Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton charged with sexual assault

[CFO]

If it comes out that the only nonconsenual activities were butt slap and splits....this whole story is quite the waste. If the sexual activities were all consensual...to me that's misleading. He you can fk me. Or do oral. But anything less then that I have issues with.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by CFO

If it comes out that the only nonconsenual activities were butt slap and splits....this whole story is quite the waste. If the sexual activities were all consensual...to me that's misleading. He you can fk me. Or do oral. But anything less then that I have issues with.

You seemed to have missed the point of this whole matter.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CFO

If it comes out that the only nonconsenual activities were butt slap and splits....this whole story is quite the waste. If the sexual activities were all consensual...to me that's misleading. He you can fk me. Or do oral. But anything less then that I have issues with.

Yikes.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

I get the sense some posters here would be passive bystanders and excuse makers for these men's actions if they were among those in the hotel room.

No wonder these women seldom come forward or follow through.

Some strange takes, and a few that border on disturbing.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by CFO

If it comes out that the only nonconsenual activities were butt slap and splits....this whole story is quite the waste. If the sexual activities were all consensual...to me that's misleading. He you can fk me. Or do oral. But anything less then that I have issues with.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Entirely possible.

Though if that were the case why not lay charges for the two or three encounters that were taking it beyond what it initially was.

These five were the ones summoned for a reason. Can't help but feel like she would've been counseled on who/what was worth pursuing charges against and who wasn't.

She knowingly went up against the word of several eye witnesses. Someone who is fabricating a story or stretching truths is unlikely to do that, you would think.

Well didn’t she settle out of court and then the federal government reopened the case. So maybe she didn’t really want to testify. Or maybe her mom pushed her into it?

Who knows. But super conflicting testimonies. She has validated some of the players claims though.

Know idea how it will turn out.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

I get the sense some posters here would be passive bystanders and excuse makers for these men's actions if they were among those in the hotel room.

No wonder these women seldom come forward or follow through.

Some strange takes, and a few that border on disturbing.

Strange takes if she’s telling the truth. Not as strange if the players are.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Strange takes if she’s telling the truth. Not as strange if the players are.

How do any of us know who is telling the truth? The people who think they do know are the ones making the very strange takes.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Makarov

How do any of us know who is telling the truth? The people who think they do know are the ones making the very strange takes.

No one knows other than the people who were in the room

[IliketoPuck]

Humour me, illustrious legal minds, on my thoughts below. Not a “will this result in a conviction or not” perspective, but one that attempts to hypothesize how the stories have diverged so substantively over time.

If there was absolutely nothing to this, why did Hockey Canada cut a multimillion dollar cheque in return for an NDA?

My thought is that because whatever they were paying to keep quiet via the NDA was damaging enough in their view to warrant millions of dollars. But that information can’t be included as evidence, because the hockey players careers were coerced / threatened. Which, again, why would they lie to make things worse when facing that kind of pressure from Hockey Canada? Purely my opinion, but I think they were threatened and came clean, and because there were no criminal charges at the time, that would have been it after Hockey Canada purchased EMs silence. Once the story broke and became public interest, the criminal investigation nullified the NDA, bringing things to light.

Carter Hart and Detective Newton’s testimony this week is not consistent with a story that requires a multi million dollar settlement, in my view.

I fully expect the legal proceedings to result in a not guilty verdict. It sure seems like once the text messages were ruled inadmissible that the prosecution began to speed run this trial without a cogent strategy to proving things beyond reasonable doubt. Perhaps their strategy is now to appeal the likely outcome?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Humour me, illustrious legal minds, on my thoughts below. Not a “will this result in a conviction or not” perspective, but one that attempts to hypothesize how the stories have diverged so substantively over time.

If there was absolutely nothing to this, why did Hockey Canada cut a multimillion dollar cheque in return for an NDA?

My thought is that because whatever they were paying to keep quiet via the NDA was damaging enough in their view to warrant millions of dollars. But that information can’t be included as evidence, because the hockey players careers were coerced / threatened. Which, again, why would they lie to make things worse when facing that kind of pressure from Hockey Canada? Purely my opinion, but I think they were threatened and came clean, and because there were no criminal charges at the time, that would have been it after Hockey Canada purchased EMs silence. Once the story broke and became public interest, the criminal investigation nullified the NDA, bringing things to light.

Carter Hart and Detective Newton’s testimony this week is not consistent with a story that requires a multi million dollar settlement, in my view.

I fully expect the legal proceedings to result in a not guilty verdict. It sure seems like once the text messages were ruled inadmissible that the prosecution began to speed run this trial without a cogent strategy to proving things beyond reasonable doubt. Perhaps their strategy is now to appeal the likely outcome?

The fact that the HC settlement included players that were later not only not charged but not even in the room indicates to me that it wasn't an accurate or thorough investigation. Definitely not up to the legal rigors to be used as evidence as some of the players implicated didn't even know they were implicated and had no chance to defend themselves.

I agree though that it is troublesome that HC has a slush fund and is so eager to just pay out to make things go away, but I think that isn't necessarily directly linked to this specific incident. It says a lot about the institution itself though.

[rage2]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Humour me, illustrious legal minds, on my thoughts below. Not a “will this result in a conviction or not” perspective, but one that attempts to hypothesize how the stories have diverged so substantively over time.

If there was absolutely nothing to this, why did Hockey Canada cut a multimillion dollar cheque in return for an NDA?

My thought is that because whatever they were paying to keep quiet via the NDA was damaging enough in their view to warrant millions of dollars. But that information can’t be included as evidence, because the hockey players careers were coerced / threatened. Which, again, why would they lie to make things worse when facing that kind of pressure from Hockey Canada? Purely my opinion, but I think they were threatened and came clean, and because there were no criminal charges at the time, that would have been it after Hockey Canada purchased EMs silence. Once the story broke and became public interest, the criminal investigation nullified the NDA, bringing things to light.

Carter Hart and Detective Newton’s testimony this week is not consistent with a story that requires a multi million dollar settlement, in my view.

I fully expect the legal proceedings to result in a not guilty verdict. It sure seems like once the text messages were ruled inadmissible that the prosecution began to speed run this trial without a cogent strategy to proving things beyond reasonable doubt. Perhaps their strategy is now to appeal the likely outcome?

I posted this theory elsewhere.

The settlement imo was there to bury the story to protect the reputations and careers of the hockey players involved, regardless of who was right or wrong. Because if it did get out, it’d be a public witch hunt, and their careers would be done. Kinda like what happened anyways.

That’s my best guess at it. HC didn’t even consult the players involved. Figure it was a clean bury and move on.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rage2

I posted this theory elsewhere.

The settlement imo was there to bury the story to protect the reputations and careers of the hockey players involved, regardless of who was right or wrong. Because if it did get out, it’d be a public witch hunt, and their careers would be done. Kinda like what happened anyways.

That’s my best guess at it. HC didn’t even consult the players involved. Figure it was a clean bury and move on.

Pure spitballing, but I think the HC guys were also interested in their own self-preservation.

You pay the girl to STFU and go away, with other people's money mind you, and then wipe your hands of the entire affair and call it a job well done.

The players keep on keeping on, it costs the HC employees nothing, their reputations aren't tainted and they get to keep their sweet, cushy do-nothing jobs.

Pretty standard cover-up mentality.

Or...this happens. All the HC guys lost their cushy jobs, HC lost sponsors (dont know how thats shaking out) the players lost their jobs and potentially careers.

Paying someone to keep quiet with someone else's money so you get to keep your cushy life? Its just easier.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

If there was absolutely nothing to this, why did Hockey Canada cut a multimillion dollar cheque in return for an NDA?

Hold up, and someone smarter please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we need to be extremely cautious in saying that this was a multi-million dollar cheque. In fact it almost certainly could not be.

From my understanding the fund was not used strictly for sexual assault lawsuits but did incur 2.9M settlement payouts during 2022 when EM received her settlement. This fund though was used for any uninsured claim, that included harassment and even injuries.

Hockey Canada had testified that they had spent just shy of $9,000,000 over the last 35 years on sexual assault lawsuit settlements by 21 complainants. Notably, $7,000,000 was spent strictly on Graham James. I'm not sure how many complainants received settlements related to him, but it never appeared publicly to be close to 20.

We also know of at least one other similar incident in 2003 that was settled and those related to Gordon Stuckless. So just doing the math, there's no way it could be multi-million. If we start making some assumptions like Graham had 5 complainants, then the other 16 complainants getting equal share of the remaining $2,000,000, we would be looking at a payout closer to $125,000. Now of course they wouldn't be equal, I don't know how many complainants Graham had (we know some public ones), and we would also have to account for inflation for the more historical ones. But no, I don't believe there's any chance that this was a seven figure settlement.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Hold up, and someone smarter please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we need to be extremely cautious in saying that this was a multi-million dollar cheque. In fact it almost certainly could not be.

From my understanding the fund was not used strictly for sexual assault lawsuits but did incur 2.9M settlement payouts during 2022 when EM received her settlement. This fund though was used for any uninsured claim, that included harassment and even injuries.

Hockey Canada had testified that they had spent just shy of $9,000,000 over the last 35 years on sexual assault lawsuit settlements by 21 complainants. Notably, $7,000,000 was spent strictly on Graham James. I'm not sure how many complainants received settlements related to him, but it never appeared publicly to be close to 20.

We also know of at least one other similar incident in 2003 that was settled and those related to Gordon Stuckless. So just doing the math, there's no way it could be multi-million. If we start making some assumptions like Graham had 5 complainants, then the other 16 complainants getting equal share of the remaining $2,000,000, we would be looking at a payout closer to $125,000. Now of course they wouldn't be equal, I don't know how many complainants Graham had (we know some public ones), and we would also have to account for inflation for the more historical ones. But no, I don't believe there's any chance that this was a seven figure settlement.

I would bet that it was in the seven figure range. She was asking for $3.55 million and it was settled pretty quickly. I doubt it would have been settled that quickly if they offered way less. Also, I do not think that settlement was included in that ~$9 million total over the past 35 years.

In May 2022, Hockey Canada settled a lawsuit seeking $3.55 million. The lawsuit was filed in April by a woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted by eight former CHL players after a Hockey Canada Foundation event in London, Ont., in June 2018.

The allegations have not been proven in court. The identities of the players allegedly involved and the alleged victim are not publicly known. The terms of the settlement, including how much Hockey Canada paid the complainant, are not public, and are not included in the $8.9 million figure Hockey Canada officials gave at the committee.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hoc...ttee-1.6533439

[OptimalTates]

EDIT: Nevermind, article I read had conflicting information on whether EM's settlement was included. Thanks for the correction FlamesAddiction but I still think we need to be cautious assigning any value.


---
A little bit deeper read into it I think we get this:

Hockey Canada or it's insurers has paid $8.9M to 21 complainants since 1989.

Of that $8.9M, insurance paid $1.3M to 12 complainants. $1.0M of that was paid to four complainants by the same perpetrator (I'm presuming Gordon Stuckless). So the other eight complainants split $0.3M paid out by insurance.

Hockey Canada's equity fund paid $7.6M to 9 complainants. Of the $7.6M, $6.8M was paid to Graham James' victims. I don't think we know how many complainants were paid out. We know publicly that Kennedy, Fleury and Holt, were victims and probably all three filed lawsuits, but even that would be unconfirmed. We also don't know if there was any non-public victims who became complainants.

But if we assume Graham James had 3 complainants, then the last 6 complainants (of which EM is one) would be splitting the last $0.8M in some capacity. An average of roughly $133,000.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

A little bit deeper read into it I think we get this:

Hockey Canada or it's insurers has paid $8.9M to 21 complainants since 1989.

Of that $8.9M, insurance paid $1.3M to 12 complainants. $1.0M of that was paid to four complainants by the same perpetrator (I'm presuming Gordon Stuckless). So the other eight complainants split $0.3M paid out by insurance.

Hockey Canada's equity fund paid $7.6M to 9 complainants. Of the $7.6M, $6.8M was paid to Graham James' victims. I don't think we know how many complainants were paid out. We know publicly that Kennedy, Fleury and Holt, were victims and probably all three filed lawsuits, but even that would be unconfirmed. We also don't know if there was any non-public victims who became complainants.

But if we assume Graham James had 3 complainants, then the last 6 complainants (of which EM is one) would be splitting the last $0.8M in some capacity. An average of roughly $133,000.

Yes, she filed a 3.5M lawsuit but years later they reached an undisclosed settlement with an absolute upper limit of 0.8M and absolute minimum limit of a dollar.

Just...the fact that they had an 'Abuse Slush Fund' at all is absolutely staggering.

I cant even imagine being the Accountant setting that up.

"Whats this for?"

- Reasons....?

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Locke

Just...the fact that they had an 'Abuse Slush Fund' at all is absolutely staggering.

I cant even imagine being the Accountant setting that up.

"Whats this for?"

- Reasons....?

We’re not in Kansas anymore Toto.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by cfo

if it comes out that the only nonconsenual activities were butt slap and splits....this whole story is quite the waste. If the sexual activities were all consensual...to me that's misleading. He you can fk me. Or do oral. But anything less then that i have issues with.

asl

[The Cobra]

Big news breaking. Of the fried fat with sugar variety.

There are doughnuts in the court room!!!

Formenton's lawyers brought in 50 doughnuts to commemorate assistant crown prosecutor Cunningham's 50th birthday.

No report on the various flavours.