Are the defense lawyers seriously not supposed to cross-examine complainants with contrary facts?And people wonder why women are reluctant to come forward with complaints.
Ya, God forbid they have to defend their accusatory statements. Patriarchy am I right?And people wonder why women are reluctant to come forward with complaints.
That's what you get from that?!And people wonder why women are reluctant to come forward with complaints.
Yeah man. Why can't women just accuse men of a witnessless crime without having to go through all that icky court stuff, where they will potentially be made to feel uncomfortable?That's what you get from that?!
That isn't what I said at all. The defense counsel is doing what she should be doing. I was merely making the observation that there's a very good reason that women are often afraid of coming forward with complaints, because the process can be fucking awful. I don't see why that's a controversial statement.Are the defense lawyers seriously not supposed to cross-examine complainants with contrary facts?
Yeah, it can be awful in court when you've given contradictory statements and have to explain yourself.That isn't what I said at all. The defense counsel is doing what she should be doing. I was merely making the observation that there's a very good reason that women are often afraid of coming forward with complaints, because the process can be fucking awful. I don't see why that's a controversial statement.
You mean like the story where she said just hearing his name on the radio re-victimized her and she tried to block him out but couldn't, meanwhile she sent him flirty emails a year later?The human memory is really poor at recalling exact details, and over time is really adept at changing the details of said memories. It's hardly surprising that someone's recollection of events 10+ years after the fact has inconsistencies. That doesn't automatically mean she's some vengeful bitch out to get an otherwise nice, upstanding citizen who never harmed anyone else.
Or this:hah, yeah, that one definitely hurts her credibility. No question there.
So when you make something an important part of your testimony, then it is revealed that that part was totally made up after the fact, you shouldn't wonder what else is made up after the fact?For instance, the woman was insistent that the first assault occurred in Ghomeshi's bright yellow Volkswagen Beetle.
She made it a centrepiece of her account to prosecutor Michael Callaghan: She found the car endearing, sort of comforting.
She was already impressed by Ghomeshi, she said, whom she pronounced funny, bright and charming, and then they walked to his car and it wasn't a Hummer or some show-off vehicle, but this "Disney car . It reminds me of a 1960s Disney movie . he drives a Disney car. I'm feeling very safe."
But when Henein said her client didn't own a VW Beetle at that time (rather a GTI, which bears no resemblance) and in fact "didn't buy a 'love bug' until months and months later" and asked the woman if that didn't mean her memory was wrong, she replied, "If he didn't own it then, I was mistaken. I'm not a connoisseur of cars."
Ah, I haven't been following it closely recently. I thought some of her comments/statements were from a decade ago, or longer.Every statement this woman has given, every interview, has been within the last 24 months. We aren't talking about a story changing over the course of a decade here, and the impacts that has on how you remember events.