.

As far as Ghomeshi's future.....who knows. He is a business man and has other business interests including recording studios, real estate holdings, and franchise ownerships.

Some have speculated he could start his own podcast, which would probably be successful. Nobody knows if he even wants to remain in broadcasting though.

I would add that this mess of a trial, with all it's revelations hasn't done well for the reputations of any of the parties involved, except Marie Henein.

All of them are going to suffer from the negative publicity.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

carverman said:


> preponderance:
> n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favour of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence


That's how it should work. But, a cynic would say that some cases get decided on the preponderance of the perjury.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> That is the first time I have seen that point brought up anywhere, despite all the media stories and blog articles.
> With no other evidence, it is difficult to tell if the complainant is telling the truth. It would not be acceptable to society if the police seized their computers and got a search warrant to go through all their records.


That may not help their case either.If the "alleged victim" carried on with "Ghom" in a mutually friendly way and "Ghom" got violent (which appears to be in his psychological nature when aroused), , slamming their head against the wall; etc, a call to police would not turn up much evidence to go on. 

There would have to be some kind of personal injury that required a doctor, or least a registered nurse to witness and perhaps take pictures of any injuries caused by the alleged perpetrator. We as a society have certain privacy laws
and the police cannot seize computers or smart phones without a complaint from someone.
In most cases it's a "civil case".... and that can go either way.

[quiote]
When accusers are caught in lies, collusion and convenient omissions, especially when they only apply to negative information for the accusers, it challenges the whole system of justice. [/quote]
As in this case..there was too much social media accusations released by more than one to compromise their case...
and it did in the end.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> The CBC has distanced themselves from this trial. They say the termination was for conduct that didn't reflect the values of the corporation.
> 
> The sphere of termination for conduct outside the workplace is shaky ground, as Ontario Hydro discovered. The CBC appear to claim the termination was due to workplace misconduct.
> 
> ...


Hard to say how successful "Ghom"will be if he pursues this road. I know from my previous employer (Nortel) that "termination with cause" .."you're fired!" and termination without cause", are two different things when it comes to employment laws in Ontario.

If an employee through his actions cause a situation that can be deemed irresponsible or dangerous to the general good and reputation of his employer, he can be "terminated with cause" immediately and walked out the door by security. 



> The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that an employer many terminate an employee’s employment for cause if the employee is “guilty of serious misconduct, habitual neglect of duty, incompetence, or conduct incompatible with his duties, or prejudicial to the employer’s business, or if he has been guilty of wilful disobedience to the employer’s orders in a matter of substance.”2
> 
> The employer bears the evidentiary burden of proving on the balance of probabilities (i.e. that it is more likely than not) that it had just cause to terminate the employee for cause. The employer bears this burden because it is the employer who has alleged cause.
> 
> http://employmentlaw101.ca/01-overview-termination-for-cause/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This case was different than others involving one complainant though.

Three witnesses testifying to the same conduct on different and unrelated occasions, would probably have convicted Ghomeshi, had all of the complainants not continued their relationship with Ghomeshi and then lied about it in court.

The crux of the Judge's decision wasn't the complainant conduct, but that they all kept changing their versions of it over and over, in a manner that suggested collusion with each other.

The Judge was left with no option but to find Ghomeshi not guilty.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

_The employer bears the evidentiary burden of proving on the balance of probabilities (i.e. that it is more likely than not) that it had just cause to terminate the employee for cause. The employer bears this burden because it is the employer who has alleged cause._

That is the part that is problematic for the CBC.

In a hearing or trial, they would be pressed by Ghomeshi's lawyers to disclose their corporate policies and how the corporation followed their own policy in this instance. 

The CBC would also have to reveal how they had handled previous cases in the past and if Ghomeshi was treated in the same manner as other employees. 

The lawyers for the CBC may well advise them to offer a monetary settlement, rather than get dragged through this process..........especially if the application of their own policies was uneven and weak.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> _The employer bears the evidentiary burden of proving on the balance of probabilities (i.e. that it is more likely than not) that it had just cause to terminate the employee for cause. The employer bears this burden because it is the employer who has alleged cause._
> 
> That is the part that is problematic for the CBC.
> 
> ...


RE: Evan Solomon and Jian Ghomedshi:



> As members of the bargaining units of collective agreements, *neither is entitled to pursue damages in the courts*, but may do so in arbitration where reinstatement may also be sought.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In this case, Ghomeshi withdrew the lawsuit and was ordered to pay the CBC legal costs. Ghomeshi filed a grievance and the matter has been deferred to arbitration by the union lawyer.

An arbitrator won't be awarding $55 million in damages, but there are other options.

Uphold the termination, order the CBC to rehire Ghomeshi without compensation, order the CBC to rehire Ghomeshi with retroactive salary compensation, order the CBC to pay Ghomeshi's compensation until he found equivalent employment, or order a settlement payout in accordance with labor law............are most of the options.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-s-55m-lawsuit-against-cbc-being-withdrawn-1.2849523

Or the CBC and Ghomeshi could agree on an undisclosed settlement under a confidentiality agreement, which is the most likely outcome and they both walk away claiming victory.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

I recall the claim by some that has gone on for decades, "women don't lie". The implication was that a trial was never, therefore, needed and the accused should go straight to jail. The "women don't lie" cry of feminists (most often from rape crisis centers) seems to be gradually dying out as female lawyers take on female witnesses. 

But the women don't lie idea seems to be the premise of the chant of "survivors" outside the courthouse without actually saying, "women don't lie". When will the "women don't lie" Neanderthals and dinosaurs finally give up?


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

Regardless of the merit of the actual case, CBC will pay hush-hush money because it's not theirs and therefore great price for keeping themselves out of the headlines.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

Don't forget Jian has one more trial to go. This one might be tougher for him to get acquited on.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I have the feeling that if the whole truth were known, there was more going on in these relationships with Ghomeshi, lack of investigation, and this trial than any of the parties are willing to admit.

That includes Ghomeshi, the complainants, the police and the Crown. The only forthright people in the whole process was Marie Henein and the Judge who did exactly what they are supposed to do.

It seemed there was a layer of abuse, anger, revenge, and politics buried in the incidents, complaints, investigation and trial that were all simmering below the surface.


----------



## mordko (Jan 23, 2016)

none said:


> False rape accusations are around 2-4%.


This may or may not be true, but is surely a statement that is by definition impossible to prove. Therefore it has to be someone's wild guess.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Heard yesterday that Ghomesi has a pending sexual assault case inside the CBC. This one he may some trouble proving he was innocent and the assault victim dishonest. A bit of a maniac, I would think.



> Ghomeshi lawyer appears in court and pretrial date is set for March 27 (March 27 = Easter Sunday)
> 
> A judicial pretrial date has been set to hear the seven counts of sexual assault and one of choking against Jian Ghomeshi.The pretrial is scheduled for 10 a.m. on March 27 in a Toronto courtroom. His lead lawyer, Marie Henein, said as she left after a brief hearing that she told the court she was waiting for more material.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

mordko said:


> This may or may not be true, but is surely a statement that is by definition impossible to prove. Therefore it has to be someone's wild guess.


That's idiotic.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

none said:


> That's idiotic.


You see, none, that's my point. You don't have the vocabulary of a Phd in statistics. If you had something of substance to say, you wouldn't need to insult. mordko touches on a perfectly good issue. One needs to read the study that came up with that conclusion in order to make an evaluation of it. 

so do you have a copy of the study? and can we have a copy? and have you done a critical analysis of it? or are you just superficially copy and pasting stuff here and hoping that people will automatically accept it?


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> As the crown prosecutor said, it is the police who are supposed to collect all the evidence and seek witnesses prior to trial commencement. The prosecution, at least in Canada, has no mandate to investigate. They simply use the material given to them by the police. IOW, it is not like TV fiction and/or reality shows, and/or the prosecution has more authority/investigative powers in the USA. The comments by the prosecutor on the CBC National News segment a few nights ago was enlightening.....and I suppose disappointing.
> 
> P.S. It also appears that in Canada, all the evidence of the prosecution must be shared with the defence, but not necessarily the other way around. What a country!!


In Canada an accused has the Right To Remain Silent, anything you say or do can be used against you in court.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Crown doesn't have their own investigative team, but they can and do send the police to investigate or re-investigate anything it deems necessary.

The Crown actually did just that in this case.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Pluto said:


> I recall the claim by some that has gone on for decades, "women don't lie". The implication was that a trial was never, therefore, needed and the accused should go straight to jail. The "women don't lie" cry of feminists (most often from rape crisis centers) seems to be gradually dying out as female lawyers take on female witnesses.
> 
> But the women don't lie idea seems to be the premise of the chant of "survivors" outside the courthouse without actually saying, "women don't lie". When will the "women don't lie" Neanderthals and dinosaurs finally give up?


This is the opposite of the truth. A woman will swear a man's life away for any reason or no reason at all. Look at all the high profile rape cases that turned out to be bullshit just in the last year or 2. This is only the latest.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> This is the opposite of the truth. A woman will swear a man's life away for any reason or no reason at all. Look at all the high profile rape cases that turned out to be bullshit just in the last year or 2. This is only the latest.


Yep Rusty, I agree. 

Here is a short video with three women who seem to have there heads screwed on straight. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxsMZs2SJPQ


(Not to mention the level headed and articulate Chrisy Blatchford on national post site. )


----------

