We've had some lengthy heated threads about high profile US court cases, so I thought I'd start one about a sensational Canadian trial going on now.
Ghomeshi is charged with sexual assault by at least three women for hitting, hair pulling, and other physical abuse during romantic encounters. His defense so far has been that this activity was consensual "rough sex" and these complaints are from jilted ex-lovers. (That's my synopsis, don't take it at face value, Google it).
The trial is interesting as it is starting a national conversation about how alleged victims are treated by the system. It may also raise questions about how we collectively fail to uphold the presumption of innocence.
So far the first accuser has testified. She was pretty beat up by the defense. Many inconsistencies were brought up. She said she had no further contact, but it turns out she sent emails up to a year later. She even sent a bikini photo and asked him to contact her. She said after the assault she could not stand to watch him or hear his voice. But in the emails she compliments on his recent work and specifically said she was watching and listening to his shows. She didn't accurately remember the car the alleged hair pulling assault was in. She spoke about how her memories have changed as she has "sat with them" that has better memories now than when she gave her earlier accounts to police and the media. There are other items, which you can read up on.
So, the Judge has to determine if this is a confused victim who is credible, despite memory lapses and poor judgement, or if Ghomeshi when/if he testifies is more credible.
How do you feel about aggressive cross examination in these sorts of cases, necessary for our justice system or a re-victimization of someone who may have fuzzy memories stemming from a traumatic event?