What if these three women were the best examples (they probably were)?

The Ghomeshi trial wouldn’t be relevant in a separate trial.

The problem isn’t the behavior of the victims after the fact but that they lied about it.

That’s not what happened in this case. The accusers left out important details in their testimony and made it easy for the defense to paint them as unreliable.

What’s the point of having a trial in that case?

What else could they have done?

The accusers didn’t help the case by leaving out so many important details that the defense used to crush them. How do you explain the 5000 (!) messages sent between two accusers?

It’s called a cross examination. All three accusers had serious problems in their testimony.

I’m talking about this particular case.

Agreed. I still can’t believe the third witness admitted on the stand that she deliberately misled investigators.

The victims may not be liars but their testimony was not credible.

Ghomeshi isn’t accused of rape. Canada convicts rapists but the evidence must prove the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In my amateur opinion, there is zero chance he is convicted. The stories of the accusers were full of holes.

The accusers were unreliable as well.