Article content continued

I think with the first complainant there were two counts of sexual assault, so he may convict Ghomeshi on one of these assaults, but not on the second and the third women’s counts, because they exchanged so many emails, and because the last one lied. The judge may have a reasonable doubt at the end of the day.

Q: What was the case you referred to when you used the same tactic as Henein?

A: I’ve done that many times.

Q: So it’s a known tactic?

A: Yes, it depends on the complainant. Well, sometimes that’s all you have if you’re not putting your client on the stand. We don’t know what Jian Ghomeshi told Marie Henein happened with each of these complainants because she never put him on the stand — which is not a very strong defence. So then you’re left with attacking their version of the story. You asked me what happened in other cases, well, sometimes they were found not guilty and sometimes guilty, or guilty of one of the counts.

Q: What can we learn from Henein’s strategy about what Ghomeshi might have told her under attorney-client privilege?

A: He could have said to her, “I did these things,” in which case her hands are tied. She cannot tell the witness she lied. But she could question everything around it. So if Ghomeshi said, “I didn’t do this” or “It was consensual, we were kissing and she said, ‘Put your hands around my neck,’ ” then that’s a different story. But Henein didn’t put that to the complainants. If he had said, “I did do these things exactly as they are,” then it would have been very difficult for her to say, “You’re lying about these things.”