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

[FlamesAddiction]

Whether or not what happened was criminal, she was used and treated poorly. I don't think many people disagree about that. Even if for the sake of argument she consented at the time, hindsight and regret that comes from that can be extremely traumatic in its own right. Don't underestimate how far a hurt person might go to get their pound of flesh even if there is a chance it backfires. London also isn't a huge city. It's big, but not so big that complete anonymity is guaranteed forever. If she didn't go ahead and agree to cooperate with the trial as the key witness, in circles that know who she is (or later find out), she would also be the woman that took the payout but didn't seek full justice when given the opportunity and some people around her would always assume the worst about her intentions. I am sure there was a lot of social pressure to go through with it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Or, perhaps, she faced coercion to comply from the crown. Maybe she sometimes agrees to go along with things she doesn't really want to do.
Whoever was responsible for bringing this to trial and/or dropped the ball during trial, should probably be doing something else instead.

The reporting was that the Crown warned her it was a tough case to win. That doesn't sound like coercion.

Occam's Razor: she wanted to see it through because she believed she was sexually assaulted.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If the complainant, having already made her settlement, and being told it was not strong case to win (and undoubtedly warned about the likely defence tactics) wanted to see it through anyway, that suggests strongly to me that she was telling the truth and didn’t consent.

Why at other reason could she have to see it through other than to push for what she thinks was proper?

Nobody but EM knows what her experience or motives were. One possible explanation:

She consented to the acts in the moment, but in the sober light of morning felt shame, disgust, and anger at how she was treated. Before and after the settlement, people in the community knew her identity, and some regarded her as a gold-digger. She wanted to vindicate her reputation in her community, and see the players face consequences for their mistreatment of her. Her mother has also been (understandably) engaged all along to press for maximum consequences for the players - at the earliest stage EM herself didn't want to press charges.

No idea if that's the case. But it's one of the possibilities. As is the possibility she never believed she gave consent.

Edit: I see FlamesAddiction made pretty much the same comment.

[Monahammer]

Im confused as I don't see why anyone benefits from ascertaining EM's purpose or goal in proceeding with the court case.

The court case is complete. If she elects to appeal the case (stated as unlikely at this point) then maybe it deserves discussion. But otherwise, IMO, it's just being pointlessly hyperfixated on this matter.

There are some things we will never know, and we have to accept that we don't need to know or maybe deserve to know. We don't need to know EM's intentions.

The judge has determined that the prosecution did not meet the standard for proving guilt on any claim. Further, it is a fact that the judge felt warranted to mention that they found EM's testimony unreliable, and that EM was not credible on the stand.

Those are pretty pointed statements from the judge. I would feel remiss if I didn't point out that those who are most acidiously attacking that statement and coming up with invented rationalizations for why EM needed to pursue this are also those that take abnormally strong and hyperfixated views on many other subjects inappropriately. Probably best to ignore their "Participation".

[Cappy]

It's like some of the posters in this forum have never talked to someone who was sexually assaulted...
Shame? Coercion? jesus christ.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Im confused as I don't see why anyone benefits from ascertaining EM's purpose or goal in proceeding with the court case.

The court case is complete. If she elects to appeal the case (stated as unlikely at this point) then maybe it deserves discussion. But otherwise, IMO, it's just being pointlessly hyperfixated on this matter.

There are some things we will never know, and we have to accept that we don't need to know or maybe deserve to know. We don't need to know EM's intentions.

The judge has determined that the prosecution did not meet the standard for proving guilt on any claim. Further, it is a fact that the judge felt warranted to mention that they found EM's testimony unreliable, and that EM was not credible on the stand.

Those are pretty pointed statements from the judge. I would feel remiss if I didn't point out that those who are most acidiously attacking that statement and coming up with invented rationalizations for why EM needed to pursue this are also those that take abnormally strong and hyperfixated views on many other subjects inappropriately. Probably best to ignore their "Participation".

Again, it bears repeating: EM did not bring this case. She cannot decide to appeal. This is the Crown's case.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Cappy

It's like some of the posters in this forum have never talked to someone who was sexually assaulted...
Shame? Coercion? jesus christ.

More than 4 in 10 women have experienced some form of intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetimes. In 2018, 44% of women reported experiencing some form of psychological, physical, or sexual violence by an intimate partner in their lifetimes.

Approximately 4.7 million women, 30% of all women 15 years of age and older, report that they have experienced sexual assault at least once since the age of 15. This is compared to 8% men.

On any given night in Canada, 3,491 women and their 2,724 children sleep in shelters because it isn’t safe at home.

https://canadianwomen.org/the-facts/...ased-violence/

[Itse]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

Power dynamics and a bunch of underdeveloped prefrontal cortexes would have everyone in that room regretting at least some portion of the evening. IMO the spitting and spanking at the very least is uncool unless explicitly agreed to. Don't think many teenage girls are into that, but what do I know.

Many Teenagers, regardless of gender, are into all kinds of weirdness, at least in their heads. Girls just don't talk about it as much. Not that guys necessarily talk about that stuff that much either.

Try reading some NSFW fanfic though... people are freaks.

That's kind of the problem with "there was such an obvious power imbalance that it was morally wrong" part.

Not a lot of things get people as horny as a power imbalance, girls and boys, women and men. I don't mean that people in positions of status and power shouldn't be aware of how easily that becomes abusive, but that status and potential for sheer physical domination is a big reason some girls are really into guys like hockey players.

And also why many women like the idea of multiple guys. It's a super common fantasy. Probably almost always a bad idea to try it out at a young age, but teenagers are really frickin stupid when it comes to sex.

I'm not saying EM was all into it and the guys did nothing wrong. I wasn't there and as I've been saying all along, I don't think it's realistic for anyone to know for sure how exactly things went down and what everyone was thinking and feeling at the time. "EM was into it" and "EM wanted to get away and was afraid" aren't even mutually exclusive ideas. Same goes for "the guys thought she was genuinely into it" and "the guys acted abusively to a point where it became morally reprehensible".

I am still kind of wondering, where were the actual adults and why does Hockey Canada have a slush fund for silencing women/girls who make accusations of abuse? Those to me are the really important questions.

For me, a single incident is difficult and somewhat unnecessary to have a strong opinion on, and somewhat pointless as we can't go back in time and change what happened regardless.

Canadians should probably have a bit of a national discussion about Hockey Canada and hockey culture in general and what kinds of attitudes towards women fester there. That discussion could save a lot of girls from harm in the future.

[the-rasta-masta]

Regardless of whether or not people agree or disagree with the verdict, I do think it’s respectful to change the thread title acknowledge these players were pronounced not guilty of sexual assault.

[Goriders]

I’ll say it again. A lot of bad decision making that night by all parties involved. With some massive consequences.

Betting all of them wish they could go back and reverse those decisions.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

Regardless of whether or not people agree or disagree with the verdict, I do think it’s respectful to change the thread title acknowledge these players were pronounced not guilty of sexual assault.

Respectful to who?

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Respectful to who?

The facts?

[jaikorven]

Technically they were charged, so the thread title is still accurate. It doesn't suggest guilt or not in the title, so all good in my opinion. However, I have no respect for any of those guys, so maybe I just don't care either. Hard to say.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

The facts?

Which fact does the title dispute?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

The facts?

It is no longer a fact that they were charged?

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It is no longer a fact that they were charged?

Common occurrence for thread titles to be changed with continued developments. Otherwise we’d still be posting in the “Rumour: Jarome Iginla traded to Boston” thread.

[Blaster86]

Sure, but I am not sure why we need to split hairs there? No one is going to see the thread title and assume they've been re-charged.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

Common occurrence for thread titles to be changed with continued developments. Otherwise we’d still be posting in the “Rumour: Jarome Iginla traded to Boston” thread.

Probably not any more than we’re posting in it now. It’s not like it got changed to reflect that they were on trial.

I don’t know that it matters either way, I was just curious why it was suddenly a matter of respect.

I think we have a thread title calling Adam Fox a lying turd.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Nobody but EM knows what her experience or motives were. One possible explanation:

She consented to the acts in the moment, but in the sober light of morning felt shame, disgust, and anger at how she was treated. Before and after the settlement, people in the community knew her identity, and some regarded her as a gold-digger. She wanted to vindicate her reputation in her community, and see the players face consequences for their mistreatment of her. Her mother has also been (understandably) engaged all along to press for maximum consequences for the players - at the earliest stage EM herself didn't want to press charges.

No idea if that's the case. But it's one of the possibilities. As is the possibility she never believed she gave consent.

Edit: I see FlamesAddiction made pretty much the same comment.

No one knows except that what I said was the most obvious reason.

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Or, perhaps, she faced coercion to comply from the crown. Maybe she sometimes agrees to go along with things she doesn't really want to do.
Whoever was responsible for bringing this to trial and/or dropped the ball during trial, should probably be doing something else instead.

I think there were many who felt that they may not get a conviction, but with the story being told, these players would pay a hefty price, conviction or not.

I believe they deserve what they are getting. Their expensive corrupt lawyers can save them from jail, but not from public opinion.