Sandy Garossino, a former prosecutor, explains at the Huffington Post Canada how Jian Ghomeshi threw a wrench into his own defense by writing and publishing that Facebook post.
Normally in sexual assault trials, the accused doesn’t have to do anything and all the hassle falls on the complainant. The defense strategy is usually to batter the complainant’s credibility to death while the accused just looks on.
The Jian Ghomeshi trial will be very different.
Apart from the media notoriety and Ghomeshi’s status as a public figure, the most outstanding evidentiary feature of this case is his own widely disseminated statement on Facebook (now removed). This one act, seemingly taken in solitary desperation, radically re-set the trial dynamic by putting Ghomeshi’s own credibility and even his character on trial.
In light of multiple but very consistent versions of events from a variety of sources dating back many years, that Facebook statement is devastating.
While there will be many legal technicalities, the complainants’ evidence will be measured against Ghomeshi’s own publicly stated defence. That defence, almost lost in an effusion of highfalutin malarkey, amounts to a claim that his sexual relations were not merely consensual but unambiguously and consensually violent; any statements to the contrary are all lies and the fruit of embittered female collusion.
Assuming one or more of the complainants are described in the Facebook post, how is Henein now supposed to claim they drank too much to remember clearly or that the accused had a mistaken but honest belief in consent? Her client left virtually no room for any strategy but an all out attack on his accusers. Her problem is that she’s dangerously low on ammunition.
And Jian’s biggest problem is Lucy DeCoutere. A 43-year-old captain in the Royal Canadian Air Force and a public figure in her own right, Ms. DeCoutere came forward apparently out of a sense of civic duty. Her riveting account of being choked by Mr. Ghomeshi without warning on a date some 11 years ago will colour every other aspect of the trial.
But this is the exception. Normally – the targets of the abuse are out of luck.
And yet what’s become starkly clear in the allegations engulfing Jian Ghomeshi, the MPs in Ottawa, and Bill Cosby, is that our justice system, civil procedures, and even our press and media traditions are wholly inadequate for the issue of sexual offences and crimes.
Had Ghomeshi not posted his Facebook statement, the Toronto Star would never have published its story. Even when the Star went to print, it faced an overwhelming barrage of criticism that anonymous sources shouldn’t be permitted to besmirch a man’s reputation. The clear implication being that if women were not prepared to file police reports, they weren’t credible.
Also known around here as the Michael Nugent Doctrine: it’s the police or nothing; call the police or shut the fuck up.
Notice anything about the complainants who’ve surfaced in all these cases?
Most of them are white, and all of them (as far as I know) are middle class.
Yet millions of our weakest and most vulnerable (including children) are neither, and they live in daily fear of sexual violence from assailants who know society will never believe them.
That could be called the Priest Doctrine – they’ll never believe the targets, so help yourself and have a good time.
And Woody Allen.And Roman Polanski.And.And.And.
Whoops, wrong thread. That’ll teach me to watch my tabs. Feel free to delete.
Ghomeshi must have believed himself somehow untouchable, not only posting such an admission but apparently having never done any homework on how to cover his butt should stories get out.
Personally, I think he was so enamored with himself that he was flabbergasted by his dismissal from the CBC and figured he needed to do something to reclaim his reputation. Portraying oneself as a martyr for a cause consistent with one’s worldview is one of the oldest tricks in the book for people looking to supply an alternate narrative for their supporters to parrot in the face of evidence coming to light that besmirches their fine, upstanding citizen facade. Ghomeshi made two mistakes though – first, in his zeal to salvage his reputation, he wanted to get ahead of the story, so he published his alternate narrative before the public at large was aware that anything was amiss, and second, he neglected to consider that he may actually be prosecuted. Because of this ill-considered public statement, a jury of his peers now has to consider the possibility that he is the manipulative sort, someone who would do or say anything if it benefited him (i.e. that he has no personal integrity); more importantly, the very existence of the statement means that, like the article said, he has admitted to actions that the prosecution would have had to provide evidence he committed in the absence of such a statement.
The fact that he has admitted to these actions and claimed that they were consensual means that he really needs to take the stand to defend himself under oath; the irony is that his credibility is now shot based on the very statement that contained the admissions of violence in his sexual relations. At the very least there now exist some pretty compelling, independent public statements that show his behavior was both commonplace and (allegedly) highly shocking and unwelcome to those who experienced it. His deceitful portrayal of the whole fiasco does him no favors in the face of these statements.
My guess is that he pleads out when he realizes just how screwed he is. He may have no conception of why what he did is wrong, but he has always behaved rationally with the information available to him. It is clear that he was completely blindsided by these charges; perpetrators have relied on the shame of their victims to silence them for centuries (probably a lot more than that). The bravery of those three, and the others who have spoken up, is astounding, and I hope that Ghomeshi’s own goal lessens their ordeal.
You know… fuck Michael Nugent. When high-profile men are accused of sexual assaults against multiple people they have power over over the span of years or decades, the charges are overwhelmingly found to be truthful. To dismiss the claims outright as “smears” is both insulting and ignoring the reality that we all live in.
At least the evidence is piling up that the “typical” rapist is not the ragged and scary loner with a knife. Like we said, guys!
We are now seeing that they may well be charming, affluent men who have been getting away with this for years. Note the total bewilderment of both suspects and their fan bases when, finally, their behaviour is challenged.
All the more important, then, to catch them the first time, get rid of this “boys will be boys” and “but he’s so nice / well brought up” stuff and amend their behaviour before they get into their heads the notion that they are allowed to do this sort of thing because they’re special. They are not and the time to tell them that is before they get into the habit, not 30 years later.
I am so glad that Improbable Joe is not a judge or magistrate and only a keyboard warrior…and a naive one at that…Imp Joe is obviously someone who doesn’t understand that in a litigious society the chance of making easy money can make some of the less scrupulous imagine all sorts of things.
@ mofa : I’m afraid you’re the naive one here. Also,bitchez be lying, amirite?
A man is more likely to become a victim of rape than to be innocently accused of commiting such.
This includes you.
Good day,Sir!
mofa,
Bill Cosby and Jimmy Saville show that Improbable Joe’s comment @5 has more than a modicum of truth.
mofa, you do understand that this is a criminal trial and not a civil lawsuit, don’t you?
Maureen @ 6 –
And their employers. Do everyone watch the full interview with Chris Boyce on The Fifth Estate – it’s really extraordinary. He says “he looked into my eyes” THREE TIMES in the space of about 30 seconds. As Gillian Findlay presses him, he says “he was unequivocal” over and over and over again – as if that demonstrated something.
Maureen Brian @6:
It’s also further debunking of the myth that rapists rape because they’re just so uncontrollably horny and can’t get laid otherwise. Ghomeshi was apparently admired enough that he presumably could have had a “successful” dating life based on consent (including, if “rough sex” was his thing, the BDSM community), but it appears that for him, the lack of consent was part of the turn-on.
Ditto for Cosby. There was no shortage of women interested in dating a successful comedian. Even a married one. The fact that these women were semi-comatose was a feature for him, not a bug.
mofa, yet another example of the drive-by rape apologetics from the MRA/harassment brigade. Another superficially plausible argument, provided you don’t consider facts.
Most affluent rapists are always quite beguiling.
A Canadian Air force officer was charged with both rape AND murder here a few years back. He began by merely raping women and then progressed to murdering them. A few years before being nabbed he’d been hand-picked to fly the Queen and Prince Phillipe back and forth between the U.K. and Canada. He was the queen’s private pilot.
He was beguiling, charming, witty, urbain as well as a flat-out sexual psychopath.
Had Jian Ghomeshi not been caught, he may have eventually killed someone. From what can be gleaned he seemed to get more and more violent as time went on. That’s what it takes to maintain the giddy “thrill”.
Every woman can feel immediate sympathy with victims of sexualized violence. But only a tiny number of men (infinitely too many still) commit these offenses. Thus, men tend to freeze and put themselves into the perpetrator’s shoes. Hence the failure to perceive the depths of rage and violence that lie behind the reported acts of Ghomeshi and co.
It is the perpetrator that must be the focus of investigation, NOT the specific incident. The deniability, the lack of physical evidence, the unwillingness to perceive evil in a known figure, these have to be overcome for these monsters to be held accountable.
Cosby shows again that acts like this are NOT ‘one offs.’ They are deeply ingrained expressions of these men’s true characters.
So am I surprised that someone wishes to project upon me negative traits through the use of the predictable “Also,bitchez be lying, amirite?”…No… of course not…this predictable ‘go to’ catch phrase is the hallmark of a closed minded lumpen.
My comment was a suggestion that some here should open their mind a little and realise there are at least 3 sides to any story.
All cases should be judged on their merit…judged on the evidence…Imp Joe implies that if you are a man, and if you are ‘high profile’ (and most probably rich) and if a number of accusations have been made against you…then you ARE guilty.
….not necessarily so Imp Joe.
Of course, mofa. Rich, powerful men with multiple accusations of sexual misconduct against might be innocent. Unfortunately for your argument, I’ve never heard of such a case of false accusation. Neither has anyone else. Neither has the Goog itself, as far as I can tell.
There are cases of false accusation. Rare, yes, but they do exist. They’re not against the rich and powerful. They’re against poor schmoes somebody thought they could pick on.
So, really, there’s about as much evidence against Imp Joe’s statement as there is supporting your ability to understand it.
This one act, seemingly taken in solitary desperation, radically re-set the trial dynamic by putting Ghomeshi’s own credibility and even his character on trial. In light of multiple but very consistent versions of events from a variety of sources dating back many years, that Facebook statement is devastating.
I would submit that Sandy Garossino has never been more spectacularly wrong than she was about this case.
Thank the gods you SJW’s had a trial by social media! Now, I doubt that you’re interested, but why don’t we look at how the actual judge in the actual case felt about the credibility of the witnesses – after hearing the actual testimony.
An excerpt or two:
“…each complainant was less than full, frank and forthcoming in the information they provided to the media, to the police, to Crown counsel and to this court.”
“..one of L.R.’s clear memories was simply and demonstrably wrong … The impossibility of this memory makes one seriously question, what else might be honestly remembered by her and yet actually be equally wrong?”
“…exposed as a witness willing to withhold relevant information from the police, from the Crown and from the court. It is clear that she deliberately breached her oath to tell the truth.”
“It became clear at trial that (she) very deliberately chose not to be completely honest with the police … (she) proceeded to consciously suppress relevant and material information… It indicates a failure to take the oath seriously and a wilful carelessness with the truth.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/a-good-day-for-justice-watch-christie-blatchford-break-down-the-ghomeshi-verdict
tl;dr LIARS!