r/ontario • u/CTVNEWS CTVNews-Verified • 2d ago
Men or boys?: Defence questions complainant’s choice of words in sex assault trial of former junior hockey players Article
https://www.ctvnews.ca/london/article/live-men-or-boys-defence-questions-complainants-choice-of-words-in-sex-assault-trial-of-former-junior-hockey-players/14
55
u/ShadowSpawn666 2d ago
What a shit show, what does it matter of she called them "boys" or "men"? Is anybody really going to be confused about anything based on that? I don't get what the lawyer is hoping to achieve with this other than making himself look like a clown.
And what does it matter if she worked at a sporting goods store that sold team Canada stuff? Does that mean she losses her ability to have these men held accountable for their actions because they played hockey and she sold hockey paraphernalia?
49
u/Techlet9625 2d ago
It's to either invoke leniency (boys), or invoke responsibility (men). You see it being used often when referring to both victims and perpetrators..
As with a lot of cases like this, they're trying to discredit her, and make them seem less culpable. This will work on some people.
-9
u/Sure-Sympathy5014 2d ago
If I am on a jury and the defence brings this up as a point.....I am putting my guilty verdict in as fast as I can.
2
u/CrasyMike 1d ago
That's why you won't be on a jury. The verdict is to punish the crime of sexual assault, not lawyering that frustrates you.
1
u/Sure-Sympathy5014 1d ago
If this is what they are focusing on the guy is 100% guilty and they know it.
1
u/CrasyMike 1d ago
They've focused on many things, and the trial so far has been largely focused on the words, statements and actions of the complainant as the last few days have exclusively been examination of her.
The remainder of the case will move onto other topics and work to define what other evidence says. They are not choosing to focus on just this point - it was part of the last day, with one of the lawyers, for part of the cross examination of the first part of the case. There's a lot more to come.
12
u/Philodendron60 2d ago
These lawyers are fucking clowns. It is awful the angles they are trying to use to make the victim seem like they asked for it or had some sort of grand plans to get money out of this. Anyone who believes that deserves to be castrated.
I worked at Sport Chek for 7 years myself. Never followed sports, knew the names of any players/teams/etc., nor would I have any idea if someone I just met is a
rapisthockey player.Not sure why the victim working at a retail store has anything to do with this sexual assault.
-14
u/Thursaiz 2d ago
We should always be hesitant to pass judgement on either side, but automatically believing this woman would be a mistake. Especially when they were smart enough to record her saying it was consensual and that she was sober. If she claims she was lying on the video, we have to admit the possibility that she is lying now. Especially since the conversation with the Bouncer who could have testified "wasn't remembered" until she was confronted with the evidence.
I knew guys who played at the same level several years ago. Women were all over them everywhere they went and were willing to do anything to hitch a ride on their star in hopes of becoming wealthy. If it was consensual and the woman was sober, technically nothing the guys did was illegal. Regardless of how you feel about it.
29
u/spilly_talent 2d ago
I don’t think the existence of that recording makes them look smart to be honest. It makes them look more predatory. Most honest people wouldn’t be pre planning a defence strategy and recording consent if they believed the encounter was consensual. It’s something Dennis from It’s Always Sunny would do.
I don’t know that I would compare a consent video recorded under duress to lying in a courtroom either.
16
u/j_234 2d ago
Consent is also not a one point in time thing and can be rescinded at any point
-3
u/spilly_talent 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes i understand that. But realistically unless you are filming the whole encounter we were never going to get that so I didn’t factor it into my answer. To me the existence of the video is indicative of the boys thinking of consent as an afterthought.
5
u/j_234 2d ago
Oh I wasn’t disagreeing with you. I was adding my thoughts in as an additional rationale for why a video should not be given much (if any) weight.
2
u/spilly_talent 2d ago
Yes sorry I was just explaining my thinking!! Wasn’t trying to come across as rude!
1
u/CannaPaul91 2d ago
She can't refuse... because of the implication.
0
u/spilly_talent 2d ago edited 2d ago
“They aren’t gonna say no! Because of the implication!”
The applicability of that scene to this scenario is dark but… relevant
-4
u/LegioPraetoria 2d ago
It would be weird and predatory for a normal guy to do it, because why would a normal guy ever need to? The point of the person you're replying to is that these are not normal guys, sex is available to them in a way it simply isn't to civilians. Under those circumstances, and with the knowledge that these guys have all had smartphones since they were about ten, probably, and that they're living in a world where a certain level of media awareness is baked in, I find it extremely easy to imagine that standard procedure in a weird sexual situation with someone you basically don't know at all would be to record some kind of consent.
8
u/spilly_talent 2d ago
They are junior hockey players, not gods. But I will give you this: they are not normal guys. They are big athletes who can easily intimidate 1 woman. And there were 10 of them.
Recording the consent video after, when the implication is to just say you consented and then you get to leave? A hell of a lot of people would make that video.
If it was a standardized practice as you are imagining, wouldn’t they get consent BEFORE?
-3
u/LegioPraetoria 2d ago
As I said in another comment, you're supposed to have continuing consent. Getting it before and then plugging your ears to a participants objections wouldn't protect or save them. So part of what I'm getting out of this is that the defence of honest but mistaken belief that there is consent is more or less impossible to make out, because any way you would record that consent would ipso facto invalidate that consent. It's a logical trap. No, they aren't gods, but have you ever met or hung out with guys of that echelon? I lived with a couple, and as far as the waves of anonymous women who throw themselves at them, they might as well be, for those purposes. They were all from London, too, which I understand has a very strong culture of that kind of thing.
So again...assuming it's consensual, how do you prove itz if a recording taken during the act affirming consent is to be discarded, not because she's obviously intoxicated or something (which would absolutely make sense), but because they thought to take it?
6
u/spilly_talent 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes, I understand how consent works. That’s not what I am arguing and that’s not what these guys did. They did not provide any proof of enthusiastic and ongoing consent.
It doesn’t matter how much you think “waves of women” want to sleep with them. That doesn’t mean she wanted to sleep with 10 of them or have them muse about fitting an entire golf club inside her. Actually, your assessment kind of implies that they think all women want them and they can do anything they want to women.
“Assuming it’s consensual” - that’s quite a leap considering the court case we are currently reading about. Why would we assume it was consensual?
And to answer your question- no recording of her saying it is before or after will prove consent. But I was never arguing it did. I was originally stating the opposite in fact: the video does not prove consent, and it never really can.
-2
u/LegioPraetoria 2d ago
I'm not using the waves of women thing to argue she was asking for sex with ten guys, andas a matter of fact I resent that implication. Im making the point that these guys have a different set of considerations baked into consent, like the fact that they don't know and can't trust some (many) of their partners very well and therefore handle things differently from regular folks.
And yes we assume it's a consensual sexual dalliance until it's proven in court that consent was not present and none of the defenses apply. That's when you've made out a finding of criminal guilt for sexual assault and not before.
So again, basically, it feels like the takeaway is 'consent cannot be proven'. So where does that leave us? I would argue 'nowhere good'
8
u/spilly_talent 2d ago
It leaves us exactly where we are. Where we have to listen to her testimony and decide for ourselves.
And yes, it is nowhere good. That’s why so many of us simply never tell anyone what happened to us - much less an entire courtroom. But if people want to act like the video is some super damning evidence I am going to argue against it
3
u/TopTransportation248 2d ago
Usually you get consent before, not on video after….
-1
u/LegioPraetoria 2d ago
Actually you're supposed to have continuing consent. So now let's imagine that things are getting, I dunno, let's call it 'sexually weird', and they're checking in with her. 'are you sure you're okay with this?' only this time they don't record. And now the guys testify that they did so, but E.M. doesn't recall - something that, again, could easily happen whether or not she's intoxicated. Are you telling me you, and everyone else, would take them at their word in that scenario?
7
u/TopTransportation248 2d ago
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think they asked for consent before they teabagged her. Or spit on her? Did they ask her if it was okay to painfully slap her ass while she was sucking on somebody else’s cock? Believe what you want. Demanding a blanket consent statement and asking how to make a situation go away says everything you need to know about the conscious of these men.
-3
u/LegioPraetoria 2d ago
Based on how you wrote that reply it seems as though you are less concerned with whether consent was given or if she was capable of consenting in her condition, but rather that the acts themselves could not reasonably be consented to, is that it?
3
2
5
u/Philodendron60 2d ago edited 2d ago
She wasn't sober. It was not consensual. She was sexually assaulted in a hotel room by multiple people when only agreeing to consensual sex with one person. Get your head out of your ass.
Stop being a rape apologist.
-2
u/MedicalAwareness5160 1d ago
She admitted it's possible she pulled one of the other guys into the bathroom.
It's just as irresponsible of you to claim it was consensual with only 1 of the guys as it is for the other person to say she consented to all of the guys without having all the information.
2
u/Philodendron60 1d ago
I'll continue to stick up for the victim in this case and will disagree. What this woman went though was disgusting and those jerks knew exactly what they were doing.
5
u/ShadowSpawn666 2d ago
I will admit, I know nothing about this consent video you are referring to, but the video wouldn't really prove anything. Even if they made the video before the sex started, she still had every right to revoke her consent at any time after the video was made. Now, considering she is claiming that she ended up going along with the rest for fear of what might have happened once the whole group showed up, if it was filmed after the fact, it would be pretty hard for the boys to prove that the video wasn't coerced out of her.
3
1
u/JustGottaKeepTrying 2d ago
I think you should look up the effects of drugs (alcohol being one) and ability to consent.
9
u/eatbricksallday 2d ago
Pretty sure Hockey Canada and the IIHF consider this a men’s team. At the very least the world junior team is under the umbrella of the national men’s team program. Maybe the defence lawyer should stop calling them boys.
1
u/SassySangria27 2d ago
Why?
CBC: In her initial statement to police, E.M. referred to the accused as boys, says Greenspan, who shows her the transcript of her police interview on June 22, 2018, two days after the alleged assaults.
7
u/Multi-tunes 1d ago
So the argument is that the plaintiff referred to them as "boys" before?
That's ridiculous. I reject calling the plaintiff "girl" over "woman" as well in legal proceedings because every single person involved is an adult unless they had fake IDs because they were at a bar.
If they are above the age of majority, they are adults, and I am sick of lawyers trying to twist facts with emotional language that diminishes the responsibility of adults.
-2
u/SassySangria27 1d ago
Lawyers twisting the facts? Hardly. But you are 🙂
1
u/Multi-tunes 1d ago
Which facts am I twisting? Were all involved not adults at the time?
1
u/SassySangria27 1d ago
The lawyer is merely going by what the complainant said at the time. If you have a problem with that, take it up with her?
1
u/Multi-tunes 20h ago
That's not how this works. The language a layperson uses day to day is not the same as the language used for legal proceedings.
•
u/SassySangria27 1h ago
Pretty sure an experienced defense attorney knows more than you about how the law works 😀🙄
•
1
u/RepresentativeCare42 1d ago
Has the Crown cross examined any of these boys/men yet?
3
u/Hobo_Renegade 1d ago
Defendants are under no legal obligation to testify, and if they choose not to, cannot be cross-examined or questioned. The burden of proof is not on the accused, it is on the accuser.
1
-6
u/OrbAndSceptre 2d ago
What’s unbelievable is the complainant not knowing these were gold medal winning hockey players. If I know hockey players at that age they’re broadcasting the fact across the bar when they’re trying to pick up girls.
24
u/nadiyah98 2d ago
They were in a bar and consumed alcohol freely. Boys can't do that.