Hockey Canada sex assault scandal

Doc Holliday said:

...I expect that questions regarding her past sexual history will likely come up such as was this the first time she left with a guy she had literally just met? Was this the only time that she screwed around on a boyfriend? Was this the first time that she had sex with more partners at once? By the way yesterday she did admit that had she told her boyfriend that she had willingly participated in a gangbang with a bunch of hockey players her boyfriend more than likely would have dumped her & not have been sympathetic with her. But by playing the victim (whether or not she was) it was easier to get her boyfriend to be sympathetic to her & her cause. Since they are currently engaged to be married it appears that whatever this was her strategy or not it seems to have worked...

Click to expand...

In general, in Canada (and the U.S.), lawyers can't question a complainant in a sexual assault or rape case about her sexual history unless the complainant and the accused have been in a relationship. That's not true in this case.

What is a rape shield law in Canada?​

Often in sexual assault cases, the complainant and the accused have some sort of history. They may have been in a relationship or been ‘friends with benefits’ before the alleged assault took place. If so, the accused may want to bring this to the court’s attention.

However, there are very strict rules on this type of evidence. This is because Canada has what is commonly known as a ‘rape shield’ law, introduced in the late 20th century, which limits the ability of the defendant’s counsel to introduce the accuser’s sexual history as evidence during a rape trial

The law exists to ensure the complainant’s sexual history cannot be used to their detriment during the judicial process. This was allowed in the past, but it was deemed to be unfair as the evidence could be manipulated to suggest that the complainant was promiscuous and/or had previously consented to sex with the accused. The inference was that the complainant was an unreliable witness and was more likely to have consented to the sexual activity than not.

Click to expand...

Doc Holliday said:

I expect that questions regarding her past sexual history will likely come up such as was this the first time she left with a guy she had literally just met? Was this the only time that she screwed around on a boyfriend? Was this the first time that she had sex with more partners at once?

Click to expand...

Nowadays, all these are irrelevant to the case, it is not admissible, in court, to bring a victim’s sexual history anymore for sexual crime. Her lawyer will object and the judge has no choice to oblige.

The CBC has done a thorough job of reporting on the trial. It provides live updates during days when the trial is going on and at least one article after the finish of each day's proceedings. Here is an article about Friday's proceedings:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/lond...ial-are-an-attempt-to-discredit-her-9.6754418

One unusual feature of the trial is that the complainant is not testifying in person in court. She is being questioned by defense lawyers who are in court and she responds to the questions on video from some other location (it's not clear where she is located-in the courthouse or somewhere else?). Canadian law, like American law, does require that the accused be able to "confront" or face his/her accuser in court. However, Canadian law also allows some individuals such as a child or a "vulnerable adult," such as a disabled person, to testify on video.

I don't know whether such a privilege is granted to all complainants in case of sexual assault or if this case is atypical. While it may be stressful for the complainant to testify, it's also stressful for the accused players (who are presumed innocent at this point) to be accused of a crime and to go through a trial. I think everyone should be in court. If the complainant did not want to go to court then she should have told the police in 2022 that she would not cooperate with their investigation.

I’ve been reading from several sources for coverage of the trial. Three of my favorite sources are the Toronto Star, the Globe & Mail & The Athletic. I’d post links to their daily articles however the only way to access them is through a digital subscription. Other sources i’ve read were from TSN, CBC News, CTV News & Sportsnet. The reason i prefer the first three sources i named is because of the quality & credibility of the journalists who write for those media organizations. For example i hold in high esteem reporters such as Robyn Doolittle, Rosie DeMano, Katie Strang & Dan Robson, among others.

Here’s a link to today’s article which appeared on Sportsnet:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/articl...llance-videos-at-hockey-sexual-assault-trial/

CaptRenault said:

One unusual feature of the trial is that the complainant is not testifying in person in court. She is being questioned by defense lawyers who are in court and she responds to the questions on video from some other location (it's not clear where she is located-in the courthouse or somewhere else?). Canadian law, like American law, does require that the accused be able to "confront" or face his/her accuser in court. However, Canadian law also allows some individuals such as a child or a "vulnerable adult," such as a disabled person, to testify on video.

I don't know whether such a privilege is granted to all complainants in case of sexual assault or if this case is atypical. While it may be stressful for the complainant to testify, it's also stressful for the accused players (who are presumed innocent at this point) to be accused of a crime and to go through a trial. I think everyone should be in court. If the complainant did not want to go to court then she should have told the police in 2022 that she would not cooperate with their investigation.

Click to expand...

I read the other day that she was testifying in a special video room located inside the courthouse. I agree with you that going to trial can also be as stressful for the accused & i also feel that it’s somewhat unfair to them that they do not get to face their accuser in person. Same thing for the jury. I believe justice would be better served if they got see the plaintiff in person instead of on the video screen. I do understand why such a system is necessary for mob & biker trials in order to protect the identity of some witnesses however i don’t agree why she’s getting preferential treatment in this type of case. Plus the court all gets to see her on the tv screen & she gets to see the courtroom from her end so really…what’s the point?

By the way here are my impressions of the case so far:
-I feel that EM is losing credibility every passing day. I feel that there are too many inconsistencies in her various depositions including her performance on the stand. There are also too many holes in her testimony. Like Brown pointed out today one minute she might say she’s 100% of something then seconds later she says she’s not sure & then says well maybe it did happen this way bit she doesn’t rememner because she was too drunk. Even reporter Rosie Dimanno whom i’ve always considered to be a bit of a feminist appears to question her credibility at times. Especially during the times she started to argue with Brown (who’s simply doing his job & whose line of questioning was extremely valid) & acting ‘bitchy’ at times. Even the judge at one point had to intervene & order her to answer the questions appropriately. Not a good look for the jury.

-Initially i decided that i wouldn’t rush to judgement until i heard all the facts. I must admit that a few months ago after reading about the case & watching two documentaries about the incident i was siding with the plaintiff. I wanted the book to be thrown at the accused. But now i’m starting to side with them because i’m getting a clearer picture of what likely happened.

-What i believe happened is that the girl did indeed drink too much (like many of us have done in the past) and when she drinks she becomes an entirely different person. Her inhibitions disappear & she enjoys the attention. She loves to party. This is actually a fairly common thing. Many of us are the same way & that’s why we are more comfortable among other people when we drink. Who hasn’t regretted what they’ve done after a night of drinking & partying? I have. Many times. It’s not unusual & part of growing up. We all make mistakes. Some worse than others & we have to live with them. I believe that she was extremely embarrassed & ashamed of the situation she had put herself in & realized that if her boyfriend found out that she was a willing participant he’d dump her like most guys would do. So she decided to play the victim in order to get him on her side. But when her mother found out & forced her to report it to the authorities she had to play the victim & the whole incident grew & became a huge thing & she couldn’t get out of it!

-Just before the trial began i figured that the guy she left the bar with & had consensual sex with was likely Michael Mcloud since he was the only one of the guys who had two charges. So after doing my research of the case i had predicted they’d all walk except maybe Mcloud. But as things stand now i’m starting to think that he’ll also walk. Why? Because i now have a clearer picture of what happened & i now believe them more than i believe her!

-Initially i was under the impression that this was about a gangbang. Now i realize that it wasn’t even a gangbang. A gangbang occurs when a bunch of guys (usually 3 or more) take turns having sexual intercourse with a woman. This is not what happened here. It was more like a sex party. The guy she left with (Mcloud) had consensual sex with fucked her. She even fucked him hours later in the shower after the other guys had left. The other guy (Formenton) who fucked her was the other guy’s roomate & he didn’t even do it in front of the others. They hid in the bathroom to do it. As for Dube & Hart? All they got was a blow job & it appears that she volunteered to do it. Dube supposedly slapped her ass. Big deal! As for Foote? He’s accused of doing the splits on top of her & putting his genitals close to her face. We don’t even know if he was even nude. No blow job, no sticking his balls or his dick in her mouth. And they charged him for sexual assault? Ridiculous!

-I’ve also come to realize that any one of us could easily be lurred into this situation. I know i could! Let’s imagine that i’m Carter Hart or Dillon Dube, for example. We’ve all seen our buddy leave with this girl he met at the bar we were all in. She was attractive & appeared to be very open sexually & enjoyed to party. Later we get a text from our buddy that if we’re interested in a threesome then to stop by his room. Wow! A dream come true! Plus we’ve all been drinking so i’m up to anything so why not just go check out what’s going on? So i arrive there & other guus are there & i’m under the impression that the girl asked for group sex with us & we’ve already seen our at the bar. The girl is acting wild as hell & on top of that she’s naked & says she wants to have sex with us! Her behaviour leads me to believe that she’s consensual & fully into this! She wants to live out her fantasy of fucking a few hockey players at once, i’m thinking! However i’m hesitant. But she’s now calling me a fucking pussy for being hesitant. “You fucking pussy come on & have sex with me!”, she says. “Let me suck your cock!” And then the other guys start pressuring me to let her do it. By then she’s fully nude & on her knees on the floor. In the middle of the room & wants to have sex with anyone in the room. “Let me suck your cock!”, she says, ‘Come on you fucking pussy!’ The guys are coaxing me to do it “Come on, do it! She wants it!” So one guy says fuck this i’ll do it somhe takes his dick out & she gives him a blow job. Then they say ‘you’re next’ so i say ‘oh fuck it, why not?’ and i stick out my dick & she puts it in her moth & gives me a blow job! However this is as far as i’ll go so after a couple of minutes i’ve had enough & I leave. And because of this i not only lose millions but i also lose my entire career & my reputation is ruined permanently? I mean…WHAT THE FUCK? AND I END UP GETTING CHARGED FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT FOR A BLOW JOB THAT SHE ASKED TO DO? AND I DIDNT EVEN FUCK HER!

WHY THE HELL WAS CAL FOOTE EVEN CHARGED IN THE FIRST PLACE? I DONT EVEN THINK HE EVEN TOUCHED HER! HE DID THE SPLITS! I’VE PROBABLY HAD DOZENS OF STRIPPERS DO THE SAME THING TO ME RIGHT ON STAGE YET I NEVER CONSIDERED CHARGING THEM FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT! THIS IS NUTS!

Doc Holliday said:

-What i believe happened is that the girl did indeed drink too much (like many of us have done in the past) and when she drinks she becomes an entirely different person.

Click to expand...

This comment of yours begs the question of what the law is on drinking impacting consent is in Canada. Juries typically are instructed on the law and to decide the case by applying law rather than their own subjective opinions, as you have done. So I asked my AI assistant about it and this was the answer I got:

"In Canada, while a person's intoxicated state is a factor considered when determining consent, a "drunken consent" is still considered consent under Canadian law. However, if a person's level of intoxication is so severe that they have lost the capacity to consent, such as losing consciousness or being unable to control their body, then no consent is possible."

Your comment above actually makes the case for loss of consent- "she became a different person". If I was the prosecutor, I would surely argue that the drinking rendered the victim incapable of controlling her body, because she became a different person and the person she was could control her body. But the defense has an equal or stronger argument that drunken consent was given. How the jury interprets and applies the law on consent that they are instructed with will be important here.

Contrast the above with drinking effecting consent under Connecticut law:

"In Connecticut, intoxication can affect consent. If someone is too drunk or high to understand what they are doing or to control their actions, they are legally incapable of giving valid consent to sexual activity. This includes being unconscious due to intoxication."

Under Connecticut law, it is a much easier argument that the victim did not consent. The standard is the intoxicated person not understanding what they are doing and based on your comments above, it would be an easier win for the prosecution.