Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton found not guilty of sexual assault

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Flames got rid of a coach for an incident long before his contract, but of course, that was a private employment contract and not a collectively bargained one. And I suspect the Flames paid a hefty severance - maybe the whole thing. The equivalent to firing Peters and paying a severance would be a buyout but you can't buy out Dube's contract.

Thing is for the Flames - he's taken a leave, not listed on the roster, he has only a half season left on his contract and presumably won't be re-signed. And the Flames have no need of his cap space. There's no real need to do anything.

This exactly. The Peters situation is certainly comparable, given the incident happened before his employment. But not collectively bargained so Flames had more latitude to deal with it.

Now even in that case, they negotiated a resignation and some could argue they might have wanted to negotiate some termination wording.

But let's get real. Flames didn't want Peters associated with the team any more and that was accomplished.

And for all intents and purposes, Dube is no longer associated with the Flames.

[PepsiFree]

Yeah, I believe even the coach examples (Peters, Quenneville) are ones where the individual collects the entire contract anyway.

The only examples I can recall of contracts being outright cancelled without pay are where the incidents occurred during that specific contract in the weeks or months preceding the cancellation. Then again, even Kane got a settlement from the Sharks. So, it seems extremely difficult for a team to be able to wipe a contract off the books.

[Funkhouser]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

And for all intents and purposes, Dube is no longer associated with the Flames.

Anyone else read this and think 'intensive purposes'??
Maybe it is just me!

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

Anyone else read this and think 'intensive purposes'??
Maybe it is just me!

"For all intensive purposes" is the most common misunderstanding/mispronunciation of "for all intents and purposes", yes...

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Flames got rid of a coach for an incident long before his contract, but of course, that was a private employment contract and not a collectively bargained one. And I suspect the Flames paid a hefty severance - maybe the whole thing. The equivalent to firing Peters and paying a severance would be a buyout but you can't buy out Dube's contract.

Thing is for the Flames - he's taken a leave, not listed on the roster, he has only a half season left on his contract and presumably won't be re-signed. And the Flames have no need of his cap space. There's no real need to do anything.

100%

Except for the cap space part - they probably have no need, but it would be nice to have the extra space going into the deadline, as it would give Conroy an opportunity to weaponize it, and be part of a 3-way trade where the Flames eat some cap space in exchange for a pick (for instance).

[Gemnoble]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

100%

Except for the cap space part - they probably have no need, but it would be nice to have the extra space going into the deadline, as it would give Conroy an opportunity to weaponize it, and be part of a 3-way trade where the Flames eat some cap space in exchange for a pick (for instance).

Flames could probably terminate his contract Corey Perry style.

[bluejays]

Can’t tune into the press conference but don’t suspect they’ll let out the whole case but just reiterate the charges. Anything out there so far, of note?

[Sec214]

Originally Posted by bluejays

Can’t tune into the press conference but don’t suspect they’ll let out the whole case but just reiterate the charges. Anything out there so far, of note?

"This is a active investigation, I cannot comment on the specifics of the case before the courts"

[Gemnoble]

Originally Posted by bluejays

Can’t tune into the press conference but don’t suspect they’ll let out the whole case but just reiterate the charges. Anything out there so far, of note?

They announced the charges for each person and no details.

I didn't hear all the charges unfortunately. They also said other players were in the room but have layed all charges they have reasonable grounds for.

[Paulie Walnuts]

McLeod is the only who was charged with 2 counts. The rest was 1 count.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Publication ban on the victim’s name along with the names of two witnesses announced today by the Court.

https://x.com/rwesthead/status/1754516330198249728?s=12

Two participating witnesses eh, well that’s certainly huge.

[MissTeeks]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1754586776889442616

Clarification on McLeod’s two charges.

[mile]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1754584446290862192

https://twitter.com/user/status/1754587215416479849

[dieHARDflameZ]

Originally Posted by bluejays

Can’t tune into the press conference but don’t suspect they’ll let out the whole case but just reiterate the charges. Anything out there so far, of note?

London PD - This has only been one investigation, the victim has been cooperative the entire time. We are sorry this took so long. I don't know why this took so long. We are doing more to be better every day. When the time is right, we will comment on all of these questions.

[Tbull8]

Media getting pissy that the chief makes a comment on how the media sexualizes girls and women.

[Skaloper]

Interesting how they can't say what went wrong in the 2022 (2018 Investigation) case that has now been reopened. Makes me think that some corruption will end up coming out that impacts more than who have currently been named.

Edit: The officers who were prior assigned are no longer on the investigation.

[MRCboicgy]

The fact they let the livechat go during the youtube stream is wild.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Publication ban on the victim’s name along with the names of two witnesses announced today by the Court.

https://x.com/rwesthead/status/1754516330198249728?s=12

I wonder if the two unnamed witnesses are 2 players?

It might explain why they can now lay charges.

Or it might simply be two relatives of the victim who witnessed the aftermath and need to be unnamed as it would otherwise identify the victim.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Funkhouser

Anyone else read this and think 'intensive purposes'??
Maybe it is just me!

Just when I saw it done right and was enjoying it, you had to do this.

[MBates]

I did my best to do a summary of the London Police press conference as I listened to it...I will try to add some thoughts about what I heard in a subsequent post:

Chief of Police
- July 2022 - an investigative review was ordered by past Chief
- LPS will be using term "victim" in accordance with her wishes (not complainant or survivor)
- After HC event met at downtown bar, later invited her to a hotel room where sexual assault took place

-2018-2019 the investigation concluded without charges as insufficient grounds to lay a charge at that time - case was therefore closed.

- the 2022 comprehensive review - re-examine initial steps, gather additional evidence and gather new information.

-Formal confirmation of charges of the 5 accused.

-As Chief of Police while committed to transparency and accountability he must also ensure he does not compromise ongoing criminal prosecution.

-Will provide more information once the legal proceedings are over. But right now, our organization is focused on supporting the victim and upholding the integrity of the criminal trial process.

-Full confidence in the LPS sexual assault section...

-Extends sincerest apology to the victim and her family for the amount of time it has taken to reach this point.


Det/Sgt. Katherine Dann
-Limited in what she can share
-In July of 2022, she was assigned to do an investigative review. She was not part of the original investigative team.
-There were additional steps that could be taken. So reopened and a team of investigators assigned.
-Victim has fully cooperated since day 1.
-"Explored additional investigative opportunities"
-Evidence that was not available before...this is one investigation, not two...continuation of original investigation.
-Encouraging anyone with more information to come forward to LPS (mentions potential witnesses from Jacks bar).

-Reads a statement from the lawyer for EM
Mentions courage it takes, asks for privacy to be respected.

Media Questions


Rick Westhead
- did the initial investigation meet the standards of their department (Chief dodges the question)
- everyone involved in the original investigation are currently potential witnesses. Repeats that this is one investigation.
- trust with LPS is frayed and fragile - how rebuild trust with potential victims?
- Striving to do the best they can do...will continue to try to be better and better everyday (basically said nothing tangible...)

Robyn Doolittle
- Mike McLeod - why two charges?
- one charge in relation to his own actions and one in relation to aiding another to commit sexual assault
- I the new evidence now obtained newly available or just was uncovered at the time?
- Cannot answer

Another Reporter
- Did LPS make a mistake in not laying a charge in 2019?
- Chief again says one investigation not two. Should not have to wait this long...otherwise will not respond

- Can you describe the spirit in the room? Was it toxic masculinity run amok (Possibly dumbest question imaginable - and no response given)


Another Reporter
- Why hasn't LPS handed this investigation to another police service?
- Chief says they did a review in 2022 and as a result we are here today...no reason to turn over to another service. Full confidence in his team.

- In previous police filings a belief that more than just 5 in the room
Are other players cooperating?
They have laid charges for all the charges they have reasonable grounds for...cannot provide detail of varying degrees of cooperation from players.

Another Reporter
- Was this a failure on behalf of LPS?
- Victim was fully cooperative from the start.
- Rightfully asking these questions but for me to answer any of these details, will truly compromise the investigation.
- Repeats again this is one investigation.
- I will answer that at the appropriate time though.

- What prompted the review?
- I was not the Chief but prior Chief made the right decision.
- My understanding is information came to light from the community


Jaime Strahcan
- What went wrong with the initial investigation?
- Won't answer

- would this have been done differently if not 5 Canadian hockey players celebrating a gold medal?
- Chief says cannot answer that...will strive to be better and better...

Another reporter

- apology made for length of time that it took...and victim fully cooperative...so WHY did it take this long?
- Cannot answer...why it took so long will form part of the proceedings. It would be completely inappropriate to speak about that at this time.

- What are you doing to re-establish trust with community?
- Ongoing case review program for cases where charges are not laid.
- support and information to victims about the investigative process
- started an anonymous reporting program

Another reporter

- This has become a problem within hockey...have you guys reached out to community hockey organizations to discuss consent etc.?
- Dann says her team does do these outreach presentations...including with hockey teams.

- was new evidence that came up the deciding factor?
- Cannot answer - would jeopardize the case.

Another reporter

- preferential treatment for time for accused to turn in?
- Not unusual. Had contact with lawyers...not abnormal.
- Case specific to make arrangements (re why 2 weeks)

*** Chief then steps in and goes on to rant about how we portray young women and girls in the media and that it contributes to sexual violence (bizarre interjection).

So, next reporter shoves it in his face
- wouldn't it be fair to say that taking nearly 6 years to complete an investigation would contribute to sexual violence against women?
- Good question, as Chief I am not happy with the situation. I am confident this will not happen again.

- According to EM there were 8 players - could there be more charges?
- Won't comment on whether there will or will not be more charges.

- did their case review committee review the original investigation?
- No

Omar - CTV
- Given attention to case, can you tell us today who bears the responsibility for that delay?
- great question but cannot answer it will truly compromise the current case. There will be a time...not now.

- What do you wish your police service could have done differently?
- Very confident in Det/Sgt. Dann and her leadership
- making sure officers have current training and integrate into community
- can't answer if anything done differently


Ian Mendes - Athletic

- how normal is it for a case to be closed and then re-opened?
- Not uncommon to close pending further information


Another Reporter
- July 2022 you took over...why took so long since then?
- not answering

- are initial investigators still part of this case?
- Chief - They are not part of this investigative team as we speak.

Canadian Press
- did police ID the Uber Driver?
- cannot comment

- two other investigations HC and NHL did that cause issues?
- Dann - yes it did add complexity to the case but not going to get into it.

Another reporter

- what concern do you have that police conduct will come up in trial?
- Chief - Well, I am not concerned...these things will come out...I hold myself accountable (I think he missed the point of the question)


Toronto Star

- HC settled lawsuit and that led to public outrage
- did you learn more in 2022 because HC was more forthright?
- can't answer
- did you work with HC or NHL?
- Cannot answer

- Dann has not spoken with anyone from NHL over last several months.

Westhead (I think it was his voice) gets a final question picked up on the mic - whether anyone from Hockey Canada interfered with the initial investigation and they took THAT as the point to cut off the conference.