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

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Locke

I came to say basically this. I am thinking that at the outset they may have thought the defense of 'Boys will be Boys' and that they're Junior Heroes in a Hockey-crazy town would work...and when it didn't appear to be maybe changed their minds?

But thats just spitballing, blankall is right though, they went through two Juries and didn't seem all that broken up about it.

I think they were just resigned to the fact they they were unlikely getting an unbiased jury at that point. From their perspective, unbiased jury > trial by judge > biased jury. Where they are now isn't ideal, but it beats the alternative that they were presented with.

I really have no idea how a judge is going to rule. She obviously has a wealth of knowledge and experience, plus familiarity with case law. It's easy to rule one way or another based on feelings and intuition as an arm chair juror, but her judgement is likely to be way more technical than that. I don't think a judge only trial is the card up the sleeve for the defense that people think it is, it's just better than the other hand that was dealt.

For years, the press has been reporting one side of this, and while I do think the people reporting it are fighting the good fight to get the culture changed in hockey and give a voice to victims, I don't think it helped when it comes to people looking at this with an unbiased view. The default position for most people seemed to be that the males are all liars because we know their "type". It's not a good basis for a fair trial.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think they were just resigned to the fact they they were unlikely get an unbiased jury. From their perspective, unbiased jury > trial by judge > biased jury. Where they are now isn't ideal, but it beats the alternative that they were presented with.

I really have no idea how a judge is going to rule. She obviously has a wealth of knowledge and experience, plus familiarity with case law. It's easy to rule one way or another based on feelings and intuition as an arm chair juror, but her judgement is likely to be way more technical than that. I don't think a judge only trial is the card up the sleeve for the defense that people think it is, it's just better than the other hand that was dealt.

For years, the press has been reporting one side of this, and while I do think the people reporting it are fighting the good fight to get the culture changed in hockey and give a voice to victims, I don't think it helped when it comes to people looking at this with an unbiased view. The default position for most people seemed to be that the males are all liars because we know their "type". It's not a good basis for a fair trial.

And I largely think you're right on all points, what sticks in my head though is MBates' characterization of consent and the inconsistency of events.

So I think you're right that they wanted to go with a Judge to try and remove emotion from the scenario.

I dunno man, as you said, 'armchair Juror' but I have a feeling that some of these guys are going to walk.

My instinct is that what they did was gross, does it constitute a crime? Like I said, I'm no lawyer nor do I play one on TV and they never covered this on Matlock.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Locke

My instinct is that what they did was gross, does it constitute a crime? Like I said, I'm no lawyer nor do I play one on TV and they never covered this on Matlock.

I think what they did does constitute a crime, I'm just not certain that it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

I have no problem believing that some lawyers look down on others and make fun of them. I bet the lawyers were caught off guard when multiple jurors picked up on it. I don't believe it was a strategy. It was unprofessional behaviour which exists with lawyers, too.

100% this. A lot of people are dicks and make fun of people's appearance, disabilities, IQ level, diseases, weight, etc. It's very sad and disappointing and we should all strive to be our better angels. Having a lawyer degree and being a top lawyer doesn't mean you're a good person. A lot of them aren't.

As someone who is a warrior for the down trodden in life, it hurts me to witness this. But I do witness it every day. Most of the time, I stand up to these bullies. But a lot of people who say they're stand up individuals don't have the strength and courage to stand up for others. The jurors who brought to this to the judges attention are the best of us - people who stand up to bullies and call out bad behavior, while still trying to preserve truth and justice for the accused.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Locke

And I largely think you're right on all points, what sticks in my head though is MBates' characterization of consent and the inconsistency of events.

So I think you're right that they wanted to go with a Judge to try and remove emotion from the scenario.

I dunno man, as you said, 'armchair Juror' but I have a feeling that some of these guys are going to walk.

My instinct is that what they did was gross, does it constitute a crime? Like I said, I'm no lawyer nor do I play one on TV and they never covered this on Matlock.

If you're talking about what the lawyers were alleged to have done, I'm pretty certain the Law Society of Ontario will have something to say or study once the trial is done. Questions should be asked. Censure may occur. Or...not.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

If you're talking about what the lawyers were alleged to have done, I'm pretty certain the Law Society of Ontario will have something to say or study once the trial is done. Questions should be asked. Censure may occur. Or...not.

No, no...I was talking about the Hockey players. If they did all the things they were alleged to have done and a Court of Law still can't convict them? I dont know what to say. But I'm not a legal professional.

Maybe get Jessica Fletcher on the case? But I think she's dead.

The Lawyers could have pointed at a Juror in the middle of the Court and called them "Fatty, fatty, fat, fat!!" or something equally stupid, thats not a 'crime' its just unprofessional conduct.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Locke

No, no...I was talking about the Hockey players. If they did all the things they were alleged to have done and a Court of Law still can't convict them? I dont know what to say. But I'm not a legal professional.

Maybe get Jessica Fletcher on the case? But I think she's dead.

The Lawyers could have pointed at a Juror in the middle of the Court and called them "Fatty, fatty, fat, fat!!" or something equally stupid, thats not a 'crime' its just unprofessional conduct.

Agreed..one way or another, all are tainted and can be accurately described with the term "scumbucket" IMNSHO.

[lazypucker]

When are we going to hear the verdict and maybe the sentence?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

When are we going to hear the verdict and maybe the sentence?

Once the Judge gets her payout from Hockey Canada?

[lazypucker]

Originally Posted by Locke

Once the Judge gets her payout from Hockey Canada?

OK, so basically it will be case dismissed because of lack of evidence. EM to pay all court fees, but the players will be kind enough to cover that because it helped erase their "bad image"

[Locke]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

OK, so basically it will be case dismissed because of lack of evidence. EM to pay all court fees, but the players will be kind enough to cover that because it helped erase their "bad image"

Okay, I was being really sarcastically negative there, I have no information that the Judge is on the take, that was a pure joke.

I just...I dislike the activities and behaviour here but I get this disgusting sinking feeling that these guys are going to walk.

It feels like this is an opportunity to draw the line in the sand and attempt to put an end to this kind of behaviour and...I just dont see it happening.

But I've never been accused of being a humanitarian optimist.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

When are we going to hear the verdict and maybe the sentence?

Closing arguments are scheduled to start next week. It was reported that the expectation is each defense will take 1-2 hours and the Crown may take a full day. At any rate, the closing arguments should be done before the end of next week.

As for when to expect a verdict, I don't know. I read that it can vary and even be the same day that the closing arguments finish.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay, I was being really sarcastically negative there, I have no information that the Judge is on the take, that was a pure joke.

I just...I dislike the activities and behaviour here but I get this disgusting sinking feeling that these guys are going to walk.

It feels like this is an opportunity to draw the line in the sand and attempt to put an end to this kind of behaviour and...I just dont see it happening.

But I've never been accused of being a humanitarian optimist.

"Drawing a line in the sand" is not a good reason to hand out sentences.

A court needs to follow the evidence and the law, and I would feel weird if what I've read about the case would be enough to decide there's no reasonable doubt.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

OK, so basically it will be case dismissed because of lack of evidence. EM to pay all court fees, but the players will be kind enough to cover that because it helped erase their "bad image"

The case would not be dismissed for lack of evidence, the players would be found not guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

There are no court fees in any trial. The loser of a civil trial will likely pay some portion of the winners legal fees.

This is not EM's trial, it's the court which is bringing the action against the players. She is simply the witness.

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1932487941734957289

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

https://twitter.com/user/status/1932487941734957289

It's Crazy the judge needs 6 weeks to come to a decision on this, the case will likely be wrapped up tomorrow. Judge doesn't need a group of people to all agree this is one person making the decision, and it's probably already been made.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

It's Crazy the judge needs 6 weeks to come to a decision on this, the case will likely be wrapped up tomorrow. Judge doesn't need a group of people to all agree this is one person making the decision, and it's probably already been made.

The judge needs to go through the evidence with a fine toothed comb, review the law, do their own research, and then write a written decision.

If the judge makes any mistakes in law, their verdict will just get overturned. Judges should also be not making snap decision based on how they feel that day on the last day.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by blankall

The judge needs to go through the evidence with a fine toothed comb, review the law, do their own research, and then write a written decision.

If the judge makes any mistakes in law, their verdict will just get overturned. Judges should also be not making snap decision based on how they feel that day on the last day.

Agreed. And these decisions can be dozens and dozens, some nearly one hundred, pages long.

It’s not as simple as “guilty” or “not guilty” and leave it at that.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Agreed. And these decisions can be dozens and dozens, some nearly one hundred, pages long.

It’s not as simple as “guilty” or “not guilty” and leave it at that.

The judge will have the assistance of multiple clerks too. Clerks are typically top law students and workaholics. The decision in a case like this will also be under an extreme degree of scrutiny. I sometimes wait over a year to get decision back. July 24 is very quick and the result of the judge focusing all of their efforts on this single case.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by blankall

The judge will have the assistance of multiple clerks too. Clerks are typically top law students and workaholics. The decision in a case like this will also be under an extreme degree of scrutiny. I sometimes wait over a year to get decision back. July 24 is very quick and the result of the judge focusing all of their efforts on this single case.

Agreed. I am quite pleased if I get a trial judgment within a few months.