Ghomeshi Trial - Conclusion #2

My Facebook news feed has been full of mostly critical, perhaps even outraged comments as to the outcome of the Jian Ghomeshi trail. That is not surprising. A lot of people had invested a lot of emotional energy in their conviction of his absolute  guilt. For Judge Horkins to rule that Ghomeshi was not guilty of the charges feels, to many people, as if the justice system had betrayed them. I can understand people feeling that way - but I think they are wrong.

In my blog of February 15/16, I suggested that there were two trials happening: one as to whether or not the victims were telling the truth and (2) whether or not Ghomeshi was guilty. The judge's ruling was quite clear. He did not believe all of the stories that the women told. In fact in his judgement he stated  "Each complainant demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion"( Horkins as quoted by Macdonald of the CBC). That does not mean that Ghomeshi was innocent of the charges - just that the it was clear that the victims had not been truthful all of the time while giving evidence either to the police or to the court. It is, I would suggest, a fundamental truth of any legal system that if you get caught in a lie - your credibility drops down to zero. If they lied in court about one thing, how could the judge believe them on what else they said? 

So what happened? How did this guy, who by all accounts is an arrogant SOB and who may act as if it is his god-given right to dominate any environment or any person, get to be walking around as if he had done nothing wrong? We expect our judges to make their rulings based upon the law and what they hear. Judge Horkins had no choice but to rule as he did (read his judgement). Did someone else mess up?

I think two separate groups could have acted differently. In our holy and righteous anger at the news of Ghomeshi's behaviours both at home and at work (and perhaps our sense of being betrayed by a newly minted cultural icon),  we all felt as if the resolution to the case was obvious.  Our total acceptance of one truth and our inability to see that there might be another side to the multi-faceted story that was leaking from every conceivable source allowed the players involved to assume a greater importance than perhaps was merited. I would never suggest that my condemnation of Ghomeshi's behaviour allowed or encouraged the women to embellish or ignore parts of the narrative. On the other hand, no one did anything to slow down the bandwagon as it sped down the hill. In hindsight one should wonder if our immersion into this case had anything to do with North America's fascination with the failings of its celebrities.  Did this enthusiasm to watch on the sidelines, like a modern Madam Lafarge, in the taking down of another icon lead the criminal/court systems to do less than a stellar job?

Did the police recommend charges because of public pressure and expectations? Did  they investigate thoroughly? Why did the Crown Attorney appear to be lost when it became clear that the victims had changed their story or at the very least left out some of the interactions?  Why did they not know all of the facts before putting these women on the stand? Why was there no testimony presented  to the court that would have provided some explanation for the women's behaviours after the incidents? All of us who have spent time supporting women who have been abused by their partners know that sometimes their behaviours appear to be counter intuitive. We all know that the relationship between the abuser and their victims can become extraordinarily complex as the victim struggles to understand what has happened and why. The judge in his judgement alluded to this possibility but the Crown appears to have done little to provide testimony that would explain the inconsistencies. The victims appeared to have not been adequately prepared to give testimony. Given the trauma that they had faced, it is clear that the Crown's office needed to do more.

At the end of the day nothing has changed. There are so many negative lessons to learn from this case. Women who have been abused have once again been reminded that even if they do come forward, they may not be believed. Nothing has happened to suggest to those who abuse or at the very least believe that they can bully or dominate others around them that it is both morally and legally wrong to so. It has been confirmed once again that if you have money you get a good lawyer.....if you are the victim you may get nothing.  But the outcome of the trial does NOT suggest that the system is broken or that abusers automatically get a free ride. Rather than blaming the judge - perhaps we should look deeper to see what could have been done, and still needs to do to ensure that that there is not a next time.

I ended my last blog on this issue by stating that " For the life of me - I cannot see any real winners in the process". I still don't.