As feminists, we must realize we cannot have it both ways; we can't fight for our own to achieve equality and success, but then criticize them once they have found it. Furthermore, we cannot hold women to an invisible standard not outlined for anyone else. After all, would we reprimand a male lawyer who is also a father for defending an alleged child molester? I doubt it.

But the NDP leader responded in kind.

Marie Henein was the subject of one column that began with the phrase, "There’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help other women."

What the verdict teaches us is that in cases that are entirely dependent on uncorroborated witness testimony, devoid of any physical evidence, credibility is the paramount issue judges must grapple with when determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Many assumptions have been made about the contact that all three complainants initiated with Jian Ghomeshi following their alleged assaults, which they neglected to mention to the police or the Crown. Henein, Ghomeshi's counsel, has implied that this means the victims were never assaulted, a suggestion which both women deny. In sexual assault trials, evidence is often brought forth of victims communicating with the perpetrator or making statements that seem to downplay what went on. Such actions are in fact consistent with how victims often rationalize what was done to them.

The time-honoured tradition in sexual assault trials is to pry and prod at the complainant until an opening appears, or simply to bludgeon her credibility by any means possible, while the accused watches silently. There are endless variations on this theme, but that's sort of sexual assault law in a nutshell. The Jian Ghomeshi trial will be very different.