tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5939915290794973654.post1390218220829608770..comments2024-03-08T14:23:31.503-05:00Comments on A Puff of Absurdity: The Terrifying Ramifications of the VerdictMarie Snyderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13872774009526266579noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5939915290794973654.post-52823107698687562972016-03-25T14:15:36.719-04:002016-03-25T14:15:36.719-04:00Sorry, I meant "relevant", not "rel...Sorry, I meant "relevant", not "relative."The Mound of Soundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09023839743772372922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5939915290794973654.post-71409970470075812012016-03-25T12:43:23.522-04:002016-03-25T12:43:23.522-04:00Marie, I'm sorry, but I think you're misco...Marie, I'm sorry, but I think you're misconstruing what occurred at trial. As in all criminal trials the defendant is presumed innocent. The Crown must then prove every element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.<br /><br />There was relative evidence each of these witnesses failed to divulge to the Crown pertaining to each witnesses' post-assault relationship with this creep. Had that information been volunteered - as these complainants ought to have done - the prosecutors would have assessed their prospects of obtaining a conviction (that's their responsibility) and then, if they decided to proceed, sought expert opinion as to whether the post-assault conduct was explainable. Ghomeshi knew what happened, defence counsel knew what happened, the witnesses knew what happened. The Crown was left in the dark. That didn't have to happen. It shouldn't have happened.<br /><br />Bear in mind that Ghomeshi didn't mount a defence. His counsel called no evidence, relying entirely on facts disclosed solely on cross-examination of the Crown witnesses, the complainants.<br /><br />The judge had no choice but to acquit. <br /><br />That's the way our criminal law works. Had these circumstances occurred in a murder trial or a fraud case or in any other criminal matter the outcome would have been the same. The criminal law is constructed that way and for good reason. It is why we have the presumption of innocence and the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge didn't invent anything in this case because of the nature of the offence, sexual assault, or the status of the defendant, male/ex-celebrity. There was no suggestion of that at all. None.<br /><br />For Ghomeshi there is some justice. The one thing he treasured most, his celebrity, is gone for all time. He's still guilty as hell in the public eye, a perv. No media outlet will touch him again, The backlash would be unbearable, especially for advertisers. It's hard to imagine who would employ him.The Mound of Soundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09023839743772372922noreply@blogger.com