Ghomeshi Trial – Will witness collusion be his ticket out?

“And by “collusion,” I don’t simply mean a conspiracy to lie. Collusion in law can include the kind of inadvertent tainting of someone’s evidence coming from the repeated exposure to another person’s version of events.”

Ghomeshi’s fortunes have turned

It was advertised as the Canadian media trial of the century, where the former star of CBC Radio’s Q was facing four counts of sexual assault and one of overcoming resistance by choking involving three women between 2002 and 2003. Only actress Lucy DeCoutere asked the court to lift the usual publication ban on her name. Similar stories, similar facts, they seemed to have power in their number.

And then they crashed and burned.


I don’t doubt that the women were assaulted without consent but the “omissions”  in testimony and the interactions between at least two of them have tainted their credibility.

Their gleefully expressed desire to see Ghomeshi get his just desserts isn’t going to help their cause either.

I know that the “assaults” have to be considered in isolation of the victim’s behavior pre and post incident.

But in light of all that has been revealed I doubt the judge could rule for conviction.

There appears to be a lot of blame to spread around among the police, the crown and the witnesses themselves.

It all looks like a politicized legal lynch mob was unleashed to punish a douchebag when public shaming had already done the job.

And then of course there’s the CBC and the media who aided and abetted Ghomeshi throughout his reign.

It reminds me a bit of the Sony email hack, it was fun to confirm that the folks running Hollywood really were scumbags.

This is Canada’s version and our “Stars” are even more pitiful given the pathetically small stakes involved.

No one looks good in this mess.

Let’s see what Twitter is up to.


  • reidjr

    We now have people saying if your raped you should not have to take the stand and its the accused that has to show there innocent youp they want a complete change of the legal system.

    • It is madness.

      • reidjr

        What i want to know is how about honour killings will they have the same stand.

  • BillyHW

    Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. This trial proves it.

    • David Murrell


    • V10_Rob

      I’m reminded of the Julian Assange ‘rape’ accusations. Two women each thought he was the bee’s knees… until they found out about each other.

  • Waffle

    Fascinating how 5000 text messages (over an 11 month period) can be made to sound sinister and suspicious.

    First of all, researchers tell us that a person with a mobile phone looks at it an average of 150 times a day.

    If you break down the 5000 texts, it works out to about 15 per day. This really is not much. Texting has become so ubiquitous (it has replaced phone calls and in many cases, e-mail) that I’m sure that some people even text in their sleep. Still, it’s fascinating how a meticulous lawyer like Henein leaves no stone, not even a pebble, unturned.

    • reidjr

      The issue people have is it was between the 2 victims.

      • Waffle

        No argument there. I was just making an observation on the use of technology — nothing to do with the case.

        • reidjr

          Not from the reports it had everything to do with the case.

          • Waffle

            You misread me — my comment had nothing to do with the case.

    • It was proven that they discussed details of the allegations, that’s not so good for their side.

      • Waffle

        True. But the exchange could have taken place on the phone or by email. Because it was texted it sounds like a lot. Just a silly point — forget it.

    • CaligulaJones

      True. A text can, literally, be one letter. Like most texts, there would not be much substance to most of them.

      However, the point is that between two witnesses there should have been closer to zero texts, so I believe the issue is the aggregate total.

  • simus1

    No one in the media party or elsewhere seems to push the most logical theory which would be that the “victims” were somewhat willing to tolerate more of this creep’s shocking behavior if it got them on the fast track to the heart of Canada’s incestuous “who you know” entertainment industry’s ruling cliques.

    • Heinen has touched on it, but frankly that seems to have been the motivation.

      • David Murrell

        Simus raises good point, but one could say that it is the CBC’s incestuous “who you know” industry. But then again, the CBC colossus is well protected by our compliant, shoe-licking media, n’est pas?

        • They all swim in the same incestuous gene pool. It’s a pretty small puddle in Canada.

  • Raymond Hietapakka

    Maybe he’ll walk, but he’s now a known prevert. Only the wierdos will be attracted to him…perhaps he can move into porno… Not to worry, I’m sure there’s something in his CBC contract to carry him along ’til he hits 65…er…67?

  • CaligulaJones

    Jian le Douche should hope that his case doesn’t end up like an old made-for-TV movie staring Howard “Dr. Johnny Fever” Hesseman that for some reason was stuck way back in my brain:

  • Spatchcocked

    Yeah…. A movie…
    Jian gets the band back together….his ordeal has stimulated the creative juices a flowing…he pens hit after hit and melodies and bridges John Lennon would envy…..every poem with a subtext of anguish bitterness and anger that assume a symbolic revanchement against women feminism motherhood and the military entertainment complex.
    He publishes a now it can be told expose of the CBC exposing the sicko underbelly of sex drugs and perversion that rocks this country to the very core of its being.
    Was FGM being committed in the executive restroom at Q? Was Marge known as the seal flipper for her sexual specialities? Is it true what everyone suspects of Maggie you know who?
    Can Margo finally find her own groove when it’s been sewn shut a la de Sade.?
    Whose mothers shadowy presence is revealed to be a caterer to ISIS and the Muslim brotherhood?

  • canminuteman

    Is “overcoming resistance by choking” an actual criminal code offence? Some of the things I have read lead me to believe that this is the case. Does it really need to be a separate charge, would assault cover it?

    Or alternatively, now I know that’s illegal I’ll have to find another method of overcoming resistance.