Robyn Urback: It was painful to watch the cross-examination of Ghomeshi’s accuser, and that’s the point

...line of questioning would not be permitted as it is clearly only intended to fluster the complainant or make her cry on the stand

Bollocks, it is intended to expose the truth. The woman has lied several times and is showing extremely worrying cracks in her testimony. Not allowing this would allow her to lie with impunity and not give the accused a fair trail.

The same goes with Heinein's vigorous investigation of her sexual history and bikini pics. I don't think that was intended to get at the truth.

Of course it was, what are you on about?

The accuser said that she never contacted him after she left his house. She said this several times, even under oath.

By pointing out that not only did she contact him after but she sent flirtatious and provocative emails including other aspects like asking for his opinion on a music video and her number clearly shows this woman is a liar who clearly had ulterior motives.

This line of questions is incredibly important to the accused as it exposes some serious issues with the witness and her claims. You cannot seriously suggest that clear evidence that the witness is at best a lair should not be allowed because of what? I can't even think of a reason.

At the end of the day it got the truth so you clearly are wrong here.

In any event, the point of my comment was that other people have rights too. Rape survivors sometimes kill themselves after being belittled and humiliated by counsel on the stand. Don't they have rights to? S. 7 of the Charter certainly says they do. Why are their rights less important than those of the accused?

After all this woman has been allowed to slander the accused from the veil of anonymity through the media and now in the courts. Where is the accusers right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Why does the accuser get the benefit of belief with the accused does not?

Falsely accused people commit suicide after length court battles and public humiliation too, where are their rights? Why are their rights less important than the accuser?

Why is your default position she is telling the truth and why do you think the court should ALWAYS believe the victim? She has been proven a liar numerous times yet if you had your way this evidence would be hidden.

Nobody is saying victims don't have rights just that their rights end at the accused rights.

/r/CanadaPolitics Thread Parent Link -