Jian Ghomeshi trial: Twists and turns of case rivalled most intense courtroom dramas

Jian Ghomeshi's guilt should not be inferred bythe fact all three complainants weresteadfast in their testimonythat theywere sexually assaulted, his lawyer Marie Henein said in her closing arguments at his trial on choking and sex assault charges.

To expect one of the women tosuddenly recant in the witness box, she said,"maybe happens on TV" but not in the real world of trialproceedings.

The trial, which began in Toronto on Feb. 1, 2016, and lasted eight days, was full of dramatic moments, surprising twists, and unexpected evidencethat would compare to some of the most intense television courtroom dramas.

Ghomeshi is expected to find out Thursday whether a judge finds him guilty or not guilty on four counts of sexual assaultand one count of overcomingresistance bychoking.

• Jian Ghomeshi trial: Collusion allegation could factor heavily in ruling, lawyer says
• Jian Ghomeshi judge must decide whether witness credibility issues taint core allegations
• Defence argues testimony 'riddled with lies,' calls for acquittal
• Ghomeshi trial could deter women from reporting sexual assault

Ghomeshi, legal observers had noted, had made a smart moveby hiringHenein,widelyrespected inthelegal community, having defended such high profile clients as formerNovaScotiapremierGeraldRegan, junior hockey coach David Frost, and former Ontario attorney general Michael Bryant.

The Ghomeshi trial garnered widespread media attention with hordes of reporters and spectators lining up at Toronto's Old City Hall courthousein the wee hours of the morning, hoping to snag one of the 100 seats available in the courtroom.Anoverflow room was set up,as more media and spectators squeezed in to watch the proceedings on thetelevision provided.

The charges against Ghomeshi, formerly arising star at the CBC and host of the popular radio show Q, relateto alleged assaults on three women from 2002to 2003. The identitiesoftwo of thecomplainants in the case are protected under a publication ban, but actress LucyDeCoutere, also an air force captain,went to court to lift the ban on her name.

Ghomeshi remained quiet during his trial, never taking the witness boxand saying nothing to the press as he entered and exited the courthouse every day.Always dressed in a suit, he would greethis mother in the courtroom every day andwould occasionally scribble down notes during the trialthat he would hand over to his counsel.

The case zipped along rather quickly, not needing the three weeks that had been allotted. There were only three witnesses, the complainants, who largely remained strongin theface of toughcross-examination byHenein.

No opening statements

There were no opening statements in the judge-alonetrial.Instead,Crown attorney Michael Callaghanwent straight ahead and began withthe first complainanta woman whotold court that Ghomeshi had pulled her hair and punched her in the head at his home after a dinner date.

But bythe second day, under cross-examination by Henein, trialobservers got a glimpse into whatwas to come over the course of the proceedings.

Heneinmethodically went throughstatements made by the woman to the media,police, the Crown and court, having the witness repeat again and again thatshe had no contact with Ghomeshi after two alleged assaults.

Clearly, Heneinwas leading the witness somewhere.She paused during questioning, and presented the witness with an offer before she went any further, Henein said,she wouldgive the woman "a chance" to come clean and "tell his Honour and this court the truth."

When the woman insisted she had told the truth, Henein unveiled one email, and then another that had both been sent to Ghomeshi after the assaults allegedly occurred and one that includeda bikini picture of herself.

Itwas certainly evidence prosecutors were not aware of, and it was not somethingthewitness was expecting.Shecountered that she had forgotten she had sent the emails, but said theywere bait toget Ghomeshitoexplain to her why he had punched her in the head.

It would be a legal strategythat Heneinwould employ again all in an effort to damage the credibility and reliability of the witnesses and their testimony.

While questioning DeCoutere,who had told the court that Ghomeshi, aftera dinner date, hadtook her by the throat at his home,choked her andslapped her, Henein suggested she too had kept hidden details about other contact she had with the former radio personality following the alleged assault.

Like the first witness, she gave DeCoutere the opportunity to "take a moment and tell the truth of the real conversation that was going on."

WhenDeCoutere replied that she didn't know what Henein meant, the lawyer said she would continue the next day, a cliffhanger ending to an already intense day of cross-examination,prompting loud gasps and expressions of disappointment from many of the spectators in the overflow room.

DeCouterehad told the court that she had no romantic interest in Ghomeshi after her alleged assault, and would only see him at industry functions. ButHenein presented her with a series ofemails she had sent him, also to the surprise of both the Crown and DeCoutere, thatincludedoneafter the alleged assault saying she wanted to have sex with him.Also included wasa handwritten letter sent days after their meeting saying she was sad they didn't spend the night together.

Another surprise

By the time the third witness was set to testify, court was in for another surprise. It was learned that just days earlier the woman, who claimed Ghomeshi had squeezed her neck and covered her mouth so she couldn't breathe,had contacted her lawyer to let the Crown and police know she had more details to provide.

Court heard that she failed to disclose to police in her initial interviewthat she had a consensual sexual encounter with the former CBC host in the days after the alleged sexual assault.

It was the "inconsistencies and improbabilitiesandproven lies" by the witnesses that should lead to Ghomeshi's acquittal, Henein argued in her closing.

But it's now up to Ontario Court of Justice Judge William Horkins to decide how much to take into account the doubts raised about the complainants' credibilityand whether those questions are enough to sufficiently taint the credibility of their coreallegations.