Trial Date Set for Apr 22nd for the 5 Canadian World Junior Players

[Chinaski89]

Did you have your pitch forks out for this? It goes 2 ways.
View attachment 991518

That woman is now in prison for murdering someone

 

[JackSlater]

Much like everyone else here, whether they will admit it or not, I don't really know what happened. Based on what has come out though I will be very surprised if the players are found guilty. There may be evidence that has not been made public though and jury trials always leave some room for surprise. Either way it will be good for it to be concluded.

The more interesting thing may be hearing about which players allegedly did what outside of the five who are charged.

 

[Leafs87]

just in time for when NHL needed negative press while trying to stir up interest via the playoffs

 

[toddkaz]

I hear you. In my life I’ve now known two men falsely accused of abuse. And it was a meat grinder for them.

But I know many more women who were abused, harassed,, etc. - from a relatively small-scale to full on SA. And most often they didn’t report it because they knew they wouldn’t get to trial or prevail at trial.

You can say to wait for the verdict. That’s the system we have. But many people’s personal experiences and the available data suggest that perpetrators getting away with their behaviours is FAR more common than folks being wrongfully accused.

Add in anyone’s experiences with rich and famous young men in particular…

I don’t know. If I had to be my life in any one of these instances like this case, I’d take the odds and pick guilty.

It’s a crappy state of affairs.

Every case should be looked at individually. Saying statistics should decide a case is crazy.

If that was the case than every husband would be in jail for their wife's death whether they did it or not.

I also never said wait for the verdict. I never once said wait for the verdict yet was attacked for not saying that.

I said WAIT FOR THE TRIAL. for the 3rd time.

Waiting for the trial and waiting for the verdict is not the same thing. Lots of evidence will come out that we have not seen. I try to put myself into the shoes of a juror in these types of situations.

 

[FlyguyOX]

Interested to see how they're compensated for essentially losing their livelihood if they are indeed found not guilty.

 

[Brookbank]

Not guilty does not equal innocent. I don’t understand why this false dichotomy constantly gets paraded.

Em no. That isn't how it works at all. You are just trampling over the very essence of the legal system with that comment.

 

[Brookbank]

I never said anything about wanting someone to be guilty or anything; I simply stated that a trial can come up with a result that that they are not guilty even if they probably did the crime. Becuase probably is not enough in the eyes of the law in a criminal sense.

And as an aside to your second point: don’t worry, I will never put myself in a position in which I’ll find myself accused of drugging and raping someone with multiple other people.

You are labelling them guilty even if they get acquitted. And again, that is a total disregard of the legal system. With that attitude there might as well be no legal system at all.

 

[My3Sons]

Has the woman involved agreed to testify? Given her apparently wanting to remain anonymous will she appear at a public trial? If she does not appear how does the prosecution work? You can try working with "party admissions" and "statements against interest" but that will be tough sell if they are not clear.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Bet WITH BET365 on what page the mods post a warning on this topic
Parlay with the day the thread is closed for ignoring the warning for more winnings.

Can we bet on the trial?

 

[M88K]

Cool, just because you want someone to be guilty doesn't make it so. Unless you were there you don't know either.

You weren't there. So what makes you the judge of another human?

The moment someone accuses you of something I can then decide that is who you are?

We all know OJ did it

 

[toddkaz]

Has the woman involved agreed to testify? Given her apparently wanting to remain anonymous will she appear at a public trial? If she does not appear how does the prosecution work? You can try working with "party admissions" and "statements against interest" but that will be tough sell if they are not clear.

I think the prosecution is toast if she doesn't testify. Pretty hard to convict without testimony since all the prosecution has is testimony. There is no DNA evidence or any physical evidence. I am pretty sure in one of the texts from her she says it was consensual.(she claims she was forced to text this)

She can testify but It doesn't mean you will know who she is. She can appear at trial but her name and photo can be redacted.

 

[My3Sons]

I think the prosecution is toast if she doesn't testify. Pretty hard to convict without testimony since all the prosecution has is testimony. There is no DNA evidence or any physical evidence. I am pretty sure in one of the texts from her she says it was consensual.(she claims she was forced to text this)

She can testify but It doesn't mean you will know who she is. She can appear at trial but her name and photo can be redacted.

I agree the general public won't know but if someone wants to find out who she is and she has to walk into the court it will hard to make her believe no one is watching. I'm not suggesting any of us actually find out but if her perception is she has to appear in public she may not want to go at all.

 

[MikeyMike01]

Not guilty does not equal innocent. I don’t understand why this false dichotomy constantly gets paraded.

Ex: You can absolutely be found liable in a civil suit but “not guilty” in a criminal one because the barrier for conviction is far higher in the latter case.

Acquitted people should be treated as innocent, regardless of the truth. Otherwise, there’s no point in trials, just go from accusation to sentencing.

 

[toddkaz]

I agree the general public won't know but if someone wants to find out who she is and she has to walk into the court it will hard to make her believe no one is watching. I'm not suggesting any of us actually find out but if her perception is she has to appear in public she may not want to go at all.

Is there a gag order on the trial? The players and lawyers can also speak out about her. I don't know if they are barred from mentioning her name?

 

[CascadiaPuck]

Every case should be looked at individually. Saying statistics should decide a case is crazy.

If that was the case than every husband would be in jail for their wife's death whether they did it or not.

I also never said wait for the verdict. I never once said wait for the verdict yet was attacked for not saying that.

I said WAIT FOR THE TRIAL. for the 3rd time.

Waiting for the trial and waiting for the verdict is not the same thing. Lots of evidence will come out that we have not seen. I try to put myself into the shoes of a juror in these types of situations.

Ok, you said trial and not verdict. My apologies. In the same vein, I never said statistics should decide the case. I don’t believe that they should.

My point stands: so many of these cases never make it to trial - and the shitheads walk. Based on experiences I’ve seen in my life and available data, that is far more common than wrongful accusation. If you think people are being too quick to judge, it’s worth considering that reality.

 

[My3Sons]

Is there a gag order on the trial? The players and lawyers can also speak out about her. I don't know if they are barred from mentioning her name?

I don't know any of the details. I have to imagine that any trial publicity involving a defendant or defense lawyer naming the young lady would be looked on poorly by the presiding judge. This is one of those instances where a completely confidential proceeding would make sense to me. Both from a trial fairness situation and from a respect for the witnesses situation. I guess on some level when we get closer the prosecution will have to start to play its hand. I cannot imagine they want to get to trial with no lead witness. If that blows up on them there will be a backlash for a number of reasons.

 

[toddkaz]

Ok, you said trial and not verdict. My apologies. In the same vein, I never said statistics should decide the case. I don’t believe that they should.

My point stands: so many of these cases never make it to trial - and the shitheads walk. Based on experiences I’ve seen in my life and available data, that is far more common than wrongful accusation. If you think people are being too quick to judge, it’s worth considering that reality.

Yeah a few posters were upset with me when I wrote wait for the trial they just assumed that means wait for the verdict like the verdict dictates my belief but I mean wait for the trial.

Right now we are not privy to the evidence that will come out during the trial, when it does then I will draw my own conclusions.

 

[Brookbank]

They could be, but intelligent men to me don't invite themselves to a woman who can't consent, or at least stop when other guys try to.

Or young naive men who have seen in the media and their social lives, the glorification of fornication and how nobody is a virgin and everyone is having all of this casual sex. (which isn't actually true but they don't know that) They are young handsome athletes, there's girls around. They just thought they were "getting laid" as that stupid saying goes.

 

[bossram]

Except the guy quoted me specifically and said I implied that and I was wrong to make such inference. ...Make that statement all you want put don't direct it at me if you aren't implying some garbage statement that I "implied"

Being found guilty doesn't mean you did it.
Being found innocent doesn't mean you didn't do it

and water is wet...

You can say it about every case

You refused to acknowledge the bolded until now. And you still have the terminology wrong. It isn't "innocent". It's "not guilty".

 

[red devil]

Is there a gag order on the trial? The players and lawyers can also speak out about her. I don't know if they are barred from mentioning her name?

There is a publication ban in place for any information that could lead to the identification of the alleged victim and the 2 witnesses

 

[toddkaz]

You refused to acknowledge the bolded until now. And you still have the terminology wrong. It isn't "innocent". It's "not guilty".

How do you know what I acknowledge. Its bizarre you think you know me.

It is innocent. You just refuse to acknowledge it. I come from a country where its "INNOCENT until proven guilty."

Where are you from? In your country are you also innocent until proven guilty or is it different there?

Here you can read where I am from in Canada its a protected right. Does your country not have protected rights like this?

Since the trial is in Canada are you refusing to admit they are innocent until proven guilty?

If they are found not guilty then they are INNOCENT. Please learn the judicial system in Canada.

 

[JackSlater]

I think the prosecution is toast if she doesn't testify. Pretty hard to convict without testimony since all the prosecution has is testimony. There is no DNA evidence or any physical evidence. I am pretty sure in one of the texts from her she says it was consensual.(she claims she was forced to text this)

She can testify but It doesn't mean you will know who she is. She can appear at trial but her name and photo can be redacted.

I think that the main piece that helps the players' case is the videos, made that night, referenced in the Globe and Mail. The videos as described do not definitely prove anything and will need context, but definitive proof of innocence is not needed and they will cast doubt on the accusation. Even things like the investigation being reopened and the chief of police doing a television interview about the case, these things look bad unless they actually have noteworthy new evidence. As far as I know no new evidence has been made public, so it remains to be seen in the trial.

 

[toddkaz]

People need to learn the judicial system in Canada if they are going to follow the case.

They are innocent until proven guilty.

Until they are found guilty they are presumed innocent

Your feelings or beliefs do not play a role in the Canadian justice system.

If they are found not guilty then they are innocent. This is a protected right under the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Any questions?

 

[My3Sons]

People need to learn the judicial system in Canada if they are going to follow the case.

They are innocent until proven guilty.

Until they are found guilty they are presumed innocent

Your feelings or beliefs do not play a role in the Canadian justice system.

If they are found not guilty then they are innocent. This is a protected right under the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Any questions?

Charter shmarter we all know the important court is the court of public opinion

 

[toddkaz]

Charter shmarter we all know the important court is the court of public opinion

I have a feeling its the young people who grew up with social media that think we are guilty until proven innocent. Somehow it flipped over the last 20 years.

Read the one guy's post. He thinks just because you are found not guilty doesn't mean you are innocent. Its difficult to converse with these people. The sheer ignorance here is breathtaking.