Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton charged with sexual assault

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Well didn’t she settle out of court and then the federal government reopened the case. So maybe she didn’t really want to testify. Or maybe her mom pushed her into it?

Who knows. But super conflicting testimonies. She has validated some of the players claims though.

Know idea how it will turn out.

Good Lord, you think the federal government is the one who laid charges and the federal government is the one who decided to prosecute this case? Do you think the federal government does snow removal too?

And I don’t think she validated any of the players claims in her testimony.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Humour me, illustrious legal minds, on my thoughts below. Not a “will this result in a conviction or not” perspective, but one that attempts to hypothesize how the stories have diverged so substantively over time.

If there was absolutely nothing to this, why did Hockey Canada cut a multimillion dollar cheque in return for an NDA?

My thought is that because whatever they were paying to keep quiet via the NDA was damaging enough in their view to warrant millions of dollars. But that information can’t be included as evidence, because the hockey players careers were coerced / threatened. Which, again, why would they lie to make things worse when facing that kind of pressure from Hockey Canada? Purely my opinion, but I think they were threatened and came clean, and because there were no criminal charges at the time, that would have been it after Hockey Canada purchased EMs silence. Once the story broke and became public interest, the criminal investigation nullified the NDA, bringing things to light.

Carter Hart and Detective Newton’s testimony this week is not consistent with a story that requires a multi million dollar settlement, in my view.

I fully expect the legal proceedings to result in a not guilty verdict. It sure seems like once the text messages were ruled inadmissible that the prosecution began to speed run this trial without a cogent strategy to proving things beyond reasonable doubt. Perhaps their strategy is now to appeal the likely outcome?

Regardless of the consent issue, there was easily enough smoke to see why HC would want to bury this.

Even if consensual, it was a group sex involving a drunk 20 year old woman and over half a dozen largely high profile hockey players. The dirtbag hockey players passed around video of the incident afterwards. This is not the image that Hockey Canada wants to promote, and it's more certainly more than "absolutely nothing".

Don't undervalue the importance of reputation, particularly in any kind of work or professional (including sports) environment.

At the time HC made the payment, there would be no way to conclusively prove who was telling the truth or whether any acts were criminal. They would only be looking at the risk of a criminal conviction and the damage done to their (and the players reputation) if all the events go public. Even now, after hearing a lot of the evidence, there's uncertainty about whether a criminal conviction will stick.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I would bet that it was in the seven figure range. She was asking for $3.55 million and it was settled pretty quickly. I doubt it would have been settled that quickly if they offered way less. Also, I do not think that settlement was included in that ~$9 million total over the past 35 years.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hoc...ttee-1.6533439

It was likely E.M.'s lawyer that came up with the $3.5 million figure. They could have offered her $500k, which is a lot money to a person in their early 20s. She would have had a few weeks to think about $500k now vs. going through the whole process to get $1million ish or possibly less than $500k.

You don't just get millions of dollars after being assaulted. You need to link the damages to lost wages or excessively high treatment expenses to get anywhere close to a million dollar settlement, let alone $3.5 million. Pain and suffering awards - around 2018 in Ontario - would have capped out at $300-350k, and that's for a worst case scenario involving paralysis, severe psychological injury, brain damage, etc... Her pain and suffering award likely topped out at $150k, with the rest needing to be composed of wage losses.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by blankall

It was likely E.M.'s lawyer that came up with the $3.5 million figure. They could have offered her $500k, which is a lot money to a person in their early 20s. She would have had a few weeks to think about $500k now vs. going through the whole process to get $1million ish or possibly less than $500k.

You don't just get millions of dollars after being assaulted. You need to link the damages to lost wages or excessively high treatment expenses to get anywhere close to a million dollar settlement, let alone $3.5 million. Pain and suffering awards - around 2018 in Ontario - would have capped out at $300-350k, and that's for a worst case scenario involving paralysis, severe psychological injury, brain damage, etc... Her pain and suffering award likely topped out at $150k, with the rest needing to be composed of wage losses.

That's all true if it goes to trial.

I'll bet lots more gets paid out in settlements due to hush money. There is a cost to silence.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

That's all true if it goes to trial.

I'll bet lots more gets paid out in settlements due to hush money. There is a cost to silence.

I doubt it. After all, taking the hush money is also the easy way out for the accuser, and I would imagine that most women would just rather get some guaranteed money now rather than drag themselves through the justice system for what is likely years, with no guarantee of actually winning the case.

My guess would be that most of these cases go away for depressingly small sums.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Hockey Canada has not covered itself in glory throughout this mess, but I don't think much can be taken from what is an essentially corporate settlement that should affect the outcome of a criminal trial of these individuals. As mentioned above, some of those players didn't know about the settlement, some were not charged and there are a host of reasons for HC to conclude a settlement, regardless whether they think a conviction is likely.

Corporations settle potential lawsuits for financial and reputational reasons that go beyond whether they think they have a 50.1% chance of success in litigation (for civil matters). I see the HC settlement with EM in a similar manner. Something definitely happened, but I don't see it as any kind of smoking gun that a crime was committed.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

That's all true if it goes to trial.

I'll bet lots more gets paid out in settlements due to hush money. There is a cost to silence.

Typically hush money is less than what you'd get at trial, as Itse said, it's also the much easier route for the accuser. That's obviously circumstance dependent. If you're Mr. Rogers, you'd probably pay more to not have a potential group rape go public. Prior to this, most of us already knew that hockey players were not Mr. Rogers.

[YyjFlames]

Originally Posted by Locke

Just...the fact that they had an 'Abuse Slush Fund' at all is absolutely staggering.

I cant even imagine being the Accountant setting that up.

"Whats this for?"

- Reasons....?

Reinforces why this whole public process is important, regardless of the outcome, and why quality journalism is a necessity in democracy.

Even if someone believes EMs allegations are not true, they should still be appalled that Hockey Canada had a settlement fund and didn't make educational/training changes decades ago when they started paying out for these incidents.

If Rick Westhead hadn't dug it up, Hockey Canada would have continued to quietly pay these things out.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

And I don’t think she validated any of the players claims in her testimony.

She kind of did from my perspective. The accused said she seemed to enjoy what was happening and she said in her testimony/cross-examination that she was pretending to enjoy it. Without knowing what was in her mind at that time because only she does, it does seem to validate the perception that the accused might have had regarding her appearance of being into it. She admitted to egging them on, but said that it should have indicated to the accused how wasted she actually was. She also admitted that she intended to stay with McLeod after everyone else left and was upset when he told her to leave, which could corroborate the claim that she wasn't eager to leave. It at least raises the question.

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by blankall

Regardless of the consent issue, there was easily enough smoke to see why HC would want to bury this.

Even if consensual, it was a group sex involving a drunk 20 year old woman and over half a dozen largely high profile hockey players. The dirtbag hockey players passed around video of the incident afterwards. This is not the image that Hockey Canada wants to promote, and it's more certainly more than "absolutely nothing".

Don't undervalue the importance of reputation, particularly in any kind of work or professional (including sports) environment.

At the time HC made the payment, there would be no way to conclusively prove who was telling the truth or whether any acts were criminal. They would only be looking at the risk of a criminal conviction and the damage done to their (and the players reputation) if all the events go public. Even now, after hearing a lot of the evidence, there's uncertainty about whether a criminal conviction will stick.

Where have you seen this reported?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Where have you seen this reported?

Wasn't there an incident with the coaches telling them to erase a phone video when they were showing it to teammates on the bus?

Totally possible I'm confusing this with another creepy incident though.

[calf]

Originally Posted by blankall

Wasn't there an incident with the coaches telling them to erase a phone video when they were showing it to teammates on the bus?

I remember that too, but unclear if it was a "cover your ass" or "this isn't right" context

[taxbuster]

Crown is ripping Hart - or so it appears from the reporting.


...and he's now done.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Crown is ripping Hart - or so it appears from the reporting.


...and he's now done.

Hart sounded as stupid on cross as I thought he would with their whole made up story.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Hart sounded as stupid on cross as I thought he would with their whole made up story.

I didn't know you were there to confirm that.

[traptor]

Seems like J. Bean was in there for a substantial part of it

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Big news breaking. Of the fried fat with sugar variety.

There are doughnuts in the court room!!!

Formenton's lawyers brought in 50 doughnuts to commemorate assistant crown prosecutor Cunningham's 50th birthday.

No report on the various flavours.

In the spirit of the trial, McLeod texted the others asking if they'd like to share his doughnut...

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I didn't know you were there to confirm that.

Certainly don’t have to be there to confirm that he sounded stupid.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Hart sounded as stupid on cross as I thought he would with their whole made up story.

How do you know it’s made up. She has corroborated a lot of their story.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Goriders

How do you know it’s made up. She has corroborated a lot of their story.

No she has not.