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…

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.

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…

Source?

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

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…

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

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.”

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

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

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.

It’s Clover Hope working for Jezebel. She knows her station as a muckraker.

Avoiding a racist mix-up by skipping dark paint altogether would’ve been another cool option.

Agreed. I expect it’s just a matter of time before Clover clears that up and edits her article to post the other photo where it’s clear they painted their faces the colour of Barney and that this isn’t even remotely blackface?

I meant the whole situation, but yea, these girls did nothing wrong

I hope by that you mean that the honest mistake was on behalf of those who accused them of being in blackface when they clearly weren’t?

Blackface=bad