The whole case reminds me of Dave Chappelle on Michael Jackson. I'm paraphrasing:
Prosecutor: Do you believe Michael Jackson molested kids?
Dave: No. He wrote Thriller, man.
Thriller.
Prosecutor: So you'd be fine letting your son sleep over at his ranch?
Dave: FUCK NO!
People say there's not enough evidence to convict, and that the witnesses were bad, but everybody knows Jian smacked around those women.
The better question though is whether he could be reinstated if found innocent. In that case, he could legitimately claim that (Even though it is still likely he abused these women in some way shape or form) that he cannot be dismissed for a public perception event that he is, legally in fact, not guilty of. This is even more interesting considering Shad, the current host of Q, is fucking garbage and there has even been national media attention given to questioning why he is so bad. I'm not an employment law expert at all, but my guess is that there is very little case law on the subject as employers are trying to deal with these things privately.
He was fired way before any criminal charges. He was fired for hostile workplace stuff and how he treated staff. He was a little dictator apparently in the booth and was fast and loose with HR. There were grounds for termination.
Basically, the CBC felt like Jian was "too big to fire" until the blood in the water about this woman willing to come forward about a sexual assault, and when that happened, Jian went up to his bosses and gave the "you're gonna hear women say I beat them, but we were just having a BDSM session, and they're just jilted lovers," speech. The CBC heard that and said, "we're gonna use this opportunity to run from you as fast as we can."
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/po...s-should-roll-ignoring-ghomeshi-improprieties
Culturally, I think it's weird that if someone is the victim of a violent robbery, as a witness they are an asset to the crown, but if someone is the victim of a violent sexual assault, they are a detriment to the crown.
Other crimes there's that "leave no witnesses" idea where it's better to kill the person so they can't testify. Unless it's rape, then better leave the witness alive because chances are the defense can shred them on the stand.
It's interesting that this is a bench trial and not a jury trial. It seems like the defense did a really good job that may have swayed a jury, but will a judge be influenced as much by a superstar lawyer?
I thought initially having a bench trial was a smart move, because a judge may not have been as influenced by dramatic testimony coming from crown witnesses and instead rely more strictly on evidence, but it didn't go that way at all. The defense "won" in the witness box, which seems like it would have been a slam dunk had they gone with a jury.
Again, who knows.
The interesting thing is that in a trial by jury, the jury reaches a decision and can't give a detailed reasoning publicly for it, whereas in a bench trial, the judge must provide a thorough and detailed ruling according to the law. So that's why the decision is going to take a month. The judge is writing up a small novel on their ruling.
