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