Agreed. I think it’s sad that the same people who scream for equality and LBGT acceptance are the same people who bully abstenance and there are people on the other side as well. They aren’t hurting anyone, aren’t insulting or denying anyone anything but to themselves so people like them and Tebow I’m fine with. It’s…

This isn’t a case of whacking. Whacking brings up questions of victim blaming, things they did to bring the assault on themselves, expected “norms” of victimhood. The reasonable doubt had nothing to do with whether or not they contacted him after and whether or not that contact was positive. It is specifically around…

Thank you! Not everyone wants to bone just to bone. It’s kind of crazy that this is seen as some kind of character flaw or suspicious in some way. We don’t know his life.

It’s up to the trier of fact to weigh the evidence before him or her.

I waited until I was married to have sex.

I’m not sure how your comment relates to my comment.

Yep because demisexual or low-libido people don’t exist. He MUST be gay. That’s the ONLY POSSIBLY EXPLANATION!!!!

I kind of hate Russell Wilson and think he is completely two-faced and insincere on just about every level, but I’m also celebate until marriage, and I really really like women, so I can relate to him on that front. Sometimes there are more important things than what I want at some given moment.

You sound like one of those narcissist women who, when rejected by a man for whatever reason, asks incredulously, “Are you gay?”

That's what you sound like.

Except the crown didn’t “cover it up” - especially if they were unaware of it, as would seem to be the case.

Ok, but considering that in a trial like this it is essentially he said / she said, how can they determine guilt in any way other than documented behaviour around the time of the alleged crime? I mean one of the women basically said “I loved how you treated me, let’s fuck again tonight”

The problem is the accusers lied. The first accuser claimed she never saw Ghomeshi after the alleged incident and was even traumatized when she saw him on tv or heard him on the radio. Turns out she sent him many emails.

Reading the prosecutions closing statements, it was not about their behaviour during or after the assault, it is the fact that they lied to police, the crown and covered it up until they were on the witness stand. If the defense wasn’t allowed to get their own evidence, the truth would not have come out. The fact that…

I wrote a long response to OP but it was dismissed because OP would rather call people names than have a civil discussion. In short, the problem isn’t the behavior after the fact, but rather that the accusers lied about it.

Telling your rapist that you want to ‘fuck his brains out’ and then sending another, oh, 1000 messages to him doesn’t mean that you weren’t raped -but it means the rapist will never, ever be convicted in a court as long as the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt

An expert on what?

What are you talking about? These women never denied they were abused. They didn’t lie to protect their alleged abuser, they lied to protect themselves from being humilated, which totally backfired.

It’s my understanding that Canadian criminal law is akin to US criminal law in that that the accused must be found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

How about certain ideologues finally put to rest the sexist idea that women never lie?

The three complainants lied to the Crown and have done a disservice to sexual assault victims.