Right but it has to be proven it was? It could take flipping one of the players or a player that was in the room (not one of the 5) testifying it was coerced. It’s easy to assume that it was but that’s different from how the legal system works.
Since when? Lol
Yeah I’d agree on the optics of competing on the ice and being relevant, but I think optics off the ice are, if anything, less of a concern now.
Those witnesses are going to get crucified regardless what they say, too.
Not to mention they’d be burying “one of their own”
I take back my snark. Bettman just said live that all the players' contracts are going to just expire, no terminations without proof. Nothing back to the teams in term of cap hit i don't believe.
Maybe the witnesses agreed to a plea bargain based on their testimony?
That's how the majority of these things go and why they are so hard to prosecute. You see it in here as just a microcosm as the larger problem of the initial reaction is to try to poke holes in the victim's story rather than try to investigate the actual allegations. That's why it is so frustrating when people say things like "I want to see it turn out in court" or "I want to see what other evidence there is" because normally there isn't any other evidence that would be black and white. The main focus is the credibility of the witnesses, which usually comes down to making inconsistent statements that a lot of times don't really have any impact on the actual allegations but attorneys will use to make someone look like a liar.
Yes, that's what I meant. There are three others who were in that hotel room at some point.
But in fairness, with allegations...is that not 1 side of the story? Isn't hearing the other side pretty important?
Can a witness be forced to answer incriminating questions in Canada?
They’d need to offer him a Qualifying Offer to keep his rights for a year.
As far as I know, in Canada, a victim does not have to be publicly identified. If she chooses to remain so, she will never be identified. Her presence on the stand will not be required. Her testimony stands as is when given. It can be refuted with other evidence by the defense but she does not need to subjected to cross examination. It's not like in the States where a victim can be harangued by the defense while on the witness stand.
Absolutely it is. The police have to do an investigation. It is HOW they do their investigation that matters. Just using this case as an example. If someone is taken advantage of when drunk, there will be no physical evidence of non-consensual sex. That does not exist and simply cannot be proven so it comes down to literally a he-said-she-said situation. If your focus as a police officer, juror, commentator, etc. is on trying to poke holes in the victims story (e.g., why were you out so late? were you drunk? did you agree to go home with him? did you agree to kiss him? etc.) rather than the accused, that is the problem and that is why people don't want to report this crime because they know the case is not going to be about the accused, it is going to be about them.
