[Report] Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Michael McLeod, Dillon Dube & Cal Foote Charged with Sexual Assault in alleged incident during Hockey Canada event

[Bardown]

59 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

The politics were brought up by the guy who brought up the made up Trudeau using an NDA to cover up assaulting minor, (Which btw is a Right Wing talking point) Not me, so maybe before butting in and telling me to leave the politics out of here read the conversation...

 

Further before being a smart ass.  NDA's CAN NOT COVER OR HIDE a crime. NDA's can be put in AFTER judgement but can NOT be used to hide or cover up a crime

Well its not a right wing talking point, its well known at Point Grey dude

 

And on the NDA it seems you didn't read or understand my post but whatever

Edited February 6 by Bardown

[Sapper]

As long as it becomes entrenched policy that any player charged with a serious offense will not have their salary count towards the cap ... So long as they are suspended pending verdict /outcome 

 

Shouldn't be case by case , should be a policy applicable to all teams 

[Bardown]

4 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

 

While I generally agree with you there are always exceptions like the Central Park 5 or the West Memphis 3.

Ya fair point but there's text messages etc...there's more proof than the central park 5 for example. And that situation was based on coerced confessions of minors. A material difference I would think.

[canuck73_3]

5 hours ago, Bardown said:

Well its not a right wing talking point, its well known at Point Grey dude

 

And on the NDA it seems you didn't read or understand my post but whatever

No you butted in on an entirely different conversation, and no I clearly understood your point as I explained the difference at the end.

 

And the Trudeau NDA BS is entirely a right wing talking point 

Edited February 6 by canuck73_3

[Bardown]

4 hours ago, Grandmaster said:

Didn’t know any of this. Where did this come from? 

That was some of the first stuff to come out...the texting...

 

some of it here

 

https://www.tsn.ca/lawyers-for-players-linked-to-alleged-sexual-assault-to-give-nhl-videos-text-messages-1.1827214

[Bardown]

2 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

No you butted in on an entirely different conversation, and no a clearly understood your point as I explained the difference at the end.

 

And the Trudeau NDA BS is entirely a right wing talking point 

Says who? You?

 

ok

 

Yours is a left wing denial talking point

Edited February 6 by Bardown

[canuck73_3]

2 hours ago, King Heffy said:

Meanwhile Ottawa did the right thing with Formenton and got hit with the draft penalty for something else.

As we found out with Chicago clearly not disclosing a NTC detail is clearly much worse than covering up sexual assault. 

[canuck73_3]

Just now, Bardown said:

Says who? You?

 

ok

 

Yours is a left wing denial talking point

Says every right wing looney than brings it up.  Also how can it be denial when it's not true as you can't use an NDA to cover up a crime? Clearly you don't know what you're talking about and it shows. 

 

I don't even like Trudeau but I'm tired of the idiocy.

[Bardown]

Just now, canuck73_3 said:

Says every right wing looney than brings it up.  Also how can it be denial when it's not true as you can't use an NDA to cover up a crime? Clearly you don't know what you're talking about and it shows. 

 

I don't even like Trudeau but I'm tired of the idiocy.

My goodness!

You really need the last word hey? Ok one more response! Go for it! lol..bro let it go

 

[canuck73_3]

2 minutes ago, Bardown said:

My goodness!

You really need the last word hey? Ok one more response! Go for it! lol..bro let it go

 

You gonna keep on topic or just derail this more than it needs to? You're aware the point of message board is to discuss things right? Posting is the entire idea behind a message board. Just admit you fucked up and butted in the conversation without any semblance of comprehension and move on. 

 

7 minutes ago, Bardown said:

Says who? You?

 

ok

 

Yours is a left wing denial talking point

 

You even literally asked a question then tried flaming me for answering... Comprehension really isn't your thing huh? 

[Elias Pettersson]

3 hours ago, Dom said:

Wow. Okay then... 

 

Yes, and the Canucks with a legal contract at the time were given a cap penalty for years.  Thanks Bettman...

[Ballisticsports]

As I listened to parts of the questioning this morning, to me some of the questions didn't seem like they would matter in the case and were deflecting in order not throw themselves under the bus and pressure to be fired with outrage, so instead said I can't answer that

When the Chief said I will promise and confident it will be different in the future, that he did not mean, only cases that can embarrass them, but for all people.

He didn't inspire my confidence and sounded more like self preservation

8 yrs is way too long to receive justice and hurtful to know they are running loose and enjoying prime life, while one is damaged

A big question to me is why did it?

[Elias Pettersson]

2 hours ago, Bardown said:

lol what does usage of a NDA have to do with "lunatic right wing maga garbage" - you seem triggered by imaginary boogey men. Leave the politics elsewhere.

 

NDA's are part of settlements. I am guessing our friend may have meant "settlement that was under NDA".  In civil settlements there is usually an agreement that the person will not come after the other "criminally".

 

There was a settlement here, and I am not sure who brought the case back to the police but I don't believe it was the victim. This is why they are now able to be charged criminally.

 

Go smoke a joint man

 

The case was reopened by the police after public backlash and presumably newfound evidence.  I don't think the accuser had anything to do with it.  She already had received her settlement from Hockey Canada...

[PureQuickness]

1 hour ago, MeanSeanBean said:

With pretty basic knowledge of the statistics behind sexual assault actually making it this far in the criminal justice system, it's an entirely fair statement to say there is pretty conclusive evidences of some serious wrong doings if charges are being laid this far after the night in question. Not really rocket science.

 

Actually, it simply means there's enough evidence to proceed with trial. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean there's some semblance of guilt - that's where the trial comes in to determine that. And the possibility that one or more people are acquitted or not is entirely up in the air.

 

With this many people involved, I think it's pretty unlikely that acquittal will be on the table though.

Edited February 6 by PureQuickness

[Barnstorm]

14 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

The case was reopened by the police after public backlash and presumably newfound evidence.  I don't think the accuser had anything to do with it.  She already had received her settlement from Hockey Canada...

While “E. M.” may have not initialized the second investigation it was reported today during that OPP news release that she has fully participated and cooperated with the entire investigation since day one to the present. 
 

As far as I know, which isn’t much, the victim can bring a civil suit for damages against every defendant that is convicted. 
 

If so and if  they’re convicted I hope she takes them to the cleaners . 
 

ETA : The OPP are insisting that this is all one investigation… from day one. Probably in an effort to salvage their already questionable handling of the matter. 

Edited February 6 by Barnstorm

[Breadnbutta]

45 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Yes, and the Canucks with a legal contract at the time were given a cap penalty for years.  Thanks Bettman...

To be fair. The organizations shouldn't be penalized.

 

But I agree with what your saying. No consistency 

[canuck73_3]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Yes, and the Canucks with a legal contract at the time were given a cap penalty for years.  Thanks Bettman...

Yup, further every approved contract should not have been punished period. You can’t retroactively punish previously approved deals. It’s bush league at best. 

[MeanSeanBean]

1 hour ago, PureQuickness said:

 

Actually, it simply means there's enough evidence to proceed with trial. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean there's some semblance of guilt - that's where the trial comes in to determine that. And the possibility that one or more people are acquitted or not is entirely up in the air.

 

With this many people involved, I think it's pretty unlikely that acquittal will be on the table though.

That so? How would you explain that sexual assaults tend to make it to court significant less then other major crimes. Or how would you explain that sexual assault cases tend to have a noticeable lower conviction rate then any other crime that goes to trial? Sexual assault cases are statistically less likely to make it to court or see a conviction due to proving it being harder then other major crimes.

 

the fact this case is going to court, all these years later, does mean something. It's ignorant to believe otherwise.

 

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510002701&pickMembers[0]=1.1&pickMembers[1]=2.16&pickMembers[2]=3.1&pickMembers[3]=4.1&pickMembers[4]=5.2&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2017+%2F+2018&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2021+%2F+2022&referencePeriods=20170101%2C20210101

 

Doubt you will, but if you want to check yourself.

[Elias Pettersson]

3 hours ago, Bardown said:

That was some of the first stuff to come out...the texting...

 

some of it here

 

https://www.tsn.ca/lawyers-for-players-linked-to-alleged-sexual-assault-to-give-nhl-videos-text-messages-1.1827214

 

That evidence was given to police shortly after the incident took place.  It wasn't enough for charges to be laid on anyone as the case was dropped in 2019.

 

The videos and text messages were provided to London Police Services detectives by lawyers representing seven former CHL players in the days after the alleged June 19, 2018, assault in a London, Ont., hotel following a Hockey Canada event. London police closed its investigation on Feb. 6, 2019, without laying criminal charges. A police spokeswoman declined to say on Monday what role, if any, the videos played in the decision to not charge the players.

 

After the case was re-opened in 2022 the police received new evidence which pushed them to lay charges.  IMO, the smoking gun is most likely the 3 other players in the room testifying and probably given immunity in the trial.  And they probably got others to co-operate as well...

[Dumb Nuck]

10 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

This has long been debunked, we really gonna just keep parroting baseless extreme right wing talking points in 2024? You also cannot use an NDA to cover up a crime in Canada. 

Wait, what? Politicians are law abiding?

 

Also I am no wing, I hate all politicians equally but people that get their feathers all ruffled up over politics remind me of cult members drinking the Kool-aid.

 

 

Edited February 6 by Dumb Nuck

[Bardown]

15 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

That evidence was given to police shortly after the incident took place.  It wasn't enough for charges to be laid on anyone as the case was dropped in 2019.

 

The videos and text messages were provided to London Police Services detectives by lawyers representing seven former CHL players in the days after the alleged June 19, 2018, assault in a London, Ont., hotel following a Hockey Canada event. London police closed its investigation on Feb. 6, 2019, without laying criminal charges. A police spokeswoman declined to say on Monday what role, if any, the videos played in the decision to not charge the players.

 

After the case was re-opened in 2022 the police received new evidence which pushed them to lay charges.  IMO, the smoking gun is most likely the 3 other players in the room testifying and probably given immunity in the trial.  And they probably got others to co-operate as well...

Agree, but there was also a settlement, which would have likely removed the ability of the girl to press criminal charges. If I recall correctly she isn't the one who's brought the new criminal accusations. Anyways, to me its fairy obvious she was raped.

[PureQuickness]

1 hour ago, MeanSeanBean said:

That so? How would you explain that sexual assaults tend to make it to court significant less then other major crimes. Or how would you explain that sexual assault cases tend to have a noticeable lower conviction rate then any other crime that goes to trial? Sexual assault cases are statistically less likely to make it to court or see a conviction due to proving it being harder then other major crimes.

 

the fact this case is going to court, all these years later, does mean something. It's ignorant to believe otherwise.

 

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3510002701&pickMembers[0]=1.1&pickMembers[1]=2.16&pickMembers[2]=3.1&pickMembers[3]=4.1&pickMembers[4]=5.2&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2017+%2F+2018&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2021+%2F+2022&referencePeriods=20170101%2C20210101

 

Doubt you will, but if you want to check yourself.

 

This is a question that is beyond the scope of the original discussion, but the issue with sexual assaults not making it to court involves a mixture of police procedures (including DNA extractions) and the scope of time. There's also something called plausible deniability (i.e. it was consensual)

 

Just because it goes to court doesn't necessarily mean there's guilt - that burden is on the prosecutors to make their case, which includes testimony and the use of evidence. I'm not making these rules up; that's what the court of law is.

 

Suppose that a man was allegedly sexually assaulted by a woman and it makes it to court. Does it mean that the woman is automatically guilty? No, there's a court procedure to determine guilt (or lack thereof). That's merely what I said in the post above. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

People are getting too carried away with the idea of someone being charged is a presumption of guilt. All charged individuals are innocent until PROVEN guilty. There is no proof of guilt YET. With this many people involved, I agree, it's very unlikely that anyone involved will be acquitted.

 

The complicated part of the rule of law is that a GUILTY verdict for someone may have been the wrong verdict (i.e. wrong person was arrested). And someone who was proven NOT GUILTY is not necessarily innocent of the accused crimes (i.e. the charged person got off on a legal technicality or there was some kind of proof required to FULLY link that person to the crime).

Edited February 6 by PureQuickness

[Barnstorm]

Given the spotlight ,  the public’s perception of insufficient justice and the high profile of the situation it’s safe to say the OPP has pushed hard at every option to secure convictions.
 

Any “witnesses” will surely have been convinced their best option is to cooperate to the ninth degree. Self preservation you might say. 
 

The OPP is going to be under extreme scrutiny and the many questions being  disqualified today will have to be answered eventually. Those and more. 
 

Their reputation is already in doubt. Without convictions now they are going to be nailed to the cross. 

[canuck73_3]

28 minutes ago, Dumb Nuck said:

Wait, what? Politicians are law abiding?

 

Also I am no wing, I hate all politicians equally but people that get their feathers all ruffled up over politics remind me of cult members drinking the Kool-aid.

 

 

Law abiding or not if it was true, which it is not she could go to the. RCMP and media anyway as no NDA excuses a crime. 
 

An NDA can be applied AFTER a trial but can not excuse/mask/hide a crime. No one is above that not even a PM. Ridiculous this even has to be explained. 
 

And for someone who supposedly chooses no side you somehow bit on a right wing talking point hook line and sinker. 

[canuck73_3]

32 minutes ago, Bardown said:

Agree, but there was also a settlement, which would have likely removed the ability of the girl to press criminal charges. If I recall correctly she isn't the one who's brought the new criminal accusations. Anyways, to me its fairy obvious she was raped.

That is not how it works in Canada, she doesn’t and can’t press charges. The crown does.