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

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

what does a verdict of “not guilty” mean in this trial?

I don't think these men will get their NHL careers back even if found not guilty by the courts.

Even if they do, the impact of the lost years will have massive monetary damages alone as they lost earnings during that time.

If that happens, do these players sue the NHL? Is that even possible.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

I don't think these men will get their NHL careers back even if found not guilty by the courts.

Even if they do, the impact of the lost years will have massive monetary damages alone as they lost earnings during that time.

If that happens, do these players sue the NHL? Is that even possible.

What did the NHL as a league do ? Individual teams didn’t offer contracts - as is their right for any player

The only person they could sue would be the defendant is she was maliciously pursuing a false accusation and it was proven she had planned to damage the plaintiffs

(Maybe they could try suing hockey Canada if they were provided liquor / etc claiming it put them in this situation but I think that’s a large stretch)

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

I don't think these men will get their NHL careers back even if found not guilty by the courts.

Even if they do, the impact of the lost years will have massive monetary damages alone as they lost earnings during that time.

If that happens, do these players sue the NHL? Is that even possible.

Sue them for what?

There is no cause of action.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

What did the NHL as a league do ? Individual teams didn’t offer contracts - as is their right for any player

The only person they could sue would be the defendant is she was maliciously pursuing a false accusation and it was proven she had planned to damage the plaintiffs

(Maybe they could try suing hockey Canada if they were provided liquor / etc claiming it put them in this situation but I think that’s a large stretch)

When they settled with Hockey Canada, they would have signed a release.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Even if I was down for an orgy and consented to group sex, the second they mentioned sticking golf clubs up my hoohah, consent would be withdrawn.

She could very well have previously consented to having a wild night. But consent is a second by second thing. It can end anytime. And at any point she tried to leave and they coerced her to stay is the second consent ended.

The issue is the fine line between convincing her and coercing her. They’re not that different but they’re different. And hard to prove.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

If that happens, do these players sue the NHL? Is that even possible.

Carter Hart, Dillion Dube, Cal Foote were not tendered qualifying offers by their respective teams as restricted free agents, they became UFA's last summer and are free to sign with any team that offers them a contract. Michael McLeod signed a one year deal with the Devils on July 1st 2023, that contract expired on July 1st 2024.

Alex Formenton hasn't been in the NHL since 2002.

None of them have any basis for a lawsuit.

[Eb0la11]

Has there been any information towards Dube’s involvement yet? I haven’t seen anything yet

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by Eb0la11

Has there been any information towards Dube’s involvement yet? I haven’t seen anything yet

Yep, nothing super graphic but he had incriminating evidence on phone telling others involved to keep quiet (great look as the captain btw) and he was said to have been slapping her on the ass as they all taunted and spit on her etc.

That's been it so far.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

I don't think these men will get their NHL careers back even if found not guilty by the courts.

Even if they do, the impact of the lost years will have massive monetary damages alone as they lost earnings during that time.

If that happens, do these players sue the NHL? Is that even possible.

The NHL made a decision to honour the monetary compensation of their contracts. Had they suspended without pay, or terminated the contracts for breach, it could be a possibility, but at this point they were made whole by the NHL and their teams.


Now the NHL is under no more obligation to pay them millions to play hockey than you are required to pay them millions to mow your lawn.

The fun issue will be when Edmonton tries to sign Carter Hart and he's still suspended.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

What did the NHL as a league do ? Individual teams didn’t offer contracts - as is their right for any player

The only person they could sue would be the defendant is she was maliciously pursuing a false accusation and it was proven she had planned to damage the plaintiffs

(Maybe they could try suing hockey Canada if they were provided liquor / etc claiming it put them in this situation but I think that’s a large stretch)

Interestingly enough, it was mentioned in court today that Jonah Gadjovich was incorrectly named by the accuser in the Hockey Canada settlement and somehow he was unaware that he was even accused until after the settlement was paid out. Since he hasn't been charged with a crime, I assume he was able to demonstrate his non-involvement. I don't think he could sue for defamation or anything like that because he is still playing in the NHL and likely hasn't experienced any material loss from the false accusation, but it sure wouldn't be a good feeling having your name permanently on a legal document of that nature. I'm not sure if something like that could come back to haunt you one day.

In fact, questions regarding this were eventually what made the accuser break down today causing an early end to the day. Hart's lawyer asked her specifically what she said about Gadjovich in the claim, and she either couldn't or wouldn't answer. It will be interesting to see if that is revealed tomorrow.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

How is the comparison lame? Presuming guilt and desiring a no trial punishment is Exactly what Trump is doing with deportations in the states.

lol are they not getting a fair trial right now, what are you even going on about? Even if they are found not guilty that does not mean they are innocent.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

I think as a society, we have overcorrected to the other extreme. Most are ready to convict simply based on accusations or consider them with a guilty bias until they can be proven innocent.

I mean that isn't true at all. Sexual assaults are still widely under reported let alone carried all the way to conviction

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/...violence_0.pdf

https://sexualassaultsupport.ca/

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...ccused-of-rape

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Interestingly enough, it was mentioned in court today that Jonah Gadjovich was incorrectly named by the accuser in the Hockey Canada settlement and somehow he was unaware that he was even accused until after the settlement was paid out.

It's interesting from a tactics point of view. While 99% of the time if you can hurt an alleged victim or opposing witness' credibility it would work in favour of the defense.

But in this regard, the actions themselves don't appear to be readily contested. Maybe Dube's lawyer will say he didn't slap her butt and receive a blowjob, but it seems more like the argument will be that the actions were consensual or at least Dube believed them to be.

So her telling her lawyer she thinks the men in the room were Steel and Gadjovich, or her lawyer incorrectly identifying them as such, doesn't really change the fact that the defendants still did what they are accused of. It's just appears to be a matter of consent.

And from that point of view with the defense being like "look she can walk in heels therefore she wasn't drunk" while also pointing out "she was so drunk she didn't know who she had sex with" seems to be counter-intuitive.

I wonder if the attorneys had any disagreement. Yeah, it's probably the right move from the defense, hurt the credibility, and you only need one person on the jury to think "she was just throwing names on the wall hoping for a payday" but maybe there's some room of it backfiring.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Bonded

I mean that isn't true at all. Sexual assaults are still widely under reported let alone carried all the way to conviction

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/...violence_0.pdf

https://sexualassaultsupport.ca/

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...ccused-of-rape

I think they were referring to public sentiment.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Maybe Dube's lawyer will say he didn't slap her butt and receive a blowjob, but it seems more like the argument will be that the actions were consensual or at least Dube believed them to be.

Dube's lawyer cannot say that unless there is some evidence put forward that says just that. Presumably from Dube.

It may not be relevant that Dube believed consent was given if he didn't take reasonable steps to figure out is consent was actually given.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Dube's lawyer cannot say that unless there is some evidence put forward that says just that. Presumably from Dube.

It may not be relevant that Dube believed consent was given if he didn't take reasonable steps to figure out is consent was actually given.

Given the charge he or she can absolutely make the argument that the evidence does not show any sexual contact took place without their client taking the stand.

If it goes against the rest of the evidence though, including police reports, witness statements, texts messages, and the like, it would just be a very poor argument.

Unless I've missed some form of ruling or agreed statement of facts. In a nutshell the crown is alleging that sexual contact took place, that it was non-consensual and there was sufficient mens rea. All three must be met. The defense then has three most obvious defense; that their defendants had reasonable belief in consent therefore not establishing mens rea (the argument that she didn't appear to be drunk is important as otherwise they can't use this as a defense under 273 as you noted) , that they actually received consent (the video and texts), but the third would be to argue that there was insufficient evidence that any sexual contact took place (I do not believe the defense is going this route but one or more of them could).

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Objectively I thought Hart's lawyer did a good job of building off of what McLeod's lawyer did, but it wasn't redundant IMO. McLeod's lawyer planted the seed for some of the things discussed, but I didn't think he went for it as hard as he could have.

I get that it's an emotional topic and sympathy for the accuser, but I don't think any of what they are talking about is trivial or piling on.

Yeah I also think this was part of their Strategy, McLeod's Lawyer a male didn't go hard at the victim, he just set the scene. Harts Lawyer a female went much harder at the victim. The optics of the cross examination from a female is probably significantly better then had they come from a Male.

[Scooter]

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.

Be interesting to hear Tom Renney s response to questioning if he is called as a witness by the prosecution.

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

These guys all came from different teams, leagues, and provinces. So yes, this sort of thing is not uncommon in elite junior hockey. Articles covering this issue in recent years recounted stories about girls being let into dressing rooms after practices, girls meeting players in hotel rooms on the road, etc. Some of it is consensual. Some isn’t.

Shayne Corson's son just sentenced when found guilty of sexual assault on underage girl when he played in QMJHL.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I think they were referring to public sentiment.

Public sentiment is wrong, and fomented by so called mens rights movements.