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

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Anyone else slightly alarmed that an actual lawyer is arguing that a Not Guilty verdict does not mean anything?

Now that's faith in the legal system this person is employed and engaged in.

Anyone else slightly alarmed that Mr. Coffee can’t read what posts actually say and instead makes up his own version of what was said?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Anyone else slightly alarmed that an actual lawyer is arguing that a Not Guilty verdict does not mean anything?

Now that's faith in the legal system this person is employed and engaged in.

On the scale of outrageous things lawyers have said to me, it's like a 1/10.

[Nelson]

If the Crown doesn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the offence, the presumption of innocence is not displaced. So, Jake Virtanen is presumed innocent of the alleged sexual assault.

At the same time, the jury may have thought Jake Virtanen was more likely than not to have committed the alleged sexual assault and acquitted. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard is a lot closer to absolute certainty (100%) than a balance of probabilities (just over 50%).

No one will ever know with absolute certainty that Jake Virtanen did or did not commit the alleged sexual assault. The criminal justice system cannot give you that result.

(I should say that I did not mean to discount the Complainant’s version or the Accused’s version. I’m talking as someone who wasn’t there, obviously.)

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

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

Not Guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it, it means that they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. Reasonable doubt someone did something =/= someone definitely did not do that thing.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

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

Obviously. And if he did it, and there wasn't enough evidence to convict him and send him to prison, he wouldn't be sent to prison. It would look a lot like the current situation. So, what's your point?

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

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?

No, why would I want that?

I don't think I should have to hand hold someone to ensure they understand the difference between saying "they reached the wrong verdict" and "a verdict doesn't determine truth." Unless you're completely ignorant to the existence of wrongful convictions and criminals going free and somehow believe the justice system to be infallible, then I'm not sure why you're pretending to argue against the latter when you ought to know as well as anyone what a verdict means and what it doesn't.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Anyone else slightly alarmed that Mr. Coffee can’t read what posts actually say and instead makes up his own version of what was said?

I agree with you about the civil suit thing, that she can and should go pursue that, but you made a comment early on in the discussion that basically said you're pretty sure he's still guilty 'based on facts and other data and stuff' (paraphrase). This struck me as a weird position for a lawyer but I guess we'll just have to take your word that you have far more experience / knowledge in the field than I/we do, and we should all just assume he still did it even though a court just rendered a Not Guilty verdict.

With this logic, at what point would Virtanen ever be viewed as truly innocent in the public eye? What, there is just no recovering or restoration of reputation after being dragged through this process ever then for him?

^^ Doesn't sound like true 'justice' to me.

[Blaster86]

Expecting the ruling of a court and a ruling of public opinion to have similar types of justice is silly.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I agree with you about the civil suit thing, that she can and should go pursue that, but you made a comment early on in the discussion that basically said you're pretty sure he's still guilty 'based on facts and other data and stuff' (paraphrase). This struck me as a weird position for a lawyer but I guess we'll just have to take your word that you have far more experience / knowledge in the field than I/we do, and we should all just assume he still did it even though a court just rendered a Not Guilty verdict.

With this logic, at what point would Virtanen ever be viewed as truly innocent in the public eye? What, there is just no recovering or restoration of reputation after being dragged through this process ever then for him?

^^ Doesn't sound like true 'justice' to me.

You are still misrepresenting what I said. Never did I say anything abut what people should assume. I gave my own opinion. Based on what I know about these cases in general. The evidence that’s been published doesn’t change my mind. I think he more than likely did it, based on everything I’ve read about the case plus what I know about victims and why they report, plus the tiny amount of false allegations. I probably would also have been forced to acquit had I been on the jury.

[Shazam]

I really should invent a mind reading machine.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

With this logic, at what point would Virtanen ever be viewed as truly innocent in the public eye? What, there is just no recovering or restoration of reputation after being dragged through this process ever then for him?

^^ Doesn't sound like true 'justice' to me.

Sounds like life in the current system we have, which isn't fair.

We could just as easily see the lack of justice on the girl's end. Say Virtanen did do it (still possible) but it just couldn't be proven. Now, on top of being a victim of sexual assault, the victim gets no justice, the guy who did it goes free, and she gets called a liar and accused of attention seeking. Surely that's far from true justice as well, isn't it?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

How on earth can a stat like this be proven?

He said "it's beleved".
What he left out was it's his personal belief.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Nah, he still wouldn’t.

If I was innocent and some tire biter ruined my career with lies I certainly would.

[Shazam]

I think the last thing he wants is to talk to opposing counsel and say something stupid.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

If I was innocent and some tire biter ruined my career with lies I certainly would.

Be better.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Public perception forced this one. I wonder if it had been investigated from the get go if there would have been more to it.









Are you high? You think someone would open themself up in this way for a relatively small amount of money? She's had to read take after take like yours that just spit in the face of people who are going through the aftermath of a sexual assault.

Is it possible? Yeah, sure. It's also possible you'll get struck by lightning. Sure as #### isn't likely.

I’m not high. I believe the girl in the hockey canada settlement was given $3.55 million. That’s not chump change.

What if that was the motive? How do you know it wasn’t.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Goriders

What if that was the motive? How do you know it wasn’t.

I think you wrote this post because you're a woman hating incel and I'll stand by this point because how do I know you're not?

You're on to something. This making up #### about people you don't know with no information under the guise "but it could be true!" Is fun. Let's keep going.

Edit- for the folks talking about the fraudulent rape number, some light reading from 2010
https://web.archive.org/web/20180101...llegations.pdf

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sounds like life in the current system we have, which isn't fair.

We could just as easily see the lack of justice on the girl's end. Say Virtanen did do it (still possible) but it just couldn't be proven. Now, on top of being a victim of sexual assault, the victim gets no justice, the guy who did it goes free, and she gets called a liar and accused of attention seeking. Surely that's far from true justice as well, isn't it?

A lot of what if's in this comment. The system could not prove that he did it, that is the result. Without sitting and hearing all the evidence you and others can not say that you still think he did it and veer off into conspiracy theories. If the girl wasn't prepared for this maybe she needs a better attorney to ready her for the possible outcome.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

A lot of what if's in this comment. The system could not prove that he did it, that is the result. Without sitting and hearing all the evidence you and others can not say that you still think he did it and veer off into conspiracy theories. If the girl wasn't prepared for this maybe she needs a better attorney to ready her for the possible outcome.

I think they knew what the outcome would be. She still stepped up and put it out there so hopefully another woman doesn't have the same thing happen or that if it does to not be afraid to come forward.

I think you need to take a moment and realize that not guilty is not the same as innocent and that he will very likely lose the civil case. I'm sure she'd trade every nickel to not have been assaulted though.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

A lot of what if's in this comment. The system could not prove that he did it, that is the result. Without sitting and hearing all the evidence you and others can not say that you still think he did it and veer off into conspiracy theories. If the girl wasn't prepared for this maybe she needs a better attorney to ready her for the possible outcome.

It’s one “what if”, which is equal to the one “what if” I was responding to.

I’m not veering into conspiracy theories or saying I think he did it. I’m saying the verdict doesn’t indicate the truth, just what can or can’t be proven.

This has nothing to do with how prepared the girl was or how good her attorney was. It’s just talking about the facts. And we can’t lament the fact that Virtanen may truly be innocent but will always have this accusation hanging around him without also lamenting the fact that the girl might have been assaulted by him and didn’t receive justice. That’s just reality.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I think they knew what the outcome would be. She still stepped up and put it out there so hopefully another woman doesn't have the same thing happen or that if it does to not be afraid to come forward.

I think you need to take a moment and realize that not guilty is not the same as innocent and that he will very likely lose the civil case. I'm sure she'd trade every nickel to not have been assaulted though.

I agree with all of this, but there is no innocent in law. My only comment is this happens, the accused is dragged through the mud and has no recourse if his side is declared not guilty.

Virtanen seems like a ######' and should have been tried. He won the case by some means, whether he had evidence or the lady/girl was not believable so the case is over. This is like the Trevor Bauer case in the US, he had 2 trials and won them both and still lost his career. No matter what he took part in and how terrible it seems to you and me, he proved that the woman in his case fabricated a bunch of stuff and she was clearly looking for a payday.

You don't need to agree with the outcome, which I don't but you have to accept the decision reached within the system.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s one “what if”, which is equal to the one “what if” I was responding to.

I’m not veering into conspiracy theories or saying I think he did it. I’m saying the verdict doesn’t indicate the truth, just what can or can’t be proven.

This has nothing to do with how prepared the girl was or how good her attorney was. It’s just talking about the facts. And we can’t lament the fact that Virtanen may truly be innocent but will always have this accusation hanging around him without also lamenting the fact that the girl might have been assaulted by him and didn’t receive justice. That’s just reality.

Say Virtanen did do it (still possible) What if?