Canadian Government Freezing Hockey Canada Funding- (2018 Canada World Jr Team Alleged Sexual Assault)

[RoadWarrior]

You can't equate the players not being charged with the police thought there was consent.

The police won't make an arrest if they know for certain it will not be prosecuted, and it can't be prosecuted if the victim won't testify. And the fact that some victims don't want to testify doesn't mean there wasn't a crime, it just means it can't be enforced in our legal system.

The "victim" was willing to testify in a civil trial...... so you're wrong in your assessment.

The police decided that there was a lack of evidence. You can prosecute with a hostile witness if there's evidence.

 

[wetcoast]

Girl said she was sexually assaulted. There are plenty of articles. You ignore this “proof”.

Well, of course you’re not going to respond. Your posts show absolutely no regard for the victim but more concerned for some good ol boys having their reputation tarnished. That’s f***ed.

Every person that disagrees with you, you lump them into the mob. Don’t act like you don’t.

What’s your purpose here? I’m not making shit up. It’s your words. Not mine. You don’t like being called out on it.

You need to read the post right before this one by you, who responded to the claim another poster said that she said that she didn't give consent (something I haven't read yet in an article but took at face value).

Also your assertions are just more noise, I feel like people here are making conclusions without enough information and then some are plain making stuff up to fill in the gaps, I want the process to work legally not in a HF Boards sideshow thread where there is little time by some for the law and actual facts.

If people feel that way fine, but don't name call and insinuate for others.

My purpose is also like everyone else here to have a discussion and I have expressed my overall view and the need for societal change and in hockey quite a few times now.

So instead of grandstanding maybe read and listen and think about how to make the world a better place?

She said this in a court of law, under penalty of perjury?
When, why hasn't this been made public knowledge?

It seems like such an event would make settling this kind of case really counter-intuitive on the part of the people who were supposed to be representing her.

Believing one person a priori while dismissing another person's claim (if it even exists) is wrong in criminal cases.
Dismissing the allegations is just as wrong as assuming their complete legitimacy.

That's the reason investigative bodies exist: to investigate alleged criminal activity, without prejudice, in order to come to a more complete and truthful understanding of the events alleged. If criminal activity occurred, they are to make such recommendations to the judicial system.

The fact that some people are perfectly willing to forego due process and to jump to conclusions is appalling.

What those people should be incensed at is that such a potentially damning event could have been settled out of court in the first place. There shouldn't be an option for settlements out of court for sexual assault complaints.

At the same time, the stigma (real or perceived) of someone having been the victim of a sexual assault, has to go away completely.
Only when we take away all of the limiting factors, will victims of such abuse come forward with more frequency and immediacy.

 

[wetcoast]

The court of public opinion is the only option in this situation. What else do you propose?

We obviously need to make changes but in judging this case if you choose the court of public opinion then we are going to agree to disagree here as the largest problem is that we don't have anything close to a complete picture.

Moving forward I will state against talks with young people starting at least in high school if not younger about consent, the dangers of hooking up and possible results both health and emotionally, personal responsibility and respect for oneself and others the list goes on and on.

I also stated earlier in this thread or another one this doesn't seem to be a problem in Sweden (to the same extent) and perhaps some of that is that most players play for home clubs as they move up even in major junior and live with their families and most guys here if they are being honest would have had some problems with moving away from home and being involved in a team sport in their teens even if they weren't as tragic as the case here.

 

[theguardianII]

These types of allegations cannot be only in Canada.
One reason they are public here is because most of these "charged" accusations are judged by public opinion.
Painting entire teams for a few individuals is unfair to those that had nothing to do with the accusations.
In the states a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.
Not so much in Canada now. It seems that the Napoleonic code is becoming more prevalent, one must prove innocence to any accusation instead of being proved guilty. Guilt is assumed by most of the media

There is no doubt that these things can happen but the topic is so polarizing it is difficult not be seen as accepting this stuff or totally in agreement. There doesn't seem to be any mid ground.

I try to keep these things in perspective and try to keep my posts as neutral as possible

BUT
When an accused is raked through the coals and deemed guilty before even having the case in court I try to mitigate and storm of protest.

There is a chance that the accuser is wrong, to not accept that is being naive, they are people and people can personal motives for being vindictive even.

Here is a "What if" scenario, not saying this is my stance, my stance is neutral I hope.
What if these are because of guilt after? Not my fault stuff.
What if this is a shakedown? After this kind of pre trial hate how many behind the scene's accusers will get paid off? A easy payday even if the sex was consensual.
What if it is simply anger, a jilted lover?

In the Virtanen case so far I have been dumb founded as to why the accuser did not have any character witnesses at all. For that matter there were none for JV either but if he is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty the onus is on the prosecution to make their case as strong as possible. This witness never said anything to anyone, any evidence in her favour the prosecutor failed to produce.
Their entire case seems to hinge on one person saying one thing and the other saying something opposite but with some evidence to collaborate that story.

I noticed after the defence started the cross examination the story went some what dead as far as what was the defendant said and concentrated on the opening statements made by the prosecution witness. Why? Could it be because there is evidence that contradict the prosecution allegations?

Trying to remain fair is the hardest thing.

IF this does turn out to be totally unsubstantiated, vindictive or an attempt for a pay day, IF, then in order to turn the tide of the numerous other unsubstantiated accusation that will spring from trying to stay out of the public eye.

Here is a question for most of the posters.
Prove you didn't have sex 3 times on 3 particular dates 5 or 6 years ago.
It is easy to make an accusation of sexual impropriety on those dates and if you have one side or the other with a high enough profile then the likelihood of being paid off just became much easier.

IMO the only way to help prevent unfounded accusations now is to attach some sort of ramifications to outright fraud. But that will not happen in any case in Canada because the "Court of Public Opinion" is king/queen/leader. Why have a judge or court at all.

And now the media will go off on a different story and not apologize for ruining lives if found to be wrong or too biased. They used to report facts and keep opinion matters to the editorials, not the front page

 

[wetcoast]

Come on - they could have hired a firm that has experience in these cases without hiring one that caused the Supreme Court of Canada to issue a ruling defending the constitutionality of rape shield laws.

Yes they should have known in 2018 that the ruling would come down in June 2022?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-rape-shield-1.6506888

It's obvious you don't like the firm but they do their job in our legal system, if you prefer a different legal system move to another country that is more "efficient" or "better" like say Russia or heck can you even find one?

Maybe the ruling by the Supreme court turns out to be good thing or maybe not time will tell but if you read the article one can see problems in future trials.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

Yes they should have known in 2018 that the ruling would come down in June 2022?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-rape-shield-1.6506888

It's obvious you don't like the firm but they do their job in our legal system, if you prefer a different legal system move to another country that is more "efficient" or "better" like say Russia or heck can you even find one?

Maybe the ruling by the Supreme court turns out to be good thing or maybe not time will tell but if you read the article one can see problems in future trials.

Perhaps they could initiate an investigation with a different firm rather than reopen this one give the new information?

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Jesus, why would you want your friends to join you sharing a woman so badly? Boggles the mind.

"A bonding thing". Note article is from 14 years ago.

Frost trial raises issue of sexual behaviour among hockey players

Claims by one of David Frost's alleged victims that hockey players have group sex seems to have validity, although his assertion that it's a common form of team bonding is a matter of debate.

ottawa.ctvnews.ca

It seems pretty clear that Hockey Canada has been operating with the mantra of, "It it's not criminal, it's not our problem." As soon as London Police closed the criminal investigation, Hockey Canada moved on.

The victim, seemingly, did as well, since she didn't pursue the case for 4 years. But when she filed the civil claim a few weeks ago, they probably said, "Oh shit... let's settle this quickly and not make a big deal of it."

The issue is that it is a pretty big deal and HC's standards should be significantly higher than, "Don't be a convicted felon."

London police told Hockey Canada they closed their investigation in February 2019. Hockey Canada closed theirs in August 2020.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Ain't it typical for a man to get credit for something a woman did years earlier

 

[wetcoast]

Not necessarily.

http://www.westcoastleaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/v5-FAQs-on-law-of-consent.pdf

Since this is such a big story, people should use it as a reason to educate themselves about consent laws. It's important stuff to know, and there's so much ambiguity out there.

My guess here is that most males have "violated" the first part of this document and in doing so committed a criminal offense.

Q. What is consent? A. Consent means voluntary agreement to participate in sexual activity. Consent is legally required for all sexual touching. Sexually touching a person without their consent is sexual assault, a criminal offense.

The whole situation with young inexperienced people with alcohol and other factors (2 of the big hockey ones are the star and team mentality of the players and then the woman, puckbunnies, hanging around the exciting venues) is a minefield to say the least.

The thing is that some people want to hookup and moral judgments shouldn't replace legal ones.

Also once again I don't have enough information about this case and no one else does either for the criminal standard.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Again, this was all in plain view:

Horrific, disgusting allegations of abuse emerge in CHL lawsuit

WARNING: This story contains extremely graphic content as it reveals “players sodomized with hockey sticks” and “rookies forced to masturbate and ejaculate on the same slice of bread”…

www.hockeyfeed.com

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

IMO the only way to help prevent unfounded accusations now is to attach some sort of ramifications to outright fraud

Things like defemation/slander and lying to police are already crimes.

 

[wetcoast]

Schrodinger's lawyer.

Yes. Precisely.

The lady who was most likely victimized in this situation is Schrodinger's rape victim.
Until we "open the box" and start to dig into the actual events, she is simultaneously being completely honest and not.

What's being missed here, is the manner with which we don't do enough as a society to curb this kind of thing from happening.

Here is the KISS version of what the 2 legal guys are talking about. (Although I think you presented it really clearly)

In simple terms, Schrödinger stated that if you place a cat and something that could kill the cat (a radioactive atom) in a box and sealed it, you would not know if the cat was dead or alive until you opened the box, so that until the box was opened, the cat was (in a sense) both "dead and alive".

 

[Zippity]

 

[wetcoast]

No we don't. We have people discussing allegations of rape or sexual abuse. I haven't seen someone post "Player x is a rapist and belongs in jail".

Well funny that some have been accused of being "rape apologists" then eh?

 

[theguardianII]

Things like defemation/slander and lying to police are already crimes.

But the person and public perception will make a difference. Could you imagine if a young female was found to falsely accuse and was punished?

The main story for weeks would be about how that prevents real cases from being brought forward.

This thing is a hot potato, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Try to remain neutral and be ostracized for being an unbeliever or enabler.

I have known plenty of women I would not trust. Women are people and can be just as bad or good. Often they get the benefit of the doubt.

I will not argue there are inequalities but much of that stuff is still changing.

 

[wetcoast]

So you're talking out of both sides of your mouth then.

You are inclined to believe the victim when she says they sexually assaulted her.

But you are not willing to say you believe the players who were involved are abusers because you only think you can say that if they're criminally convicted.

Do you realize how silly that sounds?

Do you realize how much a leap of judgment you (and others) have made without the necessary facts?

You are free to do so, heck anyone can come to any conclusion, but your response when called out on it is this post?

the person you are responded to has laid out his opinion and why he hasn't jumped to conclusions and to call it silly is just not a good look.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

Do you realize how much a leap of judgment you (and others) have made without the necessary facts?

You are free to do so, heck anyone can come to any conclusion, but your response when called out on it is this post?

the person you are responded to has laid out his opinion and why he hasn't jumped to conclusions and to call it silly is just not a good look.

Pointed out the hypocrisy is all. There isn't likely to be new "facts" in a he said-she said case.

I believe the victim.

 

[wetcoast]

Perhaps they could initiate an investigation with a different firm rather than reopen this one give the new information?

Sure they could and very well might but it also likely won't make a difference as the legal firm would still be playing the same role.

Pointed out the hypocrisy is all. There isn't likely to be new "facts" in a he said-she said case.

I believe the victim.

So what do you believed happened and what should the result be then?

I assuming any answer will be because you believe the victim but please add in additional context and information.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

Sure they could and very well might but it also likely won't make a difference as the legal firm would still be playing the same role.



So what do you believed happened and what should the result be then?

I assuming any answer will be because you believe the victim but please add in additional context and information.

Point is moreso that another firm might not have the same background. Wouldnt have been able to know at the time I guess, but now knowing the background can lead to a "what underlying themes/viewpoints at this firm exist" - not saying there is one, but it's possible.

I believe the statement of claim and reporting from Westhead and Strang on the matter. A sexual assault took place that night by unnamed players.

Hopefully the investigation results are made public - both by HC and the NHL, and the reopened police investigation is followed by commentary on any charging or non-charging decisions. Then, the public can make up their own minds regarding what they believe happened.

I don't have reason to believe a victim who the day after the event went home and told her parents is lying. Personally I just don't believe a young women goes home to tell their mother about a consensual experience with 8 men the night before.

The players will deny and say it was consensual. There likely won't be criminal charges - it's going to be a he said-she said case likely. I choose to believe the victim over the unnamed players who I assume will deny the accusations. One of the reasons I'd like the named of the players to eventually go public is because it may result in additional victims coming forward as weve seen with historic serial abusers - which some of them may be (or not).

In terms of consequences that remains to be seen, but I'd certainly hope if a player was on my favourite team that their contract would be terminated as a result. I don't have any reason to believe she is lying.

 

[Habby4Life]

Hockey Canada needs to be blown up. The org is rotten to the core.

 

[theguardianII]

The whole situation with young inexperienced people with alcohol and other factors (2 of the big hockey ones are the star and team mentality of the players and then the woman, puckbunnies, hanging around the exciting venues) is a minefield to say the least.

Not just inexperienced but with raging hormones as well. Good judgement can be compromised very easily.
I have experience catching "puck bunnies" sneaking into dorms, in hotel rooms or hanging around and calling to the boys/men to come out.
I have caught them almost naked (no tops) in hall ways in front of doors and windows outside.

Sometimes a player came to tell me.

We didn't take the ladies names or call the police but I am sure some were considerably older than the boys were, certainly they were very bold, to the point of offering me their services if I would ignore them. No police because nothing happened that we know of.

To be clear not all time every day but pretty much once every tourney

Pointed out the hypocrisy is all. There isn't likely to be new "facts" in a he said-she said case.

I believe the victim.

Why did she not have character witnesses or her BF testify?

My comments are about he Jake Virtanen case nothing else

Ban all major tournaments in Canada.

 

[CanHeDoIt99]

Not just inexperienced but with raging hormones as well. Judgement can be thrown out the window very easily.
I have experience catching "puck bunnies" sneaking into dorms, in the rooms or hanging around and calling to the boys/men to come out.
I have caught them almost naked (no tops) in hall ways in front of doors and windows outside.

Sometimes a player came to tell me.

We didn't take the ladies names but I am sure some were considerably older than the boys were, certainly they were very bold, to the point of offering me their services if I would ignore them.

To be clear not all time every day but pretty much once every tourney

Why did she not have character witnesses or her BF testify?

What do you mean character witnesses or testifying? She filed a civil suit and it was settled weeks later.

Her decision not to talk to police in 2018 about the matter isn't exculpatory. We have historically seen why victims of sexual assault don't come forward or push the issue. Particularly when she files a civil suit years later.

 

[theguardianII]

What do you mean character witnesses or testifying? She filed a civil suit and it was settled weeks later.

Her decision not to talk to police in 2018 about the matter isn't exculpatory. We have historically seen why victims of sexual assault don't come forward or push the issue. Particularly when she files a civil suit years later.

This the Jake Virtanen issue or the National team stuff.

Years later, like I posted prove you didn't "eat a hamburger" on Oct 20, 23 and 30 th 5 years ago. True it is not the same but proving you didn't is the same. Or admitting you had the burger but without mustard

It is such a charged atmosphere in the public realm proof is hard to come by.

Settled then but relevant now. Settled just meant she reached an accommodation with everyone with out having to go to court. And wasn't it posted she got 3.5 million dollars in settlement? The 2018 National team one.

That being published shows how easy it is to make millions without ever having to go to court. Just an accusation without ever having to go to court.

 

[Jeune Poulet]

Making lists of the players who are suspected of being the ones involved and then associating them with being rapists.

That's an injury to the person(s) who were actually innocent and yet associated with the perpetrators.

The legal representatives of "the perpetrators", to use your expression, have already gone on record saying their clients snuck in the room to take advantage of this girl.

So it's quite easy for innocent parties to dissociate themselves by saying they never went in the room where and when the incident took place, didn't have any knowledge of the incident before being contacted by the authorities.

It doesn't matter at this point in time who they are anyway. Thanks to the fact thousands of persons didn't take your kind of "wait-and-see, trust-the-institutions" stance, both Hockey Canada and now the London police have been exposed, and no doubt in the next few weeks this story is going to get even bigger and we will eventually know more.

All of this due to some people not remaining completely passive about this or worse, playing devil's advocate.

 

[Jeune Poulet]

She didn't want to take up the matter originally with either the 3rd party investigator from Hockey Canada or the London police

You mean, the investigators from the two investigations that have been proven to be completely bogus?

It's obvious this girl was pressured by extremely powerful individuals into not pursuing the matter back then.

And you can't use corrupted investigations as evidence that the victim did not want to collaborate with them.