Sexual assault allegation against former Blackhawks coach

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This isn't a criminal case, not even the lawsuit would need to be "proven" if it gets that far, just 51%. The Hawks are arguing against it being heard because of the statue of limitation though, so maybe it doesn't get to court.

But we have the coach actually being found guilty of rape of a 17 year old. We have one player who said he was raped and filed a lawsuit. This has been corroborated by another player who was also raped. So at least three rape victims.

Then you have a person who contacted TSN and an independent unidentified witness corroborating the story with the plaintiff's lawyer (and these are very possibly the same person).

On top of that you have Paul Vincent who seems to be the only coaching/management with the Hawks who wasn't completely despicable. If he isn't the person talking to TSN, I think all you would need to do is ask him if that's what happened to get enough "proof" to can those ######s involved.

Even tort cases needed to be proven on a balance of probabilities.

At this stage, none of the allegations have been given under oath.

Look, I’m not saying none of these allegations are untrue. There is a ton of smoke. But at this stage they are just statements and allegations. We need to let this play out to see what happens.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Even tort cases needed to be proven on a balance of probabilities.

At this stage, none of the allegations have been given under oath.

Look, I’m not saying none of these allegations are untrue. There is a ton of smoke. But at this stage they are just statements and allegations. We need to let this play out to see what happens.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, 51%.

If you have two players come forward and say a convicted rapist raped them and management knew, and it's corroborated by the ex-police officer/independent witness coach, I don't think we need to wait on a verdict here. Especially if it doesn't even get to trial.

If the Hawks owner had any sense of redeeming quality, they would call up Vincent, asked if what is being said is true, and if he says yes, get rid of the lot of them still there.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

If the Hawks owner had any sense of redeeming quality, they would call up Vincent, asked if what is being said is true, and if he says yes, get rid of the lot of them still there.

And then, if it turns out that Vincent is lying, they get their pants sued off in multiple wrongful-dismissal cases.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

And then, if it turns out that Vincent is lying, they get their pants sued off in multiple wrongful-dismissal cases.

No, they tell Bowman to go home and they aren't renewing his contract. Like they do when any other hockey executive misses the playoffs for multiple years and still has a contract. They don't even need to justify it.

If they want to terminate his contract, yes, they'll need to look into the clauses written into it and investigate more. But Vincent would be lying for what purposes? We'd be looking at an ex-cop/retired coach creating a conspiracy with two rape victims.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

No, they tell Bowman to go home and they aren't renewing his contract. Like they do when any other GM misses the playoffs for multiple years and still has a contract. They don't even need to justify it.

And all the other people in the organization that you want them to fire? I suppose their contracts are all up at the same time, so they can be fired immediately to appease the rage mob?

If they want to terminate his contract, yes, they'll need to look into the clauses written into it and investigate more. But Vincent would be lying for what purposes? We'd be looking at an ex-cop/retired coach creating a conspiracy with two rape victims.

Any human being can lie, and I've never met one who never has. The tendency to lie generally goes up in tandem with the stakes.

Asking one party to the case, ‘Did the allegations you are making actually happen?’ is not investigating more. It is throwing out the other side with prejudice and taking the law into your own hands. I get that you're fine with that. It will give you a vicarious sense of righteousness to see other people's careers destroyed, and you don't give a damn whether they're innocent or guilty. Some of us have other concerns.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

And all the other people in the organization that you want them to fire? I suppose their contracts are all up at the same time, so they can be fired immediately to appease the rage mob?

All these people? Of the three guys one was already fired for unrelated reason. It's Bowman and MacIsaac. Also, if they covered up a rape, I feel like the rage mob has a pretty good reason to be raging.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Any human being can lie, and I've never met one who never has. The tendency to lie generally goes up in tandem with the stakes.


Asking one party to the case, ‘Did the allegations you are making actually happen?’ is not investigating more. It is throwing out the other side with prejudice and taking the law into your own hands. I get that you're fine with that. It will give you a vicarious sense of righteousness to see other people's careers destroyed, and you don't give a damn whether they're innocent or guilty. Some of us have other concerns.

Paul Vincent isn't one party to the case. He would be an independent witness corroborating the story of the rape victims. That's why I would ask him. He's an ex-cop with no skin in the game. He's the exact person you would go to investigate.

Keep in mind Vincent isn't saying they were or were not raped. He, if the TSN witness is to be believed, instead told management to go to the police and they refused. He doesn't gain anything by saying that did or did not happen.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

All these people? Of the three guys one was already fired for unrelated reason. It's Bowman and MacIsaac. Also, if they covered up a rape, I feel like the rage mob has a pretty good reason to be raging.

Rage mobs never have a good reason. They are third parties who have no involvement in the case. They rage because they like to rage, and whatever the outcome of this case, next week they will be raging about something else.

Vincent Paul isn't one party to the case. He would be an independent witness corroborating the story of the rape victims.

He's a witness for the complainant, then. You are advocating that the Blackhawks simply ignore any evidence for the defence and hang everything on one witness.

But you've already admitted that you like rage mobs. You obviously have no interest in justice; you just want heads to roll for your amusement, or for the mob's.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Rage mobs never have a good reason. They are third parties who have no involvement in the case. They rage because they like to rage, and whatever the outcome of this case, next week they will be raging about something else.

So you're saying people should simply ignore powerful people protecting rapists? Are you the only person in existence who supported the USA Gymnastics for protecting Nassar? Or how do you think this is different?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

He's a witness for the complainant, then. You are advocating that the Blackhawks simply ignore any evidence for the defence and hang everything on one witness.

No he is not. At least he has not been named as the witness. No witness has been named (and likely won't be). But I mean, yes, when it comes to workplace, if a person has multiple accusers and multiple witnesses, usually they lose their job regardless of court. Or in this case, wouldn't get their contract renewed. How is this different?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

But you've already admitted that you like rage mobs. You obviously have no interest in justice; you just want heads to roll for your amusement, or for the mob's.

I never said I like rage mobs lol.

But yes, I will take the position that covering up rape is bad and I think people who do it should be "fired." I don't think that's particularly controversial but okay.

[liamenator]

Where is the rage mob? All I see are folks suggesting that people in the Hawks organization should be accountable for their actions which included: A) not taking two separate sexual assault complaints seriously, B) burying the stories instead of reporting them to authorities, C) refusing to provide support of any kind to the complainants, and D) covering their own asses, and for the accused, by providing a positive reference to another employer. This reference allowed him to stay working in hockey for a period during which there is a documented record of inappropriate conduct including a conviction for criminal sexual conduct with a 17-year old kid. These are all causes for dismissal from the high profile job of working in NHL hockey operations, a job which is not in fact a legal right to be defended in the courts.

[Funkhouser]

What is a rage mob?

Is it angrier than a typical mob (normally quite chill)?
Is it a mob listening to Rage Against the Machine?
I just want to know so that I can start using this cool new term before it gets co-opted by the alt-right.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yes, 51%.

If you have two players come forward and say a convicted rapist raped them and management knew, and it's corroborated by the ex-police officer/independent witness coach, I don't think we need to wait on a verdict here. Especially if it doesn't even get to trial.

If the Hawks owner had any sense of redeeming quality, they would call up Vincent, asked if what is being said is true, and if he says yes, get rid of the lot of them still there.

You are basing as truthful facts an article you have read.

Yes, you need to wait for the proper process to play out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[VladtheImpaler]

At this point, it is a story told by someone trying to get money for harm he allegedly suffered. If this ever gets to court, we shall see what actually happened. Maybe it is the literal truth, maybe not.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

You are basing as truthful facts an article you have read.

Yes, you need to wait for the proper process to play out.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No I didn't. I specifically said if the story was corroborated by the independent witness.

The guy was a rapist we know that. It's not up for debate.

Now two players have come forward and said he raped them. Another person was alleged to have been told about what happened and told Bowman to go to the police and he said no. If that guy said that's what happened, what more "proof" do you need? How many victims and witnesses before you believe that maybe the rapist did rape someone?

Again, this isn't criminal. This is about some sleazy executive covering up rape for PR purposes. It happened all the time with people turning a blind eye. Did we forget about the #MeToo movement so fast?

And if the independent witness says "I never told Bowman to go to the police" then you continue the investigation. But two rape victims, apparently multiple witnesses all collaborated with the same story about someone already convicted of rape...if it quacks.

Like you guys understand people get fired all the time for he-said, she-said, type situations that never see court, or even could if the allegations are true, right? If I use racist language in a meeting with three other people and all three go to HR and say I did it, I've lost my job without a trial and if I get two weeks severance, there's pretty much nothing I can do.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

At this point, it is a story told by someone trying to get money for harm he allegedly suffered. If this ever gets to court, we shall see what actually happened. Maybe it is the literal truth, maybe not.

And if it doesn't get to court because the judge agrees with the statue of limitation? Even if multiple victims come forward and multiple witnesses all agree that Bowman was told? We're just okay with Bowman giving the rapist a recommendation that allowed the rapist to rape a child, keep his job and everything?

[GordonBlue]

why is bowman still with the team?
It should be like what happened with players such as Virtanen.

Bowman and whomever else is still there that is accused, should be placed on leave until the investigation is complete.
shouldn't be a double standard for conduct.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

If I use racist language in a meeting with three other people and all three go to HR and say I did it, I've lost my job without a trial and if I get two weeks severance, there's pretty much nothing I can do.

There has been more or less, an in-office trial. When 3 people go to HR and say you said "X", which we assume for this purpose is a racist remark, proper protocol would be to call a meeting and ask you for your side of the story. Assuming the meeting was only you4, then HR would make an assessment and, if they thought it was likely the other 3 people were telling the truth, you would presumably be fired.

Now, if they read an article in the company newsletter that someone suggested you made a racist remark, you wouldn't be immediately fired. It would likely spur an investigation into what happened, and then a decision would be made, after listening to the evidence. The company newsletter is not, in itself, enough evidence.

[Jordan!]

Gotta wonder how much Coach Q knew about all of this?

[sureLoss]

TSN has a source saying that the sexual assaults were an open secret and that training staff warned him to stay away from Aldrich

https://www.tsn.ca/alleged-assaults-...urce-1.1659115

The alleged sexual assault of two former Chicago Blackhawks players was “an open secret” among staff both within and outside the team’s hockey department, a former team marketing official said in an interview with TSN.

The official said he was told by Blackhawks assistant trainer Jeff Thomas during the summer of 2010 that then-team video coach Brad Aldrich had allegedly sexually assaulted two players. The official asked for anonymity because he still works in the pro hockey industry and fears repercussions from the National Hockey League.

“Brad would routinely befriend young interns and invite them to his apartment in Chicago to watch March Madness basketball and other sports,” the marketing official said. “I was told to steer clear of him because he had tried something at his apartment on a few players. This was not something that only a few people knew about. The entire training staff, a lot of people knew...This was an open secret.”

The allegations against the Blackhawks went public in May after a former player filed a lawsuit in Chicago against the franchise. That unnamed player, identified as “John Doe (1)” in court documents, alleges that he reported the abuse to the team and that it was covered up. The player also alleges that Aldrich threatened him via text messages and other communications against making a complaint.

[sureLoss]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1407767651594772483

[Erick Estrada]

Not a good look for the organization.