[News] Jake Virtanen on leave from the Canucks after sexual misconduct allegation

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Right.

Meanwhile, I don’t see him pressing any charges for making a false criminal complaint.

If he did that and she was found not guilty, I guess those in the not guilty crowd would have to conclude that she was not lying and they were not false charges, therefore she was telling the truth about the sexual assault? Equating not guilty with innocent gets confusing in that type of scenario.

[Yoho]

I bet a guilty verdict wouldn’t have many arguing what it meant.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I am suggesting, based on stats, the extremely low percentages of false accusations, and how juries work, yeah, he probably did.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

A criminal trial has to rely on direct evidence, not aggregated statistics about sexual assaults.

Everyone here agrees those are bad.

Most would also agree there needs to be some reform in the way sex cases are prosecuted.

Virtanen was found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

If Jane Doe wants to sue him, she’s welcome to.

But unless you have some additional evidence that proves his guilt, I don’t think you should delegitimize a jury’s verdict of Not Guilty.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

A criminal trial has to rely on direct evidence, not aggregated statistics about sexual assaults.

Everyone here agrees those are bad.

Most would also agree there needs to be some reform in the way sex cases are prosecuted.

Virtanen was found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

If Jane Doe wants to sue him, she’s welcome to.

But unless you have some additional evidence that proves his guilt, I don’t think you should delegitimize a jury’s verdict of Not Guilty.

I’m not delegitimizing anything. I’m stating how the system works in these kind of cases. It’s almost impossible to get a conviction in this kind of case.

He can sue her if she made a false report. Bet he won’t.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Yoho

I bet a guilty verdict wouldn’t have many arguing what it meant.

Because of the standard, it’s apples and oranges. It would mean the jury was pretty much 100% sure he did it. Whereas a not guilty can mean they were only 90% sure he did it. Or it could mean they thought he didn’t. Or anywhere in between.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

A criminal trial has to rely on direct evidence, not aggregated statistics about sexual assaults.

Everyone here agrees those are bad.

Most would also agree there needs to be some reform in the way sex cases are prosecuted.

Virtanen was found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

If Jane Doe wants to sue him, she’s welcome to.

But unless you have some additional evidence that proves his guilt, I don’t think you should delegitimize a jury’s verdict of Not Guilty.

She has filed for a civil trial FWIW. And then the defense lawyer asked her if she was doing this for money.

https://vancouversun.com/news/crime/...-assault-trial

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don't think you understand the difference between "not guilty in the court of law" and "100% didn't do what he was accused of."

Like... he might have done it, he might not have. But he can't be punished for doing it even if he did, because he was found not guilty. That's it.

Well, I am functionally illiterate, so I’m sure I don’t understand the distinction.

If he did it, and there was evidence to convict him and send him to prison, he’d have been sent to prison.

Do you want to live in a country where the testimony of one person, absent all other physical or forensic evidence, is enough to send another person to prison?

And if so, why?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Well, I am functionally illiterate, so I’m sure I don’t understand the distinction.

If he did it, and there was evidence to convict him and send him to prison, he’d have been sent to prison.

Do you want to live in a country where the testimony of one person, absent all other physical or forensic evidence, is enough to send another person to prison?

And if so, why?

It’s been explained a dozen times. And exactly zero people have complained about the verdict or the result. It’s the way it works.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Yoho

I bet a guilty verdict wouldn’t have many arguing what it meant.

Of course not, because it's a damn high threshold to achieve.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

But unless you have some additional evidence that proves his guilt, I don’t think you should delegitimize a jury’s verdict of Not Guilty.

It's not delegitimizing anything to state that Not Guilty does not necessarily mean Innocent.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Well, I am functionally illiterate, so I’m sure I don’t understand the distinction.

If he did it, and there was evidence to convict him and send him to prison, he’d have been sent to prison.

Do you want to live in a country where the testimony of one person, absent all other physical or forensic evidence, is enough to send another person to prison?

And if so, why?

There wasn't enough evidence to convict him. Period, end of sentence.

Doesn't mean he did it or didn't do it.

OJ wasn't criminally guilty, either.

[curves2000]

If anybody actually saw any of the testimony it would be reasonable to believe that both parties may have lied or tried to lead on the jury in some aspects. End of story. Anybody who couldn't see some of that with the questions from the crown and the defense is just lying to themselves. There is the legal system and there is common sense, realistic questions and concerns to be asked of this and that person's conduct regardless of what happened.

Sometimes scenario's like these are where older people give advice to the younger generation. I recall vividly my father telling my brother and I to "Watch where you put your **** and your signature in life" If I had a sister, I can bet you my mother would have hounded her about being careful around men, careful where they were alone with men, always have an exit strategy and to nevermind all these business meetings and other event's taking place in men's hotel rooms and hotel bed's and people pretending they don't have a clue what may or may not happen.

Everybody needs to use common sense and protect their downside risk where they can. Hopefully both parties are able to move on and live life.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

She has filed for a civil trial FWIW. And then the defense lawyer asked her if she was doing this for money.

https://vancouversun.com/news/crime/...-assault-trial

Good for her. Sounds like she should.

Defense lawyers have to ask that. It’s their job. Lawyering is distasteful, that’s why nobody likes them.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

There wasn't enough evidence to convict him. Period, end of sentence.

Doesn't mean he did it or didn't do it.

OJ wasn't criminally guilty, either.

If Godwin’s Law is the invocation of Hitler in an internet debate, what’s it called when someone brings up OJ in the discussion of a legal case?

‘Heisman’s Law’?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

If Godwin’s Law is the invocation of Hitler in an internet debate, what’s it called when someone brings up OJ in the discussion of a legal case?

‘Heisman’s Law’?

It’s called “a relevant example”.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Yoho

I bet a guilty verdict wouldn’t have many arguing what it meant.

Probably because in that scenario he would have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that there was no reason out before the jury that would cause a reasonable person to think there was a possibility that he was not guilty. By implication that would mean someone saying he was criminally not guilty would be unreasonable. None of that changes the fact that not guilty does not equal innocent.

[Blaster86]

A guilty verdict was just never going to happen. It was he said/she said and years after the fact. Is Virtanen a dick head? Yeah, I don't think there's much doubt in that. Was he guilty? It would be next to impossible to prove.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

She has filed for a civil trial FWIW. And then the defense lawyer asked her if she was doing this for money.

https://vancouversun.com/news/crime/...-assault-trial

What a ridiculous statement by the lawyer, presumably in open court, that money is the only order that a civil court can grant. By finding an individuaul guilty in civil action it also means that on at least a 51% probability the person did it. That is worth something as well.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

A guilty verdict was just never going to happen. It was he said/she said and years after the fact. Is Virtanen a dick head? Yeah, I don't think there's much doubt in that. Was he guilty? It would be next to impossible to prove.

I'm surprised they even took it trial. Seems like a bad decision by the crown to put her through a trial that has a slim chance of a conviction - although perhaps its what she wanted.

Acting like we know what happened in either direction is foolhardy.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It’s called “a relevant example”.

Is it?

What similarities do these two cases have, besides ending in Not Guilty verdicts?

What overwhelming physical evidence was ignored here? Because OJ’s blood and footprints were at the scene.

[JackIsBack]

If Godwin’s Law is the invocation of Hitler in an internet debate, what’s it called when someone brings up OJ in the discussion of a legal case?

‘Heisman’s Law’?

I like your point... because we all assume OJ was guilty, and just like Hitler, you can't argue that because it's taboo to think otherwise, so it's debate ending....



I know I did, but there were certainly issues with the case when I watched it at the time... but (to play devil's advocate here and be provocative - please take it with a grain of salt)... I know I think after reviewing the case deeply about a year ago, there is certainly another suspect that I think had a high probability of being the guilty party and a suspect that OJ would want to protect by not talking and taking the heat he did.