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

[TheIronMaiden]

There is a very good chance that there will not be a satisfying conclusion to any of this.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

So if all these guys are saying they did nothing wrong exactly how do you think they will face punishment? On what evidence? The police did an investigation and didn't find any. You think if a person accuses a bunch of people of wrongdoing and they deny it and there is no evidence except her word against theirs they will face punishment? That is not how this works.

Over time, lips get loosened, so the chances of some corroborating evidence increases. Players who didn't participate but know or witnessed something may well feel differently about talking today.

It's never than simple.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

So if all these guys are saying they did nothing wrong exactly how do you think they will face punishment? On what evidence? The police did an investigation and didn't find any. You think if a person accuses a bunch of people of wrongdoing and they deny it and there is no evidence except her word against theirs they will face punishment? That is not how this works.

We're beyond whether it was a crime or not. Any player that was in that hotel room will be made an example of if the 8 names come out. The court of public opinion and social media will make it so those players will likely never set foot on nhl ice again.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

So if all these guys are saying they did nothing wrong exactly how do you think they will face punishment? On what evidence? The police did an investigation and didn't find any. You think if a person accuses a bunch of people of wrongdoing and they deny it and there is no evidence except her word against theirs they will face punishment? That is not how this works.

Well, first, the investigation is being re-opened and there's reason to think the first go-round was not exactly thorough.

And second, he said she said is often tried in court and then comes down to credibility. And a lot goes into credibility - past statements, common sense, demeanor. It's not a perfect system but it does get judged, and not always in favour of an accused. And there may well be some players who opt to cooperate and give evidence against others. Some who were there but didn't fully participate might do that in return for reduced/withdrawn charges.

Plus, if they go with "mistaken but honest belief in consent" defences, the onus is sometimes reversed.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by getbak

I'd be very surprised if the names of every player who was in that room aren't widely known by every owner/GM/coach in the NHL.

I bet it’s generally narrowed down, but there is still uncertainty about exactly who did exactly what.

If it was confidently known I think we’d see more informal leaks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I bet it’s generally narrowed down, but there is still uncertainty about exactly who did exactly what.

If it was confidently known I think we’d see more informal leaks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've heard one name in particular, who I'm not going to mention yet because it's completely unverified. Other than to say it wasn't Dube's name I heard.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I think the point made here is that we are talking about the NHL and not court. What do we think the NHL will do? What should they do?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Believe it or not this happens all the time in court. Because testimony is evidence, and credibility plays a huge part.

Sure, if the person has bad credibility or a padt littered with similiar actions. Tell me exactly how that applies to a bunch of young hockey players? It doesn't. So you are telling me that given no evidence and just testimony from both parties a judge will come back with a guilty verdict? BS, because the Crown wouldn't even touch that case to try and prosecute it with a 20 foot poll.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Sure, if the person has bad credibility or a padt littered with similiar actions. Tell me exactly how that applies to a bunch of young hockey players? It doesn't. So you are telling me that given no evidence and just testimony from both parties a judge will come back with a guilty verdict? BS, because the Crown wouldn't even touch that case to try and prosecute it with a 20 foot poll.

Testimony IS evidence. In fact it's the only evidence that's no circumstantial. And sure, it happens all the time.

It's reasonable doubt. Not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". And if the trier of fact believes the victim, then the accused has to go with "honest but mistaken belief in consent" which is a lot harder to do.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Testimony IS evidence. In fact it's the only evidence that's no circumstantial. And sure, it happens all the time.

It's reasonable doubt. Not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". And if the trier of fact believes the victim, then the accused has to go with "honest but mistaken belief in consent" which is a lot harder to do.

Feel free to show me an example of this. And actually it's beyond a reasonable doubt. I will wait for you to show me a case where the accused has no prior history of sexual assault, there is no physical evidence to collaborate the accusers testimony, and the judge ruled a conviction. Should be easy to find as it "happens all the time" Bonus points if you can find a case where 8 people with no prior history and no physical evidence against them deny an accusation and are found guilty against the word of one person.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Feel free to show me an example of this. And actually it's beyond a reasonable doubt. I will wait for you to show me a case where the accused has no prior history of sexual assault, there is no physical evidence to collaborate the accusers testimony, and the judge ruled a conviction. Should be easy to find as it "happens all the time" Bonus points if you can find a case where 8 people with no prior history and no physical evidence against them deny an accusation and are found guilty against the word of one person.

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129479&page=1

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...xual%20assault.

https://www.janedoe.org/appeals-cour...rs-conviction/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...tion-1.5977578



As for 8 accused, that will only work if they tell identical stories. Discrepancies will work against them. And 8 storytellers will have more chance of discrepancies. And the fact there were 8 will make the story harder to believe from the get-go, rightly or wrongly.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I think the point made here is that we are talking about the NHL and not court. What do we think the NHL will do? What should they do?

I have my doubts that the accused will ever be 100% identified and the NHL will probably sweep it away. I am sure the inner circles will find out who was involved and we might see some of those players get quietly blacklisted when their contracts are up. At least the ones the are easily replaceable.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I have my doubts that the accused will ever be 100% identified and the NHL will probably sweep it away. I am sure the inner circles will find out who was involved and we might see some of those players get quietly blacklisted when their contracts are up. At least the ones the are easily replaceable.

Quite possible. I think this off-season's contract talks may be the first sign.

[ToraToraTora]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129479&page=1

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...xual%20assault.

https://www.janedoe.org/appeals-cour...rs-conviction/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saska...tion-1.5977578



As for 8 accused, that will only work if they tell identical stories. Discrepancies will work against them. And 8 storytellers will have more chance of discrepancies. And the fact there were 8 will make the story harder to believe from the get-go, rightly or wrongly.

Yep, this happens actually all the time. Even more so in regard to historic sexual assaults where any physical evidence would have degraded. Here's a few examples of Alberta cases:

R v Harker, 2019 ABQB 992
R v Quartey, 2018 ABCA 12
R v BJJ, 2018 ABCA 196

Also, it's rare for evidence of a past record of sexual assault to be put before a judge prior to sentencing, so that's generally not even a consideration.

[GioforPM]

It would not shock me at all if one who was in the room but not otherwise involved flipped.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It would not shock me at all if one who was in the room but not otherwise involved flipped.

I'd tend to agree with you, if they weren't still young to the NHL. If they were nearing the sunset of their careers, I feel it'd be much more likely, but not at the risk of sewering material earnings/livelihood.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I have my doubts that the accused will ever be 100% identified and the NHL will probably sweep it away. I am sure the inner circles will find out who was involved and we might see some of those players get quietly blacklisted when their contracts are up. At least the ones the are easily replaceable.

After the Aldrich situation, how could everyone in the NHL think it’s a good thing to do anything quietly? Careers and reputations were ruined for people keeping that secret, now the entire league is going to do the exact same thing? That short of memory and no ethics?

I think they’ll wait for the police investigation and other inquiries, but they’ll be stuck between a rock and hard place when the names are leaked/released. I also think it’s only a matter of time before the names are released. The NDA was removed, 8 players were involved, they likely told the story as “locker room talk”, those on the team who weren’t involved might even just want the names released to remove any doubt.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

I'd tend to agree with you, if they weren't still young to the NHL. If they were nearing the sunset of their careers, I feel it'd be much more likely, but not at the risk of sewering material earnings/livelihood.

I almost think it’s the opposite. If one or two players were just in the room, they’ll want to say what happened, make it known their limited involvement, show remorse and growth, instead of being lumped in with the rest. If a fringe NHL player was involved won’t be getting a contract unless he can somewhat clear his name.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Feel free to show me an example of this. And actually it's beyond a reasonable doubt. I will wait for you to show me a case where the accused has no prior history of sexual assault, there is no physical evidence to collaborate the accusers testimony, and the judge ruled a conviction. Should be easy to find as it "happens all the time" Bonus points if you can find a case where 8 people with no prior history and no physical evidence against them deny an accusation and are found guilty against the word of one person.

You are simply wrong in your beliefs on this point...and I see other posters already have provided you with examples quite easily. I would add that the vast majority of criminal cases, including sexual assault, are never the subject of media or written judgments so the fact more examples are not being cited to you in no way changes the fact that it happens all the time.

Others have also correctly noted that a prior history of sexual assault would in almost every case be deemed irrelevant and highly prejudicial to a new accusation and would be kept from being known by the judge or jury deciding guilt or innocence. The main exception being if there is a specific and detailed pattern of committing the offence (modus operandi or "M.O." in tv / movie terms)

To try and still be constructive...

The word you are searching for is corroborate or corroboration. One place you can find it being used is in the current Criminal Code of Canada, section 274, under the heading "Corroboration not required":

Corroboration not required

274 If an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272, 273, 286.1, 286.2 or 286.3, no corroboration is required for a conviction and the judge shall not instruct the jury that it is unsafe to find the accused guilty in the absence of corroboration.

So, basically, for sexual offences, corroboration is not needed and it is wrong for a judge to suggest to a jury that it is.

But wait, there's more...

In the context of whether a person could be convicted of a crime on the basis of even the inherently risky evidence of a jailhouse informant, (spoiler alert, they still can) the Supreme Court of Canada said this (back in 2009):

Legal systems far separated in time and place have long recognized that it is dangerous to rest a criminal conviction on the testimony of a single witness, or on a single piece of evidence. This concern is at least as old as Deuteronomy.* It arises because witnesses can lie deliberately or mislead inadvertently, documents can be forged, and other items of evidence can be tampered with or planted: P. Roberts and A. Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence (2004), at p. 466.

The evidence of a single witness is nonetheless sufficient in Canada to support a conviction for any offence other than treason, perjury or procuring a feigned marriage. Many serious crimes might otherwise go unpunished. But where the guilt of the accused is made to rest exclusively or substantially on the testimony of a single witness of doubtful credit or veracity, the danger of a wrongful conviction is particularly acute.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc.../2009scc4.html

How has that been playing out as of late? (since 2014):

The Globe and Mail reviewed all sexual-assault cases heard by the Supreme Court since 2014, finding that these cases are on the rise during the Me Too era, and defence lawyers have lost 34 consecutive appeals
...

Many of the cases turned on the credibility of complainants. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that, if the judge who presided over a trial believes a complainant, appeal courts should not disturb a conviction. While that is not new law, the court has reinforced the message by rebuking some of Canada’s most experienced appellate judges, whom they view as having ignored that principle.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...t-cases-metoo/

I am not saying it tells us anything about what will happen with these pending Hockey Canada allegations, but it is an interesting article worth reading and one that I think further undermines your argument.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

After the Aldrich situation, how could everyone in the NHL think it’s a good thing to do anything quietly? Careers and reputations were ruined for people keeping that secret, now the entire league is going to do the exact same thing? That short of memory and no ethics?

I guess I don't have much faith in them. If a certain journalist didn't break the lid off the Aldrich situation, the NHL would have been more than happy to keep it suppressed. It makes me think that the strategy works most of the time.