Like most people I only read or what the media reported which is always one-sided in these cases. I think it was reported that the defense called no witnesses. In that case it must have been pretty obvious to the Judge that the kids were innocent. I don't think we need to second the decision.
Report: Five members of Canada’s 2018 WJC team told to surrender to London Police
- Thread starter bazokajoe
- Start date
No. Tactical decision by the defence to only put 1 accused on the stand to limit potential damage from the Crown cross-examining the defendants.
It would only take 1 of those dumb young jocks to fumble their story and the judge might have a totally different take on the case.
You do trials for a living and I don’t. If you read my posts from before the verdict, I strongly suggested that the five guys would be acquitted for reasons similar to what the judge cited for her decision.
No judge could have easily chosen to believe the lady’s evidence or there lack of.
This case had numerous nonsensical statements from the complainant contradictions from what she told Hockey. Canada the Crown and “non sequitur” rational for the reasons why she opened her orifices for vaginal oral sex to these five defendants in a consensual gang bang.
Have you ever had consensual sex with a woman who suffered from “ post coital” remorse ?
Multiple this revenge times five and you will get E.M. !
The scales of justice worked in this case.
Hockey Canada should not have given a penny to E.M. though !
That doesn't make any sense at all.
The decision was made by the Bench, why would they suggest "you got lucky the first time"?
That would be admitting that they just made a random decision, essentially a highly suspect decision , a verdict based on luck not evidence.
They understand the highly charged nature of this case, they're just trying to keep the lid on the pot.
Everything else is just a rationalization for a proper decision that some people may not like.
You're distracting from the most important and only point IMO.
She lied.
All her testimony, the verifiable evidence, undermined the value of her allegation.
All the post decision speculation and conjecture will not change the facts.
They're best to sign for US teams, nobody cares or knows about it down there. A few boos when they visit canada rinks. It will be interesting as Adam foote is now coach in Vancouver. Bettman is a left wing lunatic and still needs to authorize their reinstatement.
I don't agree. I saw EM as a reluctant complainant. Her mother's boyfriend got the police involved in the first place; she had initially written the experience off as a life lesson learned. The original detective involved rightfully believed that there wasn't enough evidence to convict. It was only after news broke of the out-of-court settlement that the acting Chief of the London Police Department chose to pursue a case, not for the sake of justice, but to appease 'the court of Twitter'. This was a public shaming, not a 'real' trial.
Ya you're right be damned the actual evidence...
One would hope the case will be a deterrent on women getting drunk with a bunch of guys partying. Hockey is a thug sport, and a bully sport. Women like EM are often attracted to bad boys. Hockey sluts are a well known phenomenon. Once you are in a party there is always pressure to go along with it. EM was also probably convinced and pressured to say it was non-consensual as she was in a no win position. Say it was consensual then your a whore, say it was not and you are a victim. Thats the harsh reality. I hope she can cast off her victimhood, as that is much worse then embracing your inner slut. And just admit you are young, horny and were getting your freak on.
Read the full text of the judge's verdict in the Hockey Canada sex assault trial
Read the full text of Ontario Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia’s verdict, which was delivered in a London courtroom on July 25, 2025.nationalpost.com
Any of you dudes actually read the decision?
The credibility analysis starts on page 62 and can kindly be described as "goal directed nit picking". The judge applied a standard of near perfection to the complainant's testimony and scrutinized every little word she said. My take is that the judge made the decision that she would rather wreck 1 woman's life than 5 young guys' lives, given that it was a he said / she said case and then the judge backed up that conclusion by nitpicking the crown case.
The is pretty standard courtroom stuff and every judge does it to some extent. Nailing down your credibility findings with small examples appeal-proofs your decision. It's survival in judge-world.
I wasn't at the trial. I might have agreed with the judge. Or disbelieved the complainant based on different observations than the trial judge. Or believed the Crown case. But I'm not impressed by what the judge wrote and I don't think the Crown case was frivolous.
And the decision will have a deterrent effect on other women coming forward and reporting physical or sexual abuse in a he said / she said situation.
The judge said that her memory was faulty and she filled in the gaps. Big difference.
And I've already told you what I think about the judge's reasons.
It's interesting to compare the guys in this thread who are supporting the hockey bros with many of the same guys who are enraged about the "grooming gangs scandal" in the UK.
In the UK cases, girls were groomed by sex predators - disproportionately South Asian immigrants, although not exclusively - to have sex with numerous men. Their complaints were discarded by the predominantly white male town counsels and police forces of those Brit industrial towns as being not worth bothering about, too much trouble and sluts "getting what they deserved". Basically it was poor, young girls being disregarded by the old boy network.
When the alleged perps are hockey bros and not South Asian immigrants, you guys are a lot more ready to defend the alleged rapists. Kinda tough to figure out who you guys hate the most: - non white immigrants or slutty young women.
Feel free to comment.
In the UK cases, girls were groomed by sex predators - disproportionately South Asian immigrants, although not exclusively - to have sex with numerous men. Their complaints were discarded by the predominantly white male town counsels and police forces of those Brit industrial towns as being not worth bothering about, too much trouble and sluts "getting what they deserved". Basically it was poor, young girls being disregarded by the old boy network.
When the alleged perps are hockey bros and not South Asian immigrants, you guys are a lot more ready to defend the alleged rapists. Kinda tough to figure out who you guys hate the most: - non white immigrants or slutty young women.
Feel free to comment.
Meh this girl was not a victim. She choose to engage in sexual acts with some guys. All parties were drunk. There was ME TOO pressure to create victimhood. And at most she mighta felt, she should have stopped it and left. Its was a unwise decision by her to get into that situation, it was unwise by the players to push the situation to where it ended up. As I said hockey culture is toxic and women like her are part of that.
It was her choice to go to trial though..Which is weird because when the investigation was reopened after the Hockey Canada payout E.M. was reluctant to cooperate when they came to he door.
The Crown told her that they didn't have a strong case and advised against going forward but said they would leave it her as to whether to proceed.
She made the decision take this to trial...Now she would have been well coached by her civil attorneys previously and probably had many discussions with victims advocacy groups. So perhaps she looked at this trial as a platform to redeem herself as she wrestles with what she did that night.
Just because a girl is a slut does not mean a bunch of guys can run a train on her and get away with it.
And the pressure to go along with it displays a lack of consent and should count as rape, in my opinion.
Consent needs to be enthusiastic and continuous.
Okay. I have some insight into hockey groupie culture at second hand. Most of the girls who are hockey player groupies treasure their ability to get the guys' attention and to get the guys to spend time with them.
That in mind, why wouldn't she just set herself up as the "crazy sex crazed slut from London" and keep seeing the guys involved. At most, if she decided that it was "too gross" to do again, why wouldn't she just block the guys off her phone and forget the night?
''-This case erupted into a massively publicized social cause
-People thought they were guilty just because they were charged with a crime long before any evidence was presented in court.
-This rush to judgement is one of the most regrettable human traits.
-So to is to is the reluctance to change that opinion even when it is proven wrong after a full and fair trial.''
Never truer words were said...
Because it went further then she expected and she regretted not putting a stop to it. Then she told her mother then trapped herself in her own narrative.
No it does not mean that, but I don't see any evidence where she said stop I am leaving. Enthusiastic and continuous? How do you define that? Do you get that if your are client #12 with an SP? I think Consent must be clear at the outset, and it was, and if the situation evolves that withdrawal must also be clear. Sex is not a binary act, its a very broad description of acts. If you are receiving a blowjob and actually cum in a girls mouth are you now a rapist if you cannot present your signed form D-17/CIM?
Last edited:
