Hockey Canada, CHL settle lawsuit over alleged sexual assault involving WJ players

[OptimalTates]

Imagine that poor young girl having to tell her mom she got raped by eight jackasses.

Hopefully they all end up like Virtanen and team's just buy them out and we never have to hear from them again.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Slava

Maybe I’m alone in this, but it’s so crazy that “we” allow these organizations to investigate and settle these matters on their own. It’s just so insane, where you allegedly have eight guys gang rape a woman and the organization completes a legal settlement with an NDA. No one thinks the police should be involved immediately? No one thinks it’s a big enough deal to say anything for 4 years?

The coverups are appalling. I don’t mean to suggest that this is purely a Hockey Canada problem, this is just the latest example. The victims sign the NDA and just want the nightmare to end, and frankly it’s disgusting.

It makes me wonder if any other National Sport Governing Bodies are doing something similar.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Victim told Mom about it the next day. (totally normal?????)

Mom horrified and called the police.

Player pressures victim via text.

Victim tells police its all a big misunderstanding.


It's unclear if the police pursued anything beyond this point. If this is what statements refer to as 'cleared of wrongdoing' then yikes.

Yikes no matter what.

I'm not a big police guy. But a case where the girl isn't willing to cooperate and there are videos of her saying she consented from that same night has about a 0% chance of a conviction. I guess you get the benefit of having the players charged and their names coming out - but the charges would be dropped due to no possibility of conviction.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Victim told Mom about it the next day. (totally normal?????)

Mom horrified and called the police.

Player pressures victim via text.

Victim tells police its all a big misunderstanding.

It's unclear if the police pursued anything beyond this point. If this is what statements refer to as 'cleared of wrongdoing' then yikes.

Yikes no matter what.

Also totally normal:

A day after an encounter in a hotel room that led to a sexual-assault lawsuit, a player with Canada’s world junior hockey team exchanged text messages with the woman involved.


The player began by asking the woman whether she had gone to the police.

I mean, who doesn't open a conversation with "have you gone to the police" when talking to someone after a consensual sexual encounter?

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'm not a big police guy. But a case where the girl isn't willing to cooperate and there are videos of her saying she consented from that same night has about a 0% chance of a conviction. I guess you get the benefit of having the players charged and their names coming out - but the charges would be dropped due to no possibility of conviction.

The victim not cooperating is the reason why chance of conviction is low. The video is almost useless in my opinion, even a bad cross should destroy that evidence. Plus, consent has to take place during the act, so post act evidence is borderline inadmissible. Either way, unless the individual videos confirmation of consent after every sexual encounter it has a strong negative inference in this case.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'm not a big police guy. But a case where the girl isn't willing to cooperate and there are videos of her saying she consented from that same night has about a 0% chance of a conviction. I guess you get the benefit of having the players charged and their names coming out - but the charges would be dropped due to no possibility of conviction.

Absent other evidence of course. A player might crack and give a different version.

Query why a settlement was offered with such overwhelming evidence? I assume because there was some thought the "evidence" didn't quite add up.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Absent other evidence of course. A player might crack and give a different version.

Query why a settlement was offered with such overwhelming evidence? I assume because there was some thought the "evidence" didn't quite add up.

Because Hockey Canada paid to have it 'go away'.

Its two separate issues.

The players - who would be criminally responsible - didn't settle.

Hockey Canada wouldn't have any criminal responsibility - settled to avoid the bad PR/civil lawsuits.

Both the players and Hockey Canada did something scummy that much is known.

[Eric Vail]

How would Hockey Canada have been held civilly responsible for this?

They have an event hounouring hockey players. After the event, players meet a girl at a bar, take her to the hotel and alledgedly sexually assault her.

Why would Hockey Canada have any responsibility here? If a bunch of mailmen after work went out for a beer and did the same thing, would Canada Post be named in the lawsuit?

This all stinks. Heads need to roll. That fund should be for liabilities that are not paid by the insurance, after they have been declined by the insurance company aften their investigation.

The more I read about this case, the more I wonder how often this sort of thing goes on.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

How would Hockey Canada have been held civilly responsible for this?

They have an event hounouring hockey players. After the event, players meet a girl at a bar, take her to the hotel and alledgedly sexually assault her.

Why would Hockey Canada have any responsibility here? If a bunch of mailmen after work went out for a beer and did the same thing, would Canada Post be named in the lawsuit?

This all stinks. Heads need to roll. That fund should be for liabilities that are not paid by the insurance, after they have been declined by the insurance company aften their investigation.

The more I read about this case, the more I wonder how often this sort of thing goes on.

You're right. May just be a PR play.

[Aarongavey]

https://www.tsn.ca/lawyers-for-playe...ages-1.1827214

Westhead column has even more of the text messages. A lot of text communication the next day for a consensual event.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

It makes me wonder if any other National Sport Governing Bodies are doing something similar.

Gymnastics USA.

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

How would Hockey Canada have been held civilly responsible for this?

They have an event hounouring hockey players. After the event, players meet a girl at a bar, take her to the hotel and alledgedly sexually assault her.

Why would Hockey Canada have any responsibility here?

I think there was some mention of underage drinking.

Maybe HC paying for the rooms (presumably) is a factor?

Or maybe it is as simple as prioritizing PR over accountability. Which is disgusting.

[Torture]

The lawyers also showed The Globe two video clips recorded that night that they say show the sexual contact was consensual and that the complainant was not fearful, intimidated or intoxicated, as she claimed.

Who among us hasn't had our sexual partner record a video saying that it was consensual? So gross.

[Roof-Daddy]

These players are cooked.

I hope they enjoyed the NHL while it lasted.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

https://www.tsn.ca/lawyers-for-playe...ages-1.1827214



Westhead column has even more of the text messages. A lot of text communication the next day for a consensual event.

We are clearly not getting the opening of this conversation, there is no way the conversation started with "did you go to the police" or there was another. If the lawyer didn't share it, this is very suspicious activity on the players behalf. If it's the media, we have some really ####ty, dangerous, and frankly criminal reporting.

If the conversation did start this way, consent wasn't there the night before.

The videos are nothing, and can't prove anything.

If consent was there (which based on the release of these texts, I doubt consent was there), and the conversation was much more then reported. And the mother was the one putting pressure on consent not being there then went to the police, the mother should be in legal trouble. Again if this was the entire conversation, or the lawyers failed to disclose to the media all texts, consent was probably not there.

I could also see this being one lawyer releasing what they have, and the conversation did start there after another conversation with another player that has more information.

This release raises more questions than it answers.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

These players are cooked.

I hope they enjoyed the NHL while it lasted.

Definitely. Everyone in the room will eventually be named and although there won't any any criminal action levied against them the NHL's response will at minimum buy out all their contracts (If they are unable to void their player contracts outright) and banish them for life.

[opendoor]

I don't really understand why the players' lawyer thought that releasing those texts would somehow be helpful to their cause. Either there's a lot of context missing (but why would the lawyer not include that context?) or they sound guilty as ****. Or were the texts from the Statement of Claim?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

We are clearly not getting the opening of this conversation, there is no way the conversation started with "did you go to the police" or there was another. If the lawyer didn't share it, this is very suspicious activity on the players behalf. If it's the media, we have some really ####ty, dangerous, and frankly criminal reporting.

If the conversation did start this way, consent wasn't there the night before.

I would have thought so, too, but the TSN article provides times of each message:

According to text messages provided by Davidson, the woman and one of the hockey players exchanged text messages on June 20, 2018.

“Did u go to the police after Sunday?” the player wrote at 11:26 a.m.

“I talked to my mom about it and she called I think but I told her not to. I don’t want anything bad to come of it so I told her to stop,” the woman wrote at 11:53 a.m.

“You said you were having fun??” the player wrote at 11:55 a.m.

It's certainly possible that there was previous back/forth, but the nearly 30 minute gap is a bit odd and seems less likely to happen in the middle of a conversation than her simply not immediately seeing the message for a bit as the messages seem to flow steadily after that.

It's possible the police contacted John Doe which prompted his message. Or like you say, the lawyers may/may not have shared any earlier messages.

I'd also speculate that John Doe seemed anxious and gaslighty...if she went radio silent for so long in the middle of an ongoing convo I think he'd be more likely to give some follow ups to assure her and try to coax a response...but again totally speculating (and it might be similarly odd to let the first message stand without another nudge if it was indeed the first message, but we might be dealing with a master gaslighter here).

If consent was there (which based on the release of these texts, I doubt consent was there), and the conversation was much more then reported. And the mother was the one putting pressure on consent not being there then went to the police, the mother should be in legal trouble. Again if this was the entire conversation, or the lawyers failed to disclose to the media all texts, consent was probably not there.

I could also see this being one lawyer releasing what they have, and the conversation did start there after another conversation with another player that has more information.

This release raises more questions than it answers.

Huh? (to the bolded)

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Because Hockey Canada paid to have it 'go away'.

Its two separate issues.

The players - who would be criminally responsible - didn't settle.

Hockey Canada wouldn't have any criminal responsibility - settled to avoid the bad PR/civil lawsuits.

Both the players and Hockey Canada did something scummy that much is known.

Yeah, criminal trials are usually long, stressful, and humiliating for the victim. I don't blame a victim for taking the pay out in lieu of a criminal trial that may not even end up in a conviction some of the time. It might not be in the best interest of justice, but I won't judge anyone in that position.

Unfortunately, it just means that those with money can often act with impunity.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I would have thought so, too, but the TSN article provides times of each message:



It's certainly possible that there was previous back/forth, but the nearly 30 minute gap is a bit odd and seems less likely to happen in the middle of a conversation than her simply not immediately seeing the message for a bit as the messages seem to flow steadily after that.

It's possible the police contacted John Doe which prompted his message. Or like you say, the lawyers may/may not have shared any earlier messages.

I'd also speculate that John Doe seemed anxious and gaslighty...if she went radio silent for so long in the middle of an ongoing convo I think he'd be more likely to give some follow ups to assure her and try to coax a response...but again totally speculating (and it might be similarly odd to let the first message stand without another nudge if it was indeed the first message, but we might be dealing with a master gaslighter here).

Ya, I agree, this doesn't look good for John Doe, unless we aren't getting additional context, consent wasn't there. And ya, it's human nature if someone is nervous about something and it's taking 1/2 hour that at least you say, "Hey you're still there".

Also, unless the videos are clips of other videos, they are very sus as well.

Huh? (to the bolded)

The way that the reporting to the police was talked about also raises questions. It seems that the daughter (I'm assuming an adult, I haven't seen her age, this opinion would change if she was a minor), goes to their mom because they consented the night before and now feel like it was a mistake. Then the mother decides on her own to report it to the police without the consent of the daughter? That is messed up and may rise to criminal activity.

Everything about the text messages seems to be missing context.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

The way that the reporting to the police was talked about also raises questions. It seems that the daughter (I'm assuming an adult, I haven't seen her age, this opinion would change if she was a minor), goes to their mom because they consented the night before and now feel like it was a mistake. Then the mother decides on her own to report it to the police without the consent of the daughter? That is messed up and may rise to criminal activity.

Or, like the majority of rape victims, the young 18 year old girl did not want to report her rape to the police so the mother went on her own after finding out her daughter was raped by 8 hockey players.

Reporting a rape to police shouldn’t get you criminal charges, especially when 4 years later they still have kept the alleged rapists names private. What criminal activity do you think occurred?