Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton found not guilty of sexual assault

[Ragnar]

Imagine spending your entire life being the flames forum libtard

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Imagine spending your entire life being the flames forum libtard

lolwut

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

lolwut

Don’t laugh at him. That took him two tries and it’s as close as he could get to something coherent. He’s brave.

[Blaster86]

I'm just glad they're finally appreciating you for all your hard work.

[CliffFletcher]

A defence lawyer responds to criticism of women who represent clients accused of sex offences, and champions the presumption of innocence.

As a female defence lawyer, I’m not betraying women when I represent clients accused of sexual crimes

…The idea that female lawyers who defend their clients’ interests, as they have sworn an oath to do, are somehow traitors to their sex or gender is mistaken. I could also write whole essays on the blatant misogyny behind the assumption that men accused of sexual crimes hire women to defend them only to “hide behind” their “skirts,” as Mallick put it, rather than to benefit from their intellectual and professional expertise (not to mention the notion that female lawyers might take such cases in part to pay their “wine bill”).

I’m not only a criminal defence lawyer; I’m also a woman and a member of the LGBTQ+ community, two demographics that are significantly underrepresented in the legal profession and overrepresented as victims and complainants of sexual offences. Before I became a lawyer, I did social work with women and children fleeing intimate-partner violence, as well as with vulnerable sex workers. I’m no stranger to the pervasive problem of sexual violence or to the ways in which the patriarchy continues to oppress and degrade women of all demographics. I understand the emotions involved here, and I understand the negative reactions to women who appear to support those accused of sexual crimes.

But the fact is, the foundational principles of our criminal justice system — including our Charter right to the presumption of innocence — apply to everyone, regardless of who they are or what they’ve been accused of. You need only look south of the border to see what can happen when a government starts to pick and choose who gets due process and who doesn’t. Either we all have rights, or none of us does.

It’s worth remembering that when it comes to crimes involving sexual violence, the penalty is usually jail, and jail is huge: It’s depriving someone of their liberty. It’s putting a human being in a cage. It’s a punishment that we shouldn’t take lightly, that we should mete out only to those whom we have determined, via due process, should be there. A bare, untested allegation is not and cannot be enough to impose such a punishment on any member of Canadian society, and the trial process is crucial to ensuring that no one’s liberty is taken away over a whim or lie.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/cont...ts-accused-of/

[GioforPM]

I read that before. But I think her outrage is misplaced. I haven't read any serious criticism of the female defence lawyers simply because they are women. I have read more about their adoption of the old school tactics often employed against victims.

I do think it's become a common tactic to intentionally choose female counsel when charged with sexual offences. Partly because those tactics come across better from a woman, partly to try to convey that the accused isn't anti-woman (why, look at who he chose as his lawyer).

[blankall]

Didn't really see any "greasy" tactics or even unnecessary attacks on the accused here. There were simply a lot of he said/she said statements and enough collateral evidence, including videos of the accuser before and after the event to cast a "reasonable doubt".

If anything, it looked like defence counsel fumbled quite a few things and simply had a fact set that worked in their favor. They certainly lacked tact in their presentation at multiple occasions.

Who knows what actually happened here (besides the people involved that is). The players also aren't getting off scot-free. Several will likely never play in the NHL again, and their reputations have been demolished. The NHL has released some scathing remarks about them, and they still can't play in the NHL:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...-under-review/

This alone, is going to make pro-athletes reconsider their behaviour and the way they treat women. Seems like the whole thing, even without a guilty verdict, was likely worth it for that alone.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by blankall

Didn't really see any "greasy" tactics or even unnecessary attacks on the accused here. There were simply a lot of he said/she said statements and enough collateral evidence, including videos of the accuser before and after the event to cast a "reasonable doubt".

If anything, it looked like defence counsel fumbled quite a few things and simply had a fact set that worked in their favor. They certainly lacked tact in their presentation at multiple occasions.

Who knows what actually happened here (besides the people involved that is). The players also aren't getting off scot-free. Several will likely never play in the NHL again, and their reputations have been demolished. The NHL has released some scathing remarks about them, and they still can't play in the NHL:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...-under-review/

This alone, is going to make pro-athletes reconsider their behaviour and the way they treat women. Seems like the whole thing, even without a guilty verdict, was likely worth it for that alone.

There was a hint of victim blaming going on in the tactics, and reliance on how she dressed and acted. It didn't go as far as "well look what she was wearing, she was asking for it". But it went a little down that path.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

Didn't really see any "greasy" tactics or even unnecessary attacks on the accused here. There were simply a lot of he said/she said statements and enough collateral evidence, including videos of the accuser before and after the event to cast a "reasonable doubt".

If anything, it looked like defence counsel fumbled quite a few things and simply had a fact set that worked in their favor. They certainly lacked tact in their presentation at multiple occasions.

Who knows what actually happened here (besides the people involved that is). The players also aren't getting off scot-free. Several will likely never play in the NHL again, and their reputations have been demolished. The NHL has released some scathing remarks about them, and they still can't play in the NHL:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...-under-review/

This alone, is going to make pro-athletes reconsider their behaviour and the way they treat women. Seems like the whole thing, even without a guilty verdict, was likely worth it for that alone.

Personally, I think the civil suit was the biggest hit to their reputation. I think it was Foremnton's lawyer who said that if the players had been properly consulted during the process and had the chance to get legal representation, they would have never agreed to settle for anything. The fact it was settled will always imply guilt in some people's minds. There were some key points in those civil claims that were proven to be incorrect or inaccurate. That's on Hockey Canada though and their willingness to just settle it as quickly and quietly as possible speaks to the larger hockey culture issue. Probably a long shot, but I wonder if the players have any recourse against Hockey Canada for not consulting with them about accepting the settlement in their names.

Speaking of the settlement though, it also somewhat worked in their favour as things around it brought up questions about the complainant's reliability. First of all that there were key claims that were wrong, like naming players that weren't even there, but also that the complainant said she couldn't remember if she actually reviewed it before signing off on it. It seems far fetched that someone wouldn't remember reviewing what was probably the most important legal document you would ever agree to, which you are seeking $3 million dollars and making serious accusations that could seriously impact people if they are incorrect. You either did or didn't review it, but not being able to remember if you did... personally not buying it. So either she was not telling the truth and didn't want to look like she made false claims even if accidentally or that her attention to detail could not be relied on, or she really doesn't recall reviewing it in which case her memory and ability to recall important facts about anything comes into question even if not afraid or intoxicated. IMO, that was another key part of the trial where the Crown's case started to fall apart.

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I read that before. But I think her outrage is misplaced. I haven't read any serious criticism of the female defence lawyers simply because they are women. I have read more about their adoption of the old school tactics often employed against victims.

I do think it's become a common tactic to intentionally choose female counsel when charged with sexual offences. Partly because those tactics come across better from a woman, partly to try to convey that the accused isn't anti-woman (why, look at who he chose as his lawyer).

It was a response to this opinion, also in the Toronto Star:
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star...d315f7b03.html

Who keeps popping up at the trials of men accused of mass murder and sex crimes? Why, it’s their female lawyers. Take the case of the five Canadian hockey players acquitted of sexual assault on Thursday, for example.

I can see why a certain kind of man facing certain accusations might hire a lawyer who wears skirts — he can hide behind them — but it’s not entirely clear to me why those lawyers would take the case in the first place.

The presumption of innocence goes without saying. But if you’re accused of a violent sexual crime, a smart man might well shop for what I call a flattering adjacency. That would be the lady by your side in court and taking your side.

…

A woman known as J.B. recently wrote in the Globe and Mail about testifying about being choked by later-jailed musician Jacob Hoggard. She was cross-examined by Megan Savard, the same defence lawyer hired by one of the hockey players.

If it scarred her forever, she wrote, imagine what E.M. endured from “five different defence teams. I can only imagine how it must have felt to have her trauma picked apart by a lineup of lawyers, her credibility questioned, her humanity chipped away as they scoffed and laughed.”

Now any lawyer as picky as me would be a bit short of clients. But as the great defence lawyer John Mortimer wrote of his early years in practice desperate for accused criminals to knock on his office door, the legal profession is not grand. It’s an industry like any other. Without criminals crime-ing, defence lawyers would have a hard time paying the mortgage and the wine bill.

“At some point your moral compass is going to kick in and you won’t have a choice about what to do,” a friend initially told Polley. Everyone has options.

If I were Megan Savard I would be infuriated. I know it’s not a popular opinion around here but I think the defense lawyers did a good job and the players were rightfully acquitted. The detailed testimony quoted in the judgment did not support the Complainant’s allegations.

[Fuzzy14]

There was a hint of victim blaming going on in the tactics, and reliance on how she dressed and acted. It didn't go as far as "well look what she was wearing, she was asking for it". But it went a little down that path.

I didn't see anything over the top about how she dressed... are there examples of that I missed in the coverage?

As far as how the complainant acted... isn't her conduct entirely relevant? If the accused is supposed to make reasonable efforts to ensure the other person is consenting, isn't the conduct of that individual relevant (her conduct during the course of events of course, not her past conduct).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There was a hint of victim blaming going on in the tactics, and reliance on how she dressed and acted. It didn't go as far as "well look what she was wearing, she was asking for it". But it went a little down that path.

Unfortunately, that will be relevant to some degree, as it speaks to her state of mind and whether consent was given. I didn't see the lawyers going beyond the bounds of relevance to embarrass or humiliate the complainant though. I didn't see anyone going as far as to say EM was dressed a certain way, therefore asking for it either.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Personally, I think the civil suit was the biggest hit to their reputation. I think it was Foremnton's lawyer who said that if the players had been properly consulted during the process and had the chance to get legal representation, they would have never agreed to settle for anything. The fact it was settled will always imply guilt in some people's minds. There were some key points in those civil claims that were proven to be incorrect or inaccurate. That's on Hockey Canada though and their willingness to just settle it as quickly and quietly as possible speaks to the larger hockey culture issue. Probably a long shot, but I wonder if the players have any recourse against Hockey Canada for not consulting with them about accepting the settlement in their names.

Speaking of the settlement though, it also somewhat worked in their favour as things around it brought up questions about the complainant's reliability. First of all that there were key claims that were wrong, like naming players that weren't even there, but also that the complainant said she couldn't remember if she actually reviewed it before signing off on it. It seems far fetched that someone wouldn't remember reviewing what was probably the most important legal document you would ever agree to, which you are seeking $3 million dollars and making serious accusations that could seriously impact people if they are incorrect. You either did or didn't review it, but not being able to remember if you did... personally not buying it. So either she was not telling the truth and didn't want to look like she made false claims even if accidentally or that her attention to detail could not be relied on, or she really doesn't recall reviewing it in which case her memory and ability to recall important facts about anything comes into question even if not afraid or intoxicated. IMO, that was another key part of the trial where the Crown's case started to fall apart.

Generally, an insurance company and/or the employer that gets to call the shots about settlement, and not he policy holder or the employee.

If it hadn't been for this criminal trial, no one would care or know about the out of court settlement. I also don't think that our of court settlement has changed many people's views of this incident. The players own creepy behaviour is what people are more concerned about. I think we all can plainly see Hockey Canada's motivation for making an out of court settlement.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy14

I didn't see anything over the top about how she dressed... are there examples of that I missed in the coverage?

As far as how the complainant acted... isn't her conduct entirely relevant? If the accused is supposed to make reasonable efforts to ensure the other person is consenting, isn't the conduct of that individual relevant (her conduct during the course of events of course, not her past conduct).

There was the business of how she couldn't be drunk and walk in heels, and all the focus on the video of her running around and chatting them up.

And conudct is a very tricky subject in sexual assault cases, because consent can't be assumed from prior conduct and also be withdrawn at any time.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There was the business of how she couldn't be drunk and walk in heels, and all the focus on the video of her running around and chatting them up.

The walking in high heels business was contesting EM’s statement that she was too intoxicated to remember much of what happened that evening. The video footage of EM buying her own drinks and approaching the players was to contest her statements that they aggressively approached her and bought her the drinks.

These facts weren’t introduced as slut-shaming or to prove consent, but to challenge the credibility of EM’s statements and testimony.

If you read the full ruling (CTV has posted it), the judge ultimately ruled that EM’s credibility was undermined by the inconsistencies in her statements at different times, gaps in her memory, the frequency with which she referred to ‘her truth’*, and witness testimony and video evidence that challenged the version of events she offered.

* The Crown should be counselling witnesses to steer clear of that term. It reflects a sentiment around truth that’s common in some circles, but is unlikely to be persuasive with a judge in a court of law.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by blankall

Generally, an insurance company and/or the employer that gets to call the shots about settlement, and not he policy holder or the employee.

If it hadn't been for this criminal trial, no one would care or know about the out of court settlement. I also don't think that our of court settlement has changed many people's views of this incident. The players own creepy behaviour is what people are more concerned about. I think we all can plainly see Hockey Canada's motivation for making an out of court settlement.

I think in this situation it’s actually the reverse. If the out of court settlement hadn’t become widely known, the criminal trial would not have occurred.

[cam_calderon]

Didn't Rick Westhead break the story of the settlement, probably setting the criminal trial itself in motion?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by blankall

Generally, an insurance company and/or the employer that gets to call the shots about settlement, and not he policy holder or the employee.

If it hadn't been for this criminal trial, no one would care or know about the out of court settlement. I also don't think that our of court settlement has changed many people's views of this incident. The players own creepy behaviour is what people are more concerned about. I think we all can plainly see Hockey Canada's motivation for making an out of court settlement.

Those guys would have had different issues at civil trial. Their own evidence (Dube beating this #### out of her ass) which was questionably excluded at the criminal trial as being hearsay somehow would have almost certainly been included at a civil trial.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

But her intentions are pretty important, when the bottom line is she was either a willing participant who felt regret, vs an unwilling participant. The judge had to make the decision based on the evidence presented.

Feeling regret after the fact doesn’t make it a crime, doing things against your will does.

We are basing the judge's takes based on what she wrote. We can base EM's intentions based on why she said she went ahead and cooperated despite being told it was an iffy case. Anything further is just guessing and you might as well cast aspersions on the intentions of the judge, the defence counsel or anyone else involved if you dive deeper without any supporting evidence.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The walking in high heels business was contesting EM’s statement that she was too intoxicated to remember much of what happened that evening. The video footage of EM buying her own drinks and approaching the players was to contest her statements that they aggressively approached her and bought her the drinks.

These facts weren’t introduced as slut-shaming or to prove consent, but to challenge the credibility of EM’s statements and testimony.

If you read the full ruling (CTV has posted it), the judge ultimately ruled that EM’s credibility was undermined by the inconsistencies in her statements at different times, gaps in her memory, the frequency with which she referred to ‘her truth’*, and witness testimony and video evidence that challenged the version of events she offered.

* The Crown should be counselling witnesses to steer clear of that term. It reflects a sentiment around truth that’s common in some circles, but is unlikely to be persuasive with a judge in a court of law.

I've read the full ruling, and those little items were all shaded as behavioural cues. Because there's no way to assess impairment from someone walking in high heels, and any expert will admit that. So good on them for finding a way to introduce that otherwise irrelevant evidence I guess??