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

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

Objectively the right decision. She loved it. Shamed by her mom.

As a Father, I just had to sign in to say this perspective makes me sad and I hope one day you are capable of understanding why.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

I don't agree that the Judge went farther than she needed to.
The facts and findings do need to be set out, for both transparency and appealability.

Most decisions I get have references to credibility of witnesses, especially in diametrically opposing positions, as was the case here.

I do agree the Crown messed up.

Defence counsel on large cases is almost always more skilled than prosecutors.

There is often a reason why prosecutors remain prosecutors getting paid government wages.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

The judge saying that EMs testimony isn't credible because it was inconsistent from 7 years ago, but is fine with Hart, Howden testimony being hazy because they were intoxicated and the time that had lapsed. Both accuser and defendants should be held to the same standard.

The difference is who has to prove what. Defendants aren't held to the same standard as the Crown.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by NegativeSpace

Before anyone casts against EM, let's remember that the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If the judge is sitting there thinking that these guys are 85% guilty and there is a 15% chance that the consent was wilful, then she still needs to acquit.


However, the media reports of the evidence kept raising the question for me of why the Crown was leading this woman through this experience without more evidence. Perhaps they thought that the text messages were their smoking gun. Wonder if there will be Crown appeal on the failure to admit those texts into evidence.

This to me was a key point in this trial. The texts were supposedly damning. They were excluded on a pretty weak basis. It could be an appeal, of the Crown has the stomach for it.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The judge went further than she needed to - could have just said insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But she went further and said the complainant lacked credibility. A little surprising to me.

I think the Crown messed this case up.

Likely said that to make sure there could be no appeal. Basically impossible to appeal once she ruled the witness lacked credibility.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Likely said that to make sure there could be no appeal. Basically impossible to appeal once she ruled the witness lacked credibility.

There are lots of ways to appeal.

[the-rasta-masta]

For those asking why the crown brought this to trial, lets not forget the police originally closed this case due to lack of evidence of the assault. Was it likely public pressure when the HC settlement went public that the crown felt it had to try the case?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

There are lots of ways to appeal.

Yes, but it would be very difficult to ever get a conviction when the judge rules that the victim lacked credibility.

It would have to be a new trial, and I doubt anyone has the stomach for that.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

We are going to need a wellness check on Rick Westhead

Why? He is a reporter. His job is to report.

[Eric Vail]

I can't imagine EM would want to go through this again in an appeal.

[Lewis_D]

I just caught this in one of the earlier posts on CBC today.

At least two of the men, Hart and Dubé, shook hands with a man who has been here every day of the trial. The man has an assistance dog with him and is a men’s rights advocate. He was accused of recording some of the proceedings with his Apple Ray Ban glasses, but an investigation cleared him

uhhhhh.....

[Pekkerhead]

Don’t tell me that these guys thought they were doing something that was ok. The legal system may have found reasonable doubt but these guys knew how far over the line they were. They simply didn’t care. These guys have no moral compass or decency.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Which is all on the crown for bringing this to trial.
As has been said many times/ways, hopefully some good has come from what was obviously a bad decision by the crown. If the discussion/publicity stop one single incident like this from happening again, it's probably worth it. Except for EM.
The behavior of the accused was reprehensible, it just wasn't criminal.

The thing is, I seriously doubt this case will prevent a single incident. If anything, I think it will increase it.

Most rapists are not people who go out looking to rape. They are usually men who think they are entitled to sex and short of a woman jumping up and shouting, "No, absolutely not!" they don't think they are committing rape.

It is already very hard to prove rape, because there usually aren't witnesses and physical evidence is often unclear or non-existent.

This case has a whole bunch of men (some in this very thread) breathing a sigh of relief. Not because they think some evil woman is going to make up a case out of the blue. Because they think the women is being dramatic or changing her mind or did he push things a bit too much?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Yes, but it would be very difficult to ever get a conviction when the judge rules that the victim lacked credibility.

It would have to be a new trial, and I doubt anyone has the stomach for that.

The texts which the judge excluded might have changed the credibility assessment.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The texts which the judge excluded might have changed the credibility assessment.

This. Absolutely this.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Despite a possible not guilty verdict, the behaviour of the players is still questionable at best and something they should be ashamed of. I don't think they should be stripped of their ability to work again but if I'm an employer I'm not interested in hiring any of those involved as I wouldn't want any of them representing my company.

This is Edmonton's bread and butter. They're probably excited to sign all 5.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Doubt they can do that. Legally.

what? yes they can...NHL can suspend a player for whatever they like

[Rhett44]

So, they are all innocent? Is that what I am reading.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

So, they are all innocent? Is that what I am reading.

No. They are all not guilty.
Huge difference.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

So, they are all innocent? Is that what I am reading.

No. It's that the Crown failed to prove that they were guilty. That doesn't mean they're innocent.