Karan Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 On 1/28/2024 at 11:37 AM, Br4d said: This is way too simplistic. It's easy for a young female to get into a room with several young males and have something go wrong with no way to stop it. It doesn't have to be drugs that's at the center of the incident. If what happened was non-consensual then it's rape. Period. And this could be true if the first guy was consensual and then everybody else was non-consensual. The first guy who got consent is just as guilty of the rapes if he was involved in what followed. Yeah it sounds like the outcome of the case is going to come down to this issue, the extent of consent. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/world-junior-hockey-sexual-assault-london-1.7096096?fbclid=IwAR1TvPfZz-AgjAa1Wrf2Hcb9zpsBCBXjKcghnNT-KUATJVctHLhaE7aDKLQ Quote Court documents written by London Police state E.M. and the players agree in general on what happened during the night of the alleged incident, but disagree on the main issue: consent. E.M. told police she consented to go to the hotel room with one of the players, but did not consent to the other group of players coming into the room and those alleged sexual acts. London Police said in those court filings that they believe "E.M. did not consent to any of the sexual activity, except for specific sex act(s)" with the first player. E.M. told police in a statement in July 2022 that "I didn't want to do what they were making me do." The court filings written by London Police alleged the player with whom E.M. consented to sexual acts was involved in filming two videos of E.M. in the hotel room in which he asked if she was OK. In the first clip, which is about six seconds long, E.M. is seen smiling at the beginning of the video. The court filings say E.M. is then seen wiping her eyes and speaking without slurring. The video is "short in duration and difficult to construe context," London Police said in the court filing. Police confirmed that the player who brought her to the hotel is heard on the recording asking, "Hey, you're OK with this though, right?" EM: "Yeah." Male: "You're OK with this?" EM: "I'm OK way with this." The second video clip is about 12 second long, according to the court filing. The same male voice from the first clip is heard again and E.M. is seen partially covering herself with a white towel. Police included a transcript of the video in the court filing: Male: "Say it." E.M: "OK, it was all consensual. Are you recording me?" Male: "Yeah." E.M. "K, good. This was all consensual." Male: "What else?" E.M: "Would you? You are so paranoid, holy. I enjoyed it, it was fine, it was all consensual. I am so sober, that's why I can't do this right now." Police said in the court filing that the first player told investigators he "was worried something like this — in reference to the police investigation — would happen." "The two video clips made by Player #1 were created, according to E.M., to protect against her going to police," wrote Sgt. Younan. "Player #1 even asked her if she was planning on going to the police ... and asked she fix things with police." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsm7302 Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 57 minutes ago, Karan said: Yeah it sounds like the outcome of the case is going to come down to this issue, the extent of consent. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/world-junior-hockey-sexual-assault-london-1.7096096?fbclid=IwAR1TvPfZz-AgjAa1Wrf2Hcb9zpsBCBXjKcghnNT-KUATJVctHLhaE7aDKLQ Interesting case. You cannot withdraw consent after you consented and the event is over; while in action, of course she could have. The devil will be in the details here. Does Canada have jury trials like the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 These teams are really lucky that all four (Formenton was in Europe already) of these players don't have years left on their deals. Believe they're all RFAs, so they're just going to get walked away from and become UFA. Would imagine they all sign in Russia to keep earning money while they await trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Al Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) The term that has been tossed around a lot this month,could also be used for these gentlemen, I believe the term “alleged sexual predators “ Edited January 30 by Lord Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted January 31 Author Share Posted January 31 Just having all the statements from the lawyers all together in one spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 I think there's a chance this gets thrown out all together for delays. I think they have 30 months to make it happen, from what I've been reading. They're definitely going to be up against it. Nothing gets done in a timely manner, here. If that happens, holy fuck what a travesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieNextel305 Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 Updates will be provided today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsm7302 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 (edited) Just watched the press conference. All charged with sexual assault but it sounds like McCleod was the one who brought her into the room with everyone (an extra charge). Not much clarity into the incident but the Police Service is under severe scrutiny for how it was handled initially and they wouldn't answer questions as to why it took six years. Edited February 5 by jsm7302 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br4d Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 Are these jury trials or will a judge be the deciding party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 Was curious what would happen regarding that. It makes sense given how long these players are likely to be out of the lineup. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 22 minutes ago, Phil said: Was curious what would happen regarding that. It makes sense given how long these players are likely to be out of the lineup. Marek had someone on who was saying these trials/appeals can take years. It's quite likely these guys careers are over unless they can find a league who will employ them while they're on trial or appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 43 minutes ago, Pete said: Marek had someone on who was saying these trials/appeals can take years. It's quite likely these guys careers are over unless they can find a league who will employ them while they're on trial or appealing. Totally. Early on I was reading they estimate at least 18 months before trial. But this isn't on the teams, it's potentially on the players, so it makes sense to give the clubs some cap relief by basically allowing them to be non-rostered or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 2 hours ago, Phil said: Totally. Early on I was reading they estimate at least 18 months before trial. But this isn't on the teams, it's potentially on the players, so it makes sense to give the clubs some cap relief by basically allowing them to be non-rostered or something. Oh 100%. But just saying it's a question of if the clock is ticking on their contracts, are there contracts just going to be terminated regardless of it they're innocent, what happens next is going to be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) They're still getting paid which IF found guilty would be a shame. I wonder what happens in that case? Thankfully they are all on expiring contracts but still.... **Edit - crossed the same time Pete posted his. Edited February 6 by jsrangers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 2 minutes ago, Pete said: Oh 100%. But just saying it's a question of if the clock is ticking on their contracts, are there contracts just going to be terminated regardless of it they're innocent, what happens next is going to be interesting. I don't think anyone's contract is getting terminated. They're all RFAs (the NHLers). They'll just not get tendered QOs and become UFA this summer. My guess is they sign in Europe or Russia if they want to keep playing/collecting paychecks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sod16 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 19 hours ago, Phil said: Was curious what would happen regarding that. It makes sense given how long these players are likely to be out of the lineup. Heck, they can't even start working out until the shackles are taken off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now