Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton found not guilty of sexual assault

[PepsiFree]

I think it’s a clumsy attempt to equate being accused of a crime and then found not guilty in court reputationally with never having been accused of anything.

Which I think most people know is completely ridiculous.

I doubt you’d get an honest answer on the internet, but I wonder how many people writing off the victim/bending over backwards to defend the accused are fathers of daughters. I’m curious how many would be happy to hear their daughter was dating an alleged rapist and domestic abuser who was found not guilty because there wasn’t enough evidence to convict, even though there was no evidence he didn’t do it either and his alleged victim maintains he allegation?

[habernac]

Having a daughter probably stokes my anger a little more, but a normal person with any morality whatsoever knows this situation was wrong.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

That hasn’t been said here by anybody.

Probably true though.

[Smartcar]

I followed this quite closely and I think the judge made the right decision. There is a lot of commentary based on media reports but the bottom line is EM was not credible, did consent at the time and likely was influenced by events afterwards (shame, anger at being dissed, etc). Also looking for a big payout. I thought blaming her civil lawyers for material errors in her statement of claim was BS. Who doesn’t read their statement of claim it’s an affidavit FFS.

Here is the full decision:
https://www.scribd.com/document/8929...ict#from_embed

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

I followed this quite closely and I think the judge made the right decision. There is a lot of commentary based on media reports but the bottom line is EM was not credible, did consent at the time and likely was influenced by events afterwards (shame, anger at being dissed, etc). Also looking for a big payout. I thought blaming her civil lawyers for material errors in her statement of claim was BS. Who doesn’t read their statement of claim it’s an affidavit FFS.

Here is the full decision:
https://www.scribd.com/document/8929...ict#from_embed

Thanks for posting the decision.

While I agree she should have read the Statement of Claim, I am confused regarding your suggestion it is an Affidavit. Can you clarify?

[Smartcar]

Oops I guess you don’t need an affidavit to support a statement of claim. I always thought you did. Obviously IANAL.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

Oops I guess you don’t need an affidavit to support a statement of claim. I always thought you did. Obviously IANAL.

All good!

And obvi...

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

I followed this quite closely and I think the judge made the right decision. There is a lot of commentary based on media reports but the bottom line is EM was not credible, did consent at the time and likely was influenced by events afterwards (shame, anger at being dissed, etc). Also looking for a big payout. I thought blaming her civil lawyers for material errors in her statement of claim was BS. Who doesn’t read their statement of claim it’s an affidavit FFS.

Here is the full decision:
https://www.scribd.com/document/8929...ict#from_embed

Wow. One woman went to a hotel room with one man. It was his room. He was young and strong and had a special place in society because he was good at hockey. Other men (up to 10 at one point? Definitely more than 5, because some left) and sex happens.

And apparently she is all good with this, never has second thoughts, and then files a claim afterwards because she wants money and she's mad at them for not giving her attention.

These poor men were put through such an ordeal by one woman and it's all her fault.

No wonder rape culture exists.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

is there a right wing or nazi angle to searching rape allegations?

Of course. All rape allegations are done by jealous women to bring men down. Andrew Tate is innocent

[Yamer]

EM wasn't getting any money from this trial.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

I followed this quite closely and I think the judge made the right decision. There is a lot of commentary based on media reports but the bottom line is EM was not credible, did consent at the time and likely was influenced by events afterwards (shame, anger at being dissed, etc). Also looking for a big payout. I thought blaming her civil lawyers for material errors in her statement of claim was BS. Who doesn’t read their statement of claim it’s an affidavit FFS.

Here is the full decision:
https://www.scribd.com/document/8929...ict#from_embed

She couldn't be looking for a payout. She already resolved that matter with Hockey Canada. This was brought by the Crown.

[Steve Bozek]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

If Hannibal Lector ran a 4.3 forty, GMs would say he had an eating disorder.

Not sure most teams would go that far, but maybe the Oilers would...

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

I followed this quite closely and I think the judge made the right decision. There is a lot of commentary based on media reports but the bottom line is EM was not credible, did consent at the time and likely was influenced by events afterwards (shame, anger at being dissed, etc). Also looking for a big payout. I thought blaming her civil lawyers for material errors in her statement of claim was BS. Who doesn’t read their statement of claim it’s an affidavit FFS.

Here is the full decision:
https://www.scribd.com/document/8929...ict#from_embed

You’re not describing the case accurately.

1. Yes, the judge found EM’s credibility lacking in some areas. That doesn’t mean she was proven to be lying. In Canadian law, being found “not credible” is not the same as lying. People can be confused, inconsistent, or emotional without being dishonest.

2. The verdict wasn’t “she consented,” it was that the Crown didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn’t. That’s a big difference. Our system does not declare someone innocent, just “not proven guilty.”

3. Saying she was influenced by shame or rejection is pure speculation. The judge never said that. You’re projecting a motive that wasn’t found in court.

4. As for the settlement, that happened before the trial and doesn’t prove anything either way. Most high-profile cases settle because both sides want to avoid a public mess. It’s not evidence of lying.

5. A statement of claim is not an affidavit. It’s written by lawyers, not sworn testimony. EM said she didn’t review it closely. That might not be great, but it’s not some “gotcha” moment.

If you’re going to point people to the full decision, you should probably read it more carefully. The judge explained her reasoning clearly, and none of it supports the idea that EM was just some vindictive liar out for money.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

Oops I guess you don’t need an affidavit to support a statement of claim. I always thought you did. Obviously IANAL.

Any statements contained in an statement of claim is a "pleading", and considered automatically to be an admitted fact by that party. You don't also need to swear to those facts in an affidavit to bring a claim. Making false statement in a statement of claim, although not under oath, can also affect your credibility. Pleading facts that are not true is also a big no no.

Don't know if that cleared anything up, or made it more confusing?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Cole436

You’re not describing the case accurately.
2. The verdict wasn’t “she consented,” it was that the Crown didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she didn’t. That’s a big difference. Our system does not declare someone innocent, just “not proven guilty.”

In the judge's opening statement, she said; "I found actual consent without vitiation.".

From Google:

Finding "actual consent without vitiation" in a legal context means that consent was freely and voluntarily given, and that no factors existed to invalidate that consent. In other words, the person agreed to the specific activity, and nothing occurred to make that agreement invalid.

Vitiation:
This means that something happened that invalidates the consent. Common reasons for vitiation include:

Coercion: Being forced or pressured to agree.

Deception: Being misled or lied to about the situation.

Undue Influence: Being manipulated by someone in a position of power.

Lack of Capacity: Not having the mental ability to understand the situation and give consent.

No Vitiation:
When there is "actual consent without vitiation," it means none of those factors are present. The person's agreement was freely given, and no external factors invalidated it.

So I think the judge's verdict was that she consented.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Saqe

Grok or any other AI is fine for information search. You can't find answers to anything that has to do with values though.

FFS no they are not, this is very provenly not the case.

AI summaries have been shown to regularly mischaracterize facts even when summarizing a single text, add inaccurate details and leave out essential details. And it gets much worse when summarizing larger events.

Use of AIs is also already linked to deteriorating reading comprehension skills.

There are proven good usecases for AIs, like using them to comment on your own text for a improved perspective, but information research is pretty much the least reliable thing you can do with them.

Even if AI companies love to spread that lie, because there's piles of money for them in that lie.

[YYC in LAX]

Originally Posted by habernac

Having a daughter probably stokes my anger a little more, but a normal person with any morality whatsoever knows this situation was wrong.

Please stop shaming E.M. Just because you can't picture yourself or those you know committing into such acts, it doesn't mean it's morally wrong. She was an adult, judicially proven to be a consenting party member within the hotel room. Who are you to judge? I

[Makarov]

Nm

[dieHARDflameZ]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

Please stop shaming E.M. Just because you can't picture yourself or those you know committing into such acts, it doesn't mean it's morally wrong. She was an adult, judicially proven to be a consenting party member within the hotel room. Who are you to judge? I

Huh? I don’t think he was shaming EM at all. Pretty sure he was saying the defendants more than likely knew what they were doing was wrong.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

In the judge's opening statement, she said; "I found actual consent without vitiation.".

From Google:



So I think the judge's verdict was that she consented.

I think that’s a fair reading, but it’s worth noting that saying “actual consent without vitiation” is a legal conclusion based on the evidence presented, it doesn’t mean the judge is stating with certainty what EM felt in that moment.

It means the Crown didn’t prove that fear, coercion, or incapacity were present. That’s not the same as saying “she definitely consented”, just that the legal threshold to vitiate it wasn’t met. That's one of those important pieces of nuance in how verdicts work.

In saying that, I do personally think the judge overstepped in declaring EM's state of mind.