Skip to main content

The courtroom is where the truth comes out. On Thursday, Justice William Horkins summed up the truth about the case against Jian Ghomeshi. There wasn't one. None of the three witnesses were trustworthy. The stories they told to the police, the Crown and the court were "tainted by outright deception." They were manipulative. All three – L.R., Lucy DeCoutere, and S.D. – failed in their most elementary duty: to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.

No one who followed the trial could have been surprised by the verdict. All three women's stories fell apart on the witness stand. All had told police how shocked and traumatized they had been by Mr. Ghomeshi's assaults. In fact, there was plenty of evidence that they had projected their shock and trauma back into the past. At the time, their principal reaction was to pursue him further – a detail they didn't bother to share with the police, or with the numerous media outlets that gave at least two of them generous air time. They only bothered to share it when they learned they were about to be caught out.

"The act of suppression of the truth will be as damaging to their credibility as a direct lie under oath," the judge said.

Story continues below advertisement

And oh, what they suppressed. Witness No. 1, L.R., testified that she couldn't watch Mr. Ghomeshi on TV because the sight of his face made her relive the trauma of the alleged assault. What she failed to mention was the flirtatious e-mails she sent, inviting him to get together. Ms DeCoutere testified that she ended her budding romance with him after their traumatic encounter. What she failed to mention was the flowers, the love letter, and the romantic e-mails with which she inundated him for months and months – none of them displaying the least ambiguity about her affections. Witness No. 3, S.D., testified that she feared Mr. Ghomeshi so much she refused to be alone with him. She suppressed the fact that despite this fear, she took him back to her place a few days later and gave him a friendly hand job.

S.D. was clearly "playing chicken with the justice system," the judge said. "She was prepared to tell half the truth for as long as she thought she might get away with it."

S.D. claimed that she had omitted to disclose crucial information because she didn't know how to "navigate" the system. The judge was properly dismissive of this excuse. "Navigating this sort of proceeding is really quite simple," he said. "Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

The judge was careful to point out that memories of events that happened long ago can be excusably blurry, and that sexual trauma victims may behave in unpredictable ways. "Courts must guard against applying false stereotypes concerning the expected conduct of [sexual assault] complainants," he said. But they must also "be vigilant in avoiding the equally dangerous false assumption that sexual assault complainants are always truthful."

The complainants may have had another motive for concealing the truth. They had become media celebrities. And they had a mission to bring Mr. Ghomeshi down. In one of the thousands of e-mails Ms. DeCoutere exchanged with S.D, she said she wanted to see him "fucking decimated."

The case against Mr. Ghomeshi fell apart not because the system is rigged against the victims, not because he had a clever defence lawyer who knew all the tricks, not because sexual assault victims are not believed. It fell apart because all three women grossly failed to tell the truth. It was one of the weakest cases that many people have ever seen.

The message for genuine sexual assault victims should be very reassuring. The message is that if you come forward, the police and the courts will treat you with great respect. It will be hard. The bar for a criminal conviction is reasonably (but not unreasonably) high. If you're honest and forthright you'll get a fair shake in court.

Story continues below advertisement

As for Mr. Ghomeshi, does this verdict mean he didn't do it? Not at all. The judge made no judgment about that. What he found was that there was not enough evidence to convict. That is a very different thing.

There were two trials going on, of course – the one in the court of law, and the one in the court of public opinion. The verdicts are strikingly different. Many people will continue to believe that Mr. Ghomeshi is guilty. And they're sorry he got away with it.

They shouldn't be. The justice system performed exactly as it should. Public opinion will mete out its own sentence on Mr. Ghomeshi. And that too is just.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter