Read the articles you reference before calling names.

I disagree. I think there are rules and boundaries when it comes to cross-examining victims, but the article you linked to starts with this: “Sexual assault trials, even when conducted ethically and within the bounds of law, harm complainants. This is the harsh reality of an adversarial and constitutionalized justice…

He doesn’t have to prove his innocence. The crown has to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. His lawyers feel like the crown hasn’t done that so why put him on the stand?

Of course both can be true. But when you’re trying to convict someone based on someone else’s testimony, that testimony has to be strong and able to withstand cross-examination from the defense. This isn’t the court of public opinion (Ghomeshi already lost his case in that court) - this is actual Court and the…

Yeah, I don’t know how seriously it was vetted/prepped, but it is a circular process if people lie (or omit) because they think the truth would tank their case only to have their case tanked by the lie (omission).

They may have omitted them because of the perception that their case would be unwinnable, but having all the information ahead of time allows the Crown to bring in an expert witness to refute the stereotypes by explaining that people try to normalize their trauma. You can’t withhold relevant information, admit that…

“Anecdotally: Everyone seems to be pretty disgusted by his lawyer’s tactics. But there’s no jury for her to repulse so it’ll depend on how Justice Horkins feels about that. Everything is going to come down to him.”

I believe the victims, and Ghomeshi is an abusive piece of shit but this case isn’t an example of wacking. The victims just omitted parts of their communication from the Crown which is why they are so badly unprepared on the stand- which is sad.

That isn’t the issue (even though the email stated that she enjoyed their experience). The issue is that she lied about not contacting him after the fact which goes to credibility in a criminal case. It wasn’t a question of the evidence being in either person’s favor. It was question of them lying on the stand about…

Guilty or innocent, no one should be convicted when the case as presented by the prosecution is as bad as this one. There were way too many holes and they had a case which relies on testimonies and they had at least two of the victims lie under oath. As for his professional career, it’s dead right now, and probably…

I am pretty sure their case was torpedoed when one of the accusers described the assault favorably and proceeded to explain how horny it made her in an email. This isn’t saying that it didn’t happen and the email wasn’t just her way of normalizing it, but the narrative they had been using was that she was disgusted…

Sadly, this doesn’t seem to be the main issue here. Two of the three defendants lied under oath in their testimonies. That’s the part that hurts the Crown’s case the most. Someone on the prosecution side seriously messed up.

“It’s a really icky narrative they’ve sold the jury, one really more suited to MRA and Incel message boards than a court of law.”

Yeah, that’s kinda what I meant by everyone. They all either lied outright or lied by omission. Not a great case to go ahead with and it’s done more harm than good.

Here’s the thing... His lawyers don’t have to do anything. This case seems bogus and the prosecution and accusers are making this into a kangaroo court...