It was a cri de coeur for the sanctity of law. And it was also for herself, feminist.

A cry from the heart of a brilliant legal mind, reducing even Jian Ghomeshi — defendant — to reverent spectator, a bystander at court.

After almost two weeks of grotesque caricature, targeted by hateful vitriol as a traitor to her sex, a Valkyrie in stiletto heels — on incendiary social media, in mainstream commentary by harridans of gender identity polemics — defence lawyer Marie Henein brought it home: There is no refuge in court for dishonesty, no amnesty for colluders in either fact or fiction.

No double-X chromosome pass just because the complainants are females who may have been done terribly wrong by Ghomeshi, on trial for sexual assault times four and overcoming resistance by choking.

Outside Courtroom 125, the gospels of female victimhood had become the subtext — indeed the overarching theme — attempting to discount what was transpiring inside, because that wasn’t going well at all. But it was never about all the many victims out there who haven’t been believed in the past, won’t be believed in the future. It was about these three women, now.

Complainant 1: allegedly punched. Complainant 2: Lucy DeCoutere — the only accuser who waived a publication ban on her name — allegedly choked and slapped. Complainant 3: allegedly throttled, bitten and struck by a self-acknowledged fetishist of rough sex.

Henein didn’t take her eye of the soft underbelly of their narratives, each replete with towering inconsistencies, reversals, hastily retrieved memories, amended police statements, pungent fabrications, reluctant disclosures and grudging admissions adduced under cross.

Yet none of that should matter a whit, apparently, when the charge is sexual assault, because the mere accusation is de facto truth, how dare anybody dispute it. To test that perceived truth — put it on the stand, examine it, challenge it — is tantamount to horrendous re-victimization of the supplicant.

This was the clarion Henein rang, citing the wisdom of Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, first woman from Quebec appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada:

“One cannot over-emphasize the commitment of courts of justice to the ascertainment of the truth. The just determination of guilt or innocence is a fundamental underpinning of the administration of criminal justice. The ends of the criminal process would be defeated if trials were allowed to proceed on assumptions divorced from reality. If a careless disregard for the truth prevailed in the courtrooms, the public trust in the judicial function, the law and the administration of justice would disappear. Though the law of criminal evidence often excludes relevant evidence to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, it is difficult to accept that courts should ever willingly proceed on the basis of untrue facts.”

Henein: “The words of one of the most significant FEMINIST jurists in this country.” Her emphasis.

It matters not that L’Heureux-Dubé delivered that elegant exegesis in a dissenting opinion at Canada’s highest court. The marrow resonates.

Justice William Horkins will decide how much gravitas to give Ghomeshi’s accusers, the shifting content of their evidence and the profound damage they collectively inflicted on the Crown’s case. He has reserved judgment until March 24. But the prosecution has been slogging uphill ever since this trial began, undone by stunning omissions and staggering contradictions.

Dubious accounts make for doubtful cases, despite Crown attorney Michael Callaghan’s assertion that the three women — all in court Thursday to hear closing arguments — were “unshaken” in their allegations against Ghomeshi: “Society has been committed to protecting the personal integrity, both physical and psychological, of every individual having control over who touches one’s body.”

Enshrined dignity, secure from any non-consensual contacts or threats of force. “That’s what this case is all about,” said Callaghan.

It should have been. Even if the court of public opinion had already rendered its verdict against the former CBC star. Did so two years ago, when women started coming forward with tales of galling mistreatment at Ghomeshi’s hands.

The direct evidence at trial came entirely from the complainants. Ghomeshi never took the stand, for once keeping his mouth shut and letting Henein do the heavy lifting. That’s her job and she excels at it, though many will continue to claim hotly that she uses her courtroom powers for evil.

Methodically, Henein deconstructed the women’s evidence and decimated their credibility, exploiting emails and texts, photos and a handwritten letter to knock out the stuffing out of their trustworthiness. She accused them of concocting evidence, of colluding in their testimony and of conducting a predatory hate campaign via media against the defendant.

Each witness significantly amended police statements, withheld information that reflected poorly on them, excusing it all as lapses in memory over incidents that happened more than a decade ago. “In this case, it was to disclose, at the 11th hour . . . only when there was a concern that they would be contradicted by objective evidence,” said Henein. “Until that moment, the truth was not going to be told.”

Each woman grasped at numerous explanations for the wayward testimony, particularly about provocative continuing communication — sometimes gently flirtatious, sometimes near-on stalking — with the man who had supposedly tormented and traumatized them, administered physical pain out of the blue, in intimate episodes arising from consensual kissing. “These explanations are not worthy of belief,” Henein told court.

One witness said she’d never had anything to do with Ghomeshi again. “That is not true,” said Henein.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

One witness said she’d maintained distant but cordial relations because they were in the same industry. “This is not true.”

One witness said her fear was so intense that she would afterwards meet him only in a public place. “This was not true.”

“It is perhaps the willingness to lie about the conduct that is more troubling than the conduct itself,” Henein told Horkins. “The oath is spelled out in real simple language: Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

In the witness stand, all are created equal, Henein reminded. None enjoy the presumption of truthfulness, not even cops or expert witnesses. Or women, on the basis that they proclaim themselves victims, and object when their testimonials are scrutinized.

None of the accusers had been in long-term relationships with Ghomeshi. There was no financial dependence, no power imbalance, none of the underlying factors that often yoke victims to their abusers.

“There is not an expert in the world that would come and testify that perjury is indicative of trauma,” Henein observed. “What the witness cannot do is . . . lie and conceal their conduct and then, when caught out, say, ‘oh gee, that’s just how victims of abuse behave.’ ”

Yet that was the very much the rabble backdrop to this trial. And that’s why it went dismally pear-shaped.

Henein will be crucified for stating what was so starkly obvious in Courtroom 125 at Old City Hall.

“The evidence in this courtroom falls so far short of proving anything beyond reasonable doubt, it is so riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities and proven lies under oath that it cannot be said to prove anything.

“It is our respectful submission that Mr. Ghomeshi is not guilty and that he’s entitled to an acquittal on all counts.”

Acquittal or conviction — neither will be the end of it.

Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.

Read more about: