As they say, bad facts make bad law.
I am very disappointed by the verdicts.
One takeaway of this is that a potentially coerced video taken after a harrowing evening absolves all sins. I think that if you put any of us in EM's situation, where she still hasn't been able to leave, then we would say whatever the videographer wanted.
The part that really makes no sense to me about the whole thing is that she went through with the trial. There was no benefit to her to do that. She had been paid. Much of the evening was still private. Why testify if she really did want the night to happen? An attempt to remove some of the shame she felt afterwards?
It is such a setback for victims. Who is going to come forward to the criminal justice system now?
It also doesn't do any good for the Hockey Canada program where the stereotype that hockey players can do what they want to whoever they want. At least HC can say they did the right thing based on the verdicts, I guess.
As the evidence played out it did seem like the Crown overshot their evidence and/or they did not present it well. Frankly, all the distractions should not matter to professionals. The evidence is what it is and you present it in the best way to ensure the trier of fact can make an educated decision.
Very sad all around.
|