Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Does that mean statements from just the accused, or also statements from the accuser?
Because when the accuser was being cross-examined by the defense, they made reference to the to HC investigation. They mentioned that the statements made in that investigation, the police investigation, and her court testimony were different. If the HC investigation is not to be used as evidence, I am surprised that they were even allowed to mention it at all. Then again, maybe there was an objection to it and it wasn't reported.
|
A pre-trial judge ruled that the players were coerced and bullied into giving statements (threats of lifetime bans etc) so the statements by them were inadmissible. The funny thing is that the "bully" was HC's investigator. So HC's tactics (not the Crown's) made those statements inadmissible.