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

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Good Lord, you think the federal government is the one who laid charges and the federal government is the one who decided to prosecute this case? Do you think the federal government does snow removal too?

And I don’t think she validated any of the players claims in her testimony.

The federal government did push to reopen the case though. Due to hockey canada funding and shining a light on the slush fund.

The original investigation was closed and non disclosure agreement and payout were executed.

Without that push it wouldn’t have been reopened is my guess.

I don’t think the federal government does anything well for the record. Outside of creating debt.

[tkflames]

This trial has been a lot of he said / she said - but then you see a picture of the actual room and you realize...this wasn't some guys having pizza in a sitting area while there was an "entertainer" in another part of a large Vegas style suite as the testimonies would have you believe. This was 9+ men circled around a drunk girl for several hours watching as she got humiliated and they laughed "making memories" and then lined up their stories.

I am sure in the guys minds it's a case of "it's not like we pinned her down so it's not rape". But again...think about the f*ed up entitled mindset you would need to have to stand there with your "bros" egging them on to "get in on some action from a 'chick' that one of them had picked up at the bar." Then continue to stand there and eat pizza circled around for not minutes...but hours (taking the tiniest bites ever?).

Morally (perhaps not legally) they are all accessories to a crime. Guys like Bean/Batherson/Howden....best case scenario were gross human beings at the time and now are to weak to just say...what actually happened.

No one (not even the bystanders) has the guts to say that "we wanted to make it a night to remember, we were celebrating...we didn't think it was rape because our definition of rape was pinning her down (which didn't happen) and she seemed like she was going along with it. As the night went on we kept egging each other on to go further and further...you are correct- this wasn't about love or sexual pleasure - this was about celebrating and 'making memories'. Through maturity, education and work in the community over the last 7 years we now see the power dynamic and perspective the other person in this would have had..."

Yes most of the above is me drawing conclusions..but that story is way more likely than..."I got with this girl from the bar, who wanted more after I had sex with her, so she asked me to invite 10+ of my friends and was disappointed that she only got with 5 of them over several hours while the others just stood there eating pizza...Then was more disappointed because the most creative thing we could come up with was to spit on her, slap her ass and teabag her while doing the splits and then was finally even more disappointed that I wouldn't cuddle her after. In hindsight she blames us for being embarrassed in front of her partner and mother".

[Whynotnow]

[QUOTE=Fighting Banana Slug;9434868]Hockey Canada has not covered itself in glory throughout this mess, but I don't think much can be taken from what is an essentially corporate settlement that should affect the outcome of a criminal trial of these individuals. As mentioned above, some of those players didn't know about the settlement, some were not charged and there are a host of reasons for HC to conclude a settlement, regardless whether they think a conviction is likely.

Corporations settle potential lawsuits for financial and reputational reasons that go beyond whether they think they have a 50.1% chance of success in litigation (for civil matters). I see the HC settlement with EM in a similar manner. Something definitely happened, but I don't see it as any kind of smoking gun that a crime was committed.[

Yeah, difference here is my hockey fees for my kid went in part to me paying for hockey Canada to cover crap like this up and save their own buts to keep their cushy roles. This is not some corporation, this was a public institution which I had no choice but to put my money into.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by tkflames

This trial has been a lot of he said / she said - but then you see a picture of the actual room and you realize...this wasn't some guys having pizza in a sitting area while there was an "entertainer" in another part of a large Vegas style suite as the testimonies would have you believe. This was 9+ men circled around a drunk girl for several hours watching as she got humiliated and they laughed "making memories" and then lined up their stories.

I am sure in the guys minds it's a case of "it's not like we pinned her down so it's not rape". But again...think about the f*ed up entitled mindset you would need to have to stand there with your "bros" egging them on to "get in on some action from a 'chick' that one of them had picked up at the bar." Then continue to stand there and eat pizza circled around for not minutes...but hours (taking the tiniest bites ever?).

Morally (perhaps not legally) they are all accessories to a crime. Guys like Bean/Batherson/Howden....best case scenario were gross human beings at the time and now are to weak to just say...what actually happened.

No one (not even the bystanders) has the guts to say that "we wanted to make it a night to remember, we were celebrating...we didn't think it was rape because our definition of rape was pinning her down (which didn't happen) and she seemed like she was going along with it. As the night went on we kept egging each other on to go further and further...you are correct- this wasn't about love or sexual pleasure - this was about celebrating and 'making memories'. Through maturity, education and work in the community over the last 7 years we now see the power dynamic and perspective the other person in this would have had..."

Yes most of the above is me drawing conclusions..but that story is way more likely than..."I got with this girl from the bar, who wanted more after I had sex with her, so she asked me to invite 10+ of my friends and was disappointed that she only got with 5 of them over several hours while the others just stood there eating pizza...Then was more disappointed because the most creative thing we could come up with was to spit on her, slap her ass and teabag her while doing the splits and then was finally even more disappointed that I wouldn't cuddle her after. In hindsight she blames us for being embarrassed in front of her partner and mother".

This part is correct. The rest of it is your opinion.

From all of the testimony I read there’s more to it than the way you are portraying it.

Per previous comments. The only people who really know what happened were in the room. The rest is pure speculation. A lot of grey if you weren’t there.

Not sure how the judge will make a verdict. Because she can’t speculate.

[Coach]

The judge verdict is an interesting one, can they just not believe witnesses?

From what I've followed, it seems like the Crown did a pretty poor job IMO. I don't know that I can say that it's been PROVEN that they are guilty, but I don't believe any of the hockey players and fully believe she was assaulted and went through exactly what she described. All these dudes are scumbags. You have to be a special type of sicko or idiot to hang around that. The fact they just shrug it away like it's normal shows how toxic this entire culture is. They just think it's part of the gig.

People outside of BDSM don't want to be spit on, tea-bagged, or slapped hard enough to cause actual pain. Add an extra partner? Sure. Maybe another couple? Okay. 10 on 1 gangbang? That's not normal stuff and requires prior discussion and consent. It's not something that "just happens".

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Coach

The judge verdict is an interesting one, can they just not believe witnesses?

From what I've followed, it seems like the Crown did a pretty poor job IMO. I don't know that I can say that it's been PROVEN that they are guilty, but I don't believe any of the hockey players and fully believe she was assaulted and went through exactly what she described. All these dudes are scumbags. You have to be a special type of sicko or idiot to hang around that. The fact they just shrug it away like it's normal shows how toxic this entire culture is. They just think it's part of the gig.

People outside of BDSM don't want to be spit on, tea-bagged, or slapped hard enough to cause actual pain. Add an extra partner? Sure. Maybe another couple? Okay. 10 on 1 gangbang? That's not normal stuff and requires prior discussion and consent. It's not something that "just happens".

Short answer: yes. They can entirely disbelieve a witness, in which case that evidence is essentially a non-factor.

[GullFoss]

Either outcome seems plausible. I can see a judge saying, "the probability a random girl at the bar wants a a 9-1 exhibitionist gangbang is extremely unlikely. The power dynamics at play were obvious. The golf clubs were coercive. They didn't let her leave. they're guilty."

I can also see the judge saying "she literally told them she wanted them to #### her. That creates reasonable doubt"

The outcome depends on the judge and their interpretations of consent and power and coercion. The prosection did the most they could do.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

And frankly any one who says there's room for doubt that a situation like that is a coercive and threatening dynamic to the perception of free will for a young woman obviously doesn't understand the experience of most young women and probably hasn't tried to.

There's an immense amount of anxiety around safety that they experience on a fairly constant basis, especially when not surrounded by friends.

Many men don't understand the experience of being physically vulnerable and having to constantly be on guard for one's safety because there's no stronger and physically dominant gender that they've had to coexist with; They are that gender.

And that's in doing every day things and going from place to place in an open, public space. Inside a crammed hotel room with one exit and a bunch of young inebriated men packed into there she's never met? That's a powder keg for anxiety.

That's even before the mention of golf clubs is brought into it.

Even if someone told her that she can leave at any time, internally she (and most women in that situation) would still be aware of the threat that any one of these guys could take exception and revoke that freedom if she decided to exercise it. So her saying that the option she was left with was to fawn and shut down is very realistic from that perspective given the very lopsided power dynamic in that setting.

The perception of promiscuity from these guys because she went along with a certain amount of activities doesn't mean that her internal experience wasn't an extremely distressing one. The fact that this case is being pursued in itself sort of confirms as much.

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

And frankly any one who says there's room for doubt that a situation like that is a coercive and threatening dynamic to the perception of free will for a young woman obviously doesn't understand the experience of most young women and probably hasn't tried to.

There's an immense amount of anxiety around safety that they experience on a fairly constant basis, especially when not surrounded by friends.

Many men don't understand the experience of being physically vulnerable and having to constantly be on guard for one's safety because there's no stronger and physically dominant gender that they've had to coexist with; They are that gender.

And that's in doing every day things and going from place to place in an open, public space. Inside a crammed hotel room with one exit and a bunch of young inebriated men packed into there she's never met? That's a powder keg for anxiety.

That's even before the mention of golf clubs is brought into it.

Even if someone told her that she can leave at any time, internally she (and most women in that situation) would still be aware of the threat that any one of these guys could take exception and revoke that freedom if she decided to exercise it. So her saying that the option she was left with was to fawn and shut down is very realistic from that perspective given the very lopsided power dynamic in that setting.

The perception of promiscuity from these guys because she went along with a certain amount of activities doesn't mean that her internal experience wasn't an extremely distressing one. The fact that this case is being pursued in itself sort of confirms as much.

I think your post makes a lot of powerful and valid points about how the female experience shapes perceptions of threat and safety. Where I struggle a bit is in reconciling some of E.M.‘s actions during and after the alleged assault—like remaining in the room afterwards and thinking she was going to stay the night with McLeod, being alone with her phone in the bathroom during the ordeal where calling for help was possible, or returning to the scene to retrieve a ring after she had been able to leave and find safety again—with what I would expect from someone in a highly traumatic or coercive scenario. That said, I also recognize trauma affects people in complex and inconsistent ways, and I’m open to the idea that behaviors I might not understand could still be entirely consistent with distress or shock.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Not sure how the judge will make a verdict. Because she can’t speculate.

Probably by assessing the reliability and credibility of all of the evidence that was before her... just like she and every other judge do in all hearings and trials.

[Jiri Hrdina]

The defense has also completed their cases. Closing arguments up next in a week.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Probably by assessing the reliability and credibility of all of the evidence that was before her... just like she and every other judge do in all hearings and trials.

Yes, if she finds the players not credible but finds E.M. credible it is a pretty easy decision. If she thinks that the players have some credibility it is probably a harder decision.

[Calgary Highlander]

There are too many witness accounts of EM egging and taunting the players to convict them.

Their actions are reprehensible, but it was always going to be an uphill battle for the Crown.

I expect the Oilers to sign McLeod and Hart on July 1.

[GullFoss]

Is it possible that the complainant was persuaded (rather than coerced) into performing sexual acts she didn't want to do. Ie - so she consented to doing things she didn't want to do.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Yes, if she finds the players not credible but finds E.M. credible it is a pretty easy decision. If she thinks that the players have some credibility it is probably a harder decision.

Keeping in mind of course that the defendants only need to raise a reasonable doubt...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

I think your post makes a lot of powerful and valid points about how the female experience shapes perceptions of threat and safety. Where I struggle a bit is in reconciling some of E.M.‘s actions during and after the alleged assault—like remaining in the room afterwards and thinking she was going to stay the night with McLeod, being alone with her phone in the bathroom during the ordeal where calling for help was possible, or returning to the scene to retrieve a ring after she had been able to leave and find safety again—with what I would expect from someone in a highly traumatic or coercive scenario. That said, I also recognize trauma affects people in complex and inconsistent ways, and I’m open to the idea that behaviors I might not understand could still be entirely consistent with distress or shock.

The ring story is weird in general. At first she said to investigators it was her grandmother's ring, but then she said in court that it was just a random ring that she bought herself. No one found a ring after looking apparently.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Is it possible that the complainant was persuaded (rather than coerced) into performing sexual acts she didn't want to do. Ie - so she consented to doing things she didn't want to do.

Sounds like one plausible way to frame the events.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Keeping in mind of course that the defendants only need to raise a reasonable doubt...

sure, but in a world where the judge does not find any of the male witnesses credible it would be very difficult to have reasonable doubt.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Calgary Highlander

There are too many witness accounts of EM egging and taunting the players to convict them.

Their actions are reprehensible, but it was always going to be an uphill battle for the Crown.

I expect the Oilers to sign McLeod and Hart on July 1.

There are many witness accounts from the whatsapp chat group members, question is whether they are considered credible at all.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

sure, but in a world where the judge does not find any of the male witnesses credible it would be very difficult to have reasonable doubt.

Not necessarily. The onus is on the Crown to prove all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge may have a reasonable doubt because she finds the complainant's evidence unreliable or not credible on one of the elements of the offence (for example, because of inconsistencies or implausibility in her evidence [whether exposed through cross-examination or otherwise]).