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

[Fighting Banana Slug]

[QUOTE=Whynotnow;9435574]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

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.

Right, which is why I said HC isn't covering itself in glory. My point was in response to suggestions that the settlement is evidence of a crime (and potential cover up).

[MegaErtz]

Surely if there is a conviction (which looks extremely unlikely at this point) the defendants can just appeal for a new trial by jury? It is absolutely outrageous for two juries to be dismissed on the same trial.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

Surely if there is a conviction (which looks extremely unlikely at this point) the defendants can just appeal for a new trial by jury? It is absolutely outrageous for two juries to be dismissed on the same trial.

Perhaps you can explain why this is "absolutely outrageous"? Especially when, as I understand it, the first mistrial was caused by the conduct of one of the defence lawyers and the second mistrial was the remedy requested by a defence motion.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

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.

And that's a well put counter to my post.

There are inconsistencies on both sides that cast doubt on their claims.

She didn't do what one would expect in a coercive situation with the opportunity to both slip out and to call or message for help. And the stories from the men deviate at key points which may indicate dishonesty and/or covering for details that would be incriminating.

That's why this case probably isn't black and white but the truth is somewhere in the middle. There could have been both egging on as well as action taken by the accused that went too far for her to be considered consentual.

Perhaps charges needed to be restricted to the most egregious participants. My concern is that there are guilty parties within the five but it may not be all five who should be sentenced in the end. And given the doubt the defense has generated around her claims that the group as a whole gets off lightly.

I haven't been following all the details but that's just my general thoughts around what I've seen and heard.

Regardless of what happens, these guys need to feel the consequences because this was a very suspect situation and in the end, they all stood idly by and allowed it to progress and/or directly participated in it and escalating the acts being performed.

Dube as the captain in that situation really dropped the ball regardless of whether his claims (which seem dubious and incomplete) are true or not. You can only hope he's learned a lesson here, but given the attitude of these guys in foreign interviews, etc, it doesn't really sound like it.

Hopefully a team like the soulless oilers doesn't give one of these players an opportunity well before one should be extended (this should be a joke but sadly it's not).

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

And that's a well put counter to my post.

There are inconsistencies on both sides that cast doubt on their claims.

She didn't do what one would expect in a coercive situation with the opportunity to both slip out and to call or message for help. And the stories from the men deviate at key points which may indicate dishonesty and/or covering for details that would be incriminating.

That's why this case probably isn't black and white but the truth is somewhere in the middle. There could have been both egging on as well as action taken by the accused that went too far for her to be considered consentual.

Perhaps charges needed to be restricted to the most egregious participants. My concern is that there are guilty parties within the five but it may not be all five who should be sentenced in the end. And given the doubt the defense has generated around her claims that the group as a whole gets off lightly.

I haven't been following all the details but that's just my general thoughts around what I've seen and heard.

Regardless of what happens, these guys need to feel the consequences because this was a very suspect situation and in the end, they all stood idly by and allowed it to progress and/or directly participated in it and escalating the acts being performed.

Dube as the captain in that situation really dropped the ball regardless of whether his claims (which seem dubious and incomplete) are true or not. You can only hope he's learned a lesson here, but given the attitude of these guys in foreign interviews, etc, it doesn't really sound like it.

Hopefully a team like the soulless oilers doesn't give one of these players an opportunity well before one should be extended (this should be a joke but sadly it's not).

They can fine only one or more guilty if they so chose. It's not all or nothing.

[MegaErtz]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Perhaps you can explain why this is "absolutely outrageous"? Especially when, as I understand it, the first mistrial was caused by the conduct of one of the defence lawyers and the second mistrial was the remedy requested by a defence motion.

Defence elects for trial by jury, doesn't like the fact that they got 11 women and 5 men. Picks a fight with the jury (has this ever happened?) to get a mistrial and a new jury. Gets 9 women and 5 men on the second trial, then somehow manages to get that jury dismissed as well, and asks for trial by judge? Tell me when this has ever happened before. People in Canada love to talk smack about the American legal system, and rightfully so, but we are no better. Money talks. These five guys are going to walk.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

Defence elects for trial by jury, doesn't like the fact that they got 11 women and 5 men. Picks a fight with the jury (has this ever happened?) to get a mistrial and a new jury. Gets 9 women and 5 men on the second trial, then somehow manages to get that jury dismissed as well, and asks for trial by judge? Tell me when this has ever happened before. People in Canada love to talk smack about the American legal system, and rightfully so, but we are no better. Money talks. These five guys are going to walk.

Personally, I think trial by judge is much better than trial by jury.

I could argue it's biased that these guys were being tried in front of a lopsided jury of 9 women and 5 men. Unless, your bias has already convinced you that they are guilty.

[Red_Baron]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Personally, I think trial by judge is much better than trial by jury.

I agree. After seeing some posters hold their biases, I'll take the person vetted by the system over a group of randoms if I'm ever facing a trial.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Personally, I think trial by judge is much better than trial by jury.

I could argue it's biased that these guys were being tried in front of a lopsided jury of 9 women and 5 men. Unless, your bias has already convinced you that they are guilty.

What if your bias is that they are not guilty? Plenty of that for sure.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Makarov

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]).

It would be a strange he said she said case where a judge found both parties not credible. Suppose it is possible though.

[MegaErtz]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Personally, I think trial by judge is much better than trial by jury.

I could argue it's biased that these guys were being tried in front of a lopsided jury of 9 women and 5 men. Unless, your bias has already convinced you that they are guilty.

Lawyers for the prosecution and defence don't get to dismiss jurors on the basis of their gender. That's the chance you take when you choose a trial by jury.

99.99999% of defendants don't get to have the luxury of two juries, then change their mind and go for a trial by judge when they don't like the makeup of the jury. That takes money, not luck.

[taxbuster]

The Sexual Assault Centre of Ottawa has posted a scathing review of the myths and allegations faced by E.M. in the trial, and it isn't pretty:


https://sascottawa.com/ocrcc-responds/


The experience of a young woman − a complainant named as “E.M.” in court documents, in which five former World Junior Hockey players were charged with sexual assault − is a case in point of the reasons why survivors hesitate to report. Over the last few weeks and five cross-examinations in court, E.M. has faced almost every harmful and victim-blaming sexual assault myth in existence.

[Goriders]

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.

That was my point. Both sides seem pretty shakey from what I have read.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

More like InternationalPillager.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Personally, I think trial by judge is much better than trial by jury.

I could argue it's biased that these guys were being tried in front of a lopsided jury of 9 women and 5 men. Unless, your bias has already convinced you that they are guilty.

That statement feels weird to me. The women I've talked about this case with both thought it was messy, and it would be hard to convict. "Not everything that's morally wrong can be a crime" was a direct quote from one of them.

It's not like opinions on stuff like this strictly follows gender lines.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Personally, I think trial by judge is much better than trial by jury.

I could argue it's biased that these guys were being tried in front of a lopsided jury of 9 women and 5 men. Unless, your bias has already convinced you that they are guilty.

How can the jury be considered lopsided? The jury still needs to decide unanimously, don’t they?

[FlamesAddiction]

I think the bigger issue with the jury was the intimidation from the accusers supporters as they walked into the courthouse. That was one of the reasons why they were dismissed. I can't believe they didn't have better security to shield them from that.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think the bigger issue with the jury was the intimidation from the accusers supporters as they walked into the courthouse. That was one of the reasons why they were dismissed. I can't believe they didn't have better security to shield them from that.

Good point

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think the bigger issue with the jury was the intimidation from the accusers supporters as they walked into the courthouse. That was one of the reasons why they were dismissed. I can't believe they didn't have better security to shield them from that.

Was it? I didn’t see that reported anywhere.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Was it? I didn’t see that reported anywhere.

That is why they dismissed the jury and went with trial by judge instead. A juror complained to the judge that two of the lawyers were coming in and looking at the jurors and making inside jokes to each other about the appearance of the jurors. Apparently more than just the two jurors were noticing it and there was concern that this would cause the jurors to form biases.

https://lfpress.com/sports/hockey/ju...-assault-trial