What is Marie Henein's end game?

The trial of the former Q host on CBC is well underway. Five days so far of mediocre prosecutorial presentations while on the adversarial side, the best Grand Guignol cross-examination that defence lawyer Marie Henein is capable of executing.

What if Henein's agenda were to expose how the Canadian (in)justice system, with regard to crimes of sexual assault and trials, is fundamentally patriarchal?

Here's one account of the grim proceedings.  As well, _Chatelaine_ has produced formidable coverage of many aspects of the trial.

This insight into the first days of the trial came from a surprising source.

Though she was roasted and toasted in cross-examination by the former broadcaster’s lead lawyer, Marie Henein, it’s important to note that for all the inconsistencies in the woman’s evidence — some significant — a constant in her police statement, many media interviews and testimony this week is her claim that Ghomeshi struck her hard, with a closed fist she thought, on the side of the head.
[..] Her difficulties arose, in my view, in part because it appears her allegations weren’t as thoroughly investigated by the police as perhaps they should have been and because prosecutors didn’t thoroughly examine her or re-examine her at all.
The blow of those terribly damaging emails and the bikini photo she sent Ghomeshi, for instance, a year after the second alleged assault where he purportedly smacked her in the head, would have been mitigated had she been asked follow-up questions when she mentioned, voluntarily in examination-in-chief, that she had “a vague memory” of writing a note to him, in anger, but wasn’t sure she’d sent it.
“You aren’t trying to hide the fact that you might have written Mr. Ghomeshi?” prosecutors could have asked.
The question alone would have diffused the impact of Henein’s revelation.

I'm not the only one who is wondering, WTF game is the prosecution playing?  Why are the Crown lawyers throwing the complainants under the bus?  This from Jane Doe, provides illumination.

On the other side, my daughter - a decade younger than Ghomeshi or Henein - loathes what the former did as well as his lawyer's antics.

She has nothing but contempt for the high-stakes histrionical performance the latter is currently offering.  She thinks the lawyer is an opportunist who will leverage a spectacular win to catapult herself onto a larger and more lucrative stage.

The Ghomeshi trial could indeed do for Henein's reputation what OJ Simpson's did for the Kardashians: transform her into a minor US celebrity.

This is the Toronto Life article about Henein that gave my daughter pause, with regard to Henein's professional choices.

Perhaps her perspective is lopsided.  After all, she's a mere physician in a demanding specialty.  In her line of work, individuals who apply such rigour and dedication to the pursuit of excellence _only_ save lives.  They don't destroy them.

Something is missing from this picture...

There is currently a criminal trial unfolding in Ottawa that has captured the interest of many.

It is unusual because it involves girls under the age of 16 pressured, blackmailed and physically coerced into sex work by pimps who are also girls — barely older than their victims.

Two of the three adolescents standing trial for 74 charges including human trafficking, forcible confinement and procuring for prostitution, are 16 years old; the other is 17.

This is an account from a young woman who evaded cajoling then threats from a Facebook acquaintance, and alleged pimp.

The clients who are testifying have likely been promised a reduced sentence for having sex with minor children, or amnesty from prosecution.

Something doesn't quite sit right with me, though. This scheme to recruit and force girls into prostitution goes quite beyond the high school bullying, ostracism and cruelty that we know teenage girls are capable of doing.

This is way beyond _Mean Girls_ territory, this is a sophisticated, complex and well-executed business plan. 

Are there older individuals behind this profitable enterprise whose identities the young women have not disclosed?  As with Fagin's abuse of homeless children, criminal organizations have made it a practice to enlist and train juveniles to run their money-making illegal schemes. If the under-age kids are arrested, charged, prosecuted and found guilty, their sentencing is usually light.

This trial may be a delicately orchestrated attempt to flush out the adults behind this criminal business scheme.  If the prosecution succeeds, and the girls are found guilty of these charges, there may be some plea bargaining involved to encourage them to give up their patrons, the people who bankrolled them, helped them develop their enterprise, trained them in the fine art of physical brutality, and shared the profits without any of the risks.

If this is indeed the case, these adult participants are people well versed in the intricate aspects of criminal law and jurisprudence.  The girls may not reveal who they are; a combination of eventual rewards, emotional coercion and fear of physical reprisals may buy their silence.

Photo credit: from the above-mentioned, feminist film about female adolescent angst, including a propensity for dressing up in fetish drag.

UPDATE: The young woman who testified yesterday, providing details about one of the alleged pimp's campaign to recruit her through Facebook communications, may have done something the defense lawyer will exploit to his clients' advantage.