Five members from Canada’s 2018 world junior team (Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote and Formenton) told to surrender to police, facing sexual assault charges

[Yukon Joe]

The three biggest enablers of rape culture in this are Hockey Canada, the NHL, and the London Police. Given it was a London Police pr exercise, I understand why Westhead prioritized going after them.

But the question that was cutoff was about someone from Hockey Canada interfering, it's pathetic and disgusting that the London Police deliberately stifled any meaningful questioning by having a deliberately too short and arbitrary time limit.

Pathetic and disgusting, but totally unsurprising.

But I mean the chief is right - the course of the investigation is going to 100% be an issue at trial.

If you'll permit me to read the tea leaves here... when it comes time for trial defence is going to file a Charter notice, which means asking for relief under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They're going to ask for a judicial stay of proceedings, alleging their client's rights to a fair trial have been compromised. In particular they're going to allege an abuse of process by the police. In particular that because of police mismanagement of their investigation the charges are being filed 6 years late, and that because of the delay their ability to mount full answer and defence has been impaired.

Whether it succeeds or not - who knows. But it will very much be an issue.

Because this case is unusual - and not just because it involves hockey players. It's not uncommon for courts to hear about dated sexual assaults. But that's almost always because the victim only reports it to police years later.

WHat is highly unusual is for police to receive a report, do nothing (or next to nothing) then re-open the investigation years later.

 

[red devil]

 

[SoupNazi]

Riiiiiiiiiight…

 

[brentashton]

I didn’t watch the press conference but to play devils advocate, is it possible he was trying to draw attention towards bigger issues to promote change but he bungled it and put his foot in his mouth?

That is what he did. and very badly.

Viva mentioned above the question was about the NHL. I couldn't hear what or who they were directing the question about - I found that the lack of questioning about HC's involvement, even if there was going to be more "we can't discuss that at this time" responses kind of telling by the press huddle gathered.

I watched the CBC feed live here from Phoenix and it clearly was NHL that was said in that question (and then oddly cut off and not answered).

 

[chaser17]

This new COP seems pretty good, sounds like he might blast the failure of the past in the future.



Better Call Saul?

You think a case of this magnitude is going to get thrown out? lmao did the guy get his law degree from Cragislist?

Jordan Rule. Best case scenario is this case sees the court in 2025.

 

[Mark Stones Spleen]

Funny, Michael McLeod said the same thing.

 

[La Bamba]

Well, that was uninteresting. I actually felt bad for the Chief because I felt like I could see his sincerity in general and liked his original statement, nor was he in charge for the original debacle, but it is just not the time and place for that specific statement about media and women's portrayal and sexualization. I'd bet he would like that one back, but I also hope not too much focus is put on that.

sounds like he was putting on a good act until he let his true self slip out lol

 

[Jared Dunn]

I didn’t watch the press conference but to play devils advocate, is it possible he was trying to draw attention towards bigger issues to promote change but he bungled it and put his foot in his mouth?

That is what happened but it just kind of reeks of "violent video games cause shootings" type of rhetoric

 

[Jared Dunn]

Well, that was uninteresting. I actually felt bad for the Chief because I felt like I could see his sincerity in general and liked his original statement, nor was he in charge for the original debacle, but it is just not the time and place for that specific statement about media and women's portrayal and sexualization. I'd bet he would like that one back, but I also hope not too much focus is put on that.

He went out of his way to say it, unprompted, so I think it's fair to be focused in on. He stepped in after a question that wasn't even fielded to him, just dumb and unnecessary. They straight up said their place is not to assess hockey culture as a whole and they're focused on this SA case and then he goes ahead trying to broadly diagnose the reasons behind SA as a whole

 

[Chainshot]

That is what happened but it just kind of reeks of "violent video games cause shootings" type of rhetoric

We've seen it with video games, music lyrics, hell role-playing games got a "these things cause Satanism" movie of the week with Tom Hanks in the early '80's... and it yet it is never that and is shown when people research these issues that the causes aren't these convenient strawmen.

 

[Jared Dunn]

Yeah definitely agree with this. It was frustrating to hear the constant bombardment of questions regarding the problems with the first investigation. That really shouldn't matter at all right now. The most important thing right now is that if these 5 individuals committed sexual assault, they need to be found guilty and that's where the focus of everything should be on right now is determining if they're guilty or not.


Keep the questions about the bungled first investigation until afterwards.


Ultimately, I personally feel like this first press conference was largely unnecessary because they can't answer any questions about the current investigation and rightfully so... But they also aren't going to answer questions about the first investigation either so, why have the press conference at all. An official press release would have been better at this junction of the investigation IMO.

Disagree, every single police department including their own probably has active cases to deal with. Them transparently owning their mistakes and acting as an example for what not to do is long overdue

I agree that this press conference was functionally useless though given what they apparently can't share right now

 

[SmytheKing]

Saying "let's hold judgment until it is proven in court" is the same thing as blaming the victim of rape? No, not even close. But the wise thing to do is actually let it play out.

Y'all always say this as if posting feelings about it on the internet is going to change the fact that there's going to be a trial and a result will be had.

Unless you've never changed your mind after things are presented or acknowledged you were/are wrong, there's literally no point in saying what you're saying. You're allowed to feel a way based on what we already know.

Like, are you also going on trade threads and telling people not to have any opinions on the trade and who won because "the trade hasn't played out on the ice yet"? Honestly these things are confounding to me.

 

[saintunspecified]

If you'll permit me to read the tea leaves here... when it comes time for trial defence is going to file a Charter notice, which means asking for relief under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They're going to ask for a judicial stay of proceedings, alleging their client's rights to a fair trial have been compromised. In particular they're going to allege an abuse of process by the police. In particular that because of police mismanagement of their investigation the charges are being filed 6 years late, and that because of the delay their ability to mount full answer and defence has been impaired.

Can I ask what that might mean? What I think it might mean is, for example, is that a defendant might say that there existed photos, text messages, etc. that may have served as evidence in to support the defense that no long exists? Or that memories fading might make defendant's testimony seem unreliable or dishonest?

(Added: This is one of those things that reveals a real tension with respect to criminal justice. I can see how charges being brought long after the fact could be very unfair for defendants. And it has also become apparent over the years how the only possibility a victim has to attain justice may depend on factors well out of their control, and those take time.)

 

[Yukon Joe]

Disagree, every single police department including their own probably has active cases to deal with. Them transparently owning their mistakes and acting as an example for what not to do is long overdue

I agree that this press conference was functionally useless though given what they apparently can't share right now

I think it was just the media (and public) was demanding a press counference so LPS gave them one - but yes there was little they could discuss.

 

[Melrose Munch]

So is McLeod the guy who picked up the girl at the bar?

Yes.

 

[Jared Dunn]

I think it was just the media (and public) was demanding a press counference so LPS gave them one - but yes there was little they could discuss.

Fair, they probably couldn't have gotten away with just a statement even though that's basically all they gave

 

[dechire]

Media reflects the cultural values of the people that create it. The objectification of women in media is a  result of the larger cultural values that see women as objects, not the other way around. However, these representations also serve to uphold and encourage those underlying negative cultural values, so they continue to feed back into the greater culture of misogyny in society. And that is essentially what the concept of "rape culture" is.

Which is just a long way of saying that no, media is not the reason sexual violence happens. So aside from being inappropriate in the context of the press conference, it's not even accurate.

 

[ps241]

But I mean the chief is right - the course of the investigation is going to 100% be an issue at trial.

If you'll permit me to read the tea leaves here... when it comes time for trial defence is going to file a Charter notice, which means asking for relief under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They're going to ask for a judicial stay of proceedings, alleging their client's rights to a fair trial have been compromised. In particular they're going to allege an abuse of process by the police. In particular that because of police mismanagement of their investigation the charges are being filed 6 years late, and that because of the delay their ability to mount full answer and defence has been impaired.

Whether it succeeds or not - who knows. But it will very much be an issue.

Because this case is unusual - and not just because it involves hockey players. It's not uncommon for courts to hear about dated sexual assaults. But that's almost always because the victim only reports it to police years later.

WHat is highly unusual is for police to receive a report, do nothing (or next to nothing) then re-open the investigation years later.

Speaks to the political pressure here. Not surprising really, that is the way of the world.

Hockey Canada got outted and all hell broke lose. I wonder how cleansed Hockey Canada is now that the board and CEO stepped down? Are the new leadership going to circle the wagons or is the new mandate to throw the old leadership under the bus? I think it might be a foundational piece to the abuse of process assertion.

 

[OG Eberle]

My main takeaway from this press conference is Rick Westhead needs to be given 95% of the time alloted for questions in press conferences regarding public safety and the other media heads can fight over the remaining 5%.

Dude came out SWINGING

+2 for Gryffindor

 

[Yukon Joe]

Can I ask what that might mean? What I think it might mean is, for example, is that a defendant might say that there existed photos, text messages, etc. that may have served as evidence in to support the defense that no long exists? Or that memories fading might make defendant's testimony seem unreliable or dishonest?

So yes, that's the kind of thing they would need to show.

So how deep do I want to go here...

The right to a speedy trial is found in s. 11(b) of the Charter. It reads "Any person charged with an offence has the right... to be tried within a reasonable time".

The key phrase is "any person charged with an offence". You're only charged with an offence once police arrest you and swear an information. So the right "to be tried within a reasonable time" only starts now.

So, if the trial gets pushed back to, say 2027, all defence needs to say is "this has taken too long" and they could ask for the trial to be thrown out because of s. 11(b).

But (as I mentioned before) defence could still try to argue that the prosecution of this case, after such a long delay that the police knew about, could constitute an abuse of process. But they have to argue more than "this is taking too long" - it has to show that their ability to mount full answer and defence is hurt by the delay.

How do they show that? I can speculate about lots of things, I don't know for sure. They can say "look all these other witnesses were asked about that night but they don't remember because it was too long ago". Or "we tried to get cell phone records but they don't exist any longer". Or "so-and-so might have been a witness but now is dead". Or "hotel CCTV video no longer exists".

The important thing though - defence would have to actually call evidence about these things, and not just speculate about them.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

Are they really going to keep innocent players suspended from international play? Wild decision.

 

[nowhereman]

Yeah, sounds like it. I just don’t think saying women are objectified in the media is particularly a bad thing and brings awareness. Probably isn’t the best time to bring it up. Either way it must be awkward representing the organization who seems either bungled or covered up the original investigation.

Highlighting the over-sexualization of women in the media is a dog whistle version of victim shaming and attempts to absolve the perpetrators of agency by pointing the finger at society. Women have been victims of sexual assault long, long before the invention of film, television, print media, etc. and it's a poor excuse to claim that these young men were so influenced by it to the point that their moral compass was completely blurred.

Can society improve its perception of women in media? Without a doubt. But I have been exposed to the same content my entire life and, yet, I still understand that rape is one of the most vile acts a human being can commit.

This was neither the time nor place to bring up the issue.

 

[OG Eberle]

Are they really going to keep innocent players suspended from international play? Wild decision.

I loathe that I have to ask if this is sarcasm...

Edit: misread initial post and posted opinion a few posts after with clarity

 

[Yukon Joe]

Speaks to the political pressure here. Not surprising really, that is the way of the world.

I just want to make something clear - if you are saying it's capital "P" political pressure - as in either the provincial or federal governments were pressuring the Ontario Crown to lay charges - that would have been wildly inappropriate and a major scandal. Not to say it's impossible, but that would be massive news. So, personally, I wouldn't make that accusation without some kind of proof.

If by political you just mean it's a huge news story and very topical - yeah sure.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Are they really going to keep innocent players suspended from international play? Wild decision.

Seems pretty wild, unless they also know more and the details simply haven't been released yet...