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

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Unfortunately "lacked credibility" sounds worse than it may mean in judicial parlance.

It was a situation with two different narratives, more or less forces the judge to make a credibility decision. Although, theoretically, the judge could have stated there was no reason to believe one side over the other and then ruled that the prosecution hadn't proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judge stated a major issue was that EM appeared "sober" in the videos. Not entirely sure I agree with that reasoning, as a significant amount of time had passed between when she left the bar, and stopped drinking, and when the videos were made. Plus, being traumatized will get someone's adrenaline flowing and give them the appearance of being more sober than they actually are.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Is Dube owed money by the Flames with respect to his remaining contract?

None of their contracts were cancelled. They all expired and they weren’t re-signed.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Have to wash my eyes after reading some of the opinions and pontifications in this thread.

[DoubleK]

We are going to need a wellness check on Rick Westhead

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

None of their contracts were cancelled. They all expired and they weren’t re-signed.

It is a bit crazy how it all worked out that way. Wonder what would've happened if Carter had just signed his big contract.

[Cole436]

Honestly, the judge’s reasoning and statements are pretty shocking. The Crown’s case clearly wasn’t as strong or prepared as it should have been, and losing the text messages was a major blow. But using a video that many have said showed coercion and survival mode, then judging her level of sobriety and consent from that, is really disturbing.

To go even further and say she was unreliable, lacked credibility, and fully consented feels incredibly wrong. This is exactly why so many people choose not to come forward after being sexually assaulted. The way this judgment was framed doesn’t feel like justice. It feels like a warning to other victims to stay silent.

I didn’t expect guilty verdicts based on how the trial played out, but spinning the outcome in a way that puts all the blame on EM is heartbreaking. It feels like a step backwards and I think it’s going to have a lasting impact on other survivors. I’m honestly so disappointed and sickened by how the judge explained their reasoning, especially when speaking about someone who believed they were a victim of sexual assault.

[sureLoss]

This link has a more detailed telling of the judge's ruling unlike the athletic coverage. The judge is being very detailed and going through all the evidence.

https://lfpress.com/sports/hockey/ju...y-canada-trial

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Sounds like the consent videos made by McLeod went a long way with the judge:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/liv.../bZQqdVCk9IEK/

That is, however, as I understand it...NOT the way Canadian law on SA is generally interpreted. Consent cannot be given beforehand, after but must be during and continual for each action and/or event.


Given, however, that the Judge says EM's testimony was not believable...maybe that's the more critical factor? I'll be interested to read the decision as given when it's released in full.

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Honestly, the judge’s reasoning and statements are pretty shocking. The Crown’s case clearly wasn’t as strong or prepared as it should have been, and losing the text messages was a major blow. But using a video that many have said showed coercion and survival mode, then judging her level of sobriety and consent from that, is really disturbing.

To go even further and say she was unreliable, lacked credibility, and fully consented feels incredibly wrong. This is exactly why so many people choose not to come forward after being sexually assaulted. The way this judgment was framed doesn’t feel like justice. It feels like a warning to other victims to stay silent.

I didn’t expect guilty verdicts based on how the trial played out, but spinning the outcome in a way that puts all the blame on EM is heartbreaking. It feels like a step backwards and I think it’s going to have a lasting impact on other survivors. I’m honestly so disappointed and sickened by how the judge explained their reasoning, especially when speaking about someone who believed they were a victim of sexual assault.

Also taking into account all other players that did get examined seemed to remember clearly her asking for sex, but anything that was presented that was even slightly questionable or incriminating, they "couldn't remember"

Also ok that the accused and witness present memory was impaired by booze and time, but EM is expected to remember every instance exactly as it happened. Judge should be holding all of them to the same standard.

I don't remember seeing a naked girl, but I remember her asking the guys to come and F her.

I don't remember sending a text to my friend saying dube was slapping her so hard

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I don't agree that the Judge went farther than she needed to.
The facts and findings do need to be set out, for both transparency and appealability.

Most decisions I get have references to credibility of witnesses, especially in diametrically opposing positions, as was the case here.

I do agree the Crown messed up.

The judge was also in the position to witness her demeanor and cadence while testifying. It's much different than reading black and white text on the internet. The media also largely reported the events from very victim friendly perspective, which I totally understand. It's better to default to the victim's story even if the verdict doesn't support that in the end, than the other way around. I didn't find the reporting to be neutral by any means.

Unless someone was actually there in court witnessing the testimony, it's hard to draw 100% conclusions. Judges have a lot of experience in reading people and are in a unique position to, well judge the person.

[Flamesfan05]

Oh well, sound like Hart will be an Oiler soon

[GFG#1]

The judge saying that EMs testimony isn't credible because it was inconsistent from 7 years ago, but is fine with Hart, Howden testimony being hazy because they were intoxicated and the time that had lapsed. Both accuser and defendants should be held to the same standard.

[Buff]

After following the case I had no doubt that they were guilty but I had a lot of doubt that the crown made a good enough case to convict.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Honestly, the judge’s reasoning and statements are pretty shocking. The Crown’s case clearly wasn’t as strong or prepared as it should have been, and losing the text messages was a major blow. But using a video that many have said showed coercion and survival mode, then judging her level of sobriety and consent from that, is really disturbing.

To go even further and say she was unreliable, lacked credibility, and fully consented feels incredibly wrong. This is exactly why so many people choose not to come forward after being sexually assaulted. The way this judgment was framed doesn’t feel like justice. It feels like a warning to other victims to stay silent.

I didn’t expect guilty verdicts based on how the trial played out, but spinning the outcome in a way that puts all the blame on EM is heartbreaking. It feels like a step backwards and I think it’s going to have a lasting impact on other survivors. I’m honestly so disappointed and sickened by how the judge explained their reasoning, especially when speaking about someone who believed they were a victim of sexual assault.

Which is all on the crown for bringing this to trial.
As has been said many times/ways, hopefully some good has come from what was obviously a bad decision by the crown. If the discussion/publicity stop one single incident like this from happening again, it's probably worth it. Except for EM.
The behavior of the accused was reprehensible, it just wasn't criminal.

[Squirrel]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Oh well, sound like Hart will be an Oiler soon

Dube back on the Flames roster for opening day. Topi Ronni will be in the Flames rookie camp.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

48 per cent of sexual assault cases in Canada that make it to court result in convictions. The length of time between the alleged incident and when it’s reported to police has a large impact on the conviction rate.

17% of cases reported to the police result in convictions, 83% do not. Has to be the lowest conviction rate of almost any serious criminal code violation.

[NegativeSpace]

Before anyone casts against EM, let's remember that the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If the judge is sitting there thinking that these guys are 85% guilty and there is a 15% chance that the consent was wilful, then she still needs to acquit.


However, the media reports of the evidence kept raising the question for me of why the Crown was leading this woman through this experience without more evidence. Perhaps they thought that the text messages were their smoking gun. Wonder if there will be Crown appeal on the failure to admit those texts into evidence.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

The judge saying that EMs testimony isn't credible because it was inconsistent from 7 years ago, but is fine with Hart, Howden testimony being hazy because they were intoxicated and the time that had lapsed. Both accuser and defendants should be held to the same standard.

I don't think that was the only reason why she thought the complainant lacked credibility. Inconsistent statements from the original police report, then the HC, investigation, then during the trial were part of it, but there were other things.

Her original statement didn't match the video evidence, like that they were buying her drinks all night and they knew how much she drank. Or when she admitted to acting in a way that communicated consent, or when she admitted that she wanted to stay in the room with McLeod after the events and was upset when he asked her to leave. The judge also had to advise her multiple times not to colour her testimony and that her "feelings" about what happened after aren't the same same as facts about what happened in the present. There were other things too that came up in the live chat, but the end of the day summaries always seemed to leave that stuff out.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Not surprising. There’s a couple posts here of people that were just waiting to celebrate these guys/denigrate the victim, as we knew there would be. It’s just the way some men operate.

Not surprised by the result given the trial. But I feel sorry she had to go through that again, already having gained anything she could have personally gained if that were her goal, only to be subject to abuse online by strangers.

Some men operate under the realization that every word that comes out of a females mouth might not necessarily be truthful.

Not every woman that claims they were raped was actually raped.

I don't know what the truth is in this case, I certainly wasn't there. But apparently a judge saw fit to rule there was no rape in this case based on the evidence.

I wish no human would ever be raped,, and I also wish that no human would ever falsely be accused of rape. Unfortunately both happen.

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Some men operate under the realization that every word that comes out of a females mouth might not necessarily be truthful.

Not every woman that claims they were raped was actually raped.

I don't know what the truth is in this case, I certainly wasn't there. But apparently a judge saw fit to rule there was no rape in this case based on the evidence.

I wish no human would ever be raped,, and I also wish that no human would ever falsely be accused of rape. Unfortunately both happen.

The judge didn't say that the evidence proves there was no rape.
The judge said that there wasn't enough evidence to convict the players of rape.

These aren't the same thing.