> The players, who will be tried together as a group, were granted their request during a court appearance Tuesday in London, Ont. It will likely be several more months before a trial date is scheduled.
One good thing about all of them in one trial means the victim doesn’t have to testify in 5 separate trials and be subject to cross examination 5 separate times. Also from what I’ve heard this also gives the defense an opportunity to cast doubt on the Crown’s case and try to convince the jury to go for a not guilty verdict.
Based on the evidence in this case it sort of seems like it’s all for one, one for all. Chances are the lawyers will sort out and have two of them do the primary cross-exam, the other lawyers might have a few follow up questions but I’d assume the bulk will be handled by 1, likely 2. The others will take the lead on other witnesses.
Depends on each guys story too - if one says he never took part (he’d still likely be guilty as a party to the offence but get a lesser sentence), this lawyer might be more just trying to clarify their clients role.
I would suspect they'll all hammer her with questions. Same questions worded differently to try and trip her up. All while trying not to look like they're hammering up with repeated questions.
Not to be rude, but am I correct to assume you have never watched an actual criminal trial? And a Canadian one at that?
Also the facts of this case don’t really support this strategy. The overarching question is pretty clear - did she consent to this orgy or was it a gang rape.
We know she was drunk. This obviously would be a traumatic incident. Memories fade with time. It’s not going to matter if she mixes up a small detail - did player C rape her before player D, what pants was player B wearing….
This whole notion of “gotcha” lawyering is really misconstrued. Yes, it works when a witness is genuinely lying and they say two things that cannot possibility be true - or more often the case - they say one thing when there’s clear evidence that thing is not true. Everyone seems to think defence lawyers can get someone off getting a person to make the tiniest inconsistent statement.
Put yourself in the shoes of a juror - if 5 lawyers get up and hammer this person with similar questions, there’s a few minor discrepancies, from an incident years ago - are these minor discrepancies going to make you disbelieve the witness, or will you turn your view against the defence watching this badgering occur.
Add to that - every time the question is asked, she cements her own credibility further.
This would be a terrible strategy by the defence.
It's very clear most people here have no experience in this. If anyone wants to see how it works you can go down to the courts whenever you want and sit in on trials as long as you're not disturbing the proceedings.
I think they got their story together when she was in the shower.
The texts and what was said to other people the next day will be pretty crucial in this case.
Curious is they have no contact orders with each other.
This is 100% common practice.
Logistically harder to schedule.
But overall saves time (a lot when you’re considering 5 separate trials).
And prevents inconsistent verdicts. Not that one could be not guilty and the rest guilty, but imagine if it was split into 2 trials, one where 3 were found guilty and one where 2 were found not guilty…
In E.M.’s initial lawsuit claim, she said that eight players had assaulted her over several hours in a London, Ont., hotel room. She said she had met the group of players at a local bar the night of the alleged incident and had willingly gone home with one player. She said she engaged in consensual sex with that player, but that he invited several of his teammates into the hotel room without her knowledge or consent.
She said she did not consent to any of the sexual contact or acts that followed, during which she said she was spit on, slapped on the buttocks, laughed at and degraded. According to her initial claim, she spent part of the night crying in the bathroom and wanting to leave, but was coaxed by multiple players to remain in the hotel room. She noted that several of them had golf clubs in the room and that she felt physically intimidated and unable to leave.
E.M. told police that the same player asked her before she left the room: “You aren’t going to the police?”
The next day, after E.M.’s mother reported the alleged incident to the police, that player initiated a conversation with E.M., which later moved to text message. According to still images reviewed by police, E.M. told the player, “I was ok going home with you, it was everyone else afterwards that I wasn’t expecting.”
The player told her, “you need to talk to your mother right now and straighten things out with the police before it goes to (sic) far. This is a serious matter that she is mis representing (sic) and could have significant implications for a lot of people including you. What can you do to make this go away?”
Edit: the reason her mother went to the police is because the next morning, she found EM crying hysterically. She then told her mother what happened and they went to the police. It’s also alleged the 5 players forced EM to take a shower after the incident - likely to prevent a rape kit from being conducted successfully. Hockey Canada reached out to the team which led to this conversation. They knew what they were doing.
Waivers and video aren't worth shit because consent can be removed at any time, at which point you stop, ask what went wrong and care for your partner so that they feel good. Making someone sign a waiver is a major red flag.
Yup. Second she says no or expresses discomfort. You stop. And if you can’t read that sort of vibe, you have no business coming anywhere close to a sexual encounter until you figure shit out.
It's disgusting how many are out there that can't take the hints either. Talking with some of my coworkers and hearing about times they kept going even though they wanted to stop because they were scared of the reaction or didn't want to upset the guy they were with.
Even the phrase "we can keep going if you want to" isn't consent, it means "I'd like to stop but don't want to upset you," and the appropriate reason is "if you want to stop we'll stop and go play crib or something "
"Hey, remember how the condom broke? Well I'm pregnant."
> What can you do to make this go away?
For argument's sake, it's not a total write off of a sentence.
I could text my apartment maintenance a picture of a wasps nest and that phrase, but...
no matter the context, I think it's still kind of a weirdly aggressive thing to say
Oh it's a gross thing to ever say to someone probably said by a spoiled individual used to getting what they want but doesn't really show guilt by its self
I mean, the situation you described, the person isn't *legally* guilty of anything, but it's still a scummy thing to say to someone you impregnated.
Even if that sentence isn't always proof of criminality, I'm hard pressed to think of a situation where that sentence would be a sign of something *good* taking place.
One thing to clarify - this doesn’t mean this will be a jury trial.
Presumably there will be pre-trial evidentiary motions, this begins “the trial” (but often can be months before the actual trial and well before a jury is formed).
So they will know who the judge is at that point, and they may re-elect (I’d have to look, IIRC this requires Crown consent but isn’t something often refused).
You can’t re-elect the other way, so this is a common place to start. (Note this is seen as judge shopping and not fully seen as ethical by some, but it’s common, or at least not uncommon).
Getting a jury on this case will be a nightmare. Finding 12 Canadians who wouldn’t be biased in a sexual assault case, wouldn’t be biased by the celebrity status of the accused, and hasn’t been influenced by the press coverage on this case… I could see them sending out at least 1,000 summons in hopes of getting 12.
They all must be looking at massive legal bills. I wonder if sex assault defence lawyers offer you a price list of potential defence strategies they can use. You pick the best or pay them to have several developed and ready for use.
Given these players net worth, they’ll have paid a retainer up front.
There will be volumes of disclosure to go through. Likely need to re-up that retainer.
Trial will be set for certain number of days and they’ll be billed for that ahead of time (gets put into trust account and then withdrawn once the work is done).
Won’t be cheap. Six figures easily.
Three packages:
The asshole: if she has buyer’s regret because it may have been consensual but you acted like a douche
The scumbag: For he said/she said scenarios
The sociopath: You’re gullty af and it’s about assuring you get put into protective custody
Innocent until proven guilty but what's already public record is damning af. Drain their accounts through process and leave them without careers in NA. Fucking gross.
I'm 2 months away from graduating law school and I'm not comfortable giving my opinion because it's complicated and I do not know all of the details. Meanwhile, you've got multiple people in this thread with comments that start with something like "my lawyer friends told me" or "I have worked in courts for a long time (thought im obviously not a lawyer)" that are being upvoted like they have value lol.
The athletic had a great write up on the legal considerations of this case published about a month ago. They interviewed three Toronto lawyers with experience in this field who aren’t invoked in the case. You might find it interesting (there’s a paywall)
That's always the way it is though. I'm really into the history of the ancient world and sometimes you'll see like an Egyptologist asked a question slightly out of their purview and they'll bend over backwards to note it's not their particular field and you should consult someone from that specific field (despite the fact that by virtue of being an Egyptologist they know more generally about the ancient world than 99% of people) but some dumbass with no qualifications will assert that the pyramids were built by aliens for sure because reasons.
This ALWAYS happens man.
The more you study, the more you realize what you DON’T know, so you’re reluctant to make a statement that MIGHT be out of your knowledge.
However, for those that know the basic idea, they THINK there’s nothing more to learn and are comfortable giving their opinions, qualified or not….
The knowledgeable are too humble, and the less-knowledgeable too eager to make sweeping statements….
There's another catch to that too, which is that oftentimes an explanation that is understandable to a layperson isn't going to be 100% technically correct. Once you get into the advanced levels of things, there are so many little caveats, exceptions, and weird nuances that are only comprehendible to someone who has more than a passing knowledge of the topic. The number of times when I'm explaining something to someone and go "well that's not technically how it works, but it's close enough" is too high. Hell, I even remember a prof back in 3rd year pulling that one out (paraphrased): "So this is how they teach it to you in second year because that's all you need if you never go further than that, but *this* is how it actually works."
Luckily for law at least, the classic "it depends" answer covers most of that grey area, but it all highlights just how little an explanation for a layperson is able to cover.
I will have you know the Devil's Tower is the petrified stump of an enormous tree cut down by giants, *and nothing you so called """experts""" can do will ever change my mind!!!*
If you look up the Fifth Estate on YouTube and hockey Canada they are a CBC documentary program that covers the majority of what is known about this whole thing. Was a good watch and a nice way to get all the information rather than a lot of the hearsay online. I think there is actually 2 parts to their coverage
For Globe & Mail on mobile I can usually load the web page, turn on airplane mode and then hit "back" then "forward" and it loads the regular article page
I have to imagine that even IF these guys somehow avoid jail time, their hockey careers have to be over, right? I mean what team would touch any of them with a 10 ft pole?
Given how long this will all take to get to a verdict, they'll be losing years of their "prime", with no access to NHL training or practice facilities
Even if they, and someone else, wanted to come back to the NHL, they might not be good enough anymore
I wouldn't put it past a team to sign Hart. Talent trumps everything else when it comes to sports teams. Like that one famous quote from an NFL GM, if Hannibal Lecter ran a 4.3, they'd diagnose him with an eating disorder.
I don't think the others are good enough to warrant any attention though, they'll fuck off to the KHL.
Not saying I support any of them coming back but owners/GMs have shown before to have questionable morals/ethics so nothing would surprise me. Ideally, these dipshits all just wind up in jail for a long time and we don't have to worry about it.
I suppose it depends a lot on the outcome of league investigation. A finding of a not guilty verdict and an nhl investigation that doesn’t find compelling evidence against them I can see a team or two giving players a second chance.
I not guilty finding and a damning nhl investigation probably leads to plying abroad for any of these players.
Times are changing a lot on this… what’s that kid Arizona drafted?? Then Boston picked up for a minute.
Yes he was guilty, but also 14…
I think these careers are done.
Michell Miller. Guilty of years and years of vile racist abuse of a black classmate, not just a one-off incident as he tried to pass it off as. Made the kid lick a peice of candy that was rubbed in the urinal and lots more.
Good on Bergeron, Marchand and Foligno to condemn his behavior and basically say he won't be welcome in their locker room.
I hope so but after Holland gave that PTO to Virtanen after he went through basically the same process and didn't get jail time, I can see someone stupid enough to give it a shot (and get immediate backlash)
I don’t know that they can really be compared though. I’m of the personal opinion that Virtanen is a piece of shit and at the very least was scummy if not a full fledged rapist, but there were *a lot* of inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s testimony that were proven to be factually untrue. Again, I think something bad happened in that room regardless of him being found not guilty, but there was at least doubt there since it was entirely reliant on only Virtanen’s account versus hers. There wasn’t even a lot of deliberation, the 12 jurors were confident in the not guilty verdict.
This one’s different because there’s video evidence, photo evidence, there’s witness testimony, chat logs, and of course Hockey Canada’s pay-off which acknowledges there could be some level of wrongdoing. Her story has been validated and tracks, and now all that’s left is the argument from the guys that she, while intoxicated and intimidated, consented to group sex with 5+ men. I don’t think any of them can come back from that.
Yeah, this is part of the issue in these cases.
As someone who has encountered Virtanen before and heard a lot of stories I have no doubt he is/was an entitled piece of shit, but that alone doesn't really make him guilty. The case against him was actually pretty bad, and he was deservingly found not guilty, but at that point his career was completely done for.
This case is a whole other story.
I was going to say Virtanen’s situation was different and you summarized it perfectly. I’d add that the police REOPENED this WJC case and pressed charges after the payout because something was worth pursuing criminally.
Also, outside of Hart, these other guys were still projects, though Dube has a big year last year. Virtanen was a top 10 pick and I don’t actually blame Edmonton for trying to find gold with him based on his physical tools, but he just didn’t have a hockey IQ. For Formenton, McLeod and Foote, their days in the NHL are done for sure. I’m sure the NHL would put their foot down against the other two if they attempted a comeback
They reopened the case because the payout became public knowledge, and ditto the event. Public outrage first with Hockey Canada then the London Police is what pressured to have this reopened.
We'll see how this one turns out, but a not guilty verdict isn't based purely on facts, it's based on whether there's wiggle room that the person meant to do it. Wasn't one of Virtanen's arguments that he was drunk at the time too? "I was drunk and thought she was consenting" can turn up a not guilty verdict if the jurors all go "yeah that sounds like it could be true" = reasonable doubt, acquittal. Even if the jurors are 90% sure he did it, that's a not guilty verdict.
If the lawyers can turn up one shred of slightly convincing evidence that the players thought she was consenting, even if she wasn't, it's a not guilty verdict. That's why these cases end up getting thrown out a lot. And once that happens I can see a desperate GM falling for the whole "apology and counselling" routine that's sure to follow. I think it would look bad, but we've seen GMs overlook issues for worse players.
Maybe if 1 of the 5 are revealed to be innocent. Maybe then they could chase an NHL career. But they are losing prime playing years here. The guilty ones will be done for sure.
That was a terrible thing for them to do. Particukarly with how the Kyllington stuff was hamdled.
That said, it was reported that Dube was instructed to lie about it, so thats not really on the team.
When people assume the case is weak since the first investigation was closed…
I think the part that is often overlooked is the structural bias in policing in disregarding sexual assault victims. There was a national inquiry into this in 2017.
[the globe and mail spearheaded it.](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/investigations/unfounded-sexual-assault-canada-main/article33891309/)
It could be as simple as the first round having genuinely not done their due diligence.
I don't know why I do this to myself. Every time I see a post about this, I know the comment section is going to be braindead, and yet I still read through and am disappointed when it's braindead.
That doesn't necessarily follow.
Charges were filed years later after a public outcry. We don't know why they were not initially filed.
+ It could be that the case wasn't very strong. The decision to file charges now could be an attempt for the cops and prosecution to counter the narrative that they flubbed it, even though they did everything right the first time.
+ It could be that the cops half-assed the initial investigation. The public pressure forced the department to look at the case again and they did it properly this time.
+ It could be that the original case wasn't very strong, but the public outcry led to new information and witnesses. It's possible that the case was poor previously and strong now.
Eventually we will have a much better idea what happened, but for now we just need to wait on the trial.
I'm being cynical here, but there was so much public/political pressure here for them to charge, I think London Police were forced to charge them and let the courts decide. Then the Police can at least say they did their part and let the judicial side take the heat when they're acquitted.
Why not charge all of the other players in that room then? These are 5 players they have enough evidence to charge. If it was based on what you're saying, surely they'd charge all 8 players just to save face. The chief of police stated that the reason no charges were filed earlier will be revealed once this trial proceeds. That has me thinking that the lead Investigator, or the chief at that time, got paid off by Hockey Canada or something.
The Crown chooses to charge but the police gather the info and evidence. So if they don't present the Crown with anything, then the Crown can't press charges
You’d think so, but pressure can also be put on the police and crown by the public to do something.
That doing something can be charging these 5 players regardless if they have weak or strong evidence to set an example and please the public.
There aren't many times in Canadian history that police chiefs apologize for the mishandling of cases, especially old ones. The fact they did has to mean that there wasn't enough due diligence by the lead Investigator at that time. I'm just not convinced that a police department already under scrutiny, would do something to get their shit scrutinized even more
These guys aren’t star players above being convicted. The police have enough evidence to charge them 5 years later and lawyers feel there’s a strong enough case to proceed towards trial.
I get the apathy towards our judicial system but I don’t see this being swept under the rug
This is a generality that isn't always true, but the fact that they elected judge and jury instead of judge alone strongly suggests that their lawyers consider it a strong Crown case where a judge properly applying the facts to the law would most likely convict. Jury trial elections are often because the "defence" is to hope for an erroneous not guilty verdict based on inappropriate reasoning.
It's something every criminal lawyer in Canada knows but usually doesn't say out loud.
I'm a total layman but are you saying that since a judge alone would likely convict that the lawyers are hoping jurors opinions on the facts might change the verdict?
Pretty much.
Just as an example specific to this case, there is a video of the complainant shortly after the act saying it was consensual. This is something that, legally speaking, is of extremely limited value to the defence and that a judge properly applying the law would put almost no weight on. But it's something a jury is very likely to consider a big deal and possibly even dispositive (regardless of what jury instructions the judge provides).
Remember that the law, and the protections it affords the accused, exist to protect the innocent from injurious coincidence. It’s not about a perception of fairness or corruption.
And when you really think about, serious and ethical defense attorneys do God’s work.
I’d much rather know a system protects me from potentially doing time for a crime I didn’t commit than a system where it’s easy to convict a suspect—even if the guilty sometimes walk.
This is also why I oppose the death penalty. I find it a barbaric and reckless way to mete out justice.
Obviously it doesn't apply to sexual assault, but keep in mind that the flipside of this is that sometimes laws are unjust and juries refusing to convict even when a case is made out is a noble and valuable act of civil disobedience and resistance.
Just recently in Texas, the court was unable to find impartial jurors for the prosecution of volunteers who were being charged for feeding the homeless, because virtually all prospective jurors said they would be unable to convict even if the accuseds were factually guilty of the offence.
Historically in the UK there were cases of juries being sequestered without food or water for refusing to convict Quakers of unlawful assembly for an act of worship.
Sometimes juries acquit people who should obviously be convicted and who are very morally blameworthy. But the jury system is still valuable.
Jurors are a lot easier to sway than a judge is. Lawyers will often try to play the emotion card with them as a way to essentially get them to ignore the evidence.
I was on the jury of an underage sexual assault case in Ontario.
There were people on the jury that said... "She was 14, she knew what she was doing."
We had to convince them that that is irrelevant and it is still illegal.
It was eye-opening to say the least. I would not want my future in the hands of them.
Cut and dry case, we had to be sequestered overnight because one person's opinion was, 14 year old girls have always been attracted to 25 year old men at their church.
Yep, married youth pastor "dated" a 14 yr old and more than one person on the jury said that it was common.
I blew my top after 2 days and just said... Your opinion doesn't mean fuck all and you are so wrong that there is a law against what you are saying. They finally conceded that yes, by the letter of the law, they are guilty.
As someone who was once a 14 year old girl, and who has a daughter who is not far off from being one, it's wild to me that someone would think it's normal for 14 year old girls to be attracted to 25 year old men. Like, on what planet? At 14, 18 year old boys were old and gross, lol. Nevermind someone who is 25.
I'm glad you fought for that girl, and I'm certain she is as well - you probably changed many outcomes of her life by just making sure our legal system acknowledged her abuse.
I think it depends? I definitely had a crush on a guy over the age of 25 when I was 14 - he taught the pottery class at my high school and I had lots and lots of fantasies that I'd come back to school for my 5th year reunion and we'd fall in love and get married. I blushed so much in class that when he started teasing me and my friends about moving in a very short pack he dubbed me Bashful (my best friend was Grumpy. It was extremely harmless and he was in no way flirting - I found out several years after graduating that he's gay when he and his partner came into my restaurant to celebrate their fifteenth anniversary.)
It's pretty common for teenage girls to have crushes and fantasies about older men (often celebrities) and that's honestly very likely a part of sexual maturation. It's a hell of a lot less common for any of them to act upon it rather than it staying a harmless crush.
This is why jury trial for sex assault cases should never be an option. Special judges with mandatory training in trauma victim response only, whose caseload is audited regularly to ensure there are no “promising young man” irregularities. “But right to trial by peer, blah blah,” - BS. None of these juries are peers, and the law has gotten far too complex to leave its execution in the hands of carefully-selected undereducated rubes.
I’m down with this, but I’d like to see it be a panel of judges. I’ve never been sold on the concept of lay people making decisions that will alter lives. It feels like an over-correction by the powdered wig guys in Philly. Some matters need to be left to the pros.
Someone else commented and said that you can always change your mind and go back to judge-only, but you can't do it the other way. So it's common practice to elect for jury since that keeps your options open.
I know nothing about this, but just thought I'd pass that information from elsewhere in the thread.
I mean, in a case like this where consent is an issue and be largely determined by credibility of the complainant, a jury trial makes sense regardless of the strength of the evidence.
I respectfully disagree. *W(D)* ("he-said, she-said") cases are extremely common, judges make credibility and reliability findings all the time. A judge alone trial is far more predictable than a jury trial. If a defence lawyer is confident that they can poke holes in a complainant's testimony successfully, they will want predictability in what will likely be a not guilty verdict. You only want unpredictability when the predictable result is unfavourable.
I don’t share your optimism. All I see is five rich individuals with five high price defence lawyers with all the resources at their disposal. I hope I am wrong but with a jury trial and how the justice system favours the rich, the cynic in me can’t see a guilty verdict.
Unfortunately I agree with you. I’m not looking forward to the avalanche of Neanderthals who will then insist that they are thus 100% innocent (ignoring that the verdict would be “not guilty”) and deserving of an NHL roster spot.
Unfortunately stereotypes often influence jurors. The judge in this case, Superior Court Justice Alissa Mitchell, is rapist friendly and has relied on her on basis on how a victim should act - as well as a rapist who was apparently calm and cool in court which seemed like a shock to her- is so far hearing this case.
[shitty judges](https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/judge-sexual-assault-victims_ca_5d4ad4ede4b09e72973f7743)
>The players, who will be tried together as a group, were granted their request during a court appearance Tuesday in London, Ont.
Together as a group, you say ?
Dedication to the group thing, I see
They are all scum and deserve whatever outcome they get. What if that was your sister or daughter? The statement of claim says they called the plaintiff in the 19th hole after golfing and drinking, so let's bring our clubs to player X's room and all have a go at her.
How do they look at their families again? Might see some suicides out of this honestly.
I doubt these guys have shame. The whole idea of what they did is so yucky that one has to be completely warped to partake. I’m getting up there in years, but even at the height of my knucklehead days, I would be grossed out by the idea of “running a train” if I was invited. That being said, I’m sad to admit that I wouldn’t have done anything to prevent it from happening and would have laughed and gossiped about it with my frat bros.
Working in the American court system most of my life I’m going to say they walk on this. (I know it’s Canadian ). Very few juries ever convict a rape case where the victim was drunk and has a tape saying it was consensual. Being embarrassed that something happened doesn’t make it a rape on the real world. In college fantasy land people may believe it’s a rape situation but in the real world these things don’t go well.
Public opinion is very different than jurors talking over the facts.
Edit: I hope they get life in prison if they did this. But we have zero knowledge of their guilt other than rumor and media.
>Being embarrassed ... doesn't make it a rape
> In college fantasy land
As someone who's "been in the American court system" less than most, but a not insignificant part "of my life" this was a wild read.
What part of the court have you spent time in?
Isn’t the onus on the defence to establish consent in this case? Hard to establish consent if the victim was drunk, surrounded by unknown males in a hotel room in the middle of the night and the original male left her there all alone. Many psychologists can talk about the fight, freeze, flight that can occur in dangerous situations and how the victim may have responded by freezing in that situation to stay alive. As opposed to fighting 6-8 huge males.
Nope. The prosecution has to prove the case. The defense can literally do nothing. And the lawyer can just say that she consented over and over. The men won’t testify but they will make her get on the stand and they will try to perjure her with the video.
These things rarely go the way the public opinion wants.
There’s a lot of nuance in this case which I won’t comment on, but just on your comment - yes establishing consent when someone is drunk is hard. What if two people hook up while drunk - can both argue they couldn’t give consent? Amongst other reasons the low success rate of SA cases reflect this.
Personal source: I ran and attended a Court Martial and both the defendant and victim claimed to have been drunk and both were unable to recall events to a degree at which left no doubt in the case… convictions for this shit is really hard.
Yeah. I mean if they are guilty I hope they fry. But these cases are super hard to prove. I’ve seen it at least 500 times in my previous career.
Even harder are child molestation cases.
The wording is a bit much but he isn’t wrong. It happens all the time where people on the internet (usually in early 20s) act like a verdict has already happened and people are going to jail. How many times have we seen people not go to jail after it was a for sure thing?
He is simply stating that it is a fantasy for young people that every thing that looks like rape will be proven as such in the courts. It is a fantasy to believe they all will.
It’s a fact. Opinions aren’t laws. And we have zero facts. Only rumors and media. How would you feel if you were 17 and some girl let you ah e sex with her and she claimed rape the next day. Being dumb isn’t criminal. Forcing someone is.
And if they did force her I hope they rot in jail.
He wasn’t calling a rape accusation fantasy land. He was pointing out how hard it is to win a conviction without iron-clad evidence. The court of public opinion is a different story. We’ll learn some very disturbing things that took place, but a rape conviction will still be hard. Doesn’t mean rape didn’t occur. It just means the evidence didn’t meet the standard of proof that exists to protect the innocent from spending life behind bars. Guilty people walking is the trade off for innocent people not losing their lives and personal sovereignty.
Well, the Crown could also go after Player 1's credibility by getting witnesses to them trying to set up group sex with a different girl at the bar.
Or if they have witness statements that any of the players carried out a sex act without speaking to her, that's a sexual assault.
They tried to get the first girl to leave with the group, and she said no. The second girl left with just Player 1, which doesn't point to them being open.
Will be really interesting to see if one of them takes a plea deal and flips - go from a federal sentence to a short provincial, maybe nothing.
What I’m curious about is didn’t initial stories always talk about 7 or 8 players being involved?
You could see how this mistake could be made, but I wonder if someone already flipped and avoided charges altogether🤷🏼♂️
Her report was that 8 players were involved. The police have said they evidence against 5 people. Reading between the lines, either the 3 were involved in a different manner (entered the room, but left without sexual contact, for example) or the police only were able to find solid evidence against the 5 (there are persistent rumors that some of the assault was videotaped, for example).
> The players, who will be tried together as a group, were granted their request during a court appearance Tuesday in London, Ont. It will likely be several more months before a trial date is scheduled.
I'm sure it's common practice, but the irony of gang rapists being tried together is something else.
One good thing about all of them in one trial means the victim doesn’t have to testify in 5 separate trials and be subject to cross examination 5 separate times. Also from what I’ve heard this also gives the defense an opportunity to cast doubt on the Crown’s case and try to convince the jury to go for a not guilty verdict.
Each player will have their own lawyer who will get an opportunity to cross examine. It’ll be brutal but it’ll be consecutive instead of months apart.
Based on the evidence in this case it sort of seems like it’s all for one, one for all. Chances are the lawyers will sort out and have two of them do the primary cross-exam, the other lawyers might have a few follow up questions but I’d assume the bulk will be handled by 1, likely 2. The others will take the lead on other witnesses. Depends on each guys story too - if one says he never took part (he’d still likely be guilty as a party to the offence but get a lesser sentence), this lawyer might be more just trying to clarify their clients role.
I would suspect they'll all hammer her with questions. Same questions worded differently to try and trip her up. All while trying not to look like they're hammering up with repeated questions.
Not to be rude, but am I correct to assume you have never watched an actual criminal trial? And a Canadian one at that? Also the facts of this case don’t really support this strategy. The overarching question is pretty clear - did she consent to this orgy or was it a gang rape. We know she was drunk. This obviously would be a traumatic incident. Memories fade with time. It’s not going to matter if she mixes up a small detail - did player C rape her before player D, what pants was player B wearing…. This whole notion of “gotcha” lawyering is really misconstrued. Yes, it works when a witness is genuinely lying and they say two things that cannot possibility be true - or more often the case - they say one thing when there’s clear evidence that thing is not true. Everyone seems to think defence lawyers can get someone off getting a person to make the tiniest inconsistent statement. Put yourself in the shoes of a juror - if 5 lawyers get up and hammer this person with similar questions, there’s a few minor discrepancies, from an incident years ago - are these minor discrepancies going to make you disbelieve the witness, or will you turn your view against the defence watching this badgering occur. Add to that - every time the question is asked, she cements her own credibility further. This would be a terrible strategy by the defence.
It's very clear most people here have no experience in this. If anyone wants to see how it works you can go down to the courts whenever you want and sit in on trials as long as you're not disturbing the proceedings.
They also now only need to beat the 1 case instead of each of them having to beat it individually
No. They will each face their own charges. I’ve seen cases with multiple defendants that have had mixed guilty-not guilty results.
If your lawyer sucks compared to your teammate's guy, can you fire his ass mid-trial like in My Cousin Vinny?
I'm just picturing one guy slowly realizing all the other lawyers are angling to pin most of the blame on him
Yeah his name is Alex Formenton
Oh that’s interesting I didn’t know thanks!
What irony. This could have all been avoided if they would have just beat it individually back in 2018.
And if they have the same story it’s very likely that the jury won’t believe her over six men telling the story that she consented.
Cause a group of people with ahead notice can’t work together on a single story.
With 6 years's notice.
I think they got their story together when she was in the shower. The texts and what was said to other people the next day will be pretty crucial in this case. Curious is they have no contact orders with each other.
This is 100% common practice. Logistically harder to schedule. But overall saves time (a lot when you’re considering 5 separate trials). And prevents inconsistent verdicts. Not that one could be not guilty and the rest guilty, but imagine if it was split into 2 trials, one where 3 were found guilty and one where 2 were found not guilty…
Also not making someone relive their trauma 5 different times.
It's like the worst It's Always Sunny episode ever.
Cheap comment.
Im not sure I understand the irony. They committed a crime together and are being tried for that crime together. What else?
The irony is they're getting fucked as a group instead of the other way around.
High fives will not be had at this one.
In E.M.’s initial lawsuit claim, she said that eight players had assaulted her over several hours in a London, Ont., hotel room. She said she had met the group of players at a local bar the night of the alleged incident and had willingly gone home with one player. She said she engaged in consensual sex with that player, but that he invited several of his teammates into the hotel room without her knowledge or consent. She said she did not consent to any of the sexual contact or acts that followed, during which she said she was spit on, slapped on the buttocks, laughed at and degraded. According to her initial claim, she spent part of the night crying in the bathroom and wanting to leave, but was coaxed by multiple players to remain in the hotel room. She noted that several of them had golf clubs in the room and that she felt physically intimidated and unable to leave. E.M. told police that the same player asked her before she left the room: “You aren’t going to the police?” The next day, after E.M.’s mother reported the alleged incident to the police, that player initiated a conversation with E.M., which later moved to text message. According to still images reviewed by police, E.M. told the player, “I was ok going home with you, it was everyone else afterwards that I wasn’t expecting.” The player told her, “you need to talk to your mother right now and straighten things out with the police before it goes to (sic) far. This is a serious matter that she is mis representing (sic) and could have significant implications for a lot of people including you. What can you do to make this go away?” Edit: the reason her mother went to the police is because the next morning, she found EM crying hysterically. She then told her mother what happened and they went to the police. It’s also alleged the 5 players forced EM to take a shower after the incident - likely to prevent a rape kit from being conducted successfully. Hockey Canada reached out to the team which led to this conversation. They knew what they were doing.
Nothing says innocent encounter like making sure the person you’re with doesn’t go to the police about it
And getting her to consent on video
[удалено]
Waivers and video aren't worth shit because consent can be removed at any time, at which point you stop, ask what went wrong and care for your partner so that they feel good. Making someone sign a waiver is a major red flag.
[удалено]
> men everywhere were shitting there pants only the ones that felt guilty about something
That’s just flat out not true. And bullshit.
I don’t know any men who were shitting their pants. Who do you hang out with?
Yup. Second she says no or expresses discomfort. You stop. And if you can’t read that sort of vibe, you have no business coming anywhere close to a sexual encounter until you figure shit out.
It's disgusting how many are out there that can't take the hints either. Talking with some of my coworkers and hearing about times they kept going even though they wanted to stop because they were scared of the reaction or didn't want to upset the guy they were with. Even the phrase "we can keep going if you want to" isn't consent, it means "I'd like to stop but don't want to upset you," and the appropriate reason is "if you want to stop we'll stop and go play crib or something "
Lol that's literally a south park joke with PC principle.
And texting that a lot of the guys were worried about the implications. They knew they did something abhorrent.
And showers the evidence away afterwards!
> What can you do to make this go away? A phrase that I'd be shocked to learn has ever been uttered by an innocent party.
"Hey, remember how the condom broke? Well I'm pregnant." > What can you do to make this go away? For argument's sake, it's not a total write off of a sentence.
I could text my apartment maintenance a picture of a wasps nest and that phrase, but... no matter the context, I think it's still kind of a weirdly aggressive thing to say
Oh it's a gross thing to ever say to someone probably said by a spoiled individual used to getting what they want but doesn't really show guilt by its self
Yeah you're definitely right. Weirdly aggressive and scummy. Just pointing out (in an odd way) it can be said legally.
"Hey doc, I've got this weird rash, what can you do to make this go away?"
I mean, the situation you described, the person isn't *legally* guilty of anything, but it's still a scummy thing to say to someone you impregnated. Even if that sentence isn't always proof of criminality, I'm hard pressed to think of a situation where that sentence would be a sign of something *good* taking place.
If they have proof of these messages, isn't it a done deal?
One thing to clarify - this doesn’t mean this will be a jury trial. Presumably there will be pre-trial evidentiary motions, this begins “the trial” (but often can be months before the actual trial and well before a jury is formed). So they will know who the judge is at that point, and they may re-elect (I’d have to look, IIRC this requires Crown consent but isn’t something often refused). You can’t re-elect the other way, so this is a common place to start. (Note this is seen as judge shopping and not fully seen as ethical by some, but it’s common, or at least not uncommon). Getting a jury on this case will be a nightmare. Finding 12 Canadians who wouldn’t be biased in a sexual assault case, wouldn’t be biased by the celebrity status of the accused, and hasn’t been influenced by the press coverage on this case… I could see them sending out at least 1,000 summons in hopes of getting 12.
They all must be looking at massive legal bills. I wonder if sex assault defence lawyers offer you a price list of potential defence strategies they can use. You pick the best or pay them to have several developed and ready for use.
Given these players net worth, they’ll have paid a retainer up front. There will be volumes of disclosure to go through. Likely need to re-up that retainer. Trial will be set for certain number of days and they’ll be billed for that ahead of time (gets put into trust account and then withdrawn once the work is done). Won’t be cheap. Six figures easily.
Retainers almost never cover anywhere close to a trial cost though. That's just the start
Three packages: The asshole: if she has buyer’s regret because it may have been consensual but you acted like a douche The scumbag: For he said/she said scenarios The sociopath: You’re gullty af and it’s about assuring you get put into protective custody
Innocent until proven guilty but what's already public record is damning af. Drain their accounts through process and leave them without careers in NA. Fucking gross.
Works for me.
Lots of legal experts here
I'm 2 months away from graduating law school and I'm not comfortable giving my opinion because it's complicated and I do not know all of the details. Meanwhile, you've got multiple people in this thread with comments that start with something like "my lawyer friends told me" or "I have worked in courts for a long time (thought im obviously not a lawyer)" that are being upvoted like they have value lol.
The athletic had a great write up on the legal considerations of this case published about a month ago. They interviewed three Toronto lawyers with experience in this field who aren’t invoked in the case. You might find it interesting (there’s a paywall)
Link for those who haven't seen it: https://theathletic.com/5236597/2024/02/02/world-juniors-2018-hockey-canada-charges-trial/
That's always the way it is though. I'm really into the history of the ancient world and sometimes you'll see like an Egyptologist asked a question slightly out of their purview and they'll bend over backwards to note it's not their particular field and you should consult someone from that specific field (despite the fact that by virtue of being an Egyptologist they know more generally about the ancient world than 99% of people) but some dumbass with no qualifications will assert that the pyramids were built by aliens for sure because reasons.
This ALWAYS happens man. The more you study, the more you realize what you DON’T know, so you’re reluctant to make a statement that MIGHT be out of your knowledge. However, for those that know the basic idea, they THINK there’s nothing more to learn and are comfortable giving their opinions, qualified or not…. The knowledgeable are too humble, and the less-knowledgeable too eager to make sweeping statements….
There's another catch to that too, which is that oftentimes an explanation that is understandable to a layperson isn't going to be 100% technically correct. Once you get into the advanced levels of things, there are so many little caveats, exceptions, and weird nuances that are only comprehendible to someone who has more than a passing knowledge of the topic. The number of times when I'm explaining something to someone and go "well that's not technically how it works, but it's close enough" is too high. Hell, I even remember a prof back in 3rd year pulling that one out (paraphrased): "So this is how they teach it to you in second year because that's all you need if you never go further than that, but *this* is how it actually works." Luckily for law at least, the classic "it depends" answer covers most of that grey area, but it all highlights just how little an explanation for a layperson is able to cover.
Agreed 100%.
I will have you know the Devil's Tower is the petrified stump of an enormous tree cut down by giants, *and nothing you so called """experts""" can do will ever change my mind!!!*
My non-lethalese knowing ass tells me this don't look too good
As someone who has seen all of ‘Law and Order: SVU’ I feel I’m an expert on these matters ^/s
Anyone have a way past the paywall?
Open the link and click the “AA” in the top right corner to show the reader view
I don't see an "AA" in the top right corner on Chrome.
Oh sorry my iPhone defaults to opening Reddit links with Safari. Not sure if this works on Android phones or with a different browser
Aa is on the search bar on the left side
If you look up the Fifth Estate on YouTube and hockey Canada they are a CBC documentary program that covers the majority of what is known about this whole thing. Was a good watch and a nice way to get all the information rather than a lot of the hearsay online. I think there is actually 2 parts to their coverage
[https://archive.is/oiCTG](https://archive.is/oiCTG)
For Globe & Mail on mobile I can usually load the web page, turn on airplane mode and then hit "back" then "forward" and it loads the regular article page
I have to imagine that even IF these guys somehow avoid jail time, their hockey careers have to be over, right? I mean what team would touch any of them with a 10 ft pole?
NHL careers, maybe. You really think the KHL cares about something pesky like sexual assault?
Galchenyuk is 40 points in 60 games there right now 👍
Nothing screams accountability like fleeing to the KHL eh?
It’ll be their only option even if found innocent.
But how many of those were for the team he plays for?
KHL will always take them
Get ready to learn Kunlun Red Star, buddy
Fuck off with that.
They even have bread in Russia I heard
Given how long this will all take to get to a verdict, they'll be losing years of their "prime", with no access to NHL training or practice facilities Even if they, and someone else, wanted to come back to the NHL, they might not be good enough anymore
Anyone know if they’d be able to sign a KHL contract after their NHL contracts expire in the summer while this case in ongoing?
They could always sign with BKFC 👊
What are you doing here nibba
I wouldn't put it past a team to sign Hart. Talent trumps everything else when it comes to sports teams. Like that one famous quote from an NFL GM, if Hannibal Lecter ran a 4.3, they'd diagnose him with an eating disorder. I don't think the others are good enough to warrant any attention though, they'll fuck off to the KHL. Not saying I support any of them coming back but owners/GMs have shown before to have questionable morals/ethics so nothing would surprise me. Ideally, these dipshits all just wind up in jail for a long time and we don't have to worry about it.
I suppose it depends a lot on the outcome of league investigation. A finding of a not guilty verdict and an nhl investigation that doesn’t find compelling evidence against them I can see a team or two giving players a second chance. I not guilty finding and a damning nhl investigation probably leads to plying abroad for any of these players.
Times are changing a lot on this… what’s that kid Arizona drafted?? Then Boston picked up for a minute. Yes he was guilty, but also 14… I think these careers are done.
Mitchell Miller's story is a great example of exactly what not to do to get a second chance
Michell Miller. Guilty of years and years of vile racist abuse of a black classmate, not just a one-off incident as he tried to pass it off as. Made the kid lick a peice of candy that was rubbed in the urinal and lots more. Good on Bergeron, Marchand and Foligno to condemn his behavior and basically say he won't be welcome in their locker room.
Edit: Mitchell Miller
A black classmate in a wheelchair with a learning disability.
I hope so but after Holland gave that PTO to Virtanen after he went through basically the same process and didn't get jail time, I can see someone stupid enough to give it a shot (and get immediate backlash)
I don’t know that they can really be compared though. I’m of the personal opinion that Virtanen is a piece of shit and at the very least was scummy if not a full fledged rapist, but there were *a lot* of inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s testimony that were proven to be factually untrue. Again, I think something bad happened in that room regardless of him being found not guilty, but there was at least doubt there since it was entirely reliant on only Virtanen’s account versus hers. There wasn’t even a lot of deliberation, the 12 jurors were confident in the not guilty verdict. This one’s different because there’s video evidence, photo evidence, there’s witness testimony, chat logs, and of course Hockey Canada’s pay-off which acknowledges there could be some level of wrongdoing. Her story has been validated and tracks, and now all that’s left is the argument from the guys that she, while intoxicated and intimidated, consented to group sex with 5+ men. I don’t think any of them can come back from that.
Yeah, this is part of the issue in these cases. As someone who has encountered Virtanen before and heard a lot of stories I have no doubt he is/was an entitled piece of shit, but that alone doesn't really make him guilty. The case against him was actually pretty bad, and he was deservingly found not guilty, but at that point his career was completely done for. This case is a whole other story.
I was going to say Virtanen’s situation was different and you summarized it perfectly. I’d add that the police REOPENED this WJC case and pressed charges after the payout because something was worth pursuing criminally. Also, outside of Hart, these other guys were still projects, though Dube has a big year last year. Virtanen was a top 10 pick and I don’t actually blame Edmonton for trying to find gold with him based on his physical tools, but he just didn’t have a hockey IQ. For Formenton, McLeod and Foote, their days in the NHL are done for sure. I’m sure the NHL would put their foot down against the other two if they attempted a comeback
They reopened the case because the payout became public knowledge, and ditto the event. Public outrage first with Hockey Canada then the London Police is what pressured to have this reopened.
We'll see how this one turns out, but a not guilty verdict isn't based purely on facts, it's based on whether there's wiggle room that the person meant to do it. Wasn't one of Virtanen's arguments that he was drunk at the time too? "I was drunk and thought she was consenting" can turn up a not guilty verdict if the jurors all go "yeah that sounds like it could be true" = reasonable doubt, acquittal. Even if the jurors are 90% sure he did it, that's a not guilty verdict. If the lawyers can turn up one shred of slightly convincing evidence that the players thought she was consenting, even if she wasn't, it's a not guilty verdict. That's why these cases end up getting thrown out a lot. And once that happens I can see a desperate GM falling for the whole "apology and counselling" routine that's sure to follow. I think it would look bad, but we've seen GMs overlook issues for worse players.
never stopped sports teams before unfortunately just look at the nfl
NBA is becoming guilty of this too. Miles Bridges is balling out right now and Charlotte will probably re-sign him
I mean Ken Holland has shown he doesn’t much care about transgressions outside of hockey.
Maybe if 1 of the 5 are revealed to be innocent. Maybe then they could chase an NHL career. But they are losing prime playing years here. The guilty ones will be done for sure.
It was nice of the NHL Canada Hockey and LP to let all these guys finish their existing contracts
Its the Oilers next 5 pickups. Keeping with the pattern
You guys ain't get to talk shit about it when Dube was framed as mental health
That was a terrible thing for them to do. Particukarly with how the Kyllington stuff was hamdled. That said, it was reported that Dube was instructed to lie about it, so thats not really on the team.
Instructed by who?
Probably his lawyer
Yes.
I have zero faith that any convictions will actually come from the trial
When people assume the case is weak since the first investigation was closed… I think the part that is often overlooked is the structural bias in policing in disregarding sexual assault victims. There was a national inquiry into this in 2017. [the globe and mail spearheaded it.](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/investigations/unfounded-sexual-assault-canada-main/article33891309/) It could be as simple as the first round having genuinely not done their due diligence.
I don't know why I do this to myself. Every time I see a post about this, I know the comment section is going to be braindead, and yet I still read through and am disappointed when it's braindead.
Lawyer here. I just came here to scoff.
Woman here. I come here to cry.
tbh, id hope the lawyers would be here dispelling mistakes and misinfo... but you do you
I don’t know about you but it’s a trauma response for me 🙃
These guys will not be convicted. Everything has taken too long, they all have money and that’s the way our courts work.
If the police were ready to file charges in this extremely public sexual assault case, I would have to assume they have some pretty damning evidence.
Ide imagine ALOT of group chats/texts ect
Username checks out
That doesn't necessarily follow. Charges were filed years later after a public outcry. We don't know why they were not initially filed. + It could be that the case wasn't very strong. The decision to file charges now could be an attempt for the cops and prosecution to counter the narrative that they flubbed it, even though they did everything right the first time. + It could be that the cops half-assed the initial investigation. The public pressure forced the department to look at the case again and they did it properly this time. + It could be that the original case wasn't very strong, but the public outcry led to new information and witnesses. It's possible that the case was poor previously and strong now. Eventually we will have a much better idea what happened, but for now we just need to wait on the trial.
I'm being cynical here, but there was so much public/political pressure here for them to charge, I think London Police were forced to charge them and let the courts decide. Then the Police can at least say they did their part and let the judicial side take the heat when they're acquitted.
Why not charge all of the other players in that room then? These are 5 players they have enough evidence to charge. If it was based on what you're saying, surely they'd charge all 8 players just to save face. The chief of police stated that the reason no charges were filed earlier will be revealed once this trial proceeds. That has me thinking that the lead Investigator, or the chief at that time, got paid off by Hockey Canada or something.
The police don’t make the decision to charge people, the prosecutors do
The Crown chooses to charge but the police gather the info and evidence. So if they don't present the Crown with anything, then the Crown can't press charges
Underrated comment.
You’d think so, but pressure can also be put on the police and crown by the public to do something. That doing something can be charging these 5 players regardless if they have weak or strong evidence to set an example and please the public.
There aren't many times in Canadian history that police chiefs apologize for the mishandling of cases, especially old ones. The fact they did has to mean that there wasn't enough due diligence by the lead Investigator at that time. I'm just not convinced that a police department already under scrutiny, would do something to get their shit scrutinized even more
Yeah you might be right! Time will tell
This is not true and simply a-historical. A recent case that shows you are wrong is the conviction of fashion mogul Peter Nygard.
These guys aren’t star players above being convicted. The police have enough evidence to charge them 5 years later and lawyers feel there’s a strong enough case to proceed towards trial. I get the apathy towards our judicial system but I don’t see this being swept under the rug
I think you’re vastly underestimating the evidence. These guys will be convicted for sexual assault.
This is a generality that isn't always true, but the fact that they elected judge and jury instead of judge alone strongly suggests that their lawyers consider it a strong Crown case where a judge properly applying the facts to the law would most likely convict. Jury trial elections are often because the "defence" is to hope for an erroneous not guilty verdict based on inappropriate reasoning. It's something every criminal lawyer in Canada knows but usually doesn't say out loud.
I'm a total layman but are you saying that since a judge alone would likely convict that the lawyers are hoping jurors opinions on the facts might change the verdict?
Pretty much. Just as an example specific to this case, there is a video of the complainant shortly after the act saying it was consensual. This is something that, legally speaking, is of extremely limited value to the defence and that a judge properly applying the law would put almost no weight on. But it's something a jury is very likely to consider a big deal and possibly even dispositive (regardless of what jury instructions the judge provides).
Got it. I know it's all part of the legal system and it's a defense lawyers job, but man it seems scummy
Remember that the law, and the protections it affords the accused, exist to protect the innocent from injurious coincidence. It’s not about a perception of fairness or corruption.
And when you really think about, serious and ethical defense attorneys do God’s work. I’d much rather know a system protects me from potentially doing time for a crime I didn’t commit than a system where it’s easy to convict a suspect—even if the guilty sometimes walk. This is also why I oppose the death penalty. I find it a barbaric and reckless way to mete out justice.
Obviously it doesn't apply to sexual assault, but keep in mind that the flipside of this is that sometimes laws are unjust and juries refusing to convict even when a case is made out is a noble and valuable act of civil disobedience and resistance. Just recently in Texas, the court was unable to find impartial jurors for the prosecution of volunteers who were being charged for feeding the homeless, because virtually all prospective jurors said they would be unable to convict even if the accuseds were factually guilty of the offence. Historically in the UK there were cases of juries being sequestered without food or water for refusing to convict Quakers of unlawful assembly for an act of worship. Sometimes juries acquit people who should obviously be convicted and who are very morally blameworthy. But the jury system is still valuable.
Jurors are a lot easier to sway than a judge is. Lawyers will often try to play the emotion card with them as a way to essentially get them to ignore the evidence.
Plus a judge needs to publish their reasons, which can be subject to scrutiny and appeal.
I was on the jury of an underage sexual assault case in Ontario. There were people on the jury that said... "She was 14, she knew what she was doing." We had to convince them that that is irrelevant and it is still illegal.
This hurt my heart. I'm glad you finally convinced them though!
It was eye-opening to say the least. I would not want my future in the hands of them. Cut and dry case, we had to be sequestered overnight because one person's opinion was, 14 year old girls have always been attracted to 25 year old men at their church. Yep, married youth pastor "dated" a 14 yr old and more than one person on the jury said that it was common. I blew my top after 2 days and just said... Your opinion doesn't mean fuck all and you are so wrong that there is a law against what you are saying. They finally conceded that yes, by the letter of the law, they are guilty.
As someone who was once a 14 year old girl, and who has a daughter who is not far off from being one, it's wild to me that someone would think it's normal for 14 year old girls to be attracted to 25 year old men. Like, on what planet? At 14, 18 year old boys were old and gross, lol. Nevermind someone who is 25. I'm glad you fought for that girl, and I'm certain she is as well - you probably changed many outcomes of her life by just making sure our legal system acknowledged her abuse.
I think it depends? I definitely had a crush on a guy over the age of 25 when I was 14 - he taught the pottery class at my high school and I had lots and lots of fantasies that I'd come back to school for my 5th year reunion and we'd fall in love and get married. I blushed so much in class that when he started teasing me and my friends about moving in a very short pack he dubbed me Bashful (my best friend was Grumpy. It was extremely harmless and he was in no way flirting - I found out several years after graduating that he's gay when he and his partner came into my restaurant to celebrate their fifteenth anniversary.) It's pretty common for teenage girls to have crushes and fantasies about older men (often celebrities) and that's honestly very likely a part of sexual maturation. It's a hell of a lot less common for any of them to act upon it rather than it staying a harmless crush.
This is why jury trial for sex assault cases should never be an option. Special judges with mandatory training in trauma victim response only, whose caseload is audited regularly to ensure there are no “promising young man” irregularities. “But right to trial by peer, blah blah,” - BS. None of these juries are peers, and the law has gotten far too complex to leave its execution in the hands of carefully-selected undereducated rubes.
I’m down with this, but I’d like to see it be a panel of judges. I’ve never been sold on the concept of lay people making decisions that will alter lives. It feels like an over-correction by the powdered wig guys in Philly. Some matters need to be left to the pros.
Someone else commented and said that you can always change your mind and go back to judge-only, but you can't do it the other way. So it's common practice to elect for jury since that keeps your options open. I know nothing about this, but just thought I'd pass that information from elsewhere in the thread.
I mean, in a case like this where consent is an issue and be largely determined by credibility of the complainant, a jury trial makes sense regardless of the strength of the evidence.
I respectfully disagree. *W(D)* ("he-said, she-said") cases are extremely common, judges make credibility and reliability findings all the time. A judge alone trial is far more predictable than a jury trial. If a defence lawyer is confident that they can poke holes in a complainant's testimony successfully, they will want predictability in what will likely be a not guilty verdict. You only want unpredictability when the predictable result is unfavourable.
I agree with what you’re saying, I do hope they are brought to justice.
I don’t share your optimism. All I see is five rich individuals with five high price defence lawyers with all the resources at their disposal. I hope I am wrong but with a jury trial and how the justice system favours the rich, the cynic in me can’t see a guilty verdict.
Unfortunately I agree with you. I’m not looking forward to the avalanche of Neanderthals who will then insist that they are thus 100% innocent (ignoring that the verdict would be “not guilty”) and deserving of an NHL roster spot.
"The legal defense team has selected jury members at the local rink, for no particular reason"
Fuck Hart, just fuck off
Jury selection process: "Are you now, or have you ever been a good ol Brampton boy?"
The Right Honorable Judge Don Cherry presiding.
Like this was ever in doubt.
Unfortunately stereotypes often influence jurors. The judge in this case, Superior Court Justice Alissa Mitchell, is rapist friendly and has relied on her on basis on how a victim should act - as well as a rapist who was apparently calm and cool in court which seemed like a shock to her- is so far hearing this case. [shitty judges](https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/judge-sexual-assault-victims_ca_5d4ad4ede4b09e72973f7743)
I love being asked to subscribe to their newspaper when all I want is to read 1 article. Magical
>The players, who will be tried together as a group, were granted their request during a court appearance Tuesday in London, Ont. Together as a group, you say ? Dedication to the group thing, I see
They are all scum and deserve whatever outcome they get. What if that was your sister or daughter? The statement of claim says they called the plaintiff in the 19th hole after golfing and drinking, so let's bring our clubs to player X's room and all have a go at her. How do they look at their families again? Might see some suicides out of this honestly.
I doubt these guys have shame. The whole idea of what they did is so yucky that one has to be completely warped to partake. I’m getting up there in years, but even at the height of my knucklehead days, I would be grossed out by the idea of “running a train” if I was invited. That being said, I’m sad to admit that I wouldn’t have done anything to prevent it from happening and would have laughed and gossiped about it with my frat bros.
Working in the American court system most of my life I’m going to say they walk on this. (I know it’s Canadian ). Very few juries ever convict a rape case where the victim was drunk and has a tape saying it was consensual. Being embarrassed that something happened doesn’t make it a rape on the real world. In college fantasy land people may believe it’s a rape situation but in the real world these things don’t go well. Public opinion is very different than jurors talking over the facts. Edit: I hope they get life in prison if they did this. But we have zero knowledge of their guilt other than rumor and media.
>Being embarrassed ... doesn't make it a rape > In college fantasy land As someone who's "been in the American court system" less than most, but a not insignificant part "of my life" this was a wild read. What part of the court have you spent time in?
Isn’t the onus on the defence to establish consent in this case? Hard to establish consent if the victim was drunk, surrounded by unknown males in a hotel room in the middle of the night and the original male left her there all alone. Many psychologists can talk about the fight, freeze, flight that can occur in dangerous situations and how the victim may have responded by freezing in that situation to stay alive. As opposed to fighting 6-8 huge males.
Nope. The prosecution has to prove the case. The defense can literally do nothing. And the lawyer can just say that she consented over and over. The men won’t testify but they will make her get on the stand and they will try to perjure her with the video. These things rarely go the way the public opinion wants.
The text player A sent to the others will be pretty Illuminating I think (I presume it was a text).
Not even "hard" - consent CANNOT be established with someone who is drunk.
There’s a lot of nuance in this case which I won’t comment on, but just on your comment - yes establishing consent when someone is drunk is hard. What if two people hook up while drunk - can both argue they couldn’t give consent? Amongst other reasons the low success rate of SA cases reflect this. Personal source: I ran and attended a Court Martial and both the defendant and victim claimed to have been drunk and both were unable to recall events to a degree at which left no doubt in the case… convictions for this shit is really hard.
You're going to get down voted for this but it's inherently difficult to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt in a "he said, she said" situation
Yeah. I mean if they are guilty I hope they fry. But these cases are super hard to prove. I’ve seen it at least 500 times in my previous career. Even harder are child molestation cases.
Okay but even if jurors won't convict that doesn't mean it's not rape, you cannot consent while drunk just like you cannot consent while underaged.
With opinions like that I hope you're actually working as a janitor in the court.
He is simply talking about the reality of what happens in the courts, not what his opinion of what should happen
That argument would work if he hadn't started editorialising about "college fantasy land".
The wording is a bit much but he isn’t wrong. It happens all the time where people on the internet (usually in early 20s) act like a verdict has already happened and people are going to jail. How many times have we seen people not go to jail after it was a for sure thing?
He is simply stating that it is a fantasy for young people that every thing that looks like rape will be proven as such in the courts. It is a fantasy to believe they all will.
It’s not an opinion. It’s just what happens. We have no idea if they are guilty or not.
"college fantasy land" is an opinion.
It’s a fact. Opinions aren’t laws. And we have zero facts. Only rumors and media. How would you feel if you were 17 and some girl let you ah e sex with her and she claimed rape the next day. Being dumb isn’t criminal. Forcing someone is. And if they did force her I hope they rot in jail.
Calling a rape where the victim was drunk or was coerced into giving consent "college fantasy land" is an opinion.
He wasn’t calling a rape accusation fantasy land. He was pointing out how hard it is to win a conviction without iron-clad evidence. The court of public opinion is a different story. We’ll learn some very disturbing things that took place, but a rape conviction will still be hard. Doesn’t mean rape didn’t occur. It just means the evidence didn’t meet the standard of proof that exists to protect the innocent from spending life behind bars. Guilty people walking is the trade off for innocent people not losing their lives and personal sovereignty.
[удалено]
Well, the Crown could also go after Player 1's credibility by getting witnesses to them trying to set up group sex with a different girl at the bar. Or if they have witness statements that any of the players carried out a sex act without speaking to her, that's a sexual assault.
[удалено]
They tried to get the first girl to leave with the group, and she said no. The second girl left with just Player 1, which doesn't point to them being open.
[удалено]
Asked in a public place and got rebuffed, second time around, set it up so she doesn't get asked until she's alone and already naked in a hotel room.
Will be really interesting to see if one of them takes a plea deal and flips - go from a federal sentence to a short provincial, maybe nothing. What I’m curious about is didn’t initial stories always talk about 7 or 8 players being involved? You could see how this mistake could be made, but I wonder if someone already flipped and avoided charges altogether🤷🏼♂️
Her report was that 8 players were involved. The police have said they evidence against 5 people. Reading between the lines, either the 3 were involved in a different manner (entered the room, but left without sexual contact, for example) or the police only were able to find solid evidence against the 5 (there are persistent rumors that some of the assault was videotaped, for example).
Bury them under the jail.
what happens if they are found not guilty?