Ghomeshi Trial Begins

968 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

kropotkin1951 wrote:

When Q first started I was favourably disposed because I loved Moxy Fruvous however part way through the first show I listened to I turned it off because all I could hear was the falseness to his charm and a nauseating narcissism.

I recall when he used to sub for Shelagh Rogers on Sounds Like Canada.  At that point it was kind of refreshing, because Shelagh just seemed phony (forced happiness, I think -- turns out she was suffering from depression -- I felt kinda bad upon learning that.  Anyway, when I heard her later on a literary show I felt she sounded fine since she was no longer the fake happy happy joy joy persona she had been).  Mind you, Ghomeshi would start the Sounds Like Canada show by playing the Talking Heads or Bowie, which had squat to do with Canada.  So, an early sign of self-obsessed smarm that led me to find him annoying by the time he began Q.  Regardless, I was surprised upon learning of his firing.  But unlike others who, after his odd FB post, initially jumped to defend him and castigate the CBC as a bunch of stodgy old suits, I figured that there must be something serious given both his star status and his being a union employee.  Also to me his Facebook post was just weird. 

Hopefully he'll be found guilty.  From his FB post, the CBC reports that 'He alleges that a "jilted ex" had launched a smear campaign against him, claiming that their "adventurous forms of sex" were not consensual, something that he disputes.'  So, Heinen has tried to create a reasonable doubt about the claim of lack of consent.  I went through the postings from the trial, and I don't think that Heinen has created a reasonable doubt.  To me the description of the shock of the violence the complainants unexpectedly encountered from him is not shaken by some of the contradictions of after-the-fact encounters (as seen from email/letter) with what was told to the police.  The basis of the complainants' stories of the shock of the unexpected assaults, despite any actions or rationalization after the fact, still remains.  In LD's case, this will be further bolstered by the additional witness.  Now, I ain't no lawyer (thank god!) so I dunno, but I do know that in my own little private parallel universe, he's guilty!  No question.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I hate being put in a position to defend someone I think is total scum, but...  Look,  JG was good at his job. He was a kick-ass interviewer. Like, really good at it. I interview people for a living - not as often or as compressed - and he was extremely good at getting his interviewee comfortable, keeping it light, fun and on track and getting them to open up. Sure, I found him a little fakey at times, but he knew how to put on a show. He wasn't liked by all, but he had a really big following that loved him. That's a big factor in how he was able to do what he did and for so long.

Northern PoV

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Surprisingly, this isn't in the editorial section, or the funnies; it ran as a straight news piece:

Quote:

With the collapse Monday of the third accuser’s credibility — she might just as well have been wearing a suicide vest, so thoroughly did she blow up — it’s now apparent the case was built upon the self-serving and carefully edited allegations of dishonest complainants, two of whom appear to have been colluding and gleefully anticipating Ghomeshi’s ruination, and raised up on the gossamer wings of unproven allegations in the press and on social media.

Now the trial, merely by continuing to proceed, actually threatens to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-trial-day-6

Considering that the prosecution has had a rough ride of this, why the dire prediction? What are they afraid of that they feel the need to stamp our any consideration that there might be truth to the allegations?

I got banned from this echo-chamber for posting exactly the type of piece you quoted here.  You are apparently going to upset some folks who can't take interventions from the real world. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Surprisingly, this isn't in the editorial section, or the funnies; it ran as a straight news piece:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-trial-day-6

The video of Christie Blatchford’s recap of what happened in court yesterday was unbelievably biased and will likely be used in the future a glaring example of victim blaming by other women. It was disgusting in the depth of its bias and the language and expressions she used were so dismissive as to be jaw dropping. But like JG this nasty women knows what her audience wants. I wish I had not bothered with it.

6079_Smith_W

It is shitty writing POV. Even as an editorial it is out there. It out-blatchfords blatchford.

It is entirely inappropriate as a news story.

Bringing the administration of justice into disrepute? Give me a break. That is as dumb as the predictions upthread about the prosecution folding up its case, and charges of perjury being laid.

I'll ask it again, given the way this case has gone, why are some going all out to brand it such a threat?

(edit)

Ha! Cross-posted with you k. DIdn't see your blatchford reference.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Just suspended Northern PoV for not respecting Meg's request that he keep out of this thread. 

Gustave, you're done in this thread too, thanks. Please keep out of it.

mark_alfred

Yeah, he was a good interviewer.  Just little things that annoyed me about him.  But, as I said, I was surprised by the allegations, so I'm certainly not saying, "I knew it all along!"  He was just that slightly smarmy interviewer who came on after the Current --> turn the radio off, Mr. Special is on again.  And his snub of Brian Eno that I described in a previous post did it for me.  Then the news that he was picking on Lucy and the others.  Good riddance to him.  I preferred Strombo.  I prefer Shad.

Pondering

Thank-you Meg and Catchfire.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Surprisingly, this isn't in the editorial section, or the funnies; it ran as a straight news piece:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-trial-day-6

The video of Christie Blatchford’s recap of what happened in court yesterday was unbelievably biased and will likely be used in the future a glaring example of victim blaming by other women. It was disgusting in the depth of its bias and the language and expressions she used were so dismissive as to be jaw dropping. But like JG this nasty women knows what her audience wants. I wish I had not bothered with it.

Thanks for the warning, I won't watch it.

I am going to stay positive and trust the judge to do a good job regardless of how he has to rule in the end. My general sense is that while Ghomeshi may get off legally public sympathy is with the women not him. It feels very unfair, like publishing someone's diary thoughts from when they were younger and more foolish even during adulthood. She is being publically humiliated and LD has a sterling reputation. I've done or said stuff I couldn't explain now. I can't imagine if email existed back then how many embarassing or foolish ones I might have sent to the wrong people.

It certainly seems like the women are on trial rather than Ghomeshi.

Misfit

I wonder how much JG has invested in PR to turn him from the villain and into the victim.

Misfit

Pondering, I don't feel that sympathy is with these women anymore. I think there is a major PR campaign out there to trash the reputations of these women for having had the courage to come forward to testify against him.

Misfit

The average person on the street from my conversations and listening is that if the violence was bad then they would not have continued dating him or communicating with him.

mark_alfred

[drift]

Hmm.  Four people banned between the Sanders thread and here.  Justice may crawl in the real world, but it can be swift here.  Regardless, life goes on.

[/drift]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I was not sad to see Monty gone. He was not here to debate.

mark_alfred

Yeah.  Though I don't know if anyone here really debates, but most at least know how to pretend once in a while to be open to other opinions. 

Paladin1

Misfit wrote:
I wonder how much JG has invested in PR to turn him from the villain and into the victim.

This is why I feel our court system is a business now.

 

Misfit wrote:
The average person on the street from my conversations and listening is that if the violence was bad then they would not have continued dating him or communicating with him.

Truth be told this is how I feel. 

I also understand that I don't understand anything about sexual assault or the psychology surrounding violence against women (if I'm wording that right?) so my views are biased and uninformed.

6079_Smith_W

Misfit wrote:
Pondering, I don't feel that sympathy is with these women anymore. I think there is a major PR campaign out there to trash the reputations of these women for having had the courage to come forward to testify against him.

It's hard to say.

Certainly some of the newspaper coverage has focused on the inconsistencies; not all coverage has given it good analysis.

And some of it is as you say, and actually reads like it was written by a publicist (Toronto Sun, just got posted)

But I'd say the biggest issue in opinion pieces has been quesitoning the appropriateness of aggressive cross-examination.

That is a good thing.

But really all of this is up in the air until this trial is over. Then we shall see, at least until the next one coming up in a few months.

 

Misfit

Paladin1: I don't know how sincere you are on this thread, but if you are looking for deeper insight into the complexities of women staying in abusive relationships, then I suggest you read Elizabeth Sheehy's book, Defending Battered Women on Trial. There is one chapter in particular dealing directly with the common myth that women can safely leave many abusive relationships. Mark Alfred, earlier in this thread, alluded to the power that JG held in the arts community, and that he had the ability to make and break peoples' careers. This reason alone could explain one reason why these women maintained communication despite having been assaulted by him. A point I tried to bring up earlier is that if these women have a higher tolerance for kinky sex, this does not detract from their right to set limits for their own bodies and what they define as appropriate or not, even if they display behaviours that we do not personally consider logical following an assault.

mark_alfred

I suspect there's a whole other story that we'll never know.  Who was the twitter user @bigearsteddy who (I gather) started a lot of this rolling? 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The Tyee posted a piece that tried to deal with the psychology of abused women and the comments section made my blood boil. So many people are into the victim blaming and believe that if they didn't want it they would never have spoken to him again. Its a really hard prejudice to overcome if you have never been an survivor. I really hope he gets convicted not just because that would be justice despite the unrelenting smear campaign but also because it might cause a particular NP commentator's head to explode

Paladin1

Thank you Misfit. I'll check it out. I have two young daughters and this stuff is vital for me to understand.

 

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Paladin, it really is important, especially as a parent. Girls are taught to appease after conflict, even in ways that are so indirect that you don't see it happening until you realize the message has been received (I have daughters, too, but mine are teens). Additionally, when something like this happens to you seemingly out of the blue, it's crazy the way your head tries to rationalize or make sense of it. You might not have any idea how traumatic the experience was until much later. The mind does some funny things to protect itself.

Misfit

The Current ran a segment on the psychology of trauma in sexual assault on Thursday Feb 4, 2016. It is worth listening to.

mark_alfred

I'm surprised at how pessimistic some here are simply because a few journalist jerks like DiManno, Blatchford, and Wente have poo-pooed the case against Ghomeshi.  Of course they have.  It's what they do.  Always.

I'm not at all pessimistic. 

Quote:

[former prosecutor Mike] Huot said expert witnesses to testify on post-trauma behaviour would not likely have been deemed necessary for a trial heard by judge alone, since he would presumably be familiar with the issues at hand and any relevant precedent.

[..]

Huot, meantime, said Crown attorneys familiar with the limits of the system say patterns in witness testimony may outweigh any seeming discrepancies that emerge under cross-examination.

He said Ghomeshi's conduct as described by the witnesses is striking, adding he suspects the consistency in their accounts may be the linchpin of the Crown's case against him.

"I think if you're the Crown, that's the ace in your hole. How probable is it that all three of these women are lying? That's the big hurdle the defence has to overcome."

http://www.windsorstar.com/entertainment/11705769/story.html

quizzical

every pic i see of him and his lawyer she's got her head down.....

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Gustave wrote:

MegB wrote:
This is anti-woman and victim-blaming. You clearly have a very limited understanding of the issues around cases of sexual assault and its aftermath. I'm going to ask you to stop commenting in this thread as some of the women here are feeling distressed by your comments.

This sounds like double standard moderation. I have not seen one anti-woman statement in his posts.

Also, I was attacked on my penis size. I'm very triggered by it (what if I had my prostate removed and suffered from erectile problems?). I wonder what would happen if a guy here tryed to make an argument using the size a woman participant's tits.

Have you ever blamed any woman on this forum for all the abuse and bs they throw at men?

Is this forum to become what the skeptics community has become: bleached by political correctness where what, when and how subjects may be discussed is determined by the feelings of some who invoke "triggering" the moment they don't agree with something? If they are distressed by comments here, there is no way they can read the media reports on this trial.

 

Reading comprehension is really hard.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0HZW9JiudY

 

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Judges aint always neanderthals

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

I'm surprised at how pessimistic some here are simply because a few journalist jerks like DiManno, Blatchford, and Wente have poo-pooed the case against Ghomeshi.  Of course they have.  It's what they do.  Always.

I'm not at all pessimistic. 

Quote:

[former prosecutor Mike] Huot said expert witnesses to testify on post-trauma behaviour would not likely have been deemed necessary for a trial heard by judge alone, since he would presumably be familiar with the issues at hand and any relevant precedent.

[..]

Huot, meantime, said Crown attorneys familiar with the limits of the system say patterns in witness testimony may outweigh any seeming discrepancies that emerge under cross-examination.

He said Ghomeshi's conduct as described by the witnesses is striking, adding he suspects the consistency in their accounts may be the linchpin of the Crown's case against him.

"I think if you're the Crown, that's the ace in your hole. How probable is it that all three of these women are lying? That's the big hurdle the defence has to overcome."

http://www.windsorstar.com/entertainment/11705769/story.html

Thanks for that. This comment too is significant:

But Huot also said the abundance of evidence available to Henein could play into prosecution strategy down the line, saying any closing submissions he would make would raise the question of why Ghomeshi felt the need to preserve electronic and hand-written correspondence over more than a decade.

Ghomeshi may have made a mistake going with judge alone. The judge refused to release the bikini picture and has allowed a 4th witness. While some judges are mysogynistic jerks others are keen judges of character not so easily taken in. This is a very high profile case. I'm guessing the justice department was very careful on choosing who would hear it.

Misfit

I'm not being pessimistic. I am genuinely worried by this turn of events and how the media in general is covering this case. Gerald Regan's high profile sexual assault trial and acquittal, and the Robin Camp Inquiry immediately come to my mind that there is very good reason to worry. The average person on the street is not connecting with these women. JG is coming across as the victim and the good guy. The news media has a role to educate and inform the public on the major dynamics of this court case, and I don't think they are doing an adequate job. Instead they are mostly pushing JG's defence team's spin and it shows.

mark_alfred

It's interesting that Reva Seth is not a part of it as a complainant, given that her story was shared shortly after Lucy's was.  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/reva-seth/reva-seth-jian-ghomeshi_b_6077296...

mark_alfred

CBC had some defence lawyer named John Rosen on there to assess the case (important to note that his bias is toward defence).  He doesn't really give his opinion on what verdict he expects, but he did seem to kinda feel it was a rough week for the Crown.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1DEMI4ZGTI

mark_alfred
mark_alfred

Good article on the unfairness of the system, by Jane Doe for Now Magazine:  https://nowtoronto.com/news/jian-ghomeshi-trial-who-has-accusers-back-in...

Regardless, I'm still maintaining my optimism of a guilty verdict.  But, given some of my own experiences with the legal system, I kinda agree with Jane Doe that the system really isn't fair.  The law is an ass.  Still, I'm remaining optimistic of either a guilty verdict or, well, a confirmation of my cynicism about the system (I prefer the former to the latter, of course).

Ward

At the very least I'm hoping that the Canadian public will have a clearer understanding of what is and isn't legal foreplay after the verdict.

lagatta

Timebandit, my older and much larger brother was very violent and I was taught to appease and "manage" him. That is the way things were half a century ago. Women aren't the only human group taught that; colonised and racialised people were, as were victims of homophobia.

It is true that the precarious nature of employment in the arts can be a huge factor in this case.

And yes, Wente, Di Manno, Blatchford and Lysiane Gagnon (and others, in French) are patriarchal enforcers.

6079_Smith_W

The entire editorial is worth reading. But I'll highlight this tidbit at the end.

Quote:

On March 30, Ghomeshi’s lead defence lawyer Marie Henein will be the keynote speaker at a Young Women in Law charity event at the Arcadian Court in Toronto, sponsored by an all-female legal recruiter and four major Toronto law firms. Proceeds of the evening will pay for “work with war-affected communities to help children reclaim their childhood.”

The charity was founded by 10 young women lawyers and helps such lawyers consider career paths, of which “become the men we once detested” is one.

I trust the audience members will be immaculately behaved, unsullied and, above all, silent.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/02/10/dos-and-donts-for-t...

 

mark_alfred

It's tempting to wanna heap scorn on Heinen.  I recall having the following tweet chat when it was first learnt that Heinen would be representing Ghomeshi:

some tweeter wrote:
How can a woman represent #JianGhomeshi? So sick and disgusting. If I sound like a feminist, that's because I am

mark_alfred wrote:
Last I heard was that in Canada both men and women are able to work as criminal defence attorneys.

some tweeter wrote:
that's not what I meant. And yes they can. There is no need to be sarcastic.

Despite what I've written above, I do feel that it's a valid choice not to represent someone or something that runs counter to your outlook or goals.  But I don't feel it's valid to deny professional choice to people simply on the basis of being "a woman".  If you're a criminal defence attorney and someone who's been accused of committing a crime wants to pay you big bucks to defend him or her, then you should be able to choose whether to take the case or not regardless of your sex.

To digress, it is a bit creepy how similar Ghomeshi and Heinen look.  Whenever I see photos of them together I think they're like brother and sister (due to appearance -- I'm not drawing any other parallel between the two).

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It would seem to me that attorneys, both male and female, regularly represent individuals accused of much more violent or repugnant crimes than Ghomeshi.

I mean it's not like an attorney who represents an accused axe murderer is somehow legitimizing or condoning axe murder.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

No, I think that being a defense attorney means that you will represent people who are distasteful to you.

On the other hand, I can't say I haven't wondered how Henein reconciles what she's doing to those witnesses when the day is done.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
On the other hand, I can't say I haven't wondered how Henein reconciles what she's doing to those witnesses when the day is done.

If I could read Henein's mind, the first thing I'd look into is whether she feels Ghomeshi really is innocent.

She's surely spent considerable time with him, and has access to information that even the court never saw.  So... deep in her heart of hearts, does she think that she's righting a wrong against a good man?  Or does she think (like pretty much everyone else) that he probably did exactly what he's accused of?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I don't think naivete is a hallmark of her profession.

Look, there's just no question, 23 women in, that the dude is one twisted little fuck. Whether or not she thinks that's criminal, I couldn't say, but I'd be surprised if she had any illusions about what she's defending.

6079_Smith_W

There is a way of doing even that difficult job that is ethical.

Pointing out possibleinconsistencies and lies is one thing. Doing everything you can to embarrass and undermine, even regarding things that don't really relate to the core question of guilt? That is over a line, and many people in that profession recognize it for what it is.

Of course, a defense lawyer who isn't willing to do whatever it takes might wind up with very few clients. Certainly not rich.

I know several lawyers who have wrestled with the ethical dilemma inherent in the adversarial system, in that the game isn't primarily about justice, and it can take a toll on those who have a sense of it.

I presume you have a better understanding of this than the rest of us, kropotkin. I just know it second hand, including from someone who quit practicing to teach.

 

 

pookie

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

I'm surprised at how pessimistic some here are simply because a few journalist jerks like DiManno, Blatchford, and Wente have poo-pooed the case against Ghomeshi.  Of course they have.  It's what they do.  Always.

I'm not at all pessimistic. 

Quote:

[former prosecutor Mike] Huot said expert witnesses to testify on post-trauma behaviour would not likely have been deemed necessary for a trial heard by judge alone, since he would presumably be familiar with the issues at hand and any relevant precedent.

[..]

Huot, meantime, said Crown attorneys familiar with the limits of the system say patterns in witness testimony may outweigh any seeming discrepancies that emerge under cross-examination.

He said Ghomeshi's conduct as described by the witnesses is striking, adding he suspects the consistency in their accounts may be the linchpin of the Crown's case against him.

"I think if you're the Crown, that's the ace in your hole. How probable is it that all three of these women are lying? That's the big hurdle the defence has to overcome."

http://www.windsorstar.com/entertainment/11705769/story.html

Thanks for that. This comment too is significant:

But Huot also said the abundance of evidence available to Henein could play into prosecution strategy down the line, saying any closing submissions he would make would raise the question of why Ghomeshi felt the need to preserve electronic and hand-written correspondence over more than a decade.

Ghomeshi may have made a mistake going with judge alone. The judge refused to release the bikini picture and has allowed a 4th witness. While some judges are mysogynistic jerks others are keen judges of character not so easily taken in. This is a very high profile case. I'm guessing the justice department was very careful on choosing who would hear it.

I agree with most of this but please know that the Crown does not, ever, choose judges in criminal cases.  That decision is made by the Chief Justice of the particular court, and is generally supposed to be random.

ETA: alot will come down to what the judge does on the similar fact evidence application, ie., the extent to which he can use the complainants' stories to bolster each other.  I am trying to be optimistic, but most of my crim law colleagues believe the judge will have little choice but to acquit.

lagatta

She also defended Michael Bryant.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I know several lawyers who have wrestled with the ethical dilemma inherent in the adversarial system, in that the game isn't primarily about justice, and it can take a toll on those who have a sense of it.

At the same time, it's not as though "the win" necessarily goes to whoever is more aggressive, more sneaky or more slimy.  In the end, either the jury or the judge have to sift through everything, and it's always possible that an attorney who punches below the belt will be doing their own case a disservice.

In the case at hand, if Henein didn't follow up on every possibility that the witnesses were lying or witholding, I could easily see that as grounds for an appeal.

I doubt we'll ever see a "cooperative" justice system, where the Crown and the accused sit down together in the spirit of justice and work things out.  The closest we probably get to that is plea bargaining, and for whatever it's worth, I think most people see that as corrupt, rather than as better justice.

6079_Smith_W

Actually the closest we have is a healing circle.

 

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

It's tempting to wanna heap scorn on Heinen.  I recall having the following tweet chat when it was first learnt that Heinen would be representing Ghomeshi:

some tweeter wrote:
How can a woman represent #JianGhomeshi? So sick and disgusting. If I sound like a feminist, that's because I am

mark_alfred wrote:
Last I heard was that in Canada both men and women are able to work as criminal defence attorneys.

some tweeter wrote:
that's not what I meant. And yes they can. There is no need to be sarcastic.

Despite what I've written above, I do feel that it's a valid choice not to represent someone or something that runs counter to your outlook or goals.  But I don't feel it's valid to deny professional choice to people simply on the basis of being "a woman".  If you're a criminal defence attorney and someone who's been accused of committing a crime wants to pay you big bucks to defend him or her, then you should be able to choose whether to take the case or not regardless of your sex.

To digress, it is a bit creepy how similar Ghomeshi and Heinen look.  Whenever I see photos of them together I think they're like brother and sister (due to appearance -- I'm not drawing any other parallel between the two).

Sure it's a valid choice, it's also a valid choice to judge her for doing so just as I would judge a black person for defending a racist. Yes in both cases such people are entitled to a strong defence but when the lawyer is a member of the group that was mistreated because of that which they have in common defending the individual is a betrayal of that group. Ghomeshi chose a female lawyer on purpose just as someone accused of racism would choose a black lawyer to prove they aren't racist.

I find her disgusting for taking him on as a client. It isn't like she needs the money. So no, she doesn't have to show solidarity with women but I don't have to respect her either.

6079_Smith_W

I don't have a problem with her taking him as a client. Everyon edeserves a defense, and lawyer who isn't prepared to do that honestly should find another line of work.

When fundamentalists were talking about their right to not recognize marriage equality some of the strongest voices criticizing that were from people like black paramedics who said they would save the lives of racists because that is their job. And to discriminate is to become like THEM.

Her stepping over the line into aggressive cross-examination isn't the same as vetting clients, and whether he instructed her or not, that was her decision.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Sure it's a valid choice, it's also a valid choice to judge her for doing so just as I would judge a black person for defending a racist.

Would you similarly judge an attorney who doesn't wish to be axe murdered, if they chose to defend an accused axe murderer?

Disclosure: I ask this as a member of that group of humans who don't wish to be axe murdered.

Noops

Mr. Magoo wrote:

She's surely spent considerable time with him, and has access to information that even the court never saw.  So... deep in her heart of hearts, does she think that she's righting a wrong against a good man?  Or does she think (like pretty much everyone else) that he probably did exactly what he's accused of?

 

I haven't been following the case very closely, but do know the important points.

Henein's main argument seems to  be, how can some of these women have been abused if they came back to their abuser?

And not only came back but asked to be intimate.

Well the literature is strewn with hundreds of cases where abused women do come back to their abusers.

The trial is not about whether or not some of these women returned to Gomeshi, but rather whether he sexually abused them.

It is very possible, even likely that he did sexually abuse them and they did return to him. Does it make his crime less serious?

 

On another note...

Am I the only one who finds it deplorable that the CBC is not allowing comments on this news story despite it being their number one headline story for over a week now?

6079_Smith_W

That's silly, Magoo.

 

Pages

Topic locked