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

[CliffFletcher]

I imagine few people are charged with serious crimes - armed robbery, extortion, aggravated assault - on the basis of false accusations. And yet we go to enormous effort and expense to gather and present evidence, hear from witnesses, weigh that evidence and testimony, and arrive at judgements.

Using the argument that false accusations are rare so we shouldn’t be skeptical of those accusations betrays a lack of understanding of the principles our criminal justice system operates under.

[PepsiFree]

The suggestion that false accusations are rare and therefore we shouldn’t be skeptical of any accusations has been made exactly zero times in this thread. And MBates was only the second person to mention false accusations being rare.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Using the argument that false accusations are rare so we shouldn’t be skeptical of those accusations betrays a lack of understanding of the principles our criminal justice system operates under.

Seems like a good argument until you’re falsely accused

[FlamesAddiction]

I think part of it is that a lot of people make the jump from being false to lying. A lie is one kind of false, but not everything that is false is a lie. Something can be false by simply being incorrect or misjudged. No one wants to be called a liar for making a mistake or misjudgement, which was probably the case when she misidentified Gadjovich and Steel, especially when there are real feelings of being being violated.

Also, someone can have real feelings of being violated even if something was consensual. Blameless sexual trauma is a real thing when people consent to doing things they actually didn't want to do, or they didn't respect their own boundaries, or they were disrespected right after the act and would not have consented in hind sight. This is something that affects men and women, and often requires professional support the same as if you were a victim of crime. You can be wronged without it being a crime. The person wronged could legitimately feel that it must have been a crime and the accusation is truthful even if under the law, it doesn't meet the requirement.

There is still so much testimony and evidence to look at and it's easy to get swayed in the moment when one side is presenting and the other side answering.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The suggestion that false accusations are rare and therefore we shouldn’t be skeptical of any accusations has been made exactly zero times in this thread. And MBates was only the second person to mention false accusations being rare.

I really think you need to read the post you are referencing again. MBates is not opining on how rare false accusations are. And you keep saying “we know what happened”. We do not.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I really think you need to read the post you are referencing again. MBates is not opining on how rare false accusations are. And you keep saying “we know what happened”. We do not.

Then you need to read what I posted again. What happened isn’t being debated. The details of what happened, and whether it was consensual or there was the belief that it was, is.

Or do you think the defence lawyers, after suggesting that the victim wanted it to happen and was fine while it was happening, are suddenly going to switch and pretend she made it all up and nothing happened?

Like, come on. Use your head a little bit here.

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Then you need to read what I posted again. What happened isn’t being debated. The details of what happened, and whether it was consensual or there was the belief that it was, is.

Or do you think the defence lawyers, after suggesting that the victim wanted it to happen and was fine while it was happening, are suddenly going to switch and pretend she made it all up and nothing happened?

Like, come on. Use your head a little bit here.

Do you realize that it’s possible to make posts, even with opposing or disagreeing viewpoints, and they can be given without the need to disrespect other posters’ intelligence or perspective when giving them? I have respect for the quality of thought in your posts, but the tone is so often condescending.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Then you need to read what I posted again. What happened isn’t being debated. The details of what happened, and whether it was consensual or there was the belief that it was, is.

Or do you think the defence lawyers, after suggesting that the victim wanted it to happen and was fine while it was happening, are suddenly going to switch and pretend she made it all up and nothing happened?

Like, come on. Use your head a little bit here.

Zero interest in engaging with you. You are far more interested in telling people how stupid they are than actually taking some time to self reflect.

“What happened isn’t being debated. It’s the details of what happened that is being debated”

Have a nice evening.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

Do you realize that it’s possible to make posts, even with opposing or disagreeing viewpoints, and they can be given without the need to disrespect other posters’ intelligence or perspective when giving them? I have respect for the quality of thought in your posts, but the tone is so often condescending.

If someone suggests I haven’t read what I’ve responded to, I think it’s fair to suggest they have thought about what they posted about.

But unless you’re thanks-fishing (ick), perhaps a DM is a better place to talk about your personal feelings about another post than the thread about a sexual assault trial?

Thanks for the advice though. It never occurred to me, not even from the previous times you’ve gone out of your way to make an off-topic person comment about it. Hopefully this is the last time.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Zero interest in engaging with you. You are far more interested in telling people how stupid they are than actually taking some time to self reflect.

“What happened isn’t being debated. It’s the details of what happened that is being debated”

Have a nice evening.

Then don’t engage? Snarky little comments about how you won’t doesn’t make you look enlightened and above it.

“There was a car accident. We don’t know all the details about how it happened and who was at fault. Just who died.”

“Oh, so we don’t know if it EVEN HAPPENED?”

Sounds silly that way too, eh?

[Ryan Coke]

Wait, what? Pepsifree is an immature idiot? Who knew?

Self reflection, that’s like speaking a foreign language for them.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Then don’t engage? Snarky little comments about how you won’t doesn’t make you look enlightened and above it.

“There was a car accident. We don’t know all the details about how it happened and who was at fault. Just who died.”

“Oh, so we don’t know if it EVEN HAPPENED?”

Sounds silly that way too, eh?

You’re arguing with imaginary points that aren’t being made.

And you’re rude as ####.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You’re arguing with imaginary points that aren’t being made.

And you’re rude as ####.

Well they absolutely are, unless you don’t know what you’re disputing in my original comments, which I already made clear.

Gave you a “thanks” for the insult. Want to make sure you get what you’re after.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

Thanks for the ongoing analysis MBates.

One of the most ridiculous comments/beliefs that has been made throughout this thread is that false sexual assault claims are very rare: Making the players more likely to be guilty. This is a 100% unknowable stat. There is no way to know how prevalent it is or isn’t. Anyone who says they knowis simply lying. It may be rare, it’s probably rare, but there is absolutely no way to tell with any accuracy whatsoever how rare. So some think tank saying it’s rare because it’s seldom proven doesn’t make it true or not. The case should be solely determined on whether or not the Jury believes in this specific case that the players are guilty. Not influenced by a made up stat.

There are some estimations based on pretty solid methods. Low end estimates put false accusations IIRC around 2-3%, high end estimates around 8-10%. Every type of crime has some amount of false accusations.

There is zero evidence or reason to think that false accusations are more rare around sexual assaults than other types of similar crimes (such as domestic violence), and we do know false accusations happen around almost every crime.

There is some reason to think that it might be slightly more common than typical with SA/rape, due to the emotionally and legally complicated nature of the crime. This is of course in part exactly the same reason why most SAs/rapes go unreported.

Meaning: false accusations aren't always made in bad faith, just in poor understanding of law. Just because you feel like crap afterwards doesn't mean you were raped, but if you feel like you were raped, you are extremely likely to exaggerate the details, because that's just how humans work. People almost always exaggerate or even make up details to support how they feel about something that happened, it's just what humans always do. But technically, if no actual crime happened, that exaggeration can cross the line into false accusation. Likewise, the accused side can create a false narrative of events in their head that they genuinely fully believe in, even if what happened was obviously rape/SA.

This is why memories absolutely suck as evidence, and it's unfortunate that it's so often all we really have.

I haven't looked super deep into this case, but from what I've read, it seems to be in that area where a person was clearly hurt and things were done that shouldn't have been done, but in a way and in circumstances where it might be a little difficult to show a crime happened in the legal sense. Honestly at this point the case can only solve who wins the court battle, nothing more. It's an imperfect system in an imperfect world.

In any case, the % of false accusations is well known to not be zero, or even "vanishingly rare", but also an accusation is just as obviously much, much more likely to be true than not.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Seems like a good argument until you’re falsely accused

I've stayed very quite through this thread but followed along for good reason.

I don't ever talk about this and only a few people outside who I was friends with at the time but when I was 18 I was falsely accused of rape. My god was it the worst time of my life . Cops showed up at work didn't haul me off it was a busy night. Juat had a manager to relay the message to come in after work. I got off work at 1 am . Went home showered ,changed and headed right over to the local rcmp dispatch. Went through a door and said are you x . I said yes, do you have x type of tattoo , I said yes, was asked to turn around and was read that I was charged with rape of a minor. I was 18 she was 17.


It was hell through interrogation. I was honest. We did make out but when she wanted more I was the one to halt the breaks . She wanted to include a friend who I was absolutely not attracted to . I was down for 1 v1 but she wanted her friend included so I pulled the plug .

Luckily after 5 months investigation a neutral friend of ours had told a few guys that my accuser wanted to get back at me which lead her to have to own up she was lieing. We all where drunk and there was 8 of us drinking. And not drinking a bit like EM . We were properly drunk. She told the rcmp eventually she was pissed off because I rejected the proposition and it was easier for her to come to terms with her "sinful feelings " and to explain where she was to her parents why she was out till 3am and drunk coming home because the were religious zealots.


That's why in these types of cases with videos that she consents makes it hard for me to belive victims which makes me feel awful as a human. Their are definently cases I go ya that guy is terrible. But then I see cases like this that raise my trauma especially when I hear she had a boyfriend willingly cheat which has been established then Maccloud texts want a 3 some? I have a hard time believing she didn't ask for a 3 some. I've been there . I was still too shy at the time and said no. And saying no burned me for a time. Seeing such a similar situation playout where maybe she regrets doing what she did to her now fiancee dosen't seem like a stretch to me. At the same time she could be telling the complete truth.

I personally have a strong biased towards EM because she says she forgets and the partner situation. I'll tell you one thing till this day I remeber everything vividly to this day. I don't buy any I can't remember that was so long ago arguments from either side. I had this happen over 20 years ago. Only bringing my story up as false accusations arguments came up. I was falsely accused and rightfully not charged after alot of hell.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Itse

This is why memories absolutely suck as evidence, and it's unfortunate that it's so often all we really have.

Maybe the length of time that has passed helps with memory. In this case, the accuser remembers things now that weren't mentioned in the 2018, 2020, and 2022 statements to the police and Hockey Canada. Maybe it takes that long to recall a repressed memory, but I could see why it would be problematic for a jury.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

Do you realize that it’s possible to make posts, even with opposing or disagreeing viewpoints, and they can be given without the need to disrespect other posters’ intelligence or perspective when giving them?

If you are new here, he doesn’t realize any of those things.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

I have respect for the quality of thought in your posts.

lmao

[Itse]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Maybe the length of time that has passed helps with memory. In this case, the accuser remembers things now that weren't mentioned in the 2018, 2020, and 2022 statements to the police and Hockey Canada. Maybe it takes that long to recall a repressed memory, but I could see why it would be problematic for a jury.

There's always a possibility some stuff just wasn't written up in the statements, or that the way questions were askes was the reason some stuff was left out. Doesn't have to be repressed memories. Also, police aren't always interested in hearing everything, just enough to feel like they got enough to make decisions about further investigations and prosecution, etc etc.

Who knows.

[PepsiFree]

Formenton’s lawyer finishes off his questioning by suggesting the victim purposefully lied about her weight to make herself seem smaller and was egging on the players to have to do things to her. Though, interestingly, he was going to read out a list of phrases attributed to her from the Hockey Canada investigation but Hart’s lawyer whispered something to him and instead he just suggested she was generally egging them on. He also suggests she took Formenton to the bathroom, but she insists that isn’t true, so we know what Formenton’s defence will be.

Dube’s lawyer is now up. Only thing of note so far is the suggestion that the victim was mad when she wasn’t the center of attention.

Definitely a ton of coordination between the defence lawyers. Doesn’t look like any of the men are going to present a differing story, so will be interesting to see if the stories stay straight during cross examination.