Thomas Is Potential Witness At Hockey Canada Sexual Assault Trial

[Army's Mom]

Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.

A word of advice - you should probably look into the details of this particular event before making such a flippant blanket statement. The prosecution apparently has videos of the incident. To automatically assume it was all just made up is quite honestly, pretty vile.

I haven’t looked into this but I get why people wouldn’t believe it initially. As a former cop who investigated this stuff for over 10 years, 8/10 “grapes minus the g” were fictitious.

Girl got pregnant by a black guy and didn’t want to tell parents
Girl slept with a “nerd” and had regret
Girl realized she was just a side piece
Girl wanted free cable so blamed the charter guy. (Yes this happened)
Girl wanted revenge

Nothing worse than a woman scorned and the amount of fathers who had to eat crow watching their daughter confess to lies on tape is madness.

Amd this is exactly why 9 of 10 rapes go unreported, when even the cops that are supposed to protect the victims go out of their way to defend the accused. Not meaning to call you out specifically, but I know quite a few prosecutors and see crimes prosecutors specifically, and this attitude is common.

[Army's Mom]

Mistrial. New jury will be selected

That jury was made up of 11 women and 3 men and the judge was female as well. Pretty sure these guys are beyond guilty, especially McLeod but not sure you can get a fair trial in this kind of case with a jury of 11 women

Actually contrary to popular belief- women voting to convict more isnt always the case.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20404525.html

Besides, all you neednis 1 juror for a hung jury.

Yep. Prosecutors want fathers on these juries, not other women. Women are seen as far more likely to judge the victim's character, right or wrong.

[Wattage]

Mistrial. New jury will be selected

That jury was made up of 11 women and 3 men and the judge was female as well. Pretty sure these guys are beyond guilty, especially McLeod but not sure you can get a fair trial in this kind of case with a jury of 11 women

Actually contrary to popular belief- women voting to convict more isnt always the case.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20404525.html

Besides, all you neednis 1 juror for a hung jury.

Yep. Prosecutors want fathers on these juries, not other women. Women are seen as far more likely to judge the victim's character, right or wrong.

Id imagine fathers or women specifically who have been sexually harrassed or assualted are the top targets

[STL fan in MN]

Mistrial. New jury will be selected

That jury was made up of 11 women and 3 men and the judge was female as well. Pretty sure these guys are beyond guilty, especially McLeod but not sure you can get a fair trial in this kind of case with a jury of 11 women

Doubt that was the reason for the mistrial. More likely one of the jurors didn’t follow the rules or had a connection to someone involved that wasn’t previously disclosed. And both the prosecution and defense together pick the jurors and can object to pretty much anyone. So the defense picked 11 women/3 men just as much as the prosecution did. That said, I’ll be interested to see what the makeup of the new jury will be.

[Pierre McGuire]

Mistrial. New jury will be selected

That jury was made up of 11 women and 3 men and the judge was female as well. Pretty sure these guys are beyond guilty, especially McLeod but not sure you can get a fair trial in this kind of case with a jury of 11 women

Doubt that was the reason for the mistrial. More likely one of the jurors didn’t follow the rules or had a connection to someone involved that wasn’t previously disclosed. And both the prosecution and defense together pick the jurors and can object to pretty much anyone. So the defense picked 11 women/3 men just as much as the prosecution did. That said, I’ll be interested to see what the makeup of the new jury will be.

I agree, just think that jury selection seems off

[diehardbluesfan1]

Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.

A word of advice - you should probably look into the details of this particular event before making such a flippant blanket statement. The prosecution apparently has videos of the incident. To automatically assume it was all just made up is quite honestly, pretty vile.

I haven’t looked into this but I get why people wouldn’t believe it initially. As a former cop who investigated this stuff for over 10 years, 8/10 “grapes minus the g” were fictitious.

Girl got pregnant by a black guy and didn’t want to tell parents
Girl slept with a “nerd” and had regret
Girl realized she was just a side piece
Girl wanted free cable so blamed the charter guy. (Yes this happened)
Girl wanted revenge

Nothing worse than a woman scorned and the amount of fathers who had to eat crow watching their daughter confess to lies on tape is madness.

Amd this is exactly why 9 of 10 rapes go unreported, when even the cops that are supposed to protect the victims go out of their way to defend the accused. Not meaning to call you out specifically, but I know quite a few prosecutors and see crimes prosecutors specifically, and this attitude is common.

Not sure what you do for a living but you could have worded this better as you sound like cops/I treat the victims poorly or support the perpetrators. Not true.

You can tell when something is off with their [nonsense] stories and you know pretty quickly which ones are real and which ones are iffy. Sometimes you do have to dig deeper and I have had it where it seemed iffy but it did in fact occur.

You also can’t just take the victims side until all information comes out.

Thats like watching simpletons get emotionally charged when the media plays them without getting all the facts.

[Hockey Pete]

We all need some perspective here, as there's a BIG reason why this hasn't gone to trial in almost seven years...

First, the victim did not contact the authorities, it was her father two days after the incident and she initially stated that it was nothing.

Second, three investigative agencies (London police, the London police with the national investigative service, the a 3rd party investigation done by Canadian Hockey) conducted multiple investigations into the matter. The alleged victim refused to cooperate with ANY of the investigative agencies, and not one single interview was conducted after her initial statement. Even with the video, no charges were filed.

Finally, it wasn't until the victim filed CIVIL charges four years later (against Hockey Canada, the CHL and eight players), where Hockey Canada settled out of court and the media found out, that started this entire case up again. Followed by the fact that it was the Parliament that pressured the crown to file the charges (not the London police).

Not saying wrong wasn't committed, but you have to admit that if it was as bad as the Canadian media is portraying, why didn't the Crown file charges immediately, especially with video evidence? Also, there's a story out there that her complaint in the civil matter doesn't match her initial testimony (as evidence by there only being five defendants instead of the original eight in the initial filing).

Just a LOT to consider here...

[rezero]

We all need some perspective here, as there's a BIG reason why this hasn't gone to trial in almost seven years...

First, the victim did not contact the authorities, it was her father two days after the incident and she initially stated that it was nothing.

Second, three investigative agencies (London police, the London police with the national investigative service, the a 3rd party investigation done by Canadian Hockey) conducted multiple investigations into the matter. The alleged victim refused to cooperate with ANY of the investigative agencies, and not one single interview was conducted after her initial statement. Even with the video, no charges were filed.

Finally, it wasn't until the victim filed CIVIL charges four years later (against Hockey Canada, the CHL and eight players), where Hockey Canada settled out of court and the media found out, that started this entire case up again. Followed by the fact that it was the Parliament that pressured the crown to file the charges (not the London police).

Not saying wrong wasn't committed, but you have to admit that if it was as bad as the Canadian media is portraying, why didn't the Crown file charges immediately, especially with video evidence? Also, there's a story out there that her complaint in the civil matter doesn't match her initial testimony (as evidence by there only being five defendants instead of the original eight in the initial filing).

Just a LOT to consider here...

It will be interesting to know what is on the video. My guess is that was the key piece of data used to settle out of court, and now that the media knows about it they are pushing the justice system to prosecute them. It is a criminal issue, and it this case will not be swept under the rug with money.

[Army's Mom]

We all need some perspective here, as there's a BIG reason why this hasn't gone to trial in almost seven years...

First, the victim did not contact the authorities, it was her father two days after the incident and she initially stated that it was nothing.

Second, three investigative agencies (London police, the London police with the national investigative service, the a 3rd party investigation done by Canadian Hockey) conducted multiple investigations into the matter. The alleged victim refused to cooperate with ANY of the investigative agencies, and not one single interview was conducted after her initial statement. Even with the video, no charges were filed.

Finally, it wasn't until the victim filed CIVIL charges four years later (against Hockey Canada, the CHL and eight players), where Hockey Canada settled out of court and the media found out, that started this entire case up again. Followed by the fact that it was the Parliament that pressured the crown to file the charges (not the London police).

Not saying wrong wasn't committed, but you have to admit that if it was as bad as the Canadian media is portraying, why didn't the Crown file charges immediately, especially with video evidence? Also, there's a story out there that her complaint in the civil matter doesn't match her initial testimony (as evidence by there only being five defendants instead of the original eight in the initial filing).

Just a LOT to consider here...

So, in law school I actually interned in a large prosecutor's office - but I never practiced after graduating. It's been 20 years, but there are some simple explanations to the seeming discrepancies.

1. Many rape accusations do not get criminally prosecuted because of a lack of evidence. Forensic evidence can only prove sexual contact occurred, and maybe suggest that it was nonconsensual. In the rare case where the defendant claims to never have had sexual contact (and there's forensic evidence to the contrary), it'll likely get prosecuted. But even then, the victim's cooperation is usually required to prove - and she will have every incentive to not cooperate (lest she be slut-shamed publicly). More than likely, if the defendant admits to the sexual contact and claims it was consensual, there will still need to be a smoking gun (like video of the incident, or the defendant bragging to someone that she was functionally incapable of consenting).

Women know this. Many victims choose not to report it, because it just drags their name through the mud, and for what? a 10% chance at justice, where you still will have people calling you a whore? It's not surprising at all that the alleged victim didn't contact the authorities, or that she initially said it was nothing. It's also not surprising that she didn't cooperate with the initial investigations - she'd have to risk putting her name and reputation out there. In college, I dated a woman who passed out at a frat party, woke up while being raped, and claimed it was nothing. Never pressed charges, and got angry at me when I encouraged her to. For her, it was easier to forget the whole thing and just pretend it never happened.

Even with the video evidence, her testimony would be needed to take this to trial - especially if consent is being claimed. Since we know that's one of the issues mentioned in the opening statements, it likely was. So it's no surprise that charges were never filed until after she changed her mind.

2. Civil charges are easier to prove. Many victims, knowing how hard it is to get actual justice, choose to go this route instead. At least it's a path to getting some sort of restitution, if not justice.

3. Eight vs five defendants. This goes to the different standards of proof and different levels of violations - it's much more likely that someone committed a civil offense versus a criminal one. I'm obviously guessing here, but if 2-3 guys stayed in the room and videotaped and cheered on their teammates while taunting the alleged victim, that may not rise to the level of a criminal act. But it absolutely could rise to the level of intentional inflection of emotional distress.

4. Apologies to DHBF, I wasn't trying to insinuate that you or all police treat victims poorly or support predators. You have my sincere apologies, and gratitude for your service. As much as my politics sometimes infect how I characterize police as a lump sum, as an intern I had nothing but good experiences with police officers I met. I was trying to describe an attitude common among alleged victims whose interviews I sat in on, but should have worded it better.

[Stlcardsblues]

Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.

A word of advice - you should probably look into the details of this particular event before making such a flippant blanket statement. The prosecution apparently has videos of the incident. To automatically assume it was all just made up is quite honestly, pretty vile.

As I read the previous comment I immediately went to thinking how have people not learned this stuff needs to be taken seriously after the Chicago incident. If it’s proven wrong then it dies in court, but I would never assume it’s getting this far without evidence.

[STL fan in MN]

Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.

A word of advice - you should probably look into the details of this particular event before making such a flippant blanket statement. The prosecution apparently has videos of the incident. To automatically assume it was all just made up is quite honestly, pretty vile.

As I read the previous comment I immediately went to thinking how have people not learned this stuff needs to be taken seriously after the Chicago incident. If it’s proven wrong then it dies in court, but I would never assume it’s getting this far without evidence.

Yeah, I’m just going to keep an open mind on this one and see what comes out of the trial. Agree that prosecutors wouldn’t go to trial without evidence but also not going to declare the boys definitely guilty until it all comes out.

In any event, not a good look for the sport but we’ll see what happens.

[Wattage]

We all need some perspective here, as there's a BIG reason why this hasn't gone to trial in almost seven years...

First, the victim did not contact the authorities, it was her father two days after the incident and she initially stated that it was nothing.

Second, three investigative agencies (London police, the London police with the national investigative service, the a 3rd party investigation done by Canadian Hockey) conducted multiple investigations into the matter. The alleged victim refused to cooperate with ANY of the investigative agencies, and not one single interview was conducted after her initial statement. Even with the video, no charges were filed.

Finally, it wasn't until the victim filed CIVIL charges four years later (against Hockey Canada, the CHL and eight players), where Hockey Canada settled out of court and the media found out, that started this entire case up again. Followed by the fact that it was the Parliament that pressured the crown to file the charges (not the London police).

Not saying wrong wasn't committed, but you have to admit that if it was as bad as the Canadian media is portraying, why didn't the Crown file charges immediately, especially with video evidence? Also, there's a story out there that her complaint in the civil matter doesn't match her initial testimony (as evidence by there only being five defendants instead of the original eight in the initial filing).

Just a LOT to consider here...

There was always saidnto be more than 5 in the room. The other 3 could have just been accused of things determined to not reach the level of a crime since they never performed sexual acts.

[Wattage]

We all need some perspective here, as there's a BIG reason why this hasn't gone to trial in almost seven years...

First, the victim did not contact the authorities, it was her father two days after the incident and she initially stated that it was nothing.

Second, three investigative agencies (London police, the London police with the national investigative service, the a 3rd party investigation done by Canadian Hockey) conducted multiple investigations into the matter. The alleged victim refused to cooperate with ANY of the investigative agencies, and not one single interview was conducted after her initial statement. Even with the video, no charges were filed.

Finally, it wasn't until the victim filed CIVIL charges four years later (against Hockey Canada, the CHL and eight players), where Hockey Canada settled out of court and the media found out, that started this entire case up again. Followed by the fact that it was the Parliament that pressured the crown to file the charges (not the London police).

Not saying wrong wasn't committed, but you have to admit that if it was as bad as the Canadian media is portraying, why didn't the Crown file charges immediately, especially with video evidence? Also, there's a story out there that her complaint in the civil matter doesn't match her initial testimony (as evidence by there only being five defendants instead of the original eight in the initial filing).

Just a LOT to consider here...

So, in law school I actually interned in a large prosecutor's office - but I never practiced after graduating. It's been 20 years, but there are some simple explanations to the seeming discrepancies.

1. Many rape accusations do not get criminally prosecuted because of a lack of evidence. Forensic evidence can only prove sexual contact occurred, and maybe suggest that it was nonconsensual. In the rare case where the defendant claims to never have had sexual contact (and there's forensic evidence to the contrary), it'll likely get prosecuted. But even then, the victim's cooperation is usually required to prove - and she will have every incentive to not cooperate (lest she be slut-shamed publicly). More than likely, if the defendant admits to the sexual contact and claims it was consensual, there will still need to be a smoking gun (like video of the incident, or the defendant bragging to someone that she was functionally incapable of consenting).

Women know this. Many victims choose not to report it, because it just drags their name through the mud, and for what? a 10% chance at justice, where you still will have people calling you a whore? It's not surprising at all that the alleged victim didn't contact the authorities, or that she initially said it was nothing. It's also not surprising that she didn't cooperate with the initial investigations - she'd have to risk putting her name and reputation out there. In college, I dated a woman who passed out at a frat party, woke up while being raped, and claimed it was nothing. Never pressed charges, and got angry at me when I encouraged her to. For her, it was easier to forget the whole thing and just pretend it never happened.

Even with the video evidence, her testimony would be needed to take this to trial - especially if consent is being claimed. Since we know that's one of the issues mentioned in the opening statements, it likely was. So it's no surprise that charges were never filed until after she changed her mind.

2. Civil charges are easier to prove. Many victims, knowing how hard it is to get actual justice, choose to go this route instead. At least it's a path to getting some sort of restitution, if not justice.

3. Eight vs five defendants. This goes to the different standards of proof and different levels of violations - it's much more likely that someone committed a civil offense versus a criminal one. I'm obviously guessing here, but if 2-3 guys stayed in the room and videotaped and cheered on their teammates while taunting the alleged victim, that may not rise to the level of a criminal act. But it absolutely could rise to the level of intentional inflection of emotional distress.

4. Apologies to DHBF, I wasn't trying to insinuate that you or all police treat victims poorly or support predators. You have my sincere apologies, and gratitude for your service. As much as my politics sometimes infect how I characterize police as a lump sum, as an intern I had nothing but good experiences with police officers I met. I was trying to describe an attitude common among alleged victims whose interviews I sat in on, but should have worded it better.

This. The current story still says there was as many as 10 different guys possibly in the room. Ifbthey performed no sexual acts they might have been spared criminal charges but they could have still performed intimidation of keeping her in room or egging on the assualt.

[Bad14]

Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.

Hopefully you don't have a daughter

[STL fan in MN]

After a mistrial was called, a new jury was selected and they got going again with this trial yesterday. TSN’s Rick Weathead is covering it and posted this:

Crown attorney Heather Donkers in her opening statement: “It is anticipated that you are going to hear from [E.M.], and others in the [hotel] room, that in this context, each of the five accused in this case had sexual contact with [E.M.] without her voluntary agreement to the specific acts that took place.”
Donkers told the jury that investigating police officers obtained five videos from the cell phone of current Ottawa Senators forward Drake Batherson, and two videos from Michael McLeod that were filmed in his hotel room.
McLeod also provided police with a continuous Snapchat video in three segments, Donkers said.

So Batherson wasn’t charged but was clearly there and took 5 videos of the incident. That goes to what was discussed earlier on there first being 8 guys involved and then it was only 5 that were charged. So they must’ve determined Batherson’s involvement didn’t rise to the level of criminality. So he might be judged in the court of public opinion but he escaped getting charged with an actual crime. Maybe because he cooperated and supplied the Crown with these videos. Then again, I’ve heard the players voluntarily supplied the videos thinking they would exonerate them but instead, the prosecutors saw it as proof of crimes and it’s very likely these videos that take gave them the proof they needed that took it from a he said, she said to them actually getting charged with crimes.

[George Zipp]

As someone who has been both a Public Defender and a Prosecutor I'd like to add some perspective.

In regard to the original jury pool makeup of mostly women, the only standard we go by in the States and I have to assume it is similar in Canada, is "jury of your peers." It's not "jury of men or women or blacks or whites or Asians or Mexicans" depending on the case type. I was a PD in STL County for a decade. A good majority of my clients were African American. Most of the potential jurors were not. And Prosecutors went out of their way to use their strikes (6) on African Americans. It got so bad that there is a US Supreme Court case that makes prosecutors give a legit reason to strike an AA, even for a preemptive strike. Still, you would be amazed at the typical jury for a Defendant from Pine Lawn or Jennings. The fact that there were 11 women on that first jury is just dumb luck of the makeup of the panel.

In regard to rape cases, sexual assault cases etc being prosecuted it is such a complicated discussion I'm not going to get into the weeds. The poster early in the thread that talked about making this (bleep) up, the one that got rightfully blasted, sure, like Duke Lacrosse that happens, but not nearly as often as people think. Most of the "made up" type cases almost always originated out of domestic proceedings. A nasty divorce where Mom convinces the kid to lie is a common example.

Otherwise these cases are a nightmare to prosecute. It's so, so, so tough and strong for a female to raise these issues. You can't possibly imagine what they go thru unless you have been thru it. The whole process is skewered to be skeptical of them, to slut shame them, "they asked for it' etc, It's nonsensical. I've seen some studies about the number of rapes that go unreported and it would boggle your minds.

More likely than not these videos are going to be damning. Dummy's filming this [shirt]. If they hadn't filmed we wouldn't be having this conversation. I have a sneaky suspicion that if we have gotten to this point that video is going to show a mostly blotto drunk female who is either way out of it or totally passed out.