Islam is inherently bad and violent. It’s all right there in the Quran and the Hadith. Muslims, however, are not inherently bad and violent. 

There was barely a fight precisely because the alleged victims kept information from them. They can only work with what they have. The three witnesses held crucial details from their various statements, and it bit them in the ass. Had they been more forthcoming with information, the prosecutors could have done a…

The judge did nothing wrong. His decision was right and there is no legal way you can argue that he made the wrong call. What you should say is “fuck the alleged victims that lied under oath, committed perjury and colluded together, ruining any chance at a proper conviction”. Because as shitty as it seems, that’s the…

Thank the alleged victims for sinking their own case. The Judge made the right decision based on what happened in court.

Anyone that followed the trial closely has known that Ghomeshi would get off. The Judge made the right call and there is no possible way of arguing that he made a mistake.

It is not the prosecution alone that fucked up. The fuck up stems from a combination of the police, the prosecution and the alleged victims…

The facts and documents which may have painted them in a bad light should have been disclosed immediately to the police and Crown, failing which they both had the obligation to search out the ‘dirt’. It is very common to lead this evidence through the Crown so that the Crown can manage how it is disclosed and…

In criminal law, the duty is imposed upon the Crown (or the State in the case of the U.S.) to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Crown cannot do so, the accused must be aquitted. Remember the accused’s life or liberty hangs in the balance. Placing the burden of proof on the Crown is just and fair. The…

Well, the actual judge can’t go into a case assuming the other person is guilty and the victim is right. That’s what the law is for: to prove that something transpired and punish them accordingly.

Still didn’t learn anything from “Jackie” I see.

I’m not Canadian so I don’t know the exact procedures/rules that govern criminal cases there but I am a public defender in the U.S. so my answer is based on the law here. It is not fundamentally unfair that as the criminally accused you don’t have to take the stand because it presumes guilt until proven innocent- it…

Really? Because the accusers did a terrible job, filled with lies and inconsistencies, and yet everyone on Jezebel, and all those protesters outside the court think he did it just because he was accused of it

Read the article. The accusers in this case did not come off well. Everyone on Jezebel supports them because on this website accusation = proof. This website suffers from exactly what the judge is talking about

I can’t blame the Judge for this. He was served a mess of a case and could not have convicted on the evidence in front of him. He’s certainly not saying that the problem is that we disbelieve women 100% of the time.

She lies so much she’s even lying after the trial about when she talked to the police. There is no way the police never told her that her statement was under oath and could be used.

These women have let everyone down by lying under oath. And that fuck goes free.

Are you kidding? Your telling me that you go to the police, make a statement in the hopes that your alleged rapist will be charged and eventually go to court, and you didn’t realize your statement would be used in said course?

Anna, memories are on trial in EVERY criminal case.

Honestly, as much as I hate the outcome of the trial, I’m reticent to say “fuck this judge” because I don’t see how he could have come to any other conclusion.

Who DOES need to be fucked? The Crown Prosecutor for completely fucking up at doing their job. They handed this case over with barely a fight.

If the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, and all you have is testimony of people who have been objectively proven to have lied in court during the same trial, then no, that's not enough.

Yeah, cause who can trust the testimony of a woman, much less several women who are obviously in cahoots.

that’s a poorly worded statement by the judge, but the witnesses’ credibility was severely damaged. if that hadn’t happened, then their testimony would’ve been enough to convict. if they don’t look credible, then the testimony is not worth much without other evidence to back it up.