[Fireworks]

andyt andyt:

$1:

The complainant told the court that she went out for dinner with Ghomeshi once after that, saying she's the sort of person to give people many chances.

The witness never told police or prosecutors about that date until Friday, and the new information was disclosed to the defence Sunday morning, Ghomeshi's lawyer Marie Henein said. It's the second time in the trial that a complainant has provided a new statement to police just before testifying in court.

"The constant late-breaking changes make me feel like I'm in the twilight zone," Henein told the court.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/g ... -1.3438245

Hilarious.

These accusers/witnesses are coming across as bimbos.

The second one was a hoot, what with her claims that she was being "playful" in post-alleged assault emails with JG. I really don't see how it's being playful to say:
"You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to f--k your brains out tonight".

And does the word "playful" really fit in with the picture that these witnesses are trying to portray - that they were traumatized?

I understand that the victims of actual sexual assault don't all react in the same way, but do any/many of them describe what they did afterwards towards their attacker as being "playful"?

[andyt]

$1:

TORONTO - Jian Ghomeshi's sexual assault trial is hearing that two of the complainants who testified against the disgraced broadcaster discussed the allegations in thousands of messages they exchanged before and after they went to police.

The third woman to testify against Ghomeshi said earlier on Monday that while she and "Trailer Park Boys" actress Lucy DeCoutere — who testified last week — were friends, they did not discuss the sexual assault allegations involving the former CBC Radio host.

But during an intense cross-examination, the woman, who can not be identified, said that she did in fact discuss the allegations with DeCoutere.

Ghomeshi's lawyer Marie Heinen noted that the two women had exchanged 5,000 messages, beginning on Oct. 29, 2014 — the same day DeCoutere went public with her allegations.

Heinen said the woman reported the alleged assault to police in December 2014, and the correspondence with DeCoutere continued until September 2015.

In some of the messages, DeCoutere instructs the woman to contact the actress's lawyer and her publisher. In others, she gives the woman a "detailed and lengthy breakdown" of her own meetings with the Crown.

The woman testified earlier on Monday that Ghomeshi bit her shoulder and put his hands around her neck as they were making out in a Toronto park.

The woman, who was 32 years old at the time, said she had consented to the kissing, but she had not agreed to what followed.

"He was kissing my neck and I just felt all of a sudden I felt his hand on my shoulders and his teeth. And then his hands were around my neck and he was squeezing," the woman said in a trembling voice.

"Some kind of switch felt like it had happened. It wasn't the same person there. I tried to get out of it and then his hand was on my mouth, sort of smothering me."

The woman said the alleged incident happened in the early 2000s, shortly after they first met at a dance festival in Toronto.

She was with other people at the community event when Ghomeshi approached her from behind and rested his arms on her shoulders. When asked by someone how they knew each other, she said Ghomeshi replied "We're engaged."

"We weren't," the woman told court on Monday "It was taking ownership of me in some way that was just surprising. It was a familiarity that was surprising to me."

Ghomeshi and the woman went out for dinner after that interaction, and on another night, met in an isolated part of a city park where they began kissing on a bench.

It was while they were kissing that the alleged assault took place, court heard.

She said as soon as she freed herself from his hold, she left the park without saying a word, got into a cab and went home.

"My instinct was to just sort of get out of it physically," she said. "There was nothing about this that I wanted to be a part of. It didn't feel safe or sexy."

She met again with Ghomeshi for dinner and drinks and then they went back to her place for "romantic" interactions.

The woman said she did not tell police about that night when she initially came forward because she had been embarrassed and didn't think the encounter was relevant.

When pressed further on why she would have Ghomeshi come back to her place after he had allegedly assaulted her, the woman said the former CBC host was a charmer.

Some time later, the woman said she went to a party with Ghomeshi where he repeatedly berated one of her close friends. The incident set off "warning bells" for the woman and resulted in an argument.

"I got out of the car, slammed the door, told him he was crazy, told him to never call me again," she said.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ghomeshi-back ... html?nhp=1

So, biting and putting his hands around her neck, well he's a charmer and it's OK. Insulting her friend tho, that sets off warning bells. Crazy.

[Fireworks]

andyt andyt:

they were on Ghomeshi's server or computer, not shure which, and he kept the hand written letter as well, for twelve years. (Was he protecting himself because he knew he might be charged?) The police obviously didn't think to look for these e-mails, because the complainants told the police they had had no further contact with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault. And of course we know the police and prosecution can be blinded by wanting a conviction, and not look all that hard for exculpatory evidence.

That's my understanding.

If the accusers were very insistent that there had been no post-alleged assault communications then why would the police/prosecution go looking for such communications?

The police and prosecution have limited time and resources, and are unlikely to spend much/any time on searching for things that would have the purpose of undermining the stories of the accusers.

Now it would be very different if the accusers had both said something like "I don't know if I sent him any communications after the event". The prosecutors in that case would have followed up on that to see what was out there, if anything. But that isn't the case - accusers 1 and 2 both said a definite "no".

[Fireworks]

andyt andyt:

$1:

TORONTO - Jian Ghomeshi's sexual assault trial is hearing that two of the complainants who testified against the disgraced broadcaster discussed the allegations in thousands of messages they exchanged before and after they went to police.

The third woman to testify against Ghomeshi said earlier on Monday that while she and "Trailer Park Boys" actress Lucy DeCoutere — who testified last week — were friends, they did not discuss the sexual assault allegations involving the former CBC Radio host.

But during an intense cross-examination, the woman, who can not be identified, said that she did in fact discuss the allegations with DeCoutere.

Ghomeshi's lawyer Marie Heinen noted that the two women had exchanged 5,000 messages, beginning on Oct. 29, 2014 — the same day DeCoutere went public with her allegations.

Heinen said the woman reported the alleged assault to police in December 2014, and the correspondence with DeCoutere continued until September 2015.

In some of the messages, DeCoutere instructs the woman to contact the actress's lawyer and her publisher. In others, she gives the woman a "detailed and lengthy breakdown" of her own meetings with the Crown.

The woman testified earlier on Monday that Ghomeshi bit her shoulder and put his hands around her neck as they were making out in a Toronto park.

The woman, who was 32 years old at the time, said she had consented to the kissing, but she had not agreed to what followed.

"He was kissing my neck and I just felt all of a sudden I felt his hand on my shoulders and his teeth. And then his hands were around my neck and he was squeezing," the woman said in a trembling voice.

"Some kind of switch felt like it had happened. It wasn't the same person there. I tried to get out of it and then his hand was on my mouth, sort of smothering me."

The woman said the alleged incident happened in the early 2000s, shortly after they first met at a dance festival in Toronto.

She was with other people at the community event when Ghomeshi approached her from behind and rested his arms on her shoulders. When asked by someone how they knew each other, she said Ghomeshi replied "We're engaged."

"We weren't," the woman told court on Monday "It was taking ownership of me in some way that was just surprising. It was a familiarity that was surprising to me."

Ghomeshi and the woman went out for dinner after that interaction, and on another night, met in an isolated part of a city park where they began kissing on a bench.

It was while they were kissing that the alleged assault took place, court heard.

She said as soon as she freed herself from his hold, she left the park without saying a word, got into a cab and went home.

"My instinct was to just sort of get out of it physically," she said. "There was nothing about this that I wanted to be a part of. It didn't feel safe or sexy."

She met again with Ghomeshi for dinner and drinks and then they went back to her place for "romantic" interactions.

The woman said she did not tell police about that night when she initially came forward because she had been embarrassed and didn't think the encounter was relevant.

When pressed further on why she would have Ghomeshi come back to her place after he had allegedly assaulted her, the woman said the former CBC host was a charmer.

Some time later, the woman said she went to a party with Ghomeshi where he repeatedly berated one of her close friends. The incident set off "warning bells" for the woman and resulted in an argument.

"I got out of the car, slammed the door, told him he was crazy, told him to never call me again," she said.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ghomeshi-back ... html?nhp=1

So, biting and putting his hands around her neck, well he's a charmer and it's OK. Insulting her friend tho, that sets off warning bells. Crazy.

Have you forgotten that these things are just allegations?

Why do you believe those things, but not question her changing her story from NOT discussing the case with accuser/witness 2, to confirming that she DID discuss the case with witness 2?

Now all 3 accusers/witnesses have been shown to have told lies.

[Fireworks]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

She also saw a publicist... $$$$....and stated she didn't think what happened was charge worthy........and again the individual in question admits to having a sexual encounter after the alleged assault. The prosecution is on really shaky ground here.

The post-alleged assault actions by all 3 of the accusers/witnesses are bizarre.

Women may well deal with post-assault trauma in many different ways, but I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that any of these 3 actually suffered trauma.

Email flirting and actual sex with the alleged perp don't strike me as things that any woman would do if they really did feel that they had been the victim of assault.

[andyt]

Have you forgotten that Ghomeshi showed a video of his sexual activities to CBC brass that so shocked them they fired him on the spot? That there are plenty of other women out there who also say he assaulted them but did not come forward to file charges? He himself on facebook has admitted he likes rough sex but claims it was consensual. I have not doubt he hit these women, and I don't doubt they didn't specifically agree to the hitting. It's just that they women don't appear to have been bothered all that much by the hitting. So either it wasn't to the level of doing damage and so isn't much of an assault, or they were prepared to allow it as long as they could bask in his reflected glory.

[Fireworks]

andyt andyt:

Have you forgotten that Ghomeshi showed a video of his sexual activities to CBC brass that so shocked them they fired him on the spot? That there are plenty of other women out there who also say he assaulted them but did not come forward to file charges? He himself on facebook has admitted he likes rough sex but claims it was consensual. I have not doubt he hit these women, and I don't doubt they didn't specifically agree to the hitting. It's just that they women don't appear to have been bothered all that much by the hitting. So either it wasn't to the level of doing damage and so isn't much of an assault, or they were prepared to allow it as long as they could bask in his reflected glory.

How do you know that?

Is there any evidence that they didn't consent?

The actions of the 3 accusers/witnesses don't indicate that they thought the slapping/hitting was a problem at the time. Plus they have all lied.

So what if JG has unorthodox sexual tastes? Is that a crime in itself?

Are you some sort of a prude?

[andyt]

This story has been in the media for a long time. You should know the background.

What sort of evidence would indicate they didn't consent? The law says consent must be clearly given, not that they have to clearly deny consent.

[Hmmmm]

andyt andyt:

..... we know the police and prosecution can be blinded by wanting a conviction, and not look all that hard for exculpatory evidence.

That's my guess about what really went wrong here. Our police & judical system is too much focused on getting easy convictions rather than getting at the truth, which would be REAL justice.

Fireworks, I can't agree with your implying that it's OK if, to save resources, police/prosecution don't "spend much/any time on searching for things that would have the purpose of undermining the stories of the accusers." Surely they should be diligently searching for the facts. I think the key word in your phrase is "undermining." All too often (and here) I think the cops are more concerned with not having their case undermined than in digging for the truth.

[Hmmmm]

Fireworks Fireworks:

Are you some sort of a prude?

I realize that wasn't addressed to me but it's offensive nevertheless. Please stick to the subject and don't get personal.

[martin14]

Hmmmm Hmmmm:

Fireworks Fireworks:

Are you some sort of a prude?

I realize that wasn't addressed to me but it's offensive nevertheless. Please stick to the subject and don't get personal.

Stick around, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[martin14]

Hmmmm Hmmmm:

andyt andyt:

..... we know the police and prosecution can be blinded by wanting a conviction, and not look all that hard for exculpatory evidence.

That's my guess about what really went wrong here. Our police & judical system is too much focused on getting easy convictions rather than getting at the truth, which would be REAL justice.

Fireworks, I can't agree with your implying that it's OK if, to save resources, police/prosecution don't "spend much/any time on searching for things that would have the purpose of undermining the stories of the accusers." Surely they should be diligently searching for the facts. I think the key word in your phrase is "undermining." All too often (and here) I think the cops are more concerned with not having their case undermined than in digging for the truth.

Are you trying to say that the police should investigate the women before beleiving
their stories implicitly ?

The new 3rd wave SJW feminists would call that victim blaming, and be all over you for that.

The women all stated they had no contact after the 'incident'.
It would be a waste of time and money for the police or Crown to go through and try to disprove
their own witnesses.

That's for the defense.

[Fireworks]

andyt andyt:

This story has been in the media for a long time. You should know the background.

What sort of evidence would indicate they didn't consent? The law says consent must be clearly given, not that they have to clearly deny consent.

Sure I know the background.

If they didn't consent I'd have expected them to have nothing to do with him after the assaults.

They know that too, which is why they lied about having nothing to do with him after the alleged assaults. They knew that the truth doesn't make them look good.

Having lots of "playful" contact with him after you've claimed that you were assaulted and had no contact with him afterwards doesn't add up.

Did you see number 2 complain to JG in the emails after the alleged assault took place? All I saw was a claim that she wanted to "f*ck his brains out". A reasonable person can only conclude from this that she had no problem with the rough business since she wanted sex with him.

[Hmmmm]

andyt andyt:

Have you forgotten that Ghomeshi showed a video of his sexual activities to CBC brass that so shocked them they fired him on the spot?

Is this true? I know he admitted to rough sex but are you certain there was a video? Why wouldn't such a shocking thing, sufficient for a firing, be introduced as evidence by the prosecution?

$1:

there are plenty of other women out there who also say he assaulted them but did not come forward to file charges?

If so it shouldn't influence the trial or maybe our private judgements. These women too could be lying.[/quote]

[Fireworks]

Hmmmm Hmmmm:

andyt andyt:

..... we know the police and prosecution can be blinded by wanting a conviction, and not look all that hard for exculpatory evidence.

That's my guess about what really went wrong here. Our police & judical system is too much focused on getting easy convictions rather than getting at the truth, which would be REAL justice.

Fireworks, I can't agree with your implying that it's OK if, to save resources, police/prosecution don't "spend much/any time on searching for things that would have the purpose of undermining the stories of the accusers." Surely they should be diligently searching for the facts. I think the key word in your phrase is "undermining." All too often (and here) I think the cops are more concerned with not having their case undermined than in digging for the truth.

That's a fair point. We've all heard stories of the authorities discounting/ignoring inconvenient facts that contradict their official version that they want the judge/jury to believe.

I still think though that the things that I mentioned are in play here:
1. a reluctance to press the accusers, on the basis that they are scared of being accused of retraumatizing the victims
2. limited resources

I really can't imagine the police/crown getting legal permission to search the computer records of all of the accused against their will, and then doing so. Certain activists would have been howling to the moon about the 3 victims being retraumatized, with their personal histories being searched through for dirt.

To me it isn't the crown's fault if these 3 accusers/witnesses lied. The police and crown can only do so much. I also wasn't implying that it's OK if not too much time or effort is put into examining claims made by the accusers. That's just the reality of life. The police/crown don't have unlimited resources.

I really hope that the police/crown don't get blamed if this all falls part - to me the blame lies with the accusers/witnesses and their blatant lying.