Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
I came to say basically this. I am thinking that at the outset they may have thought the defense of 'Boys will be Boys' and that they're Junior Heroes in a Hockey-crazy town would work...and when it didn't appear to be maybe changed their minds?
But thats just spitballing, blankall is right though, they went through two Juries and didn't seem all that broken up about it.
|
I think they were just resigned to the fact they they were unlikely getting an unbiased jury at that point. From their perspective, unbiased jury > trial by judge > biased jury. Where they are now isn't ideal, but it beats the alternative that they were presented with.
I really have no idea how a judge is going to rule. She obviously has a wealth of knowledge and experience, plus familiarity with case law. It's easy to rule one way or another based on feelings and intuition as an arm chair juror, but her judgement is likely to be way more technical than that. I don't think a judge only trial is the card up the sleeve for the defense that people think it is, it's just better than the other hand that was dealt.
For years, the press has been reporting one side of this, and while I do think the people reporting it are fighting the good fight to get the culture changed in hockey and give a voice to victims, I don't think it helped when it comes to people looking at this with an unbiased view. The default position for most people seemed to be that the males are all liars because we know their "type". It's not a good basis for a fair trial.