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

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I think the league will terminate all these contracts. It is well within their power.

I find it difficult to have confidence in Gary Bettman.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by MBates

The express declaration that the allegation is false.

But Dube said essentially the same thing through his lawyer. Maintaining your innocence = the allegation is false.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1752458680014934289

[Ferarri]

There could be several truths in this case and hence why he went to the Flames and claimed mental health issues.

Perhaps he is a scumbag who broke the law and committed a serious crime, however, that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s not mentally suffering from the consequences that will likely follow. He is in serious trouble (if found guilty) and his personal life could be crumbling as well. Maybe his girlfriend or spouse (not sure if he’s married or not) is going to leave him as well as the fact that he could face jail time.

This doesn’t excuse the fact that he’s completely pathetic if he did indeed partake in this horrible crime, but doesn’t mean him going to the Flames claiming mental health problems is unrealistic.

What the Flames knew or didn’t know is something we might never find out.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

Hopefully this does something for the 2003 case as well. Unbelievable that one has been ongoing now for 20 years. Ridiculous.

It's sad the victim didn't come forward when details were leaked to the public. But then, the victim was allegedly unconscious during the ordeal and they might not even know the extent of what occurred and who was involved. Also makes you wonder what they went through in the aftermath, and whether they're still around, etc.

Sounded like a malicious incident at a time when the culture around these things was even more twisted. Just wonder how players like those involved can live with themselves through long nhl careers and all the privileges that came along with them knowing what they consciously participated in.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Rape is not a stupid mistake. It's a crime. Full stop. A mistake is something you look back on and realize you should have handled differently. You shouldn't need the benefit of hindsight to know rape is wrong.

Dube when learning he was getting charged with rape.

[iamca]

It seems like from the article I read on TSN today, that at least 4 of these players attorneys released statements denying their client was involved in any wrongdoing and they are pleading not guilty.

A serious allegation of sexual assault involving at least 5 players in June of 2018 and the London police department will formally charge them on February 5th of 2024.

Based on the Ontario Court System, it looks like any case would be heard sometime in 2026.

Understand these points for a moment.

The more I hear about this, it seems to be getting worse every day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Rape is not a stupid mistake. It's a crime. Full stop. A mistake is something you look back on and realize you should have handled differently. You shouldn't need the benefit of hindsight to know rape is wrong.

I agree.

Was it rape?

Were you there?

How would you know 100% what it really was if you weren't there?

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I agree.

Was it rape?

Were you there?

How would you know 100% what it really was if you weren't there?

I don't know, watch the fifth estate's coverage of how things unfolded.

Sounded like something initially consensual between two individuals that led to player #1 inviting his teammates to his room followed by events that weren't explicitly consensual that crossed lines (I.e. one player engaging without any verbal exchange with the victim which sounds non-consensual to me).

Then player #1 gaslights the victim in the aftermath out of filing an immediate formal complaint or listening to her mother despite being in distress over what happened.

Then added a threat to ensure silence - "there will be consequences for you too" (paraphrasing)

Don't think the ringleader is DMing this girl well after the event with carefully crafted messages to ensure compliance if he didn't know what occurred was wrong and could land them in hot water with the law.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

But Dube said essentially the same thing through his lawyer. Maintaining your innocence = the allegation is false.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1752458680014934289

Not to add a THIRD lawyer into this exercise of parsing the statements… but I do see a distinction between saying “the allegation is false” and “I maintain my innocence.” The first goes to the underlying facts (I.e. these facts are untrue) while the second suggests that the accused will either argue that guilt can’t be established to the requisite standard, or that an affirmative defense of some kind is available.

Similarly, denying “criminal wrongdoing” to me is not as strong as denying the allegation itself.

Mind you, I don’t practice in this area so would defer to MBates on whether any of these statements are unusual.

[Cube Inmate]

The allegation is that a sexual assault took place, and that it was perpetrated by 5 specific individuals. So, in effect it's 5 separate allegations. Strictly speaking, a statement of "my client is innocent" only denies the allegation against him specifically. A statement of "this false allegation" is exactly the same. It denies the allegation against his client. It doesn't deny that any crime took place. It doesn't deny that any... group sex?... took place, which is what some are insinuating. Nobody's explicitly denied the incident, only the allegation of a crime.

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

I agree.

Was it rape?

Were you there?

How would you know 100% what it really was if you weren't there?

True, but any more than you know that it wasn't? And guess which he's been charged with, a mistake, or rape?

[renny]

Not sure if it’s been brought up before or not. Dube’s announcement was on the 21st, then on the 24th London Police requested the 5 accused to surrender. So 3 days between the two events.

There is a possibility that Dube was suicidal or something and his mental healthcare providers let the Flames know that he needs to go on indefinite leave. Imagine if they had said “he’s out on indefinite leave” and Dube wasn’t charged and the public found out that he was suicidal and the Flames didn’t release their statement.

So the Flames made their statement.

Days after that the London Police announcement was made.

After that the rest of the players were released on leave.

So they were able to craft less “controversial” statements.

So.. given the timelines and given the Flames track record with the whole Peters situation I tend to give the Flames the benefit of the doubt here. It is plausible that they didn’t know, none of us have concrete proof that they knew. Saying “I refuse to believe that they didn’t know” is just deliberately being obtuse and nothing will change your mind.

I think what’s really important now is what the Flames do going forward now that Dube has been charged. That’s what I will be judging them by, rather than speculating on what they did or didn’t know at the time of their statement.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Not to add a THIRD lawyer into this exercise of parsing the statements… but I do see a distinction between saying “the allegation is false” and “I maintain my innocence.” The first goes to the underlying facts (I.e. these facts are untrue) while the second suggests that the accused will either argue that guilt can’t be established to the requisite standard, or that an affirmative defense of some kind is available.

Similarly, denying “criminal wrongdoing” to me is not as strong as denying the allegation itself.

Mind you, I don’t practice in this area so would defer to MBates on whether any of these statements are unusual.

“Maintaining innocence” is more than pleading not guilty and saying the Crown can’t prove a case. You don’t plead innocent after all, you plead not guilty. Saying you are innocent means you didn’t do the crime at all. That’s why a criminal lawyer can get into trouble by saying his client is innocent when he knows that he is guilty (and is just relying on burden of proof). Because the lawyer is duty bound not to say false things. Of course, Dube can lie to his lawyers.

Now, in this case innocence just would mean that there was consent. Which Dube is going to maintain was present, and there’s no ethical issue in his lawyer representing that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Some of you guys who aren't lawyers seem pretty ready to try to get WAY into the weeds and parse the meaning and intent underlying press statements by people who do this for a living. Hell I'm a lawyer and even I don't want to guess how much went into selecting specific words; could be lots to read into, could be nothing, I don't know because I don't do this specific type of law and could only really speak at a high level. This isn't even law as much as practice and unless you do this on a day to day basis I wouldn't try to guess at what X or Y step or statement means by reading between the lines.

[TheIronMaiden]

People juat dont want to wait until 2026

[Funkhouser]

Seeing how the NHL will (likely) not touch these guys, and the trial won't be until 2026(ish), what is the likelihood these 4/5 sign in the KHL in the next few months?

Their hockey career is only 10 years. I doubt they will wait idle for 2 years without playing.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Some of you guys who aren't lawyers seem pretty ready to try to get WAY into the weeds and parse the meaning and intent underlying press statements by people who do this for a living. Hell I'm a lawyer and even I don't want to guess how much went into selecting specific words; could be lots to read into, could be nothing, I don't know because I don't do this specific type of law and could only really speak at a high level. This isn't even law as much as practice and unless you do this on a day to day basis I wouldn't try to guess at what X or Y step or statement means by reading between the lines.

I don't think the legality or word choice really even needs to be questioned hard here.

In PR there's generally a single goal: don't make your organization a talking point or news story through the news releases you let out (unless you're expressly trying to). In this case they chose different words than their peers, and the result is a lot of public scorn. I don't think it's useful to debate whether or not the public is right in feeling this anger- but I think it's pretty clear they do.

Is that not then a failure of the flames PR team? I think it is.

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I don't think the legality or word choice really even needs to be questioned hard here.

In PR there's generally a single goal: don't make your organization a talking point or news story through the news releases you let out (unless you're expressly trying to). In this case they chose different words than their peers, and the result is a lot of public scorn. I don't think it's useful to debate whether or not the public is right in feeling this anger- but I think it's pretty clear they do.

Is that not then a failure of the flames PR team? I think it is.

Speaking of word choice, if I see "parse" one more time!!!!
I nominate it for buzz word of the thread.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I don't think the legality or word choice really even needs to be questioned hard here.

In PR there's generally a single goal: don't make your organization a talking point or news story through the news releases you let out (unless you're expressly trying to). In this case they chose different words than their peers, and the result is a lot of public scorn. I don't think it's useful to debate whether or not the public is right in feeling this anger- but I think it's pretty clear they do.

Is that not then a failure of the flames PR team? I think it is.

Again… Dube could have been the only player to state this as the reason. Leading to a difference in wording from them compared to other teams. Like, the easiest explanation of it continues to get skipped.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Again… Dube could have been the only player to state this as the reason. Leading to a difference in wording from them compared to other teams. Like, the easiest explanation of it continues to get skipped.

Sure, that's immaterial. The PR team still made a mistake then. It's their job to control the public image of the franchise not Dube's.