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

[Regorium]

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.

IF (and a big IF) it all happened in the most direct reading of the judge's verdict, and that EM was a consenting party to all of the acts of that night, why would it be morally wrong by any party?

[cam_calderon]

Originally Posted by Regorium

IF (and a big IF) it all happened in the most direct reading of the judge's verdict, and that EM was a consenting party to all of the acts of that night, why would it be morally wrong by any party?

Power dynamics and a bunch of underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes would have everyone in that room regretting at least some portion of the evening. IMO the spitting and spanking at the very least is uncool unless explicitly agreed to. Don't think many teenage girls are into that, but what do I know.

[habernac]

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

You’re a moron if you think I was shaming the woman.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dieHARDflameZ

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.

Originally Posted by habernac

You’re a moron if you think I was shaming the woman.

I think he's trying to make some sarcastic point, but failing.

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by Cole436

You’re not describing the case accurately.
…
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.

Sorry I didn’t mean to suggest the judge said EM was likely ashamed, looking for a payout and angry about being disrespected afterwards, I was surmising that based on reading the detailed evidence quoted in the judgment. A lot of it was not reported in the media.

And yes I know she got the payout before the trial but I think it would have been tough for her to say I don’t want to cooperate in the criminal trial when she got a settlement based on certain representations (that were not made under oath).

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

Sorry I didn’t mean to suggest the judge said EM was likely ashamed, looking for a payout and angry about being disrespected afterwards, I was surmising that based on reading the detailed evidence quoted in the judgment. A lot of it was not reported in the media.

And yes I know she got the payout before the trial but I think it would have been tough for her to say I don’t want to cooperate in the criminal trial when she got a settlement based on certain representations (that were not made under oath).

Once the Crown decided to proceed, she couldn’t really back out even if she wanted to. The settlement wasn’t tied to the criminal case and suggesting she was somehow obligated to cooperate because she got a payout isnt an accurate representation of how these areas of law intersect.

I also think you’re still reading motives into the situation that weren’t part of the ruling. I don’t see anywhere in the trial summary that suggests the Judge mentioned shame or rejection drove her actions.

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Once the Crown decided to proceed, she couldn’t really back out even if she wanted to.

Well the Crown prosecutor told her it wasn’t a strong case but she went forward with it. Also she was upset that they were reopening the criminal investigation.

Originally Posted by Cole436

I also think you’re still reading motives into the situation that weren’t part of the ruling. I don’t see anywhere in the trial summary that suggests the Judge mentioned shame or rejection drove her actions.

I already said I didn’t mean to suggest my opinion was in the judgment and that it was what I surmised based on the details I read in the judgment which had much more than was reported in the media.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

Well the Crown prosecutor told her it wasn’t a strong case but she went forward with it. Also she was upset that they were reopening the criminal investigation.

I already said I didn’t mean to suggest my opinion was in the judgment and that it was what I surmised based on the details I read in the judgment which had much more than was reported in the media.

Just to make sure I’m understanding you correctly, are you suggesting that EM was the one who pushed for charges?

If so, I just wanted to clarify that in Canada, the decision to proceed with criminal charges rests entirely with the Crown. The complainant doesn’t have a say in whether a case goes to trial. I think that's common point of confusion with a lot of Canadians, especially as many of us are familiar with the US legal system (where in some parts of the country a complainant can push for charges or request that they be dropped).

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Just to make sure I’m understanding you correctly, are you suggesting that EM was the one who pushed for charges?

Yes but not from the judgment only from the media:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...f623e1b27.html

Behind the scenes, records show that Meaghan Cunningham, the province’s lead sexual assault prosecutor as chair of the sexual violence advisory group, was warning the complainant that while the Crown felt it had met the test to prosecute, it was “not a really, really strong case.”

In a meeting with the woman, her mother, lawyer, and police about three weeks before the players were charged, Cunningham also told the complainant that they didn’t have a “strong argument” that she was incapable of consenting, despite the complainant alleging that in her lawsuit.

“It is an argument we can make, we will make, but a judge looking at the totality of the evidence may not accept that argument,” she said.

But Cunningham assured her they had stronger arguments to make on other issues, according to notes from the meeting. She also told the complainant that if she was pursuing this hoping for a conviction, she might want to reconsider.

“If that is why you’re doing this, (it) may not be worth the personal cost to you,” Cunningham said, according to the notes.

“If you’re doing this to get a conviction, (I) don’t know that will happen. But if it will give you a sense of accomplishment, then we will do everything in our power to get the right outcome. A conviction is absolutely possible.”

The complainant said she wanted to see the case through.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Regorium

IF (and a big IF) it all happened in the most direct reading of the judge's verdict, and that EM was a consenting party to all of the acts of that night, why would it be morally wrong by any party?

So true, if i was EM dad, i would definitely be on the side of the judge in this case.

Sorry honey, i know this was traumatic to you, but it sounds like you consented to this and, well, as a man I must be on the man's side to protect my own past indiscretions where my actions may have, in hindsight and with current understanding of consent laws, may have been worse

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Smartcar

Yes but not from the judgment only from the media:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...f623e1b27.html

Which is why she agreed to cooperate with the Crown. It's not her decision to press charges. However, if she did not want to cooperate then the Crown would not really have a case (no witness).

Many women make the conscious choice to not cooperate with charges given the high burden of proof, public nature, and social stigma.

The reality is that sexual assault, to some degree, is astronomically more prevalent in society (even western society) than people think.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Cole436

You’re not describing the case accurately.
The judge explained her reasoning clearly, and none of it supports the idea that EM was just some vindictive liar out for money.

Some people see what they want to see.

Especially a certain breed of men who've made their presence known in this thread over the course of the trial.

There's a pretty decent gap between a not guilty verdict and the conclusion these people have drawn about the victim.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Some people see what they want to see.

Especially a certain breed of men who've made their presence known in this thread over the course of the trial.

There's a pretty decent gap between a not guilty verdict and the conclusion these people have drawn about the victim.

Thanks, some of the messages I am seeing here and in other places are so disturbing. It’s like people were waiting for a not guilty verdict to then just go after EM in some pretty vile ways.

[Sofa GM]

Originally Posted by Cappy

So true, if i was EM dad, i would definitely be on the side of the judge in this case.

Sorry honey, i know this was traumatic to you, but it sounds like you consented to this and, well, as a man I must be on the man's side to protect my own past indiscretions where my actions may have, in hindsight and with current understanding of consent laws, may have been worse

What a dumb comment

[GioforPM]

If the complainant, having already made her settlement, and being told it was not strong case to win (and undoubtedly warned about the likely defence tactics) wanted to see it through anyway, that suggests strongly to me that she was telling the truth and didn’t consent.

Why at other reason could she have to see it through other than to push for what she thinks was proper?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If the complainant, having already made her settlement, and being told it was not strong case to win (and undoubtedly warned about the likely defence tactics) wanted to see it through anyway, that suggests strongly to me that she was telling the truth and didn’t consent.

Why at other reason could she have to see it through other than to push for what she thinks was proper?

I think she knew there was a small chance of a guilty verdict.

I think she wanted to get out there the boys' version of the truth. Because that doesn't shine a particularly bright light on them.

I think there was likely a mixed bag of consent and no consent going on. It was taken much too far, especially when there was 10+ guys in the room.

The hockey players have suffered greatly from this trial. Their mothers know now what kind of men their boys have turned out to be. And now the rest of the world knows as well.

I think that was likely her intended victory.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Sofa GM

What a dumb comment

Given the people that have thanked this comment, i feel like it wasn't.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If the complainant, having already made her settlement, and being told it was not strong case to win (and undoubtedly warned about the likely defence tactics) wanted to see it through anyway, that suggests strongly to me that she was telling the truth and didn’t consent.

Why at other reason could she have to see it through other than to push for what she thinks was proper?

I think there's a lot of reasons.

In my eyes the most probable one is shame or family - doing this in her eyes was easier than looking her parents in the eye and telling them she was out there that night. Regardless of the actual outcome of the court case, the family honor is maintained.

We might think that being cross examined and doing all this on the stand is terrible and noone would ever choose it, but in her shoes, the worse outcome could have been not going to trial and having their family disown them.

Again, I'm not saying any of this is true or false, but I don't think we can easily make statements like "what other reasons could she..." etc.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I think there's a lot of reasons.

In my eyes the most probable one is shame or family - doing this in her eyes was easier than looking her parents in the eye and telling them she was out there that night. Regardless of the actual outcome of the court case, the family honor is maintained.

We might think that being cross examined and doing all this on the stand is terrible and noone would ever choose it, but in her shoes, the worse outcome could have been not going to trial and having their family disown them.

Again, I'm not saying any of this is true or false, but I don't think we can easily make statements like "what other reasons could she..." etc.

This is extremely far fetched.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If the complainant, having already made her settlement, and being told it was not strong case to win (and undoubtedly warned about the likely defence tactics) wanted to see it through anyway, that suggests strongly to me that she was telling the truth and didn’t consent.

Why at other reason could she have to see it through other than to push for what she thinks was proper?

Or, perhaps, she faced coercion to comply from the crown. Maybe she sometimes agrees to go along with things she doesn't really want to do.
Whoever was responsible for bringing this to trial and/or dropped the ball during trial, should probably be doing something else instead.