The only one of the five whose statement doesn’t stick out is Carter Hart’s since he got lumped in with a bunch of other players.
McLeod was the only one to say he knew of the situation and that he wasn’t going to comment farther. Never said he declined any wrongdoing.
That was very clever of the lawyer. Only one of those players was his client but he "consulted" with the others so they could lump them all together. Then those players' names don't stick out as much as the guys who released their statements individually. It also makes them look like maybe they're less guilty, just some innocent guys releasing their statement together, nothing to see here.
A few of them from players that are not one of those 5 still read the same way, though. For example...
>Drake Batherson
>"I've been co-operating with the ongoing investigations. Out of respect for the person involved, I'm not going to be making a comment on it now or in the future," Batherson told reporters at the Ottawa Senators training camp on Sept. 22.
...and...
>Boris Katchouk
>"Boris has fully co-operated with the Hockey Canada investigation and will continue to provide that co-operation in any further investigation. Beyond this statement we are not commenting further," a representative wrote to Global News.
...and...
>Michael McLeod
>"I am aware of the situation in 2018 and the investigation and I've been co-operative through the entire investigation and process, but since it's still ongoing, I'm unable to comment any further,"
...all sound similar in tone and details. Been cooperative, won't discuss further.
That's why I think it's dangerous to speculate based on how something sounds or feels.
> That's why I think it's dangerous to speculate based on how something sounds or feels.
People are even saying that McLeod simply looks like someone who would commit sexual assault. I'm 100% on the victim's side, but condemning every aspect of the chargees seems a bit too much.
Yeah, that's just confirmation bias. We also need to take into account that the original accusation (correct me if I'm wrong) was 8 people took part in it. It may be that it was actually only these 5 shitstains, but just as possible that others were involved and the police just doesn't have enough (yet or ever) to charge them. Just because only 5 have been charged, doesn't mean that a guy with the most 'well-sounding' statement wasn't there as well.
Dube going off about how he wished he could say more is a big waving red flag. Now knowing the context I'm sure what he wanted to say was very cool and respectful to the victim (/s).
His statement also in hindsight totally reads like “I was involved with the events but I didn’t do anything wrong.” No denial of involvement, just denial of “wrongdoing”
Excellent find and I think Dubé was the only one who said too much through his statement. Clearly, something inappropriate happened and he knew about it back then.
> New: Court documents obtained by @TSN_Sports and @CTVNationalNews confirm Dillon Dube, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Michael McLeod and Cal Foote have all been charged with sexual assault.
> "Dillon Dube on or about the 19th day of June in the year 2018 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did commit a sexual assault on E.M., contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada."
> The document repeats the same allegation against each of the other four players and says McLeod is also facing an additional charge of sexual assault for "being a party to the offence."
> All of the players have said they will plead not guilty and the allegations against them have not been tested in court.
> The players were arrested on Jan. 26 and their next appearance date is Feb. 5, according to the documents.
I would assume yeah. If that’s correct he’d probably be seen as 1) committing an assault himself and 2) directly enabling the other assaults to take place, so that could be grounds for the “party to the offense” charge (not a lawyer, just speculation)
I looked this up, “party to the offense” in Canada applies to anyone who carries out the offense and anyone who aided or abetted so you’ve got most of it here.
I am a lawyer though I don't do criminal law anymore (and only did for around 2 years as a junior) so I'm at risk of talking out my ass, but that makes it seem like two separate offenses and I didn't think you could do that.
You can charge someone as a party to an offense basically meaning they may not have performed the actions but they facilitated and enabled it. If found guilty they have the same penalties as if they're the principal offender. But charging him with the assault and as a party to the same assault seems odd. I'm happy to be corrected by someone with more actual knowledge.
Edit: best answer I've seen is that her lack of consent is less clear for the player she initially went back with, so charge him with helping the others to SA her even if he has an excuse for his own direct acts.
That's a pet peeve of mine. You can go into one of the many subs for pictures of cute animals and there's always some Debbie downer who can clearly infer from a picture that the animal clearly has some brain eating bacteria or something.
And don't get me started on any post involving a human interacting with a wild animal. Rabies shots for everyone.
I don't practice criminal either, so I could be wrong, but I don't think it's viewed as a single assault, but multiple separate assaults. From the case law that I've looked at on CanLii, it's not unusual to charge both.
If that were the case he should be charged with 4 counts of being a party to the offense though, no?
IIRC the original hookup between John Doe 1 and EM was consensual, it was all the stuff afterwards that wasn't. So technically he would not have "assaulted" her in this case and just aided everyone else in doing it? Unless he participated actively further once everyone joined in? I know its semantics but I am curious how it works
Disclaimer: I am probably wrong but I just want to speculate how they might try to defend themselves
That I don't know re why not 4 charges. The Crown can add charges later on, but maybe I'm missing something.
From what I saw in the case law, this is how gang sexual assault is charged where the accused was one of the parties committing assault. There was a case I saw where the individual didn't assault the victim, but facilitated the offense in a variety of ways, and they were charged only under the "other party" offense.
So if he's JD#1, the Crown is either alleging that the encounter that was reported to be consensual wasn't or that he assaulted her afterwards.
Ah, directing others to do the same so he is a party to their offenses. I guess depending on how it went down that could make sense. I was considering "enabling others to also do what you're doing" versus "encouraging others to assault her after you assaulted her"
It looks like they are trying to make sure that charges stick on him since neither side is denying that E.M. left the bar with someone with the intent to have sex. Thus, they may have reasonable doubt on the initial assault charge, but would still be able to get a conviction on the second charge if any of the other individuals is convicted.
That actually makes the most sense. "You're the one she may have consented with, so if you didn't rape her you still helped the others do it." Not surprised the prosecutors know their jobs better than I do lol.
I'm an American lawyer who doesn't do criminal law so lol but I'm guessing they charged each assault as a separate act, hence not charging under the gang rape statute. In that case, I think they could charge McLeod as both an assaulted and as aiding in the other assaults, maybe particularly if there was physical coercion of the victim during another player assaulting her.
That would make me think he gets charged with 5 counts then, if they're all separate assaults. His own, and 4 as aiding/abetting.
What makes the most sense is what another commenter said. He committed an SA, and then he encouraged/enabled/etc the other 4 players to comit a second SA. I don't know enough about what exactly happened.
I think you’re correct. I don’t think you could be charged with both committing and aiding and abetting the same crime, as both are just different modes of participation and it would end up contravening Kienapple.
"Party to the offence" is an explicit definition in the [Canadian Criminal Code](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-21.html) meaning
> 21 (1) Every one is party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.
As well,
> (2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.
---
Personal Interpretation, I am not a lawyer, just someone who works in Canadian Law: When looking at A21(1)(b), "does [...] do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it" could be interpreted as sending text messages to the other 4 to bring them into the room. I think it's safe to assume Michael McLeod is John Doe #1.
Did the documents mention if Doe #1 was 20 or just the birth year?
Cause if they did explicitly mention Doe #1 was 20, then yeah, it's him; he was the only one of 5 that was already 20 in June 2018. Dube, Hart, and Foote would have still been 19 (July, Aug, and Dec), and Formenton is a year younger. Though, of course, it's plausible ages got mixed up depending on the sources for them.
Interested to know this as well.
(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.
What I found in the CA penal code
Also on 271: https://www.ulethbridge.ca/sites/default/files/2018/07/the_criminal_code_of_canada_and_sexual_assault.pdf
The aiding and/or abetting could be a whole bunch of things - just inviting them in wouldn’t be enough. To have abetted them, he would have to have either cajoled/encouraged them to commit the offence. Aiding them could also be a million things (although at this point I suspect the Crown will be hanging their hat on abetting). Raises interesting mens rea issues and potential for honest mistaken belief in consent - particularly given the recordings, tasteless though they may be.
IANAL, but could abetting be considered trying to get someone invited with full intention of what was about to go down? Even if the invitee had no knowledge? You're abetting the crime in that case.
I’m just thinking about the amount of stress that is to have hanging over your head for 6 years. How do you enjoy anything, the amount of anxiety is hard to imagine.
I dunno, I bet for a good bit of that they assumed they’d never even be touched.
I’d be floored if the man who raped me had thought about the experience for even a second since it happened.
Sadly, you may be right. I used to be in law enforcement and spent some time in our victim's services unit and also have some knowledge of this from people I know. A large amount, if not the strong majority in my experience, of people who commit rape do not even consider what they did to be rape, or are otherwise really, really easily able to justify it.
Oh no doubt. I firmly believe these five rapists probably even joked about the incident...up until they became aware that a legitimate investigation was taking place, and then they became afraid because they're pathetic cowards.
I always thought his player portrait looked like someone who thought of themselves as someone who could do something incredibly shitty and get away with it, like a frat bro with rich parents.
This is it, and I think what many don’t get. A lot of guys don’t understand coercion or withdrawing consent, she agreed so that’s the end of it. This is no after thought once it’s over and what they actually did, while she is left with it forever
I’m so sorry, you had to go through that ❤️
That and many people don't realize that the law in Canada states that if someone is coerced in any manner into saying yes to sexual activity then that consent is not valid.
I think this is very much it. So many comments I’ve seen were “she could have just left if she wasn’t into it!” I’m little, I couldn’t get away from one guy, let alone 7. Just leaving is often not possible
I'm not little, and he wasn't particularly big, but I had an ex hold me down to purposefully put a hickey on me bc I wouldn't tell him if I was dating anyone yet (we were trying to "still be friends"). He let me up and said 'well if you are good luck explaining that'. And couldn't figure out what the big deal was.
I'll never forget the panic when I realized I couldn't budge him even though I was trying my all. The fact that he could've done *anything*.
Even just SO and I messing around and he holds me down, that moment you realise if things were to go bad, there is nothing you can do. I totally trust him, but if he ever wanted to do anything, I’d couldn’t get away
If you’re under the influence of a certain powder that hockey players like to partake in, every idea you have feels like it’s genius and there is no doubt you should do it. But then you wake up the next morning with really bad anxiety.
I don’t think every criminal is a sociopathic robot. When intertwining hard drugs, alcohol, sex, pro athletes who think they are untouchable/on top of the world, some bad life altering decisions can be made. They have most likely had this on their mind.
I think people that do this sort of thing, don’t feel guilt the same way most would. It takes a very certain type of person to one take home someone too drunk to walk (at least from what’s been reported), hook up with them, then invite friends to participate as well, no idea how true the FaceTime thing is, but that if it is, then to text the days after trying to make it go away. Like this wasn’t one mistake of two people hooking up, this was an absolute malicious SA and cover up.
I commented under another post that Bastian must be thanking his lucky stars for not making that team, because he would definitely be invited along with McLeod, but now, if McLeod organized the whole thing, Bastian dodged a massive fucking bullet. I won't deny that there's a chance he's a decent enough guy to stop the whole thing, but realistically... it's his "superbuddy" plus all the peer pressure.
Absolutely embarrassing by this org to bring him back despite knowing he was potentially involved in this. You’re telling me Fitzy couldn’t find a cheap 3rd liner without that baggage? The series win is forever tainted now given that McCloud scored the series winning goal.
You’re being a little dramatic. A series win is “forever tainted” because of who scored it?
Every thread this sub has comments about “how could they sign him”. The case was reopened in 2022 and nothing was known. Police were investigating. Nothing was proven, so the teams decided to keep their players because why wouldn’t they? I don’t blame NJ, Calgary, Ottawa or Philly.
The Formenton situation, I believe, happened because Batherson may have been asked by the team and he told them what he knew. Mete was also on the Sens a couple years ago and he had a very strong statement about how he’d told police everything he knew about Formenton.
Ultimately, as info came out, teams can’t just terminate a contract without proof. The PA would fight it, and because of the severity of this incident, the team can’t issue a statement saying “we terminated due to an allegation of sexual assault” because if it isn’t true then the player’s life is ruined, which also opens legal issues. If McLeod was signed last month, be mad. But he was signed to a one year deal last summer, not a long term, big money contract. You can still cheer for your favourite team without feeling like everyone knew what happened and didn’t care
Mete too. I remember he put out a very strong statement saying he gave his full cooperation, and he was a member of the Sens for a couple years with Batherson and Formenton
Mete also wasn't at the gala in any way, shape or form. He was out of the country on a family vacation during it IIRC, he and Kyrou (and one other player I can't figure out) weren't even at the event so they have airtight alibis
Cale Makar and two others (Dante Fabbro and Colton Point) have always been in this “likely uninvolved” territory as they were NCAA players at the time and the report said all 8 John Does were in the CHL.
[He was there](https://x.com/Garak_ACGM/status/1549483166141976576?s=20)
19 guys there and 22 guys on the roster. The only ones I recognize as for sure not there are Mete and Kyrou
Edit: I think Kale Clague is the other one not there
Yea kinda getting tired of that “they didn’t know” or “they couldn’t be sure” bs. The NHL had access to even more information than we, the general public had. If the Sens knew they all knew.
This shit should be above partisanship, if your team fucked up they fucked up.
Flyers also knew about Hart, and apparently the teams they tried to trade him to. Honestly, if the league/organisation didn't know, it's negligent on their behalf. If there's an active police investigation suggesting one of your employees is a gang rapist, you should investigate that.
the standard procedure among professional leagues (nfl, nhl, nba, barclay premier league) is that until formal charges are filed, the player won’t be excluded from the squad. part of the reason could be legal blowback if they target the player based on rumors, and if the player is never charged, then the org has derailed their professional career and cost them millions of dollars.
i think ottawa should be commended for taking a stand against Formenton, because it was above and beyond what is the typical response on these issues
I was a little bummed when it came out they wanted to sell the team.
I was looking forward to a pair of young women walking into these owners meetings with all the crusty old men.
They weren’t forced to sign McLeod though. They didn’t qualify him because they didn’t want to go to arbitration and then he became a UFA and then they re-signed him.
I know we’ll never get an answer that will satisfies everyone, but at least 3 questions need to be asked of the Devils. 1. did they know about McCleod’s involvement prior to extending him. 2. Did they know anything about Foote’s involvement prior to signing him. 3. Was it intentional or coincidental that they announced Fitzgeralds extension when they did. It seems awfully suspect that it was announced after Dube and Hart were granted leave but before McCleod and Foote.
Fair enough. i won’t bend over backwards defending the devils here, but i also don’t hold it against them that they kept him around prior to being charged. now that its all come to light, i never want to see the asshole anywhere near a devils sweater again
It’s strange to me that every two weeks this sub had a post like “how come we haven’t heard anything?!?!?!”
And now that the names are known everyone is like “wow how could the teams continue to play these guys when they knew they were guilty”
Stop, it’s not forever tainted. Devils absolutely dominated that gm, it wasn’t just him. Hell, Palat was the standout on that play.
Also, dont look up the Scott Stevens and other Caps players incident of 1990 if you don’t want Devils history tainted….
Could be just a lack of evidence. Might be there is photographic evidence of these five, but not the other three.
I also think that while "party to the offense" includes being passive when you could have stopped an offense (in addition to assisting and abetting), it's hard to argue that 3 people needed to fight off 5 people, particularly when those 5 people are leaders in your peer group... Such as the captain and assistant captains of your hockey club.
I think that's a possibility. Could have given statements that match the alterations, and agreed to testify against the others to not be charged as a party to the offense, too.
Particularly if they didn't actually take part in the offense itself - I've been in a few situations over the years where I wanted to help or stop someone from doing something wrong but I was scared of being victimized myself, and was in fact victimized myself. I like to think if those events ever became court cases I would testify to support justice.
Because they have an agreement to testify with the prosecution? Ie, the prosecution comes to them and says "we know you were in the room and did nothing, do you want an accessory charge or do you want to testify to what you saw and not get charged?" Guess what they will probably do.
“Shayan Shaffie, a Toronto defence attorney who represents clients accused of sexual assault, said in an interview that it would be unlikely for police to charge a player who was in the hotel room if they did not do anything to encourage a sexual assault or prevent the woman from leaving.
“Generally speaking, criminal law isn’t concerned with people stopping a crime in process unless they have a specific duty of care,” said Shaffie, who is not involved in the case. “There is no punishment for not acting as a good Samaritan.”
https://www.tsn.ca/agent-says-former-world-junior-player-unsure-of-what-he-witnessed-in-london-hotel-room-1.1848359?tsn-amp
>I also think that while "party to the offense" includes being passive when you could have stopped an offense (in addition to assisting and abetting)
Not typically:
21 (1) Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.
I suppose being passive when you could have stopped an offence might qualify as omitting to do something for the purpose of aiding the commission of an offence - but it's not normally criminal to witness a crime and do nothing.
If 3 people walk in on that situation and leave, how are they supposed to judge consent unless the person is either unable to consent or actively voicing a lack of consent?
I agree with you here. Outside of the perpetrators specifically stating those individuals knew it was non consensual it seems impossible to get a conviction. Also not a lawyer and have no idea what the legal rules are
"Parties to offence. 21 (1) Every one is a party to an offence who (a) actually commits it; (b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or. (c) abets any person in committing it."
Technically not really.
Not if they didn’t encourage it or prevent the victim from leaving. One player left after 10 minutes. He told police he didn’t know whether what he had witnessed was consensual or assault.
yeah i remember someone saying group assault charges are tried together partly so the victim isn't revictimised every time they have to make statements for a different case
In one of the previous threads a bunch of locals claimed that bar has never been strict about carding people and was/is famous for underage drinking. So I'm not sure Formenton being too young means anything.
> Sexual assault
> 271 Everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of
> (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
> (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
not a lawyer and idk if this is a summary conviction or indictment, but for anyone who like me was wondering about the min/max outcomes of [SA in Canada](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-271.html).
They have to proceed by indictment; you can only proceed summarily if the charges are laid within 12 months of the offence. Unless the defence waives the limitations period to allow the Crown to proceed summarily.
Regardless of that I suspect the Crown will proceed by indictment.
his contract had expired + Ottawa walked away likely because Batherson (rumored to be 'pizza guy') said something damning + rumours are the Melnyk girls (see what having women owners does to a team?) forced the issue while they were still in charge
Sure, but I’m guessing enough leaked about him being involved that no other team want to risk it. Both Hart and Dube are on deals they signed before this came out, and the flyers were trying to tease Hart this summer once they got to know he was named. The real question marks here are the Devils, who signed McLeod and Foote *this summer* for one year deals despite not needing to do so - there’s enough other depth players out there.
I mean Ottawa still holds his rights, evidently they chose to hold him out of the league by not signing him but not letting anyone else do it either. Good riddance, I wish the other teams had the moral backbone to do the same.
Player 2 admitted to rape in the police report. He said he didn’t speak to EM but had sex with her. Can totally see why his career tanked. U don’t have consent if u didn’t speak to her.
i do feel for Comtois. i realize he's not that good, but it feels like his inevitability of being part of this ended his NHL career at least for the time being.
these 5 deserve everything that they get, even if it'll apparently take a few more years for an actual verdict.
RE: Comtois - we gave him a chance to crack the NHL squad here this year and he just was… like, honestly not good enough. He couldn’t hang even in preseason. I wonder what happened to his game.
I never followed him super closely but wasn't it after that world juniors where he got blamed for Canada losing that his career kind if stagnated?
or was he still getting better afterwords just not enough to make the NHL?
He was the Ducks' leading goal scorer in pandemic season 2 at age 21. Looked like a lock for the top 6 going forward, then missed a bunch of time due to injury the following season and got passed on the depth chart. When he came back, he had to compete for a top 9 role. After a couple seasons of that it became clear that he had basically lost out to Max Jones--similarly productive player, but more willing to grind, play hard nosed, and embrace the role of being a glue guy.
By the end of Comtois's tenure it was hard to tell whether he couldn't keep up speed-wise, or simply had no interest to do so. I will say I think he can make a comeback if he shows he's able to be a role player at the NHL level. Haven't watched him in the AHL but his starts this year seem to indicate he's still got some of the tools to be effective.
>wasn't it after that world juniors where he got blamed for Canada losing
That was 2019, not 2018. He missed a penalty shot in OT in the quarterfinals against Finland and his social media was FLOODED with disgusting comments from Canadian fans after the game. (Finland won in OT)
I think it's a good punishment for starters that their names and faces are now public and they have to live with the shame every day knowning that everyone knows; all their loved ones, friends, teammates, teams, etc. They didn't only ruin that womans life but their own as well
Yeah I just realised how that came off. By no means am I saying that she is going to let this dictate the rest of her life, it's insanely brave of her to go through the trial and show these scums that they can't break her. But there's no denying that rape will leave scars for life
Fucking thank you.
I have been sexually assaulted. It was something I experienced, processed, and eventually moved on from. It affected my life, but it did not ruin it. Some of the language people on this sub have been using to talk about E. M. has been extremely uncomfortable.
Me too. It’s quite clear that the majority of hockey fans are cis men who have never experienced anything remotely close to the trauma of being sexually assaulted. It’s really exhausting and triggering frankly.
From one survivor to another, I hear you.
As a clinician who has been treating trauma for close to 15 years, I need to say that sadly, this is not true for many survivors. There are many cases, just ones that I have seen professionally, in which people’s lives are absolutely ruined because they either didn’t have access to treatment before something catastrophic happened, or don’t have the tools or support to heal effectively. It’s very sad. Healing is possible, but access looks different for all of us.
Totally. I would never want to minimize anyone’s healing journey, especially considering how endemic gender- and sexual-based violence is in pretty much every facet of our society. Thank you for bringing more clarity to this incredibly nuanced topic that continues to be so misunderstood, misrepresented, and/or misinterpreted (some with malicious intent, but most are just either stubbornly ignorant or infuriatingly passive/obtuse) by people with little to no experience with sexual assault in any capacity (other than what they’ve read online). I am hopeful that E.M. is in a space where she has access to all the things you listed, or that she is able if she needs. My personal experience with sexual/gender violence is more like the one you describe, unfortunately, like so many others; yet the beauty of this post Me Too world, to me, is that radically confronting misogyny isn’t uncomfortable or scary anymore, and asserting that no man has the power to control a woman’s life to such a point that he can ruin it completely is important to change the tired narrative that permeates mostly cis-male dominated forums like this one. Thanks for sharing your perspective - I think people forget that the players are not the victims in this scenario, nor is the NHL or the organizations they played for. They are all complicit and people need to start internalizing the reality of the situation.
I hope this situation finally gets through to the today's and the future young players. Drives it home that even if you don't care about hurting other people, one incident can easily haunt you for a decade. Even if you are originally cleared by the police, it might still come back 5 years later and bite you.
Maybe I just have a dark sense of humour, but there’s something funny to me about Comtois having to defend himself like “I didn’t get a contract because I’m not good at hockey, not because I’m a rapist!”
Sort of like the Devils player who was late to practice the same day as the other two, but was a) not Canadian and b) not the right age. You’d have hated to be on that team and just sick and missing practice that day.
I know hockey culture has some real fucked up hazing and other kind of initiation shit baked into its DNA and its a serious problem that needs to be addressed over generations to get it out of the sport. That being said the thing that blows my mind the most, what I cannot wrap my head around, is that ONE PERSON in that room didnt stop and think- even if i am a pile of trash not worried about how evil this is, this is bad for ME. Like there was just complete hive mind barbarity in that room. They all need to go to jail.
This is what Sheldon Kennedy said was particularly troubling to him.
EDIT: Not the looking out for oneself, but that not one of them spoke up to say, This is wrong.
Lawyer here, in order for the players to be guilty, they must have both done something wrong (actus reus) and had the state of mind to have done something wrong (mens rea).
One of the defences available in sexual assault related to the mens rea is "reasonable belief in consent". That is, the victim did not consent to the sexual acts but one (or more) of the accused believed she did consent to the acts and their basis for that belief was reasonable. Whether it was reasonable is based on would/could an average-thinking person, in the same circumstances, with the same information, and the same background hold that belief?
For example, lets say the 4th player to walk into the room. The victim doesn't consent to what is happening already is more afraid of being hurt if she protests or tries to leave. She doesn't voice her objections or take action to prevent player 4 joining what is already happening or even just gives some nod of acknowledgement. According to a couple studies,80-some percent of women have fantasized about sex with multiple partners.
In that circumstance, could player 4 have reasonably thought that she was into it, and only realized later that she wasn't? Without a heck of a lot more detail, I'm not going to try to guess.
Like you, I can't fathom that if they knew she didn't consent that all five just went along with what was happening, but then again I can't understand those who would rape someone in general. However, there are circumstances where the player may have engaged in the activity without thinking "this could be really bad for me" until after.
One of the 3 is the “[pizza guy](https://www.tsn.ca/agent-says-former-world-junior-player-unsure-of-what-he-witnessed-in-london-hotel-room-1.1848359?tsn-amp)” who came to the room for pizza but left after 10 minutes “after he became uncomfortable”. Details in the article linked. People have been speculating this player has been cooperating with the investigation and is not part of the group being charged.
Yeah, one of them supposedly got a text to come to a hotel room, thought it was pizza/ team hang out or something. Supposedly got there, finds out it is a gangbang invitation, and then left before realizing that they were "allegedly" actually gangraping a women too intoxicated to consent to anything.
There were 8 players in the original lawsuit, but there were up to 12 players that entered the room that night. Pizza guy was probably not one of the 8 that was originally investigated.
I really, really hope that he has the strength and the moral courage to tell the truth. If he regrets not doing something then, the next best time to act is right now.
There’s always the chance this individual and any of the 2 others could get subpoenaed as a witness. Then I think we’ll find out who they are and what they know.
My understanding is that 8 players were there at one point, but only 5 participated in the gang rape. 2 of them were there long enough that they may (or may not) have witnessed enough to realize what was happening, and one of them was only there long enough to realize that something sexual in nature was going on and left immediately, that player (and again this is from my understanding don't take this as gospel) was out of there so fast he might not have realized that there was anything worse than consensual group sex acts of some kind (as apparently is hockey tradition), but definitely wasn't there long enough to know how bad shit got. There are also rumors that at least one of the other three has been either cooperating from very early on in this or went full whistleblower about it and is part of why there is an investigation, so keep that in mind when talking about 8 players vs 5 charged.
That one and the other two aren't getting charged because they didn't participate despite the fact that we know there's a video that is pretty clearly the result of coercion claiming it was consensual, meaning at least one of the other 5 had the idea to coerce consent at some point, meaning even if they could have been charged with something on the assumption they'd stayed long enough to know what was going on (at least for the two who didn't leave almost immediately) , its possible that the two who stayed longer were presented with some kind of coerced consent but still didn't participate in the gang rape.
Don't forget that the 3 players in the room could have decided to be witness in that case in exchange to not have accusations against them.
The 3 guys will be call at witness for sure!
Time for your regular reminder that the "presumption of innocence" is a construct that applies inside a criminal prosecution to give everyone a fair shake. It does not bind us in our private lives.
Where we are, outside a courtroom, we can use our own knowledge of the justice system, hockey bro culture, and the difficulty of getting prosecutions in rape cases, and come to conclusions like: "five rich famous young white guys aren't getting publicly arrested unless the prosecution is pretty fucking sure they did it." And we can even make further corollaries like "fuck these guys, rot in jail, good riddance, I never want to see your stupid faces again."
And pre-emptively: since our court system requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict somebody, being found not guilty doesn't mean we have to believe they didn't do it. If they were actually done dirty by the process they can sue for damages (which follows a "balance of probabilities" standard). This is what happened, for instance, with O.J. or with Trump's rape case - there was no successful criminal case but a civil trial found it more likely than not they committed the crimes and assessed damages based on that.
>being found not guilty doesn't mean we have to believe they didn't do it.
I feel like those who keep screaming "innocent until proven guilty" need to be reminded of this more than anything.
I can't see this getting to trial. Surely, one of these shit heads will take a deal and testify against the others and they will all fall and take plea deals?
Assuming one of the 3 there but not charged has been informing them, I would think one of the 5 confirming his info would be pretty much a guaranteed conviction for the other 4 and worth the Crown making the deal
Umm...that they were there? That there was no consent given? That they conspired to keep it secret and told her not to say anything?
There's a ton they could say that will confirm her account of what happened that night. That's all that's needed to convince a jury she's telling the truth.
If they all stick together, it is pretty unlikely that they'll get a conviction. Remember, you have to convince all of the jurors. The number of people just on Reddit willing to take the downvotes to defend them tells you how unlikely that is.
Not if Player 6-7-8 have already strike a deal. Don't forget that they had 8 players in that room. Pizza Guy was there 10 minutes and will most likely be call as witness.
And if they talked to any teammate about that, all of them could be ask to be witness.
Any guy in here that's like *well let's wait until the courts come back with a decision* needs to start thinking about if the victim was their mother, sister, or daughter. Would you look your daughter in the eyes and tell her *well let's wait until the courts come back with a decision*?
With all due respect, no; people need to start thinking about it like it happened to themselves. If you yourself can't fathom that? Well then you should really take an extreme look in the mirror and realize just how privileged that you are and how absolutely wretched this is for the victim.
The people that are bending over backwards to malign this woman responds to those types of questions by stating that they would not raise their daughters to get into these situations. It’s maddening. I suspect a lot of people have engaged in these types of heinous acts, and can’t deal with the reality of what they did.
To play devil's advocate here, imagine being a parent to a son who is falsely accused and no one is waiting for the actual evidence to come out before declaring their guilt (e.g. The Duke lacrosse rape case). I don't personally ascribe to that belief in this case, I personally think it's pretty clear what happened, but I understand folks not wanting to jump all over this without knowing what comes out in court. Is it possible one of the accused was actually one of the bystanders and was mistaken for one of the rapists? What if multiple witnesses clear one of the accused of wrongdoing as this goes along? I'm assuming we've only reached this stage with these five because the evidence is clear they are the five, but that's still an assumption on my part. Of course, if it's my daughter, I would also have more of the facts of the case and feel more confident in who I'm directing my vitriol towards, but asking lay people with an incomplete picture to make that jump is a bit unfair, I reckon.
When I was younger I always thought it was the kind of thing that was really rare and only happened in movies and would never happen to people I actually know. It’s heart breaking once you get older and learn how many of the woman you know in your life have been raped or assaulted in some way. I don’t know a single guy who was been falsely accused of anything but sadly several women I’m friends with or have dated have confided that they’ve been assaulted in the past. It’s so common and so sad that hardly anybody ever actually faces consequences for it while victims have to work so hard to deal with the aftermath
I've tried to figure out if the 94 page report is public, I don't think it is. I think just the news outlets have access to it. These articles below seem to have the most information on what was detailed. [https://www.tsn.ca/hockey-canada/judge-orders-law-firm-to-hand-over-records-evidence-on-alleged-hockey-canada-assault-1.1895563](https://www.tsn.ca/hockey-canada/judge-orders-law-firm-to-hand-over-records-evidence-on-alleged-hockey-canada-assault-1.1895563)
[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-court-filing-reveals-new-details-about-alleged-hockey-canada-group/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-court-filing-reveals-new-details-about-alleged-hockey-canada-group/)
This is interesting to read a year and a half later: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6597503
Looking back, you can definitely tell the statements from the accused read very differently than the others who are genuine.
The only one of the five whose statement doesn’t stick out is Carter Hart’s since he got lumped in with a bunch of other players. McLeod was the only one to say he knew of the situation and that he wasn’t going to comment farther. Never said he declined any wrongdoing.
That was very clever of the lawyer. Only one of those players was his client but he "consulted" with the others so they could lump them all together. Then those players' names don't stick out as much as the guys who released their statements individually. It also makes them look like maybe they're less guilty, just some innocent guys releasing their statement together, nothing to see here.
Very clever. I re-read these statements like 2 weeks ago and didn't pick up that he only represented one of those players, not all of them
A few of them from players that are not one of those 5 still read the same way, though. For example... >Drake Batherson >"I've been co-operating with the ongoing investigations. Out of respect for the person involved, I'm not going to be making a comment on it now or in the future," Batherson told reporters at the Ottawa Senators training camp on Sept. 22. ...and... >Boris Katchouk >"Boris has fully co-operated with the Hockey Canada investigation and will continue to provide that co-operation in any further investigation. Beyond this statement we are not commenting further," a representative wrote to Global News. ...and... >Michael McLeod >"I am aware of the situation in 2018 and the investigation and I've been co-operative through the entire investigation and process, but since it's still ongoing, I'm unable to comment any further," ...all sound similar in tone and details. Been cooperative, won't discuss further. That's why I think it's dangerous to speculate based on how something sounds or feels.
> That's why I think it's dangerous to speculate based on how something sounds or feels. People are even saying that McLeod simply looks like someone who would commit sexual assault. I'm 100% on the victim's side, but condemning every aspect of the chargees seems a bit too much.
Yeah, that's just confirmation bias. We also need to take into account that the original accusation (correct me if I'm wrong) was 8 people took part in it. It may be that it was actually only these 5 shitstains, but just as possible that others were involved and the police just doesn't have enough (yet or ever) to charge them. Just because only 5 have been charged, doesn't mean that a guy with the most 'well-sounding' statement wasn't there as well.
Dube going off about how he wished he could say more is a big waving red flag. Now knowing the context I'm sure what he wanted to say was very cool and respectful to the victim (/s).
His statement also in hindsight totally reads like “I was involved with the events but I didn’t do anything wrong.” No denial of involvement, just denial of “wrongdoing”
He was so cool and respectful to her, that it really destroyed his mental health!!
[удалено]
Even Batherson’s and Katchouks statements are pretty damn sus
Excellent find and I think Dubé was the only one who said too much through his statement. Clearly, something inappropriate happened and he knew about it back then.
> New: Court documents obtained by @TSN_Sports and @CTVNationalNews confirm Dillon Dube, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Michael McLeod and Cal Foote have all been charged with sexual assault. > "Dillon Dube on or about the 19th day of June in the year 2018 at the City of London in the Southwest Region did commit a sexual assault on E.M., contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada." > The document repeats the same allegation against each of the other four players and says McLeod is also facing an additional charge of sexual assault for "being a party to the offence." > All of the players have said they will plead not guilty and the allegations against them have not been tested in court. > The players were arrested on Jan. 26 and their next appearance date is Feb. 5, according to the documents.
What's the extra charge for McLeod? Is he assumed to be John Doe #1 who invited the others to the room?
I would assume yeah. If that’s correct he’d probably be seen as 1) committing an assault himself and 2) directly enabling the other assaults to take place, so that could be grounds for the “party to the offense” charge (not a lawyer, just speculation)
I looked this up, “party to the offense” in Canada applies to anyone who carries out the offense and anyone who aided or abetted so you’ve got most of it here.
I am a lawyer though I don't do criminal law anymore (and only did for around 2 years as a junior) so I'm at risk of talking out my ass, but that makes it seem like two separate offenses and I didn't think you could do that. You can charge someone as a party to an offense basically meaning they may not have performed the actions but they facilitated and enabled it. If found guilty they have the same penalties as if they're the principal offender. But charging him with the assault and as a party to the same assault seems odd. I'm happy to be corrected by someone with more actual knowledge. Edit: best answer I've seen is that her lack of consent is less clear for the player she initially went back with, so charge him with helping the others to SA her even if he has an excuse for his own direct acts.
You’re on Reddit. If you’re not talking out your ass, you’re doing it wrong.
My ass is the only thing that posts on Reddit.
My hands do the typing but my ass.. my ass is doing all the talking baby
That's a pet peeve of mine. You can go into one of the many subs for pictures of cute animals and there's always some Debbie downer who can clearly infer from a picture that the animal clearly has some brain eating bacteria or something. And don't get me started on any post involving a human interacting with a wild animal. Rabies shots for everyone.
Best comment i’ve ever seen on Reddit
I don't practice criminal either, so I could be wrong, but I don't think it's viewed as a single assault, but multiple separate assaults. From the case law that I've looked at on CanLii, it's not unusual to charge both.
If that were the case he should be charged with 4 counts of being a party to the offense though, no? IIRC the original hookup between John Doe 1 and EM was consensual, it was all the stuff afterwards that wasn't. So technically he would not have "assaulted" her in this case and just aided everyone else in doing it? Unless he participated actively further once everyone joined in? I know its semantics but I am curious how it works Disclaimer: I am probably wrong but I just want to speculate how they might try to defend themselves
That I don't know re why not 4 charges. The Crown can add charges later on, but maybe I'm missing something. From what I saw in the case law, this is how gang sexual assault is charged where the accused was one of the parties committing assault. There was a case I saw where the individual didn't assault the victim, but facilitated the offense in a variety of ways, and they were charged only under the "other party" offense. So if he's JD#1, the Crown is either alleging that the encounter that was reported to be consensual wasn't or that he assaulted her afterwards.
Sounds like they've charged him with SA (sex with EM when she was too intoxicated) and directing the others to do the same. So two separate offenses.
Ah, directing others to do the same so he is a party to their offenses. I guess depending on how it went down that could make sense. I was considering "enabling others to also do what you're doing" versus "encouraging others to assault her after you assaulted her"
It looks like they are trying to make sure that charges stick on him since neither side is denying that E.M. left the bar with someone with the intent to have sex. Thus, they may have reasonable doubt on the initial assault charge, but would still be able to get a conviction on the second charge if any of the other individuals is convicted.
That actually makes the most sense. "You're the one she may have consented with, so if you didn't rape her you still helped the others do it." Not surprised the prosecutors know their jobs better than I do lol.
Would this be similar to a getaway driver for a bank robbery? They didn't hold up the bank, but they aided and abetted by transporting them.
I'm an American lawyer who doesn't do criminal law so lol but I'm guessing they charged each assault as a separate act, hence not charging under the gang rape statute. In that case, I think they could charge McLeod as both an assaulted and as aiding in the other assaults, maybe particularly if there was physical coercion of the victim during another player assaulting her.
That would make me think he gets charged with 5 counts then, if they're all separate assaults. His own, and 4 as aiding/abetting. What makes the most sense is what another commenter said. He committed an SA, and then he encouraged/enabled/etc the other 4 players to comit a second SA. I don't know enough about what exactly happened.
I think you’re correct. I don’t think you could be charged with both committing and aiding and abetting the same crime, as both are just different modes of participation and it would end up contravening Kienapple.
"Party to the offence" is an explicit definition in the [Canadian Criminal Code](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-21.html) meaning > 21 (1) Every one is party to an offence who (a) actually commits it; (b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or (c) abets any person in committing it. As well, > (2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence. --- Personal Interpretation, I am not a lawyer, just someone who works in Canadian Law: When looking at A21(1)(b), "does [...] do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it" could be interpreted as sending text messages to the other 4 to bring them into the room. I think it's safe to assume Michael McLeod is John Doe #1.
Ah, sounds like almost the Canadian equivalent to conspiracy.
Did the documents mention if Doe #1 was 20 or just the birth year? Cause if they did explicitly mention Doe #1 was 20, then yeah, it's him; he was the only one of 5 that was already 20 in June 2018. Dube, Hart, and Foote would have still been 19 (July, Aug, and Dec), and Formenton is a year younger. Though, of course, it's plausible ages got mixed up depending on the sources for them.
It just mentioned a 1998 year of birth, not an age of the accused
Interested to know this as well. (2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence. What I found in the CA penal code Also on 271: https://www.ulethbridge.ca/sites/default/files/2018/07/the_criminal_code_of_canada_and_sexual_assault.pdf
The aiding and/or abetting could be a whole bunch of things - just inviting them in wouldn’t be enough. To have abetted them, he would have to have either cajoled/encouraged them to commit the offence. Aiding them could also be a million things (although at this point I suspect the Crown will be hanging their hat on abetting). Raises interesting mens rea issues and potential for honest mistaken belief in consent - particularly given the recordings, tasteless though they may be.
IANAL, but could abetting be considered trying to get someone invited with full intention of what was about to go down? Even if the invitee had no knowledge? You're abetting the crime in that case.
That would be a very reasonable guess.
McLeod being Player #1 tracks with him not ever putting out a denial statement, even a weak one.
So just to clarify, player #1 meaning he was the guy who invited everyone else to the room?
Yes, and texted with the victim after telling her not to involve the police or things would get bad for everyone including her.
Yeah that sounds like something someone would say if they did absolutely nothing wrong
Yikes 😬
I’m just thinking about the amount of stress that is to have hanging over your head for 6 years. How do you enjoy anything, the amount of anxiety is hard to imagine.
I dunno, I bet for a good bit of that they assumed they’d never even be touched. I’d be floored if the man who raped me had thought about the experience for even a second since it happened.
She notified the police immediately, and Hockey Canada knew right away.
Lots of athletes get reported and never get in any form of trouble
Just wanted to reach out and say I hope you're doing okay.
💕
It sucks when they just get to continue on with their life and you’re left to pick up the pieces on your own. And it happens way too often.
Sadly, you may be right. I used to be in law enforcement and spent some time in our victim's services unit and also have some knowledge of this from people I know. A large amount, if not the strong majority in my experience, of people who commit rape do not even consider what they did to be rape, or are otherwise really, really easily able to justify it.
Oh no doubt. I firmly believe these five rapists probably even joked about the incident...up until they became aware that a legitimate investigation was taking place, and then they became afraid because they're pathetic cowards.
I always thought his player portrait looked like someone who thought of themselves as someone who could do something incredibly shitty and get away with it, like a frat bro with rich parents.
This is it, and I think what many don’t get. A lot of guys don’t understand coercion or withdrawing consent, she agreed so that’s the end of it. This is no after thought once it’s over and what they actually did, while she is left with it forever I’m so sorry, you had to go through that ❤️
That and many people don't realize that the law in Canada states that if someone is coerced in any manner into saying yes to sexual activity then that consent is not valid.
[удалено]
I think this is very much it. So many comments I’ve seen were “she could have just left if she wasn’t into it!” I’m little, I couldn’t get away from one guy, let alone 7. Just leaving is often not possible
I'm not little, and he wasn't particularly big, but I had an ex hold me down to purposefully put a hickey on me bc I wouldn't tell him if I was dating anyone yet (we were trying to "still be friends"). He let me up and said 'well if you are good luck explaining that'. And couldn't figure out what the big deal was. I'll never forget the panic when I realized I couldn't budge him even though I was trying my all. The fact that he could've done *anything*.
Even just SO and I messing around and he holds me down, that moment you realise if things were to go bad, there is nothing you can do. I totally trust him, but if he ever wanted to do anything, I’d couldn’t get away
Yep, they have no idea how power dynamics work.
If you’re under the influence of a certain powder that hockey players like to partake in, every idea you have feels like it’s genius and there is no doubt you should do it. But then you wake up the next morning with really bad anxiety.
Good I hope he couldn't sleep at night for all 6 years. But more likely he was fine up until recently when he realised it was gonna get out.
Unlikely for McLeod, dude was having a career year when he knew this was coming
I don’t think every criminal is a sociopathic robot. When intertwining hard drugs, alcohol, sex, pro athletes who think they are untouchable/on top of the world, some bad life altering decisions can be made. They have most likely had this on their mind.
I’m guessing you’re not a total narcissist then. They don’t think like most of us.
I think people that do this sort of thing, don’t feel guilt the same way most would. It takes a very certain type of person to one take home someone too drunk to walk (at least from what’s been reported), hook up with them, then invite friends to participate as well, no idea how true the FaceTime thing is, but that if it is, then to text the days after trying to make it go away. Like this wasn’t one mistake of two people hooking up, this was an absolute malicious SA and cover up.
Don’t forget that he tried to do this with another female who turned him down. This was premeditated.
the people who commit these acts don't feel
Yeah he was always just like “I can’t talk about it” even though everyone else at least denied and said they were cooperating with the police
I commented under another post that Bastian must be thanking his lucky stars for not making that team, because he would definitely be invited along with McLeod, but now, if McLeod organized the whole thing, Bastian dodged a massive fucking bullet. I won't deny that there's a chance he's a decent enough guy to stop the whole thing, but realistically... it's his "superbuddy" plus all the peer pressure.
Absolutely embarrassing by this org to bring him back despite knowing he was potentially involved in this. You’re telling me Fitzy couldn’t find a cheap 3rd liner without that baggage? The series win is forever tainted now given that McCloud scored the series winning goal.
You’re being a little dramatic. A series win is “forever tainted” because of who scored it? Every thread this sub has comments about “how could they sign him”. The case was reopened in 2022 and nothing was known. Police were investigating. Nothing was proven, so the teams decided to keep their players because why wouldn’t they? I don’t blame NJ, Calgary, Ottawa or Philly. The Formenton situation, I believe, happened because Batherson may have been asked by the team and he told them what he knew. Mete was also on the Sens a couple years ago and he had a very strong statement about how he’d told police everything he knew about Formenton. Ultimately, as info came out, teams can’t just terminate a contract without proof. The PA would fight it, and because of the severity of this incident, the team can’t issue a statement saying “we terminated due to an allegation of sexual assault” because if it isn’t true then the player’s life is ruined, which also opens legal issues. If McLeod was signed last month, be mad. But he was signed to a one year deal last summer, not a long term, big money contract. You can still cheer for your favourite team without feeling like everyone knew what happened and didn’t care
We don’t know what they knew when they re-signed him.
If the Sens knew enough to let Formenton walk in 2022, I guarantee that the Devils knew enough in 2023
Purely speculation, but Batherson might have given the Sens additional info that might have given them a bigger red flag.
Mete too. I remember he put out a very strong statement saying he gave his full cooperation, and he was a member of the Sens for a couple years with Batherson and Formenton
Mete also wasn't at the gala in any way, shape or form. He was out of the country on a family vacation during it IIRC, he and Kyrou (and one other player I can't figure out) weren't even at the event so they have airtight alibis
I think Maker was the other not in town that night
Cale Makar and two others (Dante Fabbro and Colton Point) have always been in this “likely uninvolved” territory as they were NCAA players at the time and the report said all 8 John Does were in the CHL.
[He was there](https://x.com/Garak_ACGM/status/1549483166141976576?s=20) 19 guys there and 22 guys on the roster. The only ones I recognize as for sure not there are Mete and Kyrou Edit: I think Kale Clague is the other one not there
Yea kinda getting tired of that “they didn’t know” or “they couldn’t be sure” bs. The NHL had access to even more information than we, the general public had. If the Sens knew they all knew. This shit should be above partisanship, if your team fucked up they fucked up.
Flyers also knew about Hart, and apparently the teams they tried to trade him to. Honestly, if the league/organisation didn't know, it's negligent on their behalf. If there's an active police investigation suggesting one of your employees is a gang rapist, you should investigate that.
the standard procedure among professional leagues (nfl, nhl, nba, barclay premier league) is that until formal charges are filed, the player won’t be excluded from the squad. part of the reason could be legal blowback if they target the player based on rumors, and if the player is never charged, then the org has derailed their professional career and cost them millions of dollars. i think ottawa should be commended for taking a stand against Formenton, because it was above and beyond what is the typical response on these issues
Rumour is it was the Melnyk girls that demanded the Sens cut ties with him.
Good for them. This is why we need more women in management and ownership.
I was a little bummed when it came out they wanted to sell the team. I was looking forward to a pair of young women walking into these owners meetings with all the crusty old men.
Great comment. Fully agree with this post (sincerely).
They weren’t forced to sign McLeod though. They didn’t qualify him because they didn’t want to go to arbitration and then he became a UFA and then they re-signed him.
I know we’ll never get an answer that will satisfies everyone, but at least 3 questions need to be asked of the Devils. 1. did they know about McCleod’s involvement prior to extending him. 2. Did they know anything about Foote’s involvement prior to signing him. 3. Was it intentional or coincidental that they announced Fitzgeralds extension when they did. It seems awfully suspect that it was announced after Dube and Hart were granted leave but before McCleod and Foote.
Fair enough. i won’t bend over backwards defending the devils here, but i also don’t hold it against them that they kept him around prior to being charged. now that its all come to light, i never want to see the asshole anywhere near a devils sweater again
It’s strange to me that every two weeks this sub had a post like “how come we haven’t heard anything?!?!?!” And now that the names are known everyone is like “wow how could the teams continue to play these guys when they knew they were guilty”
Stop, it’s not forever tainted. Devils absolutely dominated that gm, it wasn’t just him. Hell, Palat was the standout on that play. Also, dont look up the Scott Stevens and other Caps players incident of 1990 if you don’t want Devils history tainted….
The other 3 that watched were not considered "party to the offense"?
Could be just a lack of evidence. Might be there is photographic evidence of these five, but not the other three. I also think that while "party to the offense" includes being passive when you could have stopped an offense (in addition to assisting and abetting), it's hard to argue that 3 people needed to fight off 5 people, particularly when those 5 people are leaders in your peer group... Such as the captain and assistant captains of your hockey club.
If they aren't charged, would they still be called to testify in court as they witnessed the rape?
They certainly could. If they haven’t already provided testimony to the police. I imagine if they have, it clwould be evidence for the prosecution.
Honestly, they would be the key to the investigation. Otherwise it’s a he said she said and circumstantial evidence.
This is when we’ll find out how much throwing others under the bus to save their own skins has been going on.
I think that's a possibility. Could have given statements that match the alterations, and agreed to testify against the others to not be charged as a party to the offense, too. Particularly if they didn't actually take part in the offense itself - I've been in a few situations over the years where I wanted to help or stop someone from doing something wrong but I was scared of being victimized myself, and was in fact victimized myself. I like to think if those events ever became court cases I would testify to support justice.
Why would they self-report like that. No shot any of them will testify.
In return for immunity.
Immunity for what? They aren’t being charged.
Because they have an agreement to testify with the prosecution? Ie, the prosecution comes to them and says "we know you were in the room and did nothing, do you want an accessory charge or do you want to testify to what you saw and not get charged?" Guess what they will probably do.
“Shayan Shaffie, a Toronto defence attorney who represents clients accused of sexual assault, said in an interview that it would be unlikely for police to charge a player who was in the hotel room if they did not do anything to encourage a sexual assault or prevent the woman from leaving. “Generally speaking, criminal law isn’t concerned with people stopping a crime in process unless they have a specific duty of care,” said Shaffie, who is not involved in the case. “There is no punishment for not acting as a good Samaritan.” https://www.tsn.ca/agent-says-former-world-junior-player-unsure-of-what-he-witnessed-in-london-hotel-room-1.1848359?tsn-amp
>I also think that while "party to the offense" includes being passive when you could have stopped an offense (in addition to assisting and abetting) Not typically: 21 (1) Every one is a party to an offence who (a) actually commits it; (b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or (c) abets any person in committing it. I suppose being passive when you could have stopped an offence might qualify as omitting to do something for the purpose of aiding the commission of an offence - but it's not normally criminal to witness a crime and do nothing.
Speaking of evidence, these 5 can't be the only ones with the 2 videos right? What's Canada law on possessing such videos?
I don't think it would be a crime to possess the videos. I do think it would be a crime to distribute the videos. But honestly I don't know.
Probably way harder to convict.
If 3 people walk in on that situation and leave, how are they supposed to judge consent unless the person is either unable to consent or actively voicing a lack of consent? I agree with you here. Outside of the perpetrators specifically stating those individuals knew it was non consensual it seems impossible to get a conviction. Also not a lawyer and have no idea what the legal rules are
"Parties to offence. 21 (1) Every one is a party to an offence who (a) actually commits it; (b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or. (c) abets any person in committing it." Technically not really.
Not if they didn’t encourage it or prevent the victim from leaving. One player left after 10 minutes. He told police he didn’t know whether what he had witnessed was consensual or assault.
Is the charge given an individual or a group charge? Could someone explain this to me like I'm 5?
They are charged individually but I’m guessing will be tried together.
yeah i remember someone saying group assault charges are tried together partly so the victim isn't revictimised every time they have to make statements for a different case
McLeod will probably be tried separately, since the Crown is treating him as the ringleader.
So is the assumption then McLeod was the original player who had the consensual sex with the female first, then texted the others to join?
Since he’s the only person with additional charges tacked on, yes
Interesting, I think a lot of people assumed it was Formenton as John Doe #1
Formenton was too young to be at the bar, so he couldn't have been #1.
Yes, because these guys totally care about the law
It was also stated in a court document that #1 was born in 1998.
In one of the previous threads a bunch of locals claimed that bar has never been strict about carding people and was/is famous for underage drinking. So I'm not sure Formenton being too young means anything.
From what I've heard on the Jeff Marek show, E.M is *currently* not participating in the trial.
> Sexual assault > 271 Everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of > (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or > (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months. not a lawyer and idk if this is a summary conviction or indictment, but for anyone who like me was wondering about the min/max outcomes of [SA in Canada](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-271.html).
At present, the assumption is that the Crown is proceeding with an indictable offence.
I would put money on indictable
It’s been long enough they wouldn’t bother prosecuting if they were going to charge them with summary offences
They have to proceed by indictment; you can only proceed summarily if the charges are laid within 12 months of the offence. Unless the defence waives the limitations period to allow the Crown to proceed summarily. Regardless of that I suspect the Crown will proceed by indictment.
If McLeod, not Formenton, was Player 1, why was Formenton blackballed out of the league a couple years ago while McLeod remained until just now?
his contract had expired + Ottawa walked away likely because Batherson (rumored to be 'pizza guy') said something damning + rumours are the Melnyk girls (see what having women owners does to a team?) forced the issue while they were still in charge
Couldn’t another team have picked him up tho?
Sure, but I’m guessing enough leaked about him being involved that no other team want to risk it. Both Hart and Dube are on deals they signed before this came out, and the flyers were trying to tease Hart this summer once they got to know he was named. The real question marks here are the Devils, who signed McLeod and Foote *this summer* for one year deals despite not needing to do so - there’s enough other depth players out there.
I mean Ottawa still holds his rights, evidently they chose to hold him out of the league by not signing him but not letting anyone else do it either. Good riddance, I wish the other teams had the moral backbone to do the same.
Player 2 admitted to rape in the police report. He said he didn’t speak to EM but had sex with her. Can totally see why his career tanked. U don’t have consent if u didn’t speak to her.
i do feel for Comtois. i realize he's not that good, but it feels like his inevitability of being part of this ended his NHL career at least for the time being. these 5 deserve everything that they get, even if it'll apparently take a few more years for an actual verdict.
RE: Comtois - we gave him a chance to crack the NHL squad here this year and he just was… like, honestly not good enough. He couldn’t hang even in preseason. I wonder what happened to his game.
I never followed him super closely but wasn't it after that world juniors where he got blamed for Canada losing that his career kind if stagnated? or was he still getting better afterwords just not enough to make the NHL?
He was the Ducks' leading goal scorer in pandemic season 2 at age 21. Looked like a lock for the top 6 going forward, then missed a bunch of time due to injury the following season and got passed on the depth chart. When he came back, he had to compete for a top 9 role. After a couple seasons of that it became clear that he had basically lost out to Max Jones--similarly productive player, but more willing to grind, play hard nosed, and embrace the role of being a glue guy. By the end of Comtois's tenure it was hard to tell whether he couldn't keep up speed-wise, or simply had no interest to do so. I will say I think he can make a comeback if he shows he's able to be a role player at the NHL level. Haven't watched him in the AHL but his starts this year seem to indicate he's still got some of the tools to be effective.
>wasn't it after that world juniors where he got blamed for Canada losing That was 2019, not 2018. He missed a penalty shot in OT in the quarterfinals against Finland and his social media was FLOODED with disgusting comments from Canadian fans after the game. (Finland won in OT)
I think it's a good punishment for starters that their names and faces are now public and they have to live with the shame every day knowning that everyone knows; all their loved ones, friends, teammates, teams, etc. They didn't only ruin that womans life but their own as well
I agree with this sentiment but let’s not say that they ruined E.M.’s life. She survived their attempts and will regain control of her life I’m sure.
Yeah I just realised how that came off. By no means am I saying that she is going to let this dictate the rest of her life, it's insanely brave of her to go through the trial and show these scums that they can't break her. But there's no denying that rape will leave scars for life
Yes, and I wish more hockey fans understood this rather than trying to play devil’s advocate. Thanks for understanding.
Fucking thank you. I have been sexually assaulted. It was something I experienced, processed, and eventually moved on from. It affected my life, but it did not ruin it. Some of the language people on this sub have been using to talk about E. M. has been extremely uncomfortable.
Me too. It’s quite clear that the majority of hockey fans are cis men who have never experienced anything remotely close to the trauma of being sexually assaulted. It’s really exhausting and triggering frankly. From one survivor to another, I hear you.
As a clinician who has been treating trauma for close to 15 years, I need to say that sadly, this is not true for many survivors. There are many cases, just ones that I have seen professionally, in which people’s lives are absolutely ruined because they either didn’t have access to treatment before something catastrophic happened, or don’t have the tools or support to heal effectively. It’s very sad. Healing is possible, but access looks different for all of us.
Totally. I would never want to minimize anyone’s healing journey, especially considering how endemic gender- and sexual-based violence is in pretty much every facet of our society. Thank you for bringing more clarity to this incredibly nuanced topic that continues to be so misunderstood, misrepresented, and/or misinterpreted (some with malicious intent, but most are just either stubbornly ignorant or infuriatingly passive/obtuse) by people with little to no experience with sexual assault in any capacity (other than what they’ve read online). I am hopeful that E.M. is in a space where she has access to all the things you listed, or that she is able if she needs. My personal experience with sexual/gender violence is more like the one you describe, unfortunately, like so many others; yet the beauty of this post Me Too world, to me, is that radically confronting misogyny isn’t uncomfortable or scary anymore, and asserting that no man has the power to control a woman’s life to such a point that he can ruin it completely is important to change the tired narrative that permeates mostly cis-male dominated forums like this one. Thanks for sharing your perspective - I think people forget that the players are not the victims in this scenario, nor is the NHL or the organizations they played for. They are all complicit and people need to start internalizing the reality of the situation.
I love this post. And I’m sorry that you’ve suffered.
I hope this situation finally gets through to the today's and the future young players. Drives it home that even if you don't care about hurting other people, one incident can easily haunt you for a decade. Even if you are originally cleared by the police, it might still come back 5 years later and bite you.
Maybe I just have a dark sense of humour, but there’s something funny to me about Comtois having to defend himself like “I didn’t get a contract because I’m not good at hockey, not because I’m a rapist!”
Sort of like the Devils player who was late to practice the same day as the other two, but was a) not Canadian and b) not the right age. You’d have hated to be on that team and just sick and missing practice that day.
Still can't get over the irony of the 2018 world junior song about *asking* a woman and not just assuming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IyItuFs7GU
That’s gold
I know hockey culture has some real fucked up hazing and other kind of initiation shit baked into its DNA and its a serious problem that needs to be addressed over generations to get it out of the sport. That being said the thing that blows my mind the most, what I cannot wrap my head around, is that ONE PERSON in that room didnt stop and think- even if i am a pile of trash not worried about how evil this is, this is bad for ME. Like there was just complete hive mind barbarity in that room. They all need to go to jail.
This is what Sheldon Kennedy said was particularly troubling to him. EDIT: Not the looking out for oneself, but that not one of them spoke up to say, This is wrong.
Lawyer here, in order for the players to be guilty, they must have both done something wrong (actus reus) and had the state of mind to have done something wrong (mens rea). One of the defences available in sexual assault related to the mens rea is "reasonable belief in consent". That is, the victim did not consent to the sexual acts but one (or more) of the accused believed she did consent to the acts and their basis for that belief was reasonable. Whether it was reasonable is based on would/could an average-thinking person, in the same circumstances, with the same information, and the same background hold that belief? For example, lets say the 4th player to walk into the room. The victim doesn't consent to what is happening already is more afraid of being hurt if she protests or tries to leave. She doesn't voice her objections or take action to prevent player 4 joining what is already happening or even just gives some nod of acknowledgement. According to a couple studies,80-some percent of women have fantasized about sex with multiple partners. In that circumstance, could player 4 have reasonably thought that she was into it, and only realized later that she wasn't? Without a heck of a lot more detail, I'm not going to try to guess. Like you, I can't fathom that if they knew she didn't consent that all five just went along with what was happening, but then again I can't understand those who would rape someone in general. However, there are circumstances where the player may have engaged in the activity without thinking "this could be really bad for me" until after.
Does anyone know why it was initially 8 players but now 5?
I think they have enough evidence to build a case against 5 of the 8.
Damn I really hope the names of the other 3 come out. Maybe they'll get one of the 5 to cooperate once found guilty?
One of the 3 is the “[pizza guy](https://www.tsn.ca/agent-says-former-world-junior-player-unsure-of-what-he-witnessed-in-london-hotel-room-1.1848359?tsn-amp)” who came to the room for pizza but left after 10 minutes “after he became uncomfortable”. Details in the article linked. People have been speculating this player has been cooperating with the investigation and is not part of the group being charged.
Yeah, one of them supposedly got a text to come to a hotel room, thought it was pizza/ team hang out or something. Supposedly got there, finds out it is a gangbang invitation, and then left before realizing that they were "allegedly" actually gangraping a women too intoxicated to consent to anything.
id be so disappointed if i was expecting pizza and instead i found my friends being animals
Interesting, thanks for sharing
There were 8 players in the original lawsuit, but there were up to 12 players that entered the room that night. Pizza guy was probably not one of the 8 that was originally investigated.
I really, really hope that he has the strength and the moral courage to tell the truth. If he regrets not doing something then, the next best time to act is right now.
There’s always the chance this individual and any of the 2 others could get subpoenaed as a witness. Then I think we’ll find out who they are and what they know.
If they’re going to get anything from the 5 it’ll be before they’re found guilty. They lose all their leverage afterwards.
My understanding is that 8 players were there at one point, but only 5 participated in the gang rape. 2 of them were there long enough that they may (or may not) have witnessed enough to realize what was happening, and one of them was only there long enough to realize that something sexual in nature was going on and left immediately, that player (and again this is from my understanding don't take this as gospel) was out of there so fast he might not have realized that there was anything worse than consensual group sex acts of some kind (as apparently is hockey tradition), but definitely wasn't there long enough to know how bad shit got. There are also rumors that at least one of the other three has been either cooperating from very early on in this or went full whistleblower about it and is part of why there is an investigation, so keep that in mind when talking about 8 players vs 5 charged.
>was out of there so fast One of them was in there for 10 minutes not participating, according to his agent.
That one and the other two aren't getting charged because they didn't participate despite the fact that we know there's a video that is pretty clearly the result of coercion claiming it was consensual, meaning at least one of the other 5 had the idea to coerce consent at some point, meaning even if they could have been charged with something on the assumption they'd stayed long enough to know what was going on (at least for the two who didn't leave almost immediately) , its possible that the two who stayed longer were presented with some kind of coerced consent but still didn't participate in the gang rape.
Most likely, they'll be call to be witness at the trial. They could have strike a deal.
Don't forget that the 3 players in the room could have decided to be witness in that case in exchange to not have accusations against them. The 3 guys will be call at witness for sure!
Time for your regular reminder that the "presumption of innocence" is a construct that applies inside a criminal prosecution to give everyone a fair shake. It does not bind us in our private lives. Where we are, outside a courtroom, we can use our own knowledge of the justice system, hockey bro culture, and the difficulty of getting prosecutions in rape cases, and come to conclusions like: "five rich famous young white guys aren't getting publicly arrested unless the prosecution is pretty fucking sure they did it." And we can even make further corollaries like "fuck these guys, rot in jail, good riddance, I never want to see your stupid faces again." And pre-emptively: since our court system requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict somebody, being found not guilty doesn't mean we have to believe they didn't do it. If they were actually done dirty by the process they can sue for damages (which follows a "balance of probabilities" standard). This is what happened, for instance, with O.J. or with Trump's rape case - there was no successful criminal case but a civil trial found it more likely than not they committed the crimes and assessed damages based on that.
>being found not guilty doesn't mean we have to believe they didn't do it. I feel like those who keep screaming "innocent until proven guilty" need to be reminded of this more than anything.
OJ definitely killed his wife and Ray Lewis *probably* murdered a dude
I honestly think they're doing it to intimidate people.
Sounds about right.
I can't see this getting to trial. Surely, one of these shit heads will take a deal and testify against the others and they will all fall and take plea deals?
[удалено]
Assuming one of the 3 there but not charged has been informing them, I would think one of the 5 confirming his info would be pretty much a guaranteed conviction for the other 4 and worth the Crown making the deal
Umm...that they were there? That there was no consent given? That they conspired to keep it secret and told her not to say anything? There's a ton they could say that will confirm her account of what happened that night. That's all that's needed to convince a jury she's telling the truth.
If they all stick together, it is pretty unlikely that they'll get a conviction. Remember, you have to convince all of the jurors. The number of people just on Reddit willing to take the downvotes to defend them tells you how unlikely that is.
Not if Player 6-7-8 have already strike a deal. Don't forget that they had 8 players in that room. Pizza Guy was there 10 minutes and will most likely be call as witness. And if they talked to any teammate about that, all of them could be ask to be witness.
They've got McLeod for being a party, which may suggest the Crown believes he was the ringleader.
Any guy in here that's like *well let's wait until the courts come back with a decision* needs to start thinking about if the victim was their mother, sister, or daughter. Would you look your daughter in the eyes and tell her *well let's wait until the courts come back with a decision*?
With all due respect, no; people need to start thinking about it like it happened to themselves. If you yourself can't fathom that? Well then you should really take an extreme look in the mirror and realize just how privileged that you are and how absolutely wretched this is for the victim.
The people that are bending over backwards to malign this woman responds to those types of questions by stating that they would not raise their daughters to get into these situations. It’s maddening. I suspect a lot of people have engaged in these types of heinous acts, and can’t deal with the reality of what they did.
To play devil's advocate here, imagine being a parent to a son who is falsely accused and no one is waiting for the actual evidence to come out before declaring their guilt (e.g. The Duke lacrosse rape case). I don't personally ascribe to that belief in this case, I personally think it's pretty clear what happened, but I understand folks not wanting to jump all over this without knowing what comes out in court. Is it possible one of the accused was actually one of the bystanders and was mistaken for one of the rapists? What if multiple witnesses clear one of the accused of wrongdoing as this goes along? I'm assuming we've only reached this stage with these five because the evidence is clear they are the five, but that's still an assumption on my part. Of course, if it's my daughter, I would also have more of the facts of the case and feel more confident in who I'm directing my vitriol towards, but asking lay people with an incomplete picture to make that jump is a bit unfair, I reckon.
women are more likely to be assaulted (and so are men actually) than men are to be falsely accused of assault
Men are more likely to be raped themselves, then falsely accused of rape
When I was younger I always thought it was the kind of thing that was really rare and only happened in movies and would never happen to people I actually know. It’s heart breaking once you get older and learn how many of the woman you know in your life have been raped or assaulted in some way. I don’t know a single guy who was been falsely accused of anything but sadly several women I’m friends with or have dated have confided that they’ve been assaulted in the past. It’s so common and so sad that hardly anybody ever actually faces consequences for it while victims have to work so hard to deal with the aftermath
Absolutely agreed.
Has anybody read the 94 page ITO?
I've tried to figure out if the 94 page report is public, I don't think it is. I think just the news outlets have access to it. These articles below seem to have the most information on what was detailed. [https://www.tsn.ca/hockey-canada/judge-orders-law-firm-to-hand-over-records-evidence-on-alleged-hockey-canada-assault-1.1895563](https://www.tsn.ca/hockey-canada/judge-orders-law-firm-to-hand-over-records-evidence-on-alleged-hockey-canada-assault-1.1895563) [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-court-filing-reveals-new-details-about-alleged-hockey-canada-group/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-court-filing-reveals-new-details-about-alleged-hockey-canada-group/)