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

[Bear of Bad News]

I don’t know why people act like they cannot discuss this without naming people. Like, I can discuss the actions, investigation, manifesto, etc of the Unabomber without mentioning Ted Kaczynski by name.

What about D.B. Cooper?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I don't have PTSD from it, but I do recall it was a thankless job. Even if I don't agree with some things that occurred since I stepped down, or even things that occurred when I was in a different color, I still have respect for [almost all of] the people who decide they want to do it.

Wonder what's wrong with you all, knowing at one point you were on the other side and that once you got "into the club" you realized oh shit, this isn't as easy as it looks and you still stuck with it, but still know it's by and large a thankless job and requires real dedication.

For the record officially, it's Ted who invited me to join the boards all those years ago. Complaints may be sent directly to him.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I don’t know why people act like they cannot discuss this without naming people. Like, I can discuss the actions, investigation, manifesto, etc of the Unabomber without mentioning Ted Kaczynski by name.

Because everyone knows Ted Kaczynski was the Unabomber. That was established first when police made an arrest and announced his name in connection with the case. Prior to that, you could have said "everyone knows John Smith is the Unabomber" and it would have been defamation toward John Smith.

You don't know the identities of any of the 5 individuals asked to surrender. And, you won't until at least the point in time when police make a formal announcement.

For the record officially, it's Ted who invited me to join the boards all those years ago. Complaints may be sent directly to him.

I'm putting that on my resume in "Accomplishments" right after "ascended in Nethack on 3 occasions."

 

[Squiffy]

Because everyone knows Ted Kaczynski was the Unabomber. That was established first when police made an arrest and announced his name in connection with the case. Prior to that, you could have said "everyone knows John Smith is the Unabomber" and it would have been defamation toward John Smith.

You don't know the identities of any of the 5 individuals asked to surrender. And, you won't until at least the point in time when police make a formal announcement.


I'm putting that on my resume in "Accomplishments" right after "ascended in Nethack on 3 occasions."

That's only what they want you to believe.

 

[Slats432]

I don't have PTSD from it, but I do recall it was a thankless job. Even if I don't agree with some things that occurred since I stepped down, or even things that occurred when I was in a different color, I still have respect for [almost all of] the people who decide they want to do it.

Wonder what's wrong with you all, knowing at one point you were on the other side and that once you got "into the club" you realized oh shit, this isn't as easy as it looks and you still stuck with it, but still know it's by and large a thankless job and requires real dedication.

Exaggerated for effect. I don't really have PTSD. I enjoyed it. My reason for leaving was not being on the boards much for a long period. Can't be a half-assed mod and do a good job. Much respect to those who do it.

 

[Squiffy]

Exaggerated for effect. I don't really have PTSD. I enjoyed it. My reason for leaving was not being on the boards much for a long period. Can be a half-assed mod and do a good job. Much respect to those who do it.

Two kids was the end of it for me. Killer on the free time. Got about another decade before that clears up I figure lol..

 

[hangman005]

What about D.B. Cooper?

Loki Variant

 

[Gregor Samsa]

If you actually read the description of events, you'd realize that there is suspicion both vids were recorded after the events had already happened. In the first vid, which may have been taken more immediately after the events happened, she is crying. In the second, she's trying to get out of the hotel (it's 4:30am) and she says what they want to hear, "yeah, it's fine", etc.

Yeah, from what we know it looks bad. I’m just talking about the consent contracts that were brought up specifically; I’d feel some type of way if I was a girl and a guy pulled it out

 

[RooBicks]

Yeah, from what we know it looks bad. I’m just talking about the consent contracts that were brought up specifically; I’d feel some type of way if I was a girl and a guy pulled it out

Got it, yup.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Thanks, what's the definition of false accusal? The verdict of the accused was not guilty?

A not guilty ruling does not mean it was a false accusal.

If this goes before a jury the jury never gives any reasons for their decision. If it goes before a judge alone the judge will give a decision. While it is technically possible for a judge to say "not guilty because I don't believe the complainant", in my experience it's much more common for them to just say "I can't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt and thus must acquit".

 

[57special]

Out of respect for the mods, and this thread, can't the London police hurry things up and name the charged people? Like, where are their priorities?

 

[Yukon Joe]

This is the Crowns case to prove (if it goes to trial) and we have no idea what evidence they have. So many people involved (directly and indirectly), and with the stakes this high its not hard to imagine a scenario where evidence has been obtained that would corroborate. I have zero idea how this is all going to play out.

So it used to be a thing in Canadian criminal law where the Crown, in order to prove rape (as it was then called) had to give corroboration. The thing is that was the only area where corroboration was required, and it was seen as sexist and implying women are less trustworthy. The Code now specifies in s. 274 that corroboration is not required.

Given the nature of sexual assault charges (as in, they happen behind closed doors) it's very unusual to have any corroboration.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Yeah, from what we know it looks bad. I’m just talking about the consent contracts that were brought up specifically; I’d feel some type of way if I was a girl and a guy pulled it out

If you're just some schmuck who takes a girl home from the bar, well sure.

If you're a multi-millionaire hockey player who everyone knows I can see why they might want to rely on a consent contract.

Remember when some girl tried to extort Jaromir Jagr after taking a selfie after sex? Jagr famously decided not to care and posted the pic himself, but you can imagine scenarios that go much more badly.

 

[aight]

Spent time living in Costa Rica - ham is a regular part of pizza there to the point they don't even mention that it's part of it. Kind of a shock to discover about half a pound of the stuff beneath the cheese on what was supposed to be just a cheese pizza. Also funny when I would order "no Jamon" and the pizzeria would act like I was off my rocker.

This should be reasonable but I still can't help but look askance at "no Jamon". It may be my favourite pizza topping!

 

[ps241]

So it used to be a thing in Canadian criminal law where the Crown, in order to prove rape (as it was then called) had to give corroboration. The thing is that was the only area where corroboration was required, and it was seen as sexist and implying women are less trustworthy. The Code now specifies in s. 274 that corroboration is not required.

Given the nature of sexual assault charges (as in, they happen behind closed doors) it's very unusual to have any corroboration.

That would be a non Lawyer (me) using a word like "corroborate" that might not be the correct word for the point I was attempting to make.

In laymen's terms what I was attempting to say is for all we know the crown has evidence that would "support" the women's allegations. The post I was quoting said "Not only does she need to prove she was raped, but now she has to prove that she was coerced into signing a statement of consent (or verbalizing a recorded statement of consent)."

I was trying to make the point (unsuccessfully) that its really the crown who has to prove the case, and without knowing the crowns evidence its hard to know what they might need from the alleged victim. It sounds like their were 8 men at the hotel room and potentially only 5 being charged. That is allot of people behind closed doors in this case so who knows knows what evidence the police were able to provide to the crown?

You would have more experience with this than me obviously.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Why is it so hard for so many people to get this distinction with these articles. They are not naming the five players asked to surrender.

I just read through the thread and the posting of articles to wrongly prove a point was the worst part!

 

[Voight]

Out of respect for the mods, and this thread, can't the London police hurry things up and name the charged people? Like, where are their priorities?

Are you really expecting things to be speedy? How long did it take them for this weeks announcement to happen?

 

[Dirty Dog]

I always do think it’s odd when law enforcement holds a press conference to announce something administrative. If it serves a purpose, fine. Otherwise, it always comes off as attention seeking

Like, just release the information when you decide to.

 

[Yukon Joe]

That would be a non Lawyer (me) using a word like "corroborate" that might not be the correct word for the point I was attempting to make.

In laymen's terms what I was attempting to say is for all we know the crown has evidence that would "support" the women's allegations. The post I was quoting said "Not only does she need to prove she was raped, but now she has to prove that she was coerced into signing a statement of consent (or verbalizing a recorded statement of consent)."

I was trying to make the point (unsuccessfully) that its really the crown who has to prove the case, and without knowing the crowns evidence its hard to know what they might need from the alleged victim. It sounds like their were 8 men at the hotel room and potentially only 5 being charged. That is allot of people behind closed doors in this case so who knows knows what evidence the police were able to provide to the crown?

You would have more experience with this than me obviously.

Yeah we have very little idea what evidence the Crown in this case has. Reading between the lines it sounds like they got a Production Order for phone records from the suspect players, plus whatever video they might have.

All the complainant needs to do to "prove" her allegation is to testify about it in court. The judge (or jury) can then go "yes I believe her". There's no need for anything else. Whether that is what will actually happen is of course the big question.

 

[Voight]

Negotiated surrenders are quite common if the accused isn't viewed as a massive public safety threat. It allows for the defender to get their affairs in order, and then quickly have a bail hearing. It's usually negotiated through the accused's lawyer. The police will bust through your door, but that generally applies to one of two scenarios. Firstly, they believe you are an imminent threat to public safety. Secondly, they believe that the surprise is necessary for evidence gathering, so it won't be pre-eminently destroyed. Hell, people convicted of crimes and sentenced to jail occasionally have a buffer period to get their affairs in order before they have to report to serve their sentence, it's even the premise of the film 25th Hour.

Not to mention the players are professional athletes. So while they aren't Sidney Crosby or Connor McDavid, they are recognizable to an extent.

1. As you say, from the police information, if a player hasn't been contacted by the police he knows he isn't one of the 5 presently being charged. That doesn't necessarily mean the player is in the clear.

2. The police in Canada have no authority to arrest players in the United States. Even players out of province can be complicated. Rather than apply for extradition orders, if the players will come in to get the initial charging paperwork done and be bound over on a recognizance to appear it saves a lot of time and trouble. In this case players may be willing to come in when they are able to as it is unlikely they'll be able to resume their hockey careers in North America until they've dealt with the charges.

3. It would be hard to imagine there being a publicity ban on the names of the players involved. Particularly with us not knowing if the charging document (called an Information, a somewhat misleading name) has been sworn there's no point in speculating why the police aren't releasing the names of the players.

Correct. One of the five players could implicate other guys. They could have details the police are not aware of.

 

[Ciao]

Bit of a farce to suggest we don't know who the five players who have been asked to surrender are.

Sure, we don't speak their names but there's no uncertainty as to their identity.

 

[Voight]

Rick Westhead from TSN is saying that these types of cases don't go to trial for several years after charges have been laid.

Are the speculated players going to be on leaves of absence for years?

If so, their careers are done.

And if they are found "not guilty", then the lawsuits for damages and lost present/future incomes will be enormous.

Probably not. I imagine they'll be back with their teams within a month.

Now if any of them are tweener types that a re replaceable, they may very well never play another NHL game. At least until the trial is over.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I just wanted to say something about publication bans.

In Canadian criminal law a publication ban is only to protect the identity of the victim, You can not get an order to protect the identity of an Accused person.

Now, it sometimes happens that by identifying the Accused you are inherently also naming the victim (like when the Accused is a relative). So sometimes you get cases where the Accused is not identified - but that's only in order to protect the victim.

 

[RooBicks]

If you're just some schmuck who takes a girl home from the bar, well sure.

If you're a multi-millionaire hockey player who everyone knows I can see why they might want to rely on a consent contract.

Remember when some girl tried to extort Jaromir Jagr after taking a selfie after sex? Jagr famously decided not to care and posted the pic himself, but you can imagine scenarios that go much more badly.

That's not what happened though. There's no evidence that any of the videos were taken before the events, and she's crying in the original video, which was taken after 3am that night.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Probably not. I imagine they'll be back with their teams within a month.

Now if any of them are tweener types that a re replaceable, they may very well never play another NHL game. At least until the trial is over.

Based on who we can speculate, only one of those players is likely to be missed at all. One is in the AHL, one is in Europe, and the other two are depth players.