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

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think the Crown messed this case up.

What mistakes do you think the Crown made? This was always going to be a very difficult to prove case, but was a case worth taking. I don't feel like this is like the Jian Ghomeshi trial where the Crown absolutely ####ed it up at every turn.


In the end, the ruling is correct. The Crown couldn't prove a rape happened. Did the victim get assaulted? This is tough for me. I think once you're in that position, even if you changed your mind how do you escape? It's just not as easy as saying "No" at that point. It should be, but it probably isn't, especially when you're young. I think this is a case where there was no active consent and while it was given initially as the event went on that consent waned. But I don't think it was communicated in away that was clear to the boys. I also realize that how are these guys supposed to know that when it's not communicated?

This is a mess, as these situations always are. Regardless, the boys' testimony reeks of collusion and planning. Something fishy was going on there, and while we'll never know for sure what it was I hope that if it was something nefarious that it sits with these boys for the rest of their lives. We already know it will sit with the victim.

[sureLoss]

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

“The accused are not required to prove that the complainant consented to the sexual contact,” Carroccia said, making reference to the fact that the onus in the case is on the Crown, not the accused or their defence teams.

Speaking about witness credibility, Justice Carroccia said, “One of the most valuable means of assessing a witness’s credibility is to examine the consistency between what the witness said in the witness box and what she has said on other occasions.”

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

For those asking why the crown brought this to trial, lets not forget the police originally closed this case due to lack of evidence of the assault. Was it likely public pressure when the HC settlement went public that the crown felt it had to try the case?

If so, then that is a terrible reason. The Crown needs to be above public pressure like that, particularly if you are virtually guaranteeing EM one of the worst experiences in her entire life. If you are going to put her through that, then make sure you have the evidence to prove your case.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

What mistakes do you think the Crown made? This was always going to be a very difficult to prove case, but was a case worth taking. I don't feel like this is like the Jian Ghomeshi trial where the Crown absolutely ####ed it up at every turn.


In the end, the ruling is correct. The Crown couldn't prove a rape happened. Did the victim get assaulted? This is tough for me. I think once you're in that position, even if you changed your mind how do you escape? It's just not as easy as saying "No" at that point. It should be, but it probably isn't, especially when you're young. I think this is a case where there was no active consent and while it was given initially as the event went on that consent waned. But I don't think it was communicated in away that was clear to the boys. I also realize that how are these guys supposed to know that when it's not communicated?

This is a mess, as these situations always are. Regardless, the boys' testimony reeks of collusion and planning. Something fishy was going on there, and while we'll never know for sure what it was I hope that if it was something nefarious that it sits with these boys for the rest of their lives. We already know it will sit with the victim.

The Crown didn't prep their witnesses very well. They also didn't win the voire dires which were critical. They didn't handle the video well. They didn't call enough experts on that topic.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Titan2

One takeaway of this is that a potentially coerced video taken after a harrowing evening absolves all sins. I think that if you put any of us in EM's situation, where she still hasn't been able to leave, then we would say whatever the videographer wanted.

The second video was taken early in the morning after the other players had left and McLeod and EM had had a shower. McLeod was trying to get her to leave so he could get some sleep before the golf tournament, and EM testified that the way he rushed her out upset her. She also testified he wasn’t very helpful when she went back to look for her ring. So at that point, she wasn’t being prevented from leaving.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The Crown didn't prep their witnesses very well. They also didn't win the voire dires which were critical. They didn't handle the video well. They didn't call enough experts on that topic.

That's fair. I was more thinking in regards to clear mistakes made on their part. Not prepping witnesses is fair. I don't think anyone was going to do anything with that video.

I think this was always going to be a difficult case for the crown.

Also, this judge is being absolutely ruthless on the victim in their ruling. Holy smokes.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

So, they are all innocent? Is that what I am reading.

I don't think the final verdict has been released, but it will either be guilty or not guilty. I don't believe a judge can legally declare someone "innocent" even if they believe it. It looks like there will be an acquittal though. They are presumed innocent, under the law, until proven otherwise so "not guilty" upholds that presumption.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

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.

Sexual assault typically does not have witnesses or physical evidence that can be clearly tied to the accused, so it’s the word of one person against another. Our justice system does not make it easy to get a conviction for a serious crime on the basis of one person’s allegations. That’s intentional, it applies to crimes besides sexual assault, and it’s a good thing.

[Manhattanboy]

Interesting takes in this thread for sure.

There may be some who would advocate in cases of sexual assault for a reversal of the burden of proof. I think that would be a mistake, as would lessening the standard to a balance of probabilities, which is the standard in civil cases.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by dino7c

what? yes they can...NHL can suspend a player for whatever they like

lol no they can’t

Not saying they don’t have a reason in this case but they can’t just suspend someone because they don’t like them

[WideReceiver]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

So, they are all innocent? Is that what I am reading.

Just like O.J. was innocent.

[YYC in LAX]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

As a Father, I just had to sign in to say this perspective makes me sad and I hope one day you are capable of understanding why.

I've notice over the years you make a big deal about signing in to comment like your post should carry more weight. You're pretty emotional hey? "Hey guys! StrykerSteve has signed in again! He's here! He's commented!"

I'm also a father. What's your point? The justice system and I agree that justice has prevailed.

SIGNING OUT.

[Matty81]

I think regardless of whether or not they get convicted, everyone can see that these guys acted like dirtbags and there are some real scumbags out there when it comes to taking advantage of other human beings and having a complete lack of sympathy. That said even as a non legal person I can see why there is doubt and uncertainty about the correct verdict re: actual criminality having happened

Looks like they won't be convicted anyway, so HERE COME THE OILERS! How many of these guys will they sign in the next couple weeks

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

I've notice over the years you make a big deal about signing in to comment like your post should carry more weight. You're pretty emotional hey? "Hey guys! StrykerSteve has signed in again! He's here! He's commented!"

I'm also a father. What's your point? The justice system and I agree that justice has prevailed.

SIGNING OUT.

Damn

[sureLoss]

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

Carroccia is saying there were troubling elements in the E.M.’s testimony. One example is when asked by one of the defence lawyers about her weight, she said she weighed 120 lbs at the time of the alleged crimes despite knowing that estimation was inaccurate. When pressed on why she gave the wrong answer in her testimony, Carroccia said E.M. replied: “Because I know that's what I had said . . . at the time.” Carroccia added, “It appears in this answer that the complainant, rather than answering questions fully, chose to repeat what she had said previously.”

Justice Carroccia pointed to another inconsistency in E.M.’s testimony — noting that while E.M. said she was “out of it” when she arrived at the Delta hotel with McLeod, video evidence showed her leaving Jack’s, entering the hotel, and walking up the stairs “without difficulty.”

“E.M. does not appear to show any obvious signs of impairment, such as stumbling . . . (or) difficulty walking, in any of the videos,” Justice Carroccia said of the video evidence presented during the trial. “She was wearing high heels all night and appeared to have no trouble standing or walking.”

“In my view, the complainant exaggerated her intoxication when confronted with inconsistencies or, when she was unable to explain why she acted in a certain manner, the complainant defaulted to say that, ’It was because I was so drunk,’” Carroccia said.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

I've notice over the years you make a big deal about signing in to comment like your post should carry more weight. You're pretty emotional hey? "Hey guys! StrykerSteve has signed in again! He's here! He's commented!"

I'm also a father. What's your point? The justice system and I agree that justice has prevailed.

SIGNING OUT.

The point is you can agree without being a ###### about it.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

I've notice over the years you make a big deal about signing in to comment like your post should carry more weight. You're pretty emotional hey? "Hey guys! StrykerSteve has signed in again! He's here! He's commented!"

I'm also a father. What's your point? The justice system and I agree that justice has prevailed.

SIGNING OUT.

Your posts seem almost happy that the guys are being acquitted and that’s the weird part. Even if you don’t believe EM completely, there is nothing about that night, this trial, the hockey players losing their NHL chance or quite honestly anything with this whole ordeal that should make anyone “happy”.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Damn

I understand what you are trying to say but realistically there are a lot of bad fathers. Hell some rapists are fathers.


As far as the case goes, I'm not surprised either. Just have to remember that "Not Guilty" doesn't mean Innocent. And these "boys" are far from innocent imo.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

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

The CBC live broadcast also mentioned that EM said that the men were plying her with alcohol while the video evidence shows her buying her own drinks. That particular misrepresentation of facts is a pretty big one IMO.

[sureLoss]

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

Justice Carroccia is also rejecting the Crown’s argument that the players “concocted” a false narrative in their group chat about what happened in McLeod’s hotel room. “I disagree with this characterization,” Carroccia said. “The group chat reflects that the participants were expressing their honest recollections about what happened in room 209, and not concocting a false narrative.”