I assume I would be one of the “trolls” you speak of. Can we try and have a civil discussion without name-calling? The problem for the Crown is that this case relies exclusively on witness testimony and all three witnesses have been shown to have lied or conveniently not remembered important parts of what happened.…

Stories about defense attorneys going after alleged victims are weird to me. That is the attorneys job and part of the adversarial process. I feel that stories like these should be reserved for outrageous cases where the attorney does something worse.

Lol, you can’t show a video of a cracked rib unless it is physically protruding from the body.

I would. I might not remember the content but I would know the difference between “no contact whatsoever” and years of emails asking to hook up again. And I sure as shit wouldn’t lie to the cops about it. Which they did. Had they been honest the Crown could have prepared, instead they gave media interviews.

I’m sure the Crown told them to tell the whole truth.

Why? It is the cornerstone of the the justice system. The defendant gets the benefit of the doubt because the prosecution has the full power of the state and all the entails to prosecute.

Just to clarify, that “Bill Clinton” comment was NOT made by Ghomeshi’s defense attorney. The attorney quoted in the National Post was just another Toronto defense lawyer giving a legal opinion. He’s the one who made the Clinton comparison.

Source?

The reason, specifically, why the case is falling apart is that the victim/survivor/accuser omitted relevant information that would have better prepared the Crown’s case. How is the Crown supposed to know that the victim/survivor/accuser(s) had been communicating prior to the case or know about the emails after the…

He was fired because the CBC thought that even the consensual beating of a woman was bad for their brand.

Definitely agree. They’ve done real damage to future sexual assault cases, because now a defense can always point to the Ghomeshi case and say, “See, it’s happened before. EVIL WOMEN conspiring against this innocent MAN!”

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…

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.

“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.”

You’re using anecdotal evidence. Two of my close female friends who were both raped had both of their rapists convicted. Going by my experiences with the court system, Canada convicts every rapist.....

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

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.

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.

All judgments or opinions on Ghomeshi’s guilt or lack thereof, from a legal perspective this trial has been downright disastrous for the prosecution. He may be a scumbag but the reasonable doubt that has been sown pretty much demands a not-guilty finding.