TORONTO

The hours tick towards judgment day for Jian Ghomeshi.

With his venerable legal team leading the way, his long-suffering mother in the front row, the fallen CBC star will return to the large corner courtroom of Old City Hall later this week, looking appropriately sombre as he awaits the decision from Ontario Court Justice William Horkins.

Will the aging hipster be found guilty on any of the four counts of sexual assault and one of overcome resistance by choking? Or will he walk out a free man Thursday — at least, until he goes on trial again on separate allegations in June.

Horkins has had weeks to mull over the conflicting testimony of the three complainants and to weigh the forceful closing arguments put forth by each side. As for considering Ghomeshi’s version of events, the once-celebrated radio host with the velvet voice has strategically maintained his right not to testify in his own defence — leaving it to his A-team of Marie Henein and Danielle Robitaille to speak on his behalf.

And what an able job they have done. It seems almost certain Ghomeshi, 48, is going to be acquitted on all counts.

Cue the hysteria, the feminist outrage, the nasty condemnation of his defence team. The mass march and rally is already being planned.

After all, Ghomeshi admitted that he liked his sex rough on that infamous Facebook posting. There were a multitude of newspaper stories about countless women alleging very similar behaviour by the cad about town. He certainly seemed guilty — at least in the court of public opinion. But in the real-life courtroom, where a person’s very liberty is at stake, it thankfully takes a far higher burden of proof.

Smoke does not a conviction make.

Truth is, as much as many of us hoped differently, the Crown’s case just didn’t appear strong enough to convict Ghomeshi. These were allegations almost 14 years old, by women who forgot — or conveniently omitted — embarrassing facts that seriously undermined their credibility.

Who could have expected the disaster awaiting the prosecution when the long-awaited trial opened on Feb. 1?

Billed as the trial of the year, reporters lined up for hours for one of the prized courthouse seats reserved for the media. Members of the public queued as well to snatch the remaining spots.

It would prove to be astounding courtroom theatre.

Actress Lucy DeCoutere and two other complainants, their names protected by publication bans, told compelling tales of being hit by Ghomeshi without warning and without consent. They each insisted they were so upset by what happened that they severed all close contact with him.

Then Henein rose, and in surgical, dramatic style, picked apart the evidence of each one, confronting them with the unearthed e-mails and even a love letter that revealed they hadn’t cut off communication at all.

The first witness never mentioned the messages or bikini photo she sent Ghomeshi. DeCoutere didn’t disclose her fawning, handwritten ode to the man she alleges punched and choked her, signing off that “I love your hands.” The third complainant suddenly remembered a sexual favour she performed for Ghomeshi after the other two women had limped off the stand.

It was ugly — but it was largely a mess of their own making.

Many blamed Henein and her aggressive cross-examinations — as if the testimony of alleged sex assault victims shouldn’t have to live up to the same legal standard required in other crimes. The critics forget the cornerstone of our justice system is the presumption of innocence. The onus is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused is guilty. That’s difficult at the best of times, but even more so when it’s a sexual assault trial with no corroborating evidence.

It all comes down to he said/she said, her word against his. And in this implosion of a trial, the word of each of these women was left scatter shot with holes.

How can anyone argue that their testimony was strong enough to send a man — even a despicable one — to prison? “Nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt can be accepted as the foundation of a criminal conviction,” Horkins ruled in a 2008 decision acquitting a man of sexual assault.

He may reach the same conclusion come Thursday.

mmandel@postmedia.com