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

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by chedder

The truly unfortunate thing is this has probably happened 100's of times in the hockey world but never reported. There are undoubtedly many well known and unknown hockey players walking around with these heinous skeletons in their closets.

It didn't sound like this was the first time these players did this.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

It didn't sound like this was the first time these players did this.

The way that text message, asking for participants, casually went out, makes it seem like it was a regular occurrence. Or at the very least it had been heavily discussed ahead of time.

[Reaper]

God damn does Formenton ever have a punchable face. So smug looking.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by chedder

The truly unfortunate thing is this has probably happened 100's of times in the hockey world but never reported. There are undoubtedly many well known and unknown hockey players walking around with these heinous skeletons in their closets.

Hockey Canada took steps to pay a settlement. To me that indicates that there was a process for handling situations like this, which further indicates that this is something that had happened before.

[Strange Brew]

Hockey Canada also got all the players totally liquored up before they headed to that bar.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Hockey Canada took steps to pay a settlement. To me that indicates that there was a process for handling situations like this, which further indicates that this is something that had happened before.

I have no clue, but these things have a way of eventually seeing the light of day. #metoo

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Hockey Canada also got all the players totally liquored up before they headed to that bar.

Were all these players of age in Ontario at the time?

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

If I put myself in a juror's shoes, I think I'm having a hard time putting forth a guilty conviction right now, as I think there exists reasonable doubt and that the consent piece is just very difficult to prove one way or another.

If you were a juror, you likely would have been instructed by the Court (the Judge in this case) to do the exact OPPOSITE of what you have just done: DO NOT form an opinion until you have heard ALL the evidence.

And your "evidence" on which you are acting at the moment is nothing but a suggestion from one Defence Counsel, with NO EVIDENCE provided to support it. It's a "theory", and as yet not one supported with any facts.

Critical thinking is hard.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

If you were a juror, you likely would have been instructed by the Court (the Judge in this case) to do the exact OPPOSITE of what you have just done: DO NOT form an opinion until you have heard ALL the evidence.

And your "evidence" on which you are acting at the moment is nothing but a suggestion from one Defence Counsel, with NO EVIDENCE provided to support it. It's a "theory", and as yet not one supported with any facts.

Critical thinking is hard.

To add to this.

Not only hearing/seeing the evidence but how it is presenting is a huge thing. Things like body language and tone of speaking can be massive.

You'd also be surprised how a small fact can end up totally taking down someone's (or in this case 5 people's) credibility at trial. For example, the exact time a text message being sent out not matching up with the story.

[Shazam]

Not a theory, might not even be a hypothesis.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

If you were a juror, you likely would have been instructed by the Court (the Judge in this case) to do the exact OPPOSITE of what you have just done: DO NOT form an opinion until you have heard ALL the evidence.

And your "evidence" on which you are acting at the moment is nothing but a suggestion from one Defence Counsel, with NO EVIDENCE provided to support it. It's a "theory", and as yet not one supported with any facts.

Critical thinking is hard.

I’m guilty of burying these guys already, but we are on witness #4 of 40…

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I’m guilty of burying these guys already, but we are on witness #4 of 40…

I'm not a legal expert. Regardless of the verdict, I think it's safe to say they are all gross, cruel people.

There are lots of gross cruel people that never break the law. "Innocent" doesn't mean you aren't a dirtbag loser, if that ends up to be the case.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

If you were a juror, you likely would have been instructed by the Court (the Judge in this case) to do the exact OPPOSITE of what you have just done: DO NOT form an opinion until you have heard ALL the evidence.

And your "evidence" on which you are acting at the moment is nothing but a suggestion from one Defence Counsel, with NO EVIDENCE provided to support it. It's a "theory", and as yet not one supported with any facts.

Critical thinking is hard.

Unfortunately the weakness of the jury system is that it's populated by humans with human frailties and varying levels of being able to actually do what the judge directs. And often they take into account things they shouldn't (eg, I've seen a juror say they decided someone wasn't telling the truth because they wouldn't look at the jury directly).

So despite what I've said before, the fact the notion got out there before the jury could impact the case even of there's no corroboration. We might never know.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I'm not a legal expert. Regardless of the verdict, I think it's safe to say they are all gross, cruel people.

As soon as you knew they were sharing a video of the incident to the whole team on the tour bus, you knew that was the case.

[FlamesAddiction]

Honestly, I struggle with the concept of reasonable doubt and separating belief from certainty. It's not good enough to believe they are guilty, but you need to be certain.

When you have no stake in the final decision, it's easy to bury defendants because you believe they likely did it, but if there is any evidence favourable to the defendants, a small but reasonable doubt can linger. It's especially tough in these kinds of cases where a lot of the evidence is less tangible than say one where there is forensics.

Still lots of evidence to be presented in this case and I am sure there'll be some expert testimony which should help.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Unfortunately the weakness of the jury system is that it's populated by humans with human frailties and varying levels of being able to actually do what the judge directs. And often they take into account things they shouldn't (eg, I've seen a juror say they decided someone wasn't telling the truth because they wouldn't look at the jury directly).

So despite what I've said before, the fact the notion got out there before the jury could impact the case even of there's no corroboration. We might never know.

I find it kind of funny when something is said or presented, but they the judge says that it needs to be stricken or not considered by the jury. Humans are emotional creatures and not robots that you can just erase memories or thoughts from.

I don't think I would be a good juror.

[TheIronMaiden]

A turning point in the trial?

E.M. says was on “autopilot” and her body was having an “automatic reaction” while she was in the hotel room.

She has almost no memory of what she said in the room, or if she was laughing or letting things happen.

Savard suggests something could have happened that E.M. doesn’t remember, including doing “flirty” or “suggestive” things with the men in the room just to get through the night.

When she did speak up or say “no,” the lawyer said, those boundaries were respected.

E.M. agrees.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...iend-9.6751073

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I'm not a legal expert. Regardless of the verdict, I think it's safe to say they are all gross, cruel people.

There are lots of gross cruel people that never break the law. "Innocent" doesn't mean you aren't a dirtbag loser, if that ends up to be the case.

Yeah, that’s where priggish comments toward people who have judged these guys as though they’ve already reached a verdict lose me.

Like, I’m sorry, we know what happened. We know how the victim felt and how she was treated after. We know how the boys reacted. What we’ll discover is whether the exact details of those things are enough to make any of them guilty of an actual crime under the law.

People act like every court case is a situation where the accused did everything and more or nothing at all. I don’t even think some people understand exactly what this trial is about.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

A turning point in the trial?



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...iend-9.6751073

I think the turning point will be when some of the teammates who did not participate give evidence.

If they say anything like "I could see she wasn't into this and wasn't aware of what was going on, so I got out of Dodge because I didn't like what was going on", this case could turn on a dime.

Especially if they admit they are ashamed that they didn't help her, but could see that the mass of people in the room would have turned on them if they tried.

It may only take one teammate with a conscious. And maybe there are 3-4?

Just guessing, but I do believe the prosecutor is holding back the best evidence.

[traptor]

The one thing about it so far that's popped out to me, and maybe I'm mistaken, but she said she had tried to get dressed and leave but they put arms around her and were compelling her to stay.

Even if consent had been previously implied (which it doesnt seem like it explicitly was), then it was pulled and obviously so.