Describing the Witness Following the Examination in Chief

After analyzing the first set of excepts from the trial transcript, Linda Redgrave seems to be a reliable witness in most areas. One marker of credibility is that Redgrave was able to provide specific details of the encounters between her and Jian Ghomeshi. For example, as seen on page 43 on line 15, she remembered conversation pieces she had with Ghomeshi during their first encounter that included where she lived, her children, and what drink she ordered. Redgrave demonstrated that she was able to recall information from 14 years ago in quite specific detail without hesitation. This reliability was shown again when she was able to recall which hand that Ghomeshi used to pull her hair in the car after their show viewing (p. 48, line five).

Redgrave seems as though she is a well put together women who is able to respond maturely to questions that may have re-traumatized her. This is shown on page 57 on line 15 when the Crown posed a question about the effects of the hits on her head. The crown was possibly posing this question to cause Redgrave to stutter or recall trauma. Instead, Redgrave responded without hesitation and said, "I was dizzy disoriented. I felt like I had walked into a pole, or hit my head on the pavement". In addition, she is married, has children, and is a grandmother who had been working in the arts community for many years. This shows that she has had a successful life and proper social and familial supports. In addition, this proves that her character is of high quality as she is able to take care of herself and her family.

Credibility of the Witness

In regard to credibility, one aspect of that could raise question is Redgrave's lack of recalling or elaboration on certain details. For example, when the Crown asked her if she remembered what her and Ghomeshi were speaking about following a taping, she could not recall. In addition, when asked what the vibe was between the two, she only responded with good, which is not very specific or detailed. These are possible indicators showing that Redgrave may not be credible. It is significant to note that there are differences in attending a testimony in person versus reading a transcript. This can greatly affect my perception of the witness.

Analyzing the Cross-Examination of the Witness

After reading the second set of excerpts from the trial transcript, my image of Redgrave was completely altered through cross-examination. The questions asked by Henein caused Redgrave to have a nervous demeanor while discovering inconsistencies during testimony and prior statements made to the police. This was showed on page 137 and line 30 when Henein questioned Redgrave about her statement to the police in which she explained that her head was smashed into the car window. Redgrave admitted that it was not accurate and that she was "just pulling them [thoughts] out of the air" (p. 137, line 10).

Applying Melanie Randall's Reading to the Trial Transcripts

After reading Randall (2010), it is clear that the defence engaged in inappropriate questioning and created some inferences based on stereotypes. Randall (2010) proposes that socioeconomic status can greatly affect the courts perception of the credibility of the witness in sexual assault cases. This was displayed in the cross-examination of Redgrave when Henein was questioning Redgrave on her part-time jobs. On page 91, line 30, Henein proposes that, "you weren't a full time anything". Henein was suggesting that she was not a responsible mother or a good wife due to her not making a lot of money. This is an inappropriate question that confirms Randall's (2010) idea that socioeconomic status can affect the perception of the credibility of the witness in sexual assault cases. In addition, Henein was implying the stereotype that due to Redgrave's low income and part-time jobs, she was a bad parent and wife who was looking for money from the wealthy Ghomeshi.

After reflecting on Randall's (2010) article and the trial transcripts, I think that cross-examination does not help discover the truth but rather forces the witness to question their experience by pressuring them with gruel questioning. Randall (2010) explains that "real" victims of sexual assault are supposed to resist the force and fight back. This is a social expectation that not all victims are capable of. In addition, it should not be considered a factor in deciding whether the assault occurred or not. Redgrave was asked during the chief in examination if she at some point asked Ghomeshi, "What the heck? What's going on? Why did you do that?" (p. 58, line 30). This is implying that Redgrave should have tried to stop the assault, furthering the social expectation that victims should fight back if the assault occurred. Often, victims of sexual assault do not physically resist as they fear for their safety and possibly their life (Randall, 2010).

Evaluating the Credibility of the Witness

If I were to evaluate the credibility of Redgrave, I would take into consideration that every victim responds differently to incidents of trauma. A "real" victim should not have to express emotions of sadness when being questioned. Additionally, I would focus on the consistency of the story, which ties into explaining specific details. I would consider that often victims of sexual assault disassociate with a traumatic experience, limiting their ability to remember certain detail (Randall, 2010).

What you should do

Please respond substantively to at least one post in the group. Think about this discussion as a way to collectively engage in figuring out the challenging questions related to witness examination in sexual assault trials. The point of a response is not to criticize but to advance the discussion. For example, you may build on what has been said by pointing out to some additional considerations that are essential for current discussion or by referring to other course readings that help illuminate the discussion. If you disagree with someone else's position, please do so respectfully and in a constructive way.

A substantive response means:

• Your post: 1) advances the conversation and 2) references course materials and/or other academically acceptable sources related to the topic.
• Posts that are not considered substantive include:
• Posts that simply reiterate what someone else has previously posted.
• Simple posts such as "Good post." "I agree," etc..