Ghomeshi Trial Begins

968 posts / 0 new
Last post
RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Gustave wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
We know false claims are the anomaly (two to eight per cent, according to FBI studies).

The link provided is not a FBI study.

The way you AND the authors present the percentage is misleading. Anyone not reading the study will naturally conclude that 92 to 98% of claims are true. It is not the case. The most amazing thing about this article is that they don't even try to find how many are true. The cases are broken as follow:

5,9% false

44,9% did not proceed

13,9% insufficient information

35,3% proceeded

No info on the proceeding results

So from this study we know 5,9% are most certainly false. Of the remaining 94,1% we have no idea. That's it.

Also, N=136 is very small and an all campus cases study forbids any inference to the general population.

So, sorry but no, we do not know that 2 to 8% of claims are false. It is simply impossible to know or even approximate the ratio of false claims. As a matter of fact, this article proves that the false claims have to be superior to 5,9%. It could be a little (10% for exemple) or a a lot (40% for exemple).

 

shake my head, why dude? you got a small penis?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Northern PoV wrote:

pookie wrote:

To Northern POV:

Remember that DC's lawyer only has access to what her client tells her and what the Crown chooses to disclose.  There is no process to compel the Crown to disclose anything to a witness.

And, of course, JG is entitled to keep all of his evidence secret to be rolled out as he sees fit.

If LCD either did not remember the details about the subsequent contact, or didn't think it important, that cannot be laid at the feet of her counsel.

 

 

Shame on you and shame on babble.

 

I think you meant: "There is no process to compel the defence to disclose anything to the crown."  The crown must dislose all.

And perhaps you don't see it but .... when you defend the diva lawyer you simply implicate LD as the main source of the problem.

It is what she did not tell her lawyer and the crown (and the judge when prompted) that has come back to haunt her. 

Given her recall of the other details of 13 years earlier, her ommision of the fawning post-incident pursuit of Ghomeshi destroys any credibility. 

Smitten, then scorned providing a motive  for revenge.

 

And there goes your mansplaining for something you'll never understand. 

 

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Gustave wrote:

Misfit wrote:
Gustav's post #240 confirms how some will twist the stats to redefine that women who are sexually assaulted lie about it. It simply did not happen.

Are you suggesting that I twisted anything in post #240? If so, could you please explain what the twist is? Maybe I misinterpreted the article. I'll be happy to make any required correction. 

I though I explained why the 5,9% figure is a misrepresentation and I provided the proof of it. Is there something wrong in the demonstration?

I do NOT provide any estimation of false accusations. I dont say they are high or low. I say they are impossible to estimate.

By the way, I would say the exact same thing in regards with the proportion of sexual assaults reported to the police. The WMCA figures given in a previous post do not make sense at face value (but I can't check them because no link is provided). Intuitively, I'd would think that the more violent the assault the higher the probability of it being reported. 

"that women who are sexually assaulted lie about it". It would be ridiculous to say such a thing that means all women lie about it. The truth is that some do. And that the recent high profile cases of some women who did lie, did tremendous damage to true victims of rape. 

 

How about you figure out it's not cool to speculate on women's right to use our judicial system

mark_alfred

Gustave wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
We know false claims are the anomaly (two to eight per cent, according to FBI studies).

Just to quickly correct a typo that Gustave made here.  He's attributed the above statement to me in his post (#220), when in fact it was a statement from a Macleans' magazine article that I quoted (in post #214).  So, rightly, the quote should be attributed to Macleans:

http://www.macleans.ca/society/whats-really-on-trial-in-the-ghomeshi-case/

Macleans Magazine wrote:
We know false claims are the anomaly (two to eight per cent, according to FBI studies).

mark_alfred

Sineed wrote:
Why did Jian Ghomeshi Keep Luci DeCoutere's Letter?

http://canadalandshow.com/article/why-did-jian-ghomeshi-keep-lucy-decout...

JG's obsessive sociopathy aside, there's also a matter of the behaviour of sexual assault survivors. Women who have been sexually attacked sometimes may be in denial, and continue to be friendly with their attackers. Add to this the power differential between the victims and the perpetrator, usually just a function of male privilege, but in this case also the fact that the attacker is rich and powerful, and it's not surprising you get a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.

The prosecution needs to get an expert witness on the psychology of sexual trauma and put them on the stand.

Thanks.  That's interesting and illuminating.

mark_alfred

I posted this link a while ago, but it got buried in a mountain of debate.  It's a good article, so I'm posting the link again for those who may have missed it the first time I posted it.

Don’t dismiss Ghomeshi’s accusers over their after-the-fact behaviour

Paladin1

Timebandit wrote:
This thread is the most depressing thing I've read in quite a while. It's amazing (not in a good way) that the discussion of how victims of abuse react is or isn't "logical", the crap around presumption of innocence outside the court room, the casual misogyny of percolated rape stats. Peachy.

 

I would imagine for people used to 'fighting this fight' it would be frustrating and a piss off but personally I'm finding it interesting, informative and humbling.  The links opinions and explinations are really eye opening.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Gustave wrote:

"that women who are sexually assaulted lie about it". It would be ridiculous to say such a thing that means all women lie about it. The truth is that some do. And that the recent high profile cases of some women who did lie, did tremendous damage to true victims of rape. 

Before I respond, please clarify what incidents you are talking about. I think your claim to have any concern for the victims of assault is completely full of shit, because what you are actually saying is that they can all be treated like liars. But if you are going to resort to smear tactics, at least you can do your homework. You're always asking people to back things up and dig information for you, after all.

 

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I volunteered at a rape crisis line and at a women's centre 30 years ago. Too little has changed. The questions, assumptions and expectations of behaviour are the same as they were then. Funny thing, trauma. It makes you react in a variety of ways, not all of them logical or even sensible. Even men aren't immune. That this isn't common knowledge by now is a failure to accept evidence contrary to our beliefs.

Paladin1

From my perspective it seems like a lot of these cases turn into a media spectacle and treated like just another reality TV show.  Against my better judgement I've been reading online commentsabout this case. As expected there's typical stupidity from guys making ignorant comments about rape and womens place being in the kitchen and shit like that. Just to be assholes and get a rise out of people. What I found super surprising was the number of comments by young women who are making fun of rape, making rape jokes and insulting the victims.  It seems like a number of people are treating this case like a big joke and like it's just entertainment.

 

I find it very juvenile that some people introduce cases of false accusations or women lying as a sort of evidence or that it some how detracts against the alligations made by other victims.

6079_Smith_W

Timebandit wrote:

That this isn't common knowledge by now is a failure to accept evidence contrary to our beliefs.

Yup. The comment I left where I took that cartoon upthread from was that I hate that it is necessary to present ugly stuff like that to remind people of what should be obvious.

Problem is that those who most need to grasp it are the ones who won't get it, even though their reactions are the most non-rational of all.

And Paladin, yes it is frustrating, but although I am torn, I am no fan of arbitrary closure of discussion, even in a case like this where much of it is an endless attempt to derail. I am certainly glad to hear the new voices here.

(edit)

And of course men aren't immune. Despite where all the focus in this thread has been, the suspension of belief that has my jaw dropping is the convenient discounting of slaps, punches, choking, and cracked ribs.

Whatever incongruous things the victims in this case may have done (after experiencing those attacks) they pale in comparison to this faux-rational approach that totally ignores the violence at the centre of this.

Don't want to say it but my gut feeling throughout this conversation has been that some people might want to experience a punch in the head to understand what it really means. Sorry, but that is what I have been thinking.

 

 

 

Gustave

mark_alfred, I'm sorry, my mistake.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
How about you figure out it's not cool to speculate on women's right to use our judicial system

I never talked about anyone's right to use the judicail system. By the way, the use of the judicial system in criminal cases is ultimately determined by the prosecutor, not the presumed victim herself. I like the penis size argument!

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Before I respond, please clarify what incidents you are talking about. I think your claim to have any concern for the victims of assault is completely full of shit, because what you are actually saying is that they can all be treated like liars. But if you are going to resort to smear tactics, at least you can do your homework. You're always asking people to back things up and dig information for you, after all.

You may have noticed that the information digging asked, I apply only to you. It's because I have noticed you don't care much about facts, you dismiss facts when they contradict your vision.

The cases I talk about are Duke Lacrosse, Virginia University and Colombia University (the "matress girl"). Staphanie Guthrie's case, here in Canada, is not about rape nor an other type of sexual assault, but it certainly did not contribute to encourage women to report real cases of harassment to the police. In all those cases, the prosecutors have a huge burden of responsability in the errors committed.

Full of shit? Do you know the french word "charogne"? I just learned from a mob that it's fine to use it as a personal attack on babble. 

Paladin1 wrote:
I find it very juvenile that some people introduce cases of false accusations or women lying as a sort of evidence or that it some how detracts against the alligations made by other victims.

I think it is juvinile to say courts have to believe women because they never lie about rape or that the % of those who lie is insignificant. As for the allegation in this specific case, Ghomeshi, I believe most of the allegations made by the three witnessess and that Ghomeshi is guilty of violence against them without clear consent. It appears that some witnessess made contradictory statements but that the assaults occured anyway. I think people should be free to participate in BDSM, but that the criteria to make sure the concent is real should be very strict for this particular practice. Ghomeshi being the initiator, it was his responsability to make the consent absolutely clear. I agree with most people here that it does not matter if there were interactions between the parties afterwards. 

6079_Smith_W

Oh right, that was the other guy. Funny how it is hard to tell people apart sometimes.

Emma Sulkowicz was not found to have been lying. And the judge did find that Guthrie was harrassed. As for the Rolling Stone article, it was made pretty clear in the fallout from that that the responsibility lay primarily with the paper not doing its job. Had they done due diligence, that article would not have been published.

In any case, cute trick. We don;t know how many are lying and those who are are doing a disservice to the real vicims, so we'll treat them all as potential liars who are hurting themselves more than anything else.

 

Gustave

As "charognard" as I could expect Smith_W!

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Don't want to say it but my gut feeling throughout this conversation has been that some people might want to experience a punch in the head to understand what it really means. Sorry, but that is what I have been thinking.

I'm glad you mentioned this.  This is also part of the reason I was bringing up an anecdotal example of a sexual assault trial. I don't think many  people realize just how brutal invasive and degrading those courtrooms can get for victims of sexual assault.

 

Gustave wrote:

I think it is juvinile to say courts have to believe women because they never lie about rape or that the % of those who lie is insignificant.

I agree.

 

Quote:
As for the allegation in this specific case, Ghomeshi, I believe most of the allegations made by the three witnessess and that Ghomeshi is guilty of violence against them without clear consent. It appears that some witnessess made contradictory statements but that the assaults occured anyway.

Again I agree. Regardless of the contradictory statements after the fact I think he's guilty of violence against them without clear consent.  Even if one of the woman asked him to marry them afterwards it doesn't dismiss him committing violence against them without that consent.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Look Gustave. The last thing you presented as information - that seven minute Roosh video - didn't say anything like what you claimed it did. And I had to sit through the whole damned thing to find that out. So yes, I am going to ask.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

You might also find it enlightening to do a quick scan through Gustave's babble posts. The vast majority involve arguing for sex for money and defending virulent misogyny (otherwise known as the MRA movement) as deeply misunderstood. The pattern seems to me to be someone very interesting interested in maintaining male sexual entitlement. And now claims of sexual abuse being very iffy. Just adds to the picture, doesn't it?

Gustave

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Look Gustave. The last thing you presented as information - that seven minute Roosh video - didn't say anything like what you claimed it did. And I had to sit through the whole damned thing to find that out. So yes, I am going to ask.

At 3:15 in the video.

And here http://www.rooshv.com/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-roosh-but-were...

Q: “Why do you want to legalize rape?”

I don’t. Legalizing rape is a notion so insanely absurd I never imagined that people would take it 100% seriously, including politicians. I don’t believe any form of physical violence against men or women should be legalized. I’ve said that “How To Stop Rape” was a satirical thought experiment so many times that it’s clear to me current misinterpretation of it by the media is deliberate.

I got  to say he's lying on one thing: he expected many poeple to take it seriously. But not that many.

monty1

Beat the drum and hold the phone! There's more abuse of forum rules on the last two pages of this thread than I've been responsible for over all the time I've taken part on this forum.

And I thought that I was on dangerous ground for my behaviour!! LOL

There is still real hope that Ghomeshi will be convicted for the crimes he committed that are related to violence and doing bodily harm to those women.

6079_Smith_W

Gustave wrote:

At 3:15 in the video.

Except that he doesn't say that. If you want to talk about it please feel free to unflounce in the other thread and we can discuss it there.

Gustave

I did not not bring this up, you did. If YOU want to bring your personal attacks elsewhere, decide it by yourself, don't ask me to decide for you.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

[best Freud voice] Hm. He questions motives and veracity of women's claims, but is offended when his own are questioned. Fascinating. [/best Freud voice]

Caissa

Sometimes a Teddy Bear is just a Teddy Bear.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Tell me, how do you feel about your mother?

Pondering

Timebandit wrote:
I volunteered at a rape crisis line and at a women's centre 30 years ago. Too little has changed. The questions, assumptions and expectations of behaviour are the same as they were then. Funny thing, trauma. It makes you react in a variety of ways, not all of them logical or even sensible. Even men aren't immune. That this isn't common knowledge by now is a failure to accept evidence contrary to our beliefs.

Yeah it's very triggering. I can't even read those posts and may have to stop reading the thread at all.

My mother's friend told her he can't understand why I am alone because I could get any man I want. The only man I have ever loved or will love is my late husband because he was the kindest most gentle man I could ever hope to meet but he didn't lack courage. He had a knife scar across his nose for stepping in to protect a woman from attack. I know good men exist, he isn't the only one, but it's not worth the risk because it isn't strangers I'm afraid of. It's all the "nice" men like Ghomeshi I fear. With him it was hitting and choking but with another it will be vanilla rape or just heavy pressure and anger for non-compliance and you have no idea what is coming until after the door is closed.

6079_Smith_W

@ Pondering

You know, I was feeling that it might be inappropriate to mention that Roosh video in here (bringing stuff about other posters cross-thread I mean). But it is surprising how he uses exactly the same terms as you do (in that video, and his vile "How To Stop Rape" article), except that he uses it to justify "vanilla rape" as nothing wrong at all. Of course he sets up the scapegoat of a drooling stranger lurking in the bushes as the "real rapist". But aside from that non-public rape should be legal because once that door is closed any woman should know what to expect from a man. It is their responsibility to have chaperones, to not drink alcohol, and to treat themselves like property (a cell phone is the comparison Roosh made). And nice guys should be free to do whatever they want.

I still don't want to drag that over to cloud this thread; there is enough to talk about here WRT this trial.  But it is (not surprisingly so) all related.

 

 

pookie

Meanwhile, the horror that is the Crown's imploding case continues.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

It isn't over until it is over.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

And if he's acquitted, not even then.

brookmere

Pondering wrote:
It's all the "nice" men like Ghomeshi I fear.

He always struck me as a smarmy narcissist, and his nasty controlling personality has been documented well before the current scandal. As has his taste for women 1/2 his age.

Who are all the "nice" men that are like him? Seriously.

 

Tehanu

I am also appalled at this thread.

Right from the start several (male, I presume?) babble members have been either using sly innuendo or outright gleeful gloating to attack the women who had the courage to testify against Ghomeshi.

I'm reminded of the Bill Cosby case: How many women have to come forward before their word counts as much as one man's? Yes, I know about judicial standards for conviction. And I also know that people at babble have never been shy when it comes to making conclusions. I'm willing to bet that if we pulled up a thread from one of Marie Heinen's famous other clients, Michael Bryant, few would be defending him, or for that matter, blaming his victim.

But no, when it's assaulted women, let's by all means dismiss them. "Some victim!" you say. I guess for women to experience justice they have to be a perfect victim. Who knows what that woman looks like.

Clearly Ghomeshi had a very useful strategy, which to me seems like total gaslighting. Many of his victims were much younger and insecure, probably easy to pick up and perhaps star struck. He attacks them. Then he engages in ongoing flirtation and bait-and-switch, which conveniently muddies the waters. Notice how we didn't hear his side of any email correspondence? Then, of course, he keeps emails and letters for years, and years, and years. Because they are proving to be very useful indeed.

And it's well known that victims of crime, particularly women who've been assaulted by men, do what we can to minimize or move past it, and also question ourselves and own judgement. Hell, we're taught to do that every day, and this trial is no exception. And women will often continue to engage with the man who assaulted them. We may not even realize at the time that what we experienced was assault, particularly if he's been grooming us.

That does not make it okay to assault women.

You'll notice that all Heinen is doing is attacking the credibility of the witnesses, in a vicious and demeaning way. She's not asking if Ghomeshi assaulted them. Funny, that. In what other criminal trial would a witness be questioned on her or his actions after the crime, rather than on whether or not it occurred? Well?

Decades of feminist work countering rape myths, flushed down the toilet by a creep and his lawyer.

And tell me, all you people who are revelling in being able to tear down the witnesses, can you describe what you were doing in detail fifteen years ago? Who you emailed? Even details about negative interactions you had with someone you dated or a partner? Bet you can't.

Then please ask yourself how well you would do when faced with hour after hour of gotcha grilling, after you've just testified about being assaulted. Grilling by the lawyer who got Michael Bryant off.

And then please go read this: http://canadalandshow.com/article/when-your-friend-stand-ghomeshi-trial about what actually happens when you testify in a sexual assault trial. Including this tidbit, which I didn't know, that even if you have your own lawyer she can't advise you once your testimony begins. And then ask yourself if you'd have the courage to testify, let alone put your name to it, when chances are good the majority of the country will be pruriently speculating on everything to do with your sex life, and blaming you for being assaulted.

And then after you've thought, and read, and thought again, please do shut the fuck up. Because right now I'd be willing to bet Free Dominion is having a more respectful discussion about this case than babble is.

 

From the article I linked to above, written by a friend of Lucy Decouture:

Quote:
... Henein’s cross-examination begins at 2:15 pm. Almost immediately, the tone is combative and unkind. From my perspective, this kind of scrutiny—a meticulous dissection of Lucy’s memory—is wholly painful, demoralizing, and anxiety-inducing.

Lucy’s media interviews. Lucy’s jokes about sex acts. Lucy’s details of the time period in question. Henein lays it out, making challenges at every turn. All the while, tweets detailing this personal information fly out of media hands and into the world. (It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that to testify, you must surrender your privacy, even if you don’t publicly attach your name to the complaint.) Henein is transparently intent on confusing Lucy, constructing her questions in backwards, misleading forms (“May I suggest to you...”), circling repeatedly around ideas, and theatrically revealing evidence in ways designed to rattle Lucy’s confidence. This is of course a defence attorney’s job, but it’s jarring to watch first-hand how combative Henein is, how aggressive is her approach and demeanour with someone vulnerable. As she rattles off the list of interviews Lucy gave throughout the preceding year, I think about how much we discourage victims of violence to tell their own stories, how much we demand their total silence lest they be labelled “media whores.” 

... Day two of Henein’s questions and Lucy’s answers confirm almost every fear survivors have about reporting sexual assault. Forever-ago emails are dredged up one by one, revealed in a deliberate and increasingly “damning way” for maximum rhetorical impact. Lucy remembers none of these messages, but is asked to field each one in the moment, and at some points is forced to read their content aloud.

The point of all of this heightened drama is to weaken Lucy’s reliability and credibility in the eyes of the judge. (By Ghomeshi’s choice, there is no jury in this trial.) But in the moment it just looks like base cruelty—a complex and very publicly orchestrated process of deeply shaming a victim who dared to come forward.

... My experience in the courtroom on this second day is a blur of increasingly emotional responses. (Again, how can anyone accurately recount the things they wrote thirteen years ago?) From where I sit the process looks entirely abusive and re-traumatizing, but Lucy’s resolve never wavers. “[She] is staying very calm and bright. It’s incredible...” Boesveld tweets that day.

Lucy’s testimony that she knew she would inevitably run into Ghomeshi in entertainment circles, and that she therefore only wanted to see him on her own terms, resonates so strongly with my own experiences—I was similarly terrified of running into my abuser after the fact. “Ghomeshi assaulted me and afterwards I tried to neutralize it and make it a friendship,” she tells the court, a sentiment that speaks directly to so many survivors who have done the same. As I watch her calmly and carefully explain every piece of email placed in front of her, I’m amazed by her resilience, her ability to articulate such complex emotions to people who may struggle to understand them.

... By the time Henein reveals the climax—a now-famous “love letter” that Lucy testifies she has no memory of writing—and asks her to read its closing line (“I love your hands”) to the court, I’m no longer strong enough to keep my personal feelings concealed. I hear Lucy’s words on the stand, “Women can be assaulted by someone and still have positive feelings for them afterwards,” and I start to cry in court. When Gillian turns to me and asks if I’m okay, I feel selfish that I’ve made such an upsetting moment for a friend about my own personal trauma.

... [After the testimony, back at the hotel] When Lucy comes down from her room, we talk about how she will manage social media now that she is allowed to access it again. She’s already on the receiving end of online harassment, with people creating Twitter accounts specifically to hurl abuse at her. Though I offer to deal with it on her behalf, she declines, saying it’ll be okay. ... This narrative, this connection to Ghomeshi—only a small part of who she is as a human being—will inevitably follow her everywhere she goes from now on. Her only motivation, she has now told me, was to relay the truth.

But in this moment, sitting at this hotel bar, it feels like she’s sacrificed herself to a system that could easily fail her, and in some ways it already has. Even with this reality, Lucy has no regrets that she decided to go through the process, always believing in the importance of speaking out, of having these vital conversations, and of talking about what it really means to seek justice, in order to enact real change.

Later, as I hug her goodbye for the night, I realize that she is likely the bravest person I have ever known.

Northern PoV

pookie wrote:

Meanwhile, the horror that is the Crown's imploding case continues.

Incredible.  

And far from convincing me that we need 'special' courts to handle abuse cases, it has renewed my faith in the adversarial system.  MH has exposed what amounts to a conspiracy to use the police & courts to .... resolve  regrets about the weird relationships they had with a sicko?  

..........................................................

hey I am still wondering about this....

pookie wrote:

<snip> I find the term "diva lawyer" disrespectful to a committed feminist advocate who has spent years fighting to promote justice and fairness re VAW. LCD used that term in a very different way than you are now.  <snip>

How is LD using the term diva-lawyer?  How does my use differ?

PS: I viewed it in conjuction with LD's comment about 'looking forward to court as theatre' .

 

Tehanu

And this got posted while I was writing. Case in point.

Northern PoV wrote:

pookie wrote:

Meanwhile, the horror that is the Crown's imploding case continues.

Incredible.  

And far from convincing me that we need 'special' courts to handle abuse cases, it has renewed my faith in the adversarial system.  MH has exposed what amounts to a conspiracy to use the police & courts to .... resolve  regrets about the weird relationships they had with a sicko? 

quizzical

Northern PoV wrote:
pookie wrote:
Meanwhile, the horror that is the Crown's imploding case continues.

Incredible.  

And far from convincing me that we need 'special' courts to handle abuse cases, it has renewed my faith in the adversarial system.  MH has exposed what amounts to a conspiracy to use the police & courts to .... resolve  regrets about the weird relationships they had with a sicko?  

..........................................................

hey I am still wondering about this....

pookie wrote:

<snip> I find the term "diva lawyer" disrespectful to a committed feminist advocate who has spent years fighting to promote justice and fairness re VAW. LCD used that term in a very different way than you are now.  <snip>

How is LD using the term diva-lawyer?  How does my use differ?

PS: I viewed it in conjuction with LD's comment about 'looking forward to court as theatre' 

 

"weird relationhips"? anyway to get away with not calling it assault or sexual assault. you edited and added "sicko". labeling him 'sicko' still doesn't change what you said  or what you don't get.

i find it wildly interesting the same peeps here who are blatently on Ghomeshi's side and against women, in this thread, also support legalization of prostitution to keep women "safe" in the other threads on the topic......just sayin.........

Northern PoV

Tehanu wrote:

Decades of feminist work countering rape myths, flushed down the toilet by a creep and his lawyer.

I agree the trial will not help victims of abuse.  I would assign blame to the crown, police, Gillian Hnatiw and at least two of the complainants (It looks like witness 1 was simply confused and not part of the group effort.) 

As to Lucy friend's musings on Jesse Brown's site ... meh ... Jesse was a JG rival at CBC ... a bunch of media types throwing crap on each other. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

brookmere wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It's all the "nice" men like Ghomeshi I fear.

He always struck me as a smarmy narcissist, and his nasty controlling personality has been documented well before the current scandal. As has his taste for women 1/2 his age.

Who are all the "nice" men that are like him? Seriously.

That was always my view as well as my wife's. Her sister, who fell for two different abusive men, couldn't get enough of his program.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Tehanu wrote:

I am also appalled at this thread.

Right from the start several (male, I presume?) babble members have been either using sly innuendo or outright gleeful gloating to attack the women who had the courage to testify against Ghomeshi.

And then please go read this: http://canadalandshow.com/article/when-your-friend-stand-ghomeshi-trial about what actually happens when you testify in a sexual assault trial. Including this tidbit, which I didn't know, that even if you have your own lawyer she can't advise you once your testimony begins.

Thanks for the post and it is in fact true that once a witness begins cross examination their lawyer may not give them any instructions or talk about the case at all. The most painful thing to see is your witness breakdown and forget everything you tried to teach them about being cross examined.

pookie

Northern PoV wrote:

pookie wrote:

Meanwhile, the horror that is the Crown's imploding case continues.

Incredible.  

And far from convincing me that we need 'special' courts to handle abuse cases, it has renewed my faith in the adversarial system.  MH has exposed what amounts to a conspiracy to use the police & courts to .... resolve  regrets about the weird relationships they had with a sicko?  

..........................................................

hey I am still wondering about this....

pookie wrote:

<snip> I find the term "diva lawyer" disrespectful to a committed feminist advocate who has spent years fighting to promote justice and fairness re VAW. LCD used that term in a very different way than you are now.  <snip>

How is LD using the term diva-lawyer?  How does my use differ?

PS: I viewed it in conjuction with LD's comment about 'looking forward to court as theatre' .

 

LD used the term in a FB chat (I believe) that Henien brought up to her on cross.  I figured that's where you got the term.  It sounded like she was being snarky/playful and in any event it was a private conversation.

I thought you were suggesting that complainants' counsel was being a diva in her prepared statement.  I took offence to that - feminist criminal lawyers get enough shit thrown at them.  

If I misunderstood you I apologize.

Gustave

mark_alfred wrote:
victims of trauma.
Quote:

I did not follow the case close enough: is trauma at play here? Did the crown produce medical evidence showing victim trauma? Of  did they they talk about it otherwise?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Gustave you seem to be conflating trauma with PTSD. Many people experience trauma that does not produce clinical PTSD but that does not diminish the fact that they have experienced trauma.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

It's not established that there was any form of conspiracy or "group effort" by any of the witnesses. This is pure speculation.

Northern PoV

pookie wrote:

LD used the term in a FB chat (I believe) that Henien brought up to her on cross.  I figured that's where you got the term.  It sounded like she was being snarky/playful and in any event it was a private conversation.

I thought you were suggesting that complainants' counsel was being a diva in her prepared statement.  I took offence to that - feminist criminal lawyers get enough shit thrown at them.  

If I misunderstood you I apologize.

Thank you.  I was echoing LD use of the term.

When the scandal broke, I assumed JG was guilty.  I still think he is a sicko.  But I shudder about how we try resolve our interpersonal disputes nowadays using law & order....

A twitter flame war ends up with a sweet tweeter dead cause of a misunderstood tweet in Newfoundland.

Another twitter flame war breaks out in Toronto resulting in a costly legal struggle, loss of basic rights by an individual who is later exonerated and the profound embarrasement of the complainants.  Both sides come out looking bad.

And now we get dragged into this bizarre world of Canadian semi-celebrities:  A media darling gets exposed as a sicko protected all around by industry enablers.  Then Society (feeling guilty about itself), calls out (via the POLICE CHIEF) for victims to come forward!  ... and we get the Ghomeshi debacle that damages the cause of abuse-victims rights.  So in this context, the use of 'diva-lawyer' and looking forward to 'courtroom as theatre' is quite telling imo, hence the sarcasm. (me bad)

Finally, in the light of all the evidence that has emerged from this trial, I find it hard to believe that folks are stilling using the 'victim-blaming' meme to describe this mess and that they are offended by my comments.  

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Northern PoV wrote:

Finally, in the light of all the evidence that has emerged from this trial, I find it hard to believe that folks are stilling using the 'victim-blaming' meme to describe this mess and that they are offended by my comments.  

None so blind than those that will not see.

6079_Smith_W

Northern PoV wrote:
 

But I shudder about how we try resolve our interpersonal disputes nowadays using law & order....

I am sure Mr. Ghomeshi feels exactly the same way.

In case I need to point it out for the fifth or sixth time, this case is about accusations of punching, choking, slapping. And the background to it includes plenty more, including a broken rib.

I get the tactic of rationalizing this to pretend this means nothing at all, or is just a misunderstanding, or mutual. After all you have been throwing this and other nonsense at the wall throughout this thread.

Sorry to disappoint you, but physical violence is a crime. That is what this case concerns. It is entirely appropriate to deal with this in court, even if you want to pretend it is not.

Or are we going to have another round of "how much is it okay to punch someone?"

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Its that very surprise that makes it abundantly clear that we've got a very long road ahead of us before the casual misogyny in our culture goes away. If it ever does. Yeah, we know. You don't get it. You never wanted to. Or you may just be incapable of putting yourself in those shoes. Whatever the reason, whatever the issue, in the big picture it's guys like you who are the problem. ETA: Directed at POV in #295.

Northern PoV

Timebandit wrote:
It's not established that there was any form of conspiracy or "group effort" by any of the witnesses. This is pure speculation.

speculation is based on:

They met and bonded as 'fellow Ghomeshi victims'. The shared a ('diva') lawyer when told not to.  They exchanged 5000 messages over 10 months. Lots of vengeful comments. Discussed the allegations. Coaching from others: "I can help you remember".  

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

But still pure speculation - there are other simpler explanations. ETA: You're leaning hard on the diva bit. Not sure why that matters one way or the other. And you have to ask yourself what either woman would hope to gain vs the personal cost of putting yourself into the system. Consider those factors and what you're suggesting is utterly daft.

6079_Smith_W

Northern PoV wrote:

speculation is based on:

Your speculation is based on your determination to undermine and attack the victims and this legal process in any way you can, even if it makes no sense. You are bouncing back and forth from blaming them to blaming the lawyers to blaming the CBC. Anyone and anything except the accused.

You are being completely dishonest with this crap. It based on nothing but your personal motive.

 

Gustave

quizzical wrote:

i find it wildly interesting the same peeps here who are blatently on Ghomeshi's side and against women, in this thread, also support legalization of prostitution to keep women "safe" in the other threads on the topic......just sayin.........

It's kind of funny you say that because I was on opposite side to you on the public response to prostitution, and on you side here, in regards with the Gomeshi case.

Gustave

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Gustave you seem to be conflating trauma with PTSD. Many people experience trauma that does not produce clinical PTSD but that does not diminish the fact that they have experienced trauma.

I did indeed. My bad. And from the linked article the trauma can alter memory even without PTSD.

Pages

Topic locked