pilldoc Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 54 minutes ago, JR Ewing said: Assistant Crown attorney Heather Donkers also said the players' lawyers would receive "substantial disclosure" in the next few days. Disclosure is the evidence collected by the prosecution against the accused. The case will be back in court April 30. Later Monday, London police are scheduled to provide an update on their investigation. The police probe was initially closed without charges months after the alleged incident but investigators reopened it in 2022. Again as has been mentioned elsewhere.... I don't believe this case would never had been reopened UNLESS the prosecuting attorney feels they have strong enough evidence (based on the wording of the Assistant Crown attorney) that could bring about a possible conviction of one or all the players involved. I would be curious to know what type of evidence they have ....I know there is some type of video involved but that is all I know ...... That attorney, based on her wording makes it seem like they have a lot more evidence they have gather over the months ..... "IF" that is true and they have quote "a smoking gun", it would be interesting to see if any of the players makes some type of plea to keep this out of the courts....... just thinking out loud here ...... Of course everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty and the evidence is made known to their respective lawyers. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachX Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 11 minutes ago, pilldoc said: Again as has been mentioned elsewhere.... I don't believe this case would never had been reopened UNLESS the prosecuting attorney feels they have strong enough evidence (based on the wording of the Assistant Crown attorney) that could bring about a possible conviction of one or all the players involved Yes, “reopened”. So they did that NOT have that evidence the first time? That’s what I’m curious about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 (edited) 39 minutes ago, pilldoc said: Again as has been mentioned elsewhere.... I don't believe this case would never had been reopened UNLESS the prosecuting attorney feels they have strong enough evidence (based on the wording of the Assistant Crown attorney) that could bring about a possible conviction of one or all the players involved. I would be curious to know what type of evidence they have ....I know there is some type of video involved but that is all I know ...... That attorney, based on her wording makes it seem like they have a lot more evidence they have gather over the months ..... "IF" that is true and they have quote "a smoking gun", it would be interesting to see if any of the players makes some type of plea to keep this out of the courts....... just thinking out loud here ...... Of course everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty and the evidence is made known to their respective lawyers. I agree. Some have asked why it took so long, and I think we received our first tip of the hat as to why just minutes ago... I just watched a live press conference hosted by the London Police Service. The main people available for questions where Detective Sergeant Katherine Dann, of the London Police Service's Assault and Child Abuse Division, and Thai Truong, LPS' Police Chief since this past May. He offered this: When the Police Chief needs to make a public apology for the quality of investigating going on, it's pretty bad. And keep in mind, I highlighted the craptastic record the LPS has had in the past, where their "unfounded" rate was greater than 10x higher than other departments in that area of Ontario. A lot of change has been needed. Edited February 5 by JR Ewing 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, CoachX said: Yes, “reopened”. So they did that NOT have that evidence the first time? That’s what I’m curious about Its quite possible that new evidence came to light that was not available before….. not going to comment any further as everything else could be misconstrued as pure speculation. Edited February 5 by pilldoc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 11 minutes ago, pilldoc said: Its quite possible that new evidence came to light that was not available before….. not going to comment any further as everything else could be misconstrued as pure speculation. Yeah, that's just it. What we don't know about the information the detectives had, statements they received, etc, adds up to a lot more than what we do know. I think it's fair to infer that this wasn't the absolute best police work in history, but we don't really know what they had. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachX Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 4 hours ago, pilldoc said: Its quite possible that new evidence came to light that was not available before….. not going to comment any further as everything else could be misconstrued as pure speculation. So let’s go with that. At the time of the offense, the victim came forward and made her allegations. But there wasn’t enough evidence. Ok, her word alone isn’t enough. So what is enough? What exactly would this new evidence be? I’m pretty sure none of the accused came forward. If there was video, that wouldn’t have been kept secret. The initial investigation would have indicated any witnesses in the room. So I’m very confused. it still feels to me like they thought this was going to be safely brushed under the rug, but something happened that they couldn’t hide from. I suspect career preservation is at the heart of this, and if they are guilty, that’s fine by me, as long as the truth comes out 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachX Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) Aren’t we really getting off topic about all this “porn” talk. I seem to recall you recently warning us to stay on topic Edited February 6 by pilldoc removed off topic content 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 minute ago, CoachX said: So let’s go with that. At the time of the offense, the victim came forward and made her allegations. But there wasn’t enough evidence. Ok, her word alone isn’t enough. So what is enough? What exactly would this new evidence be? I’m pretty sure none of the accused came forward. If there was video, that wouldn’t have been kept secret. The initial investigation would have indicated any witnesses in the room. So I’m very confused. it still feels to me like they thought this was going to be safely brushed under the rug, but something happened that they couldn’t hide from. I suspect career preservation is at the heart of this, and if they are guilty, that’s fine by me, as long as the truth comes out Agree ... the Chief said the initial investigation was botched and they probably found more evidence. Going to let them do there job .... I have nothing more to add or say at this point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 minute ago, CoachX said: Aren’t we really getting off topic about all this “porn” talk. I seem to recall you recently warning us to stay on topic You are not wrong ....was a rebuttal from a statement made....but you are not wrong. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) 33 minutes ago, CoachX said: If there was video, that wouldn’t have been kept secret.. Quoted from the article I posted in the another thread. In one six-second video recorded at about 3:25 am, an unidentified player asks E.M., “You’re okay with this” “I’m okay with this,” she responds. A second video, 12 seconds long, was filmed at 4:26 am. “Are you recording me?” E.M. said on the video. “Okay, good. It was all consensual. 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.” Lawyers representing several of the players showed TSN those videos in the summer(opens in a new tab), arguing that any sexual contact between players and E.M. had been consensual. Younan’s case summary indicates that E.M. told detective Stephen Newton that a third video was also recorded during the incident. https://www.tsn.ca/hockey-canada/judge-orders-law-firm-to-hand-over-records-evidence-on-alleged-hockey-canada-assault-1.1895563 Edited February 6 by AlaskaFlyerFan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachX Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 hour ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said: Quoted from the article I posted in the another thread. In one six-second video recorded at about 3:25 am, an unidentified player asks E.M., “You’re okay with this” “I’m okay with this,” she responds. A second video, 12 seconds long, was filmed at 4:26 am. “Are you recording me?” E.M. said on the video. “Okay, good. It was all consensual. 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.” Lawyers representing several of the players showed TSN those videos in the summer(opens in a new tab), arguing that any sexual contact between players and E.M. had been consensual. Younan’s case summary indicates that E.M. told detective Stephen Newton that a third video was also recorded during the incident. https://www.tsn.ca/hockey-canada/judge-orders-law-firm-to-hand-over-records-evidence-on-alleged-hockey-canada-assault-1.1895563 After I posted that last statement, I realized this point would be made. What I was referring to was a general statement that if there was a video of the offense, it would be telling as to what actually happened in that room (irrefutable evidence) the videos in question are, questionable. It was pretty common knowledge that she was intoxicated from what I read. So those videos could be under duress, or true evidence that they did nothing wrong. Here’s the problem I have though, if nothing illegal happened in that room, why do you need to make video in the first place? I stand by my original position though, I question what the “new” evidence was/is, that brought this to where we are today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 NHL has reportedly informed Philadelphia, New Jersey, and Calgary that they will receive cap relief for all their players on leave (2018 WJC Sexual Assault Case). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 27 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said: NHL has reportedly informed Philadelphia, New Jersey, and Calgary that they will receive cap relief for all their players on leave (2018 WJC Sexual Assault Case). The precedent for the league granting cap relied had already been set by the Slava Voynov situation. Cap relief was granted by the NHL to the LA Kings during Voynov’s legal troubles, though the league had also suspended Voynov, which has not yet happened to these five players (though we’ll see what happens now that they’ve been formally charged). The charges against Mike Richards were stayed about a year later; he wasn’t convicted – I forgot that he was caught possessing oxycodone … that seems so quaint by today’s standards. The Kings and the NHLPA eventually came to a settlement and the league penalized the L.A. with a cap penalty that doesn’t end until 2029 for terminating his contract without following the NHLs version of due process. Same thing happened with Kane and same thing may happen with Perry. The interesting thing about the Voynov case, is that it wasn’t until he left for Russia under threat of deportation that the Kings asked the league for permission to terminate his contract. At the time, he was a still a valuable player on the ice (he even dressed for 6 more games after he was charged before the NHL stepped in and suspended him), whereas Richards was a shell of the player that he had been in his prime and the King’s immediately used that as an excuse to terminate his contract and recoup his cap space (instead of referring him for help to assist him with his health concerns). Dean Lombardi was fired within a year or two after all this went down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegx.ca Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 2 hours ago, CoachX said: After I posted that last statement, I realized this point would be made. What I was referring to was a general statement that if there was a video of the offense, it would be telling as to what actually happened in that room (irrefutable evidence) the videos in question are, questionable. It was pretty common knowledge that she was intoxicated from what I read. So those videos could be under duress, or true evidence that they did nothing wrong. Here’s the problem I have though, if nothing illegal happened in that room, why do you need to make video in the first place? I stand by my original position though, I question what the “new” evidence was/is, that brought this to where we are today That's not a fair thing to say that if nothing illegal happened why do you need a video...that's like trump saying you should cooperate with the police and not keep your right to silence if you have nothing to hide...if there's a video of verbal consent that'd exactly what it is verbal consent and speculation of duress etc is just speculation...if she recanting what she said in the videos for whatever reason fine but that's just like buyers remorse like being ok with everything at the time of the incident then changing her mind later after it all done with...either way I don't think it's fair to cadt doubt upon the fact the videos were made...I mean jeez people record legal and illegal stuff all the time so why should the existence of video evidence be viewed as anything less than what it is - which is a just simple video evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Bell Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 44 minutes ago, thegx.ca said: That's not a fair thing to say that if nothing illegal happened why do you need a video...that's like trump saying you should cooperate with the police and not keep your right to silence if you have nothing to hide...if there's a video of verbal consent that'd exactly what it is verbal consent and speculation of duress etc is just speculation...if she recanting what she said in the videos for whatever reason fine but that's just like buyers remorse like being ok with everything at the time of the incident then changing her mind later after it all done with...either way I don't think it's fair to cadt doubt upon the fact the videos were made...I mean jeez people record legal and illegal stuff all the time so why should the existence of video evidence be viewed as anything less than what it is - which is a just simple video evidence? According to the Criminal Code of Canada, consent must happen at the time of the act. So those videos after the fact mean nothing regardless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegx.ca Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 24 minutes ago, Molly Bell said: According to the Criminal Code of Canada, consent must happen at the time of the act. So those videos after the fact mean nothing regardless. She was speaking about her consent regarding the acts that are the subject of the criminal charges...unless you feel she is speaking about something else? Regardless of what you think she is referring to video evidence never equals nothing in criminal court cases all evidence accepted into the record of court cases carry weight whether it is more or less weight is determined by the judge or jury...does that fit into your understanding of the criminal code of Canada? So if those videos are not accepted by the judge into the court records only then you can claim they mean nothing...but if there are accepted into the court records they obviously mean more than nothing...either way you are not correct that the videos mean nothing unless the judge does not allow those videos into evidence and onto the record of the court proceedings... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 7 hours ago, CoachX said: After I posted that last statement, I realized this point would be made. What I was referring to was a general statement that if there was a video of the offense, it would be telling as to what actually happened in that room (irrefutable evidence) the videos in question are, questionable. It was pretty common knowledge that she was intoxicated from what I read. So those videos could be under duress, or true evidence that they did nothing wrong. Here’s the problem I have though, if nothing illegal happened in that room, why do you need to make video in the first place? I stand by my original position though, I question what the “new” evidence was/is, that brought this to where we are today I did see a news article that had a defence (<—-see what I did there) lawyer talking about those videos, may have been the same lady that @JR Ewing posted above. She said pretty much what you are saying regarding “under duress”. She also said that even thought the girl could’ve been drunk, her actions in the video could still mean it really was consensual. I agree with you in why video if nothing illegal, but the 12 second video is what really muddies the water for me. Seems to me that was a lot of relaxed conversation for someone that didn’t want to be there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachX Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 3 hours ago, AlaskaFlyerFan said: Seems to me that was a lot of relaxed conversation for someone that didn’t want to be there. it all comes down to level of intoxication and what the laws are about that. I think you also have to consider the number of people present. Did she feel like she had to say what they wanted? I think the questions on both sides of the video will make it less impactful then you might think. This is where I do think public perception could play a role. What will the impact be if these guys are cleared? Does this mean its ok to get a girl intoxicated, have sex with her, then get her on tape admitting its consensual? Thats a scary precedent. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegx.ca Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 22 hours ago, CoachX said: it all comes down to level of intoxication and what the laws are about that. I think you also have to consider the number of people present. Did she feel like she had to say what they wanted? I think the questions on both sides of the video will make it less impactful then you might think. This is where I do think public perception could play a role. What will the impact be if these guys are cleared? Does this mean its ok to get a girl intoxicated, have sex with her, then get her on tape admitting its consensual? Thats a scary precedent. How about if it's ok to get a girl drink then have sex with her then get her on tape saying it was consensual then have her change her mind about everything...? That's a scary precedent too... In Canada there was the case of Gian Gomessi...or the case where the judge asked the victim why she just didn't close her legs or fight back during the sex in question...both resulted in not guilty verdicts...is Canada a more scary place because of these verdicts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 7 minutes ago, thegx.ca said: How about if it's ok to get a girl drink then have sex with her then get her on tape saying it was consensual then have her change her mind about everything...? The "ok to get a girl drunk" is doing a lot of work here that I don't think you want it to be doing... If "you" are worried about "a girl" changing her mind, maybe don't insert "yourself" into her in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachX Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 hours ago, thegx.ca said: How about if it's ok to get a girl drink then have sex with her then get her on tape saying it was consensual then have her change her mind about everything...? you mean when the girl sobers up and is capable of making sound rational judgements and is aware of her surroundings? Im going to stand by my opinion that these guys taping that girl was an attempt to cover their azzes, something you would not need to do if you thought what you were doing was righteous 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted February 7 Author Share Posted February 7 3 minutes ago, CoachX said: you mean when the girl sobers up and is capable of making sound rational judgements and is aware of her surroundings? Im going to stand by my opinion that these guys taping that girl was an attempt to cover their azzes, something you would not need to do if you thought what you were doing was righteous That's 100% what it was: an attempt to create a "get out of jail free" card for themselves, by trying to make it seem as though she consented when it was actually coercion. After hours stuck in that room with them, slapped repeatedly, and a whole pile of things too disgusting to even read out on this site, I'm sure that video of her saying "yes" looked like she was a hostage reading a ransom letter. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachX Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 4 minutes ago, JR Ewing said: That's 100% what it was: an attempt to create a "get out of jail free" card for themselves, by trying to make it seem as though she consented when it was actually coercion. After hours stuck in that room with them, slapped repeatedly, and a whole pile of things too disgusting to even read out on this site, I'm sure that video of her saying "yes" looked like she was a hostage reading a ransom letter. Im actually surprised there isnt a charge related to false imprisonment (not sure what it would be in Canada). If it was here, you could also attach "coercion of a witness", which is normally a felony in most states. If there was some threat conveyed to her if she didnt make the video, that would be "intimidation of a witness", a higher level felony. That video might blow up in their faces Have we ever confirmed the girl's age? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.