Kinja reply list

Read More
The Noble RenardAnna Merlan
3/24/16 2:33pm
The prosecution fucked this one up. The women should have been told all of this way before the trial. That the women are now saying that they only learned about the power of “post-incident conduct” during the trial is a complete indictment of the failure of the prosecution. The prosecutors should have been sitting down with them for weeks before the trial and preparing them for how to address the credibility issues.
Reply
- Read More
  Anna MerlanThe Noble Renard
  3/24/16 2:34pm
  Yeah, hard to see how this could’ve been handled worse.
  Reply
- Read More
  benjaminalloverAnna Merlan
  3/24/16 2:41pm
  Especially given the fact that they were very much the ones on trial, as Ghomeshi didn’t even take the stand. The case was entirely about how shitty they were as victims. They were hung out to dry.
  Reply
Read More
Murry ChangAnna Merlan
3/24/16 3:16pm
It sounds like they got amazingly shitty legal council on this one. In a he said she said type of thing with no actual physical evidence, your memory is literally the only thing on trial.
Reply
- Read More
  benjaminalloverMurry Chang
  3/24/16 3:42pm
  It’s important to remember that victims are discouraged from obtaining legal counsel. They do not have a representative within the system. If they falsely believed that the Crown was their advocate, I feel all the worse for them.
  Reply
- Read More
  Murry Changbenjaminallover
  3/24/16 3:44pm
  Wow that’s shitty. My philosophy is always that if you’re dealing with a court you hire a lawyer. I don’t like it but that’s the way it works.
  Reply
Read More
DevtekAnna Merlan
3/24/16 2:33pm
You are accusing someone of a serious crime. Of course your memory is on trial. Of course what happens after matters. How do you not realize this? The crown fucked up so bad in this case.
Reply
- Read More
  harmoleculeDevtek
  3/24/16 2:35pm
  Yup, the prosecution is at fault, not the women, they should have been fully briefed, questioned to ensure full disclosure and given tools to deal with difficult lines of questioning.
  Reply
- Read More
  benjaminalloverDevtek
  3/24/16 2:43pm
  I’m sure the victims thought (naively, perhaps) that the case would focus on whether or not he assaulted them, and whether or not he obtained consent.
  Reply
Read More
Hoyo AfrikaAnna Merlan
3/24/16 2:48pm
Toronto cops are so tone-deaf to victims of abuse. I had a friend who had her statement taped (she filed charges against an abusive ex), only to find out a week before the trial (this was about a year after her initial statement) that the Crown didn't have audio on the DVD and they didn't bother to write down anything she wrote. Toronto. Cops. Can. Choke. On. A. Dick.
Reply
- Read More
  deerlady83Hoyo Afrika
  3/24/16 2:54pm
  What the hell is wrong with the police? They didn’t even think to just record what was said. We write notes for my IEP meetings. Why wouldn’t the police do the same?
  Reply
- Read More
  benjaminalloverHoyo Afrika
  3/24/16 2:55pm
  That may be true, but god fucking help you if you are assaulted in a rural community. The rural police don’t even know procedures for sexual assault, and the sentencing is atrocious; we’re talking suspended sentences for serial rapists here. I had no idea that the laws did not apply identically in different Canadian communities until I had to deal with this personally, and I was gob-smacked to learn how widely precedents and competency varied by jurisdiction. Canada: it’s a great country that treats sexual assault victims like shit.
  Reply
Read More
CaptOtterAnna Merlan
3/24/16 3:14pm
It turns out anything a witness says can be used against them, too.

Well... yeah. One of the cornerstones of a common law legal system is the idea of giving both sides equal access to evidence and witness statements (though obviously that doesn’t always work out that way). In this case, where the sum total of the evidence against a Defendant is someone’s word/say-so, that person’s memory becomes particularly material to any ultimate determination. And frankly I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. If someone is going to accuse someone else of a crime—any crime—on their word alone, then it would be patently unjust to forbid the accused from testing that theory and/or evidence.

The baffling thing here is how any prosecutor doesn’t prep their star witnesses for trial or otherwise do their own digging for potential impeachment evidence (if only to formulate a strategy to deal with it).
Reply
- Read More
  tinfoilhattieCaptOtter
  3/24/16 3:29pm
  But witnesses are NOT supposed to be on trial. That's the problem.
  Reply
- Read More
  thevoiceofraisinCaptOtter
  3/24/16 3:35pm
  It’s not too hard to understand. Sexual assault is not taken seriously. In a “he said/She said” case it’s exceedingly difficult to prove guilt, and they don’t really give a fuck to try.
  Reply
Read More
Suck It, TrebekAnna Merlan
3/24/16 2:35pm
She has felt tremendous guilt, she added: “After I testified, I felt like I had to go up to every person in the world and apologize for ruining the case.”

Heartbreaking. She owes no apologies.
Reply
- Read More
  YourFriendlyLibrarianStephieSuck It, Trebek
  3/24/16 3:00pm
  I want to tell her that she owes no one any apologies, and she is OWED apologies. First, by Mister Scumbag himself, then by the Crown prosecutors who messed up this case.
  
  I hope they write books and thoroughly skewer Jian Ghomeshi - AND THE CROWN PROSECUTORS. Hang them all out to dry.
  Reply
- Read More
  Suck It, TrebekYourFriendlyLibrarianStephie
  3/24/16 3:03pm
  Yep. And I’m pretty grossed out by the number of “Well, what did she expect, the slut?” comments here, too. Hard not to engage the trolls.
  Reply
Read More
Chanting TantrumAnna Merlan
3/24/16 2:31pm
As much as I’m happy Boesveld created a website to help women understand what it would be like to go to court to defend themselves in a sexual assault case, its sad that there has to be such a website
Reply
- Read More
  benjaminalloverChanting Tantrum
  3/24/16 2:45pm
  I speak from experience when I say that the Crown is not actually on the side of victims, and do more to discourage them from pursuing justice than they do to prepare them for trial. You have to be your own advocate and you’re on your own as far as figuring out how to prepare yourself.
  Reply
- Read More
  Hoyo Afrikabenjaminallover
  3/24/16 2:49pm
  P R E A C H ! ! !
  Reply
Read More
TheVageniusAnna Merlan
3/24/16 3:41pm
We need special prosecutors for sex crimes. If they can hire defense that is experienced in discrediting witnesses, there should be prosecutors specially experienced in preparing these witnesses, and presenting to the jury the stats and science we know about how sexual assault victims *actually* behave. This cartoon “perfect victim” bullshit works perfectly for the defense - the jury need to be educated on the reality.
Reply
- Read More
  omniomiTheVagenius
  3/24/16 5:30pm
  While I see your point isn’t there a risk in allowing inconsistencies and omissions when the witness account is literally the only evidence? If you’re accused of something and the accuser cannot keep their story straight but the jury is told inability to keep their story straight is further evidence the crime took place so it should be ignored how exactly do you mount a defence against that?
  
  Consider this:
  
  - Lawyer asks the victim if accused had any distinguishing features on their body the victim could identify.
  
  - Victim says they had a scar from an appendectomy or something on their stomach.
  
  - Later the accused shows they have no scars on their stomach.
  
  - Prosecution lawyer tells the jury inability to remember details is a sign the abuse took place so the incorrect testimony about the scar should be ignored.
  
  ^ Is that right? Is that what we want?
  
  I get that victims of trauma often have their memory affected and that proven scientifically... but when your memory is literally the only evidence how can anyone mount a defence if we ignore it? Sexual assault and rape are terrible but any attempt to lower the burden of proof or weaken standards of reasonable doubt should not be allowed.
  Reply
- Read More
  TheVageniusomniomi
  3/24/16 9:31pm
  I said nothing about lowering burden of proof or anything about reasonable doubt.
  
  What I’m talking about is the fact that every single detail of an event AND all events surrounding usually a year plus prior is going to be picked through and handed up as evidence of lies. There is this idea that if you are assaulted you would never ever talk to or want to see that person again and that is just. not. true. The jury should be informed that just like domestic violence, victims frequently return to their abuser, for many reasons. That phenomena should be explored for the jury so they understand that it is in fact normal.
  Reply
Read More
PerraviejaAnna Merlan
3/24/16 2:47pm
My memory sucks even on a good day. I can’t imagine how much worse it would be if I had to remember stuff from a traumatic, violent episode in my life.
Reply
- Read More
  Jess, Queen of the RaptorsPerravieja
  3/24/16 3:27pm
  It’s even been proven that traumatic, violent episodes can actually DIRECTLY fuck with your ability to remember shit. The human brain basically goes “HAHA FUCK YOU NO” and does it’s very best to not remember what happened as a method of self-preservation.
  Reply
- Read More
  The-Rumors-Are-All-TruePerravieja
  3/24/16 5:03pm
  Interesting article about how trauma effects a victims ability to remember details.
  
  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/why_cops_don_t_believe_rape_victims_and_how_brain_science_can_solve_the.html
  
  Reply
Read More
atomicnumberAnna Merlan
3/24/16 6:59pm
If you want to get all academical-ragey about this case and literally every single other rape/sexual harassment court case, this book breaks down how language and power are used in legal situations really damn well.

Just Words: Law, Language, and Power

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book...
Reply