BA

"It's over" Bryce Harper thinks his teammate Kyle Schwarber has this in the bag

tw // sa The Myth: “The judge saw all the evidence and acquitted Carter Hart and his teammates” The Reality: Statements made to Hockey Canada in 2022 by players involved contained critical information that would have lent credibility to EM, and ultimately proved she was sexually assaulted. - It proves Cal Foote was naked when he performed his “party trick”. - It proves she was crying in the hotel room. - It proves the men had golf clubs, and that Dube swung one at her. - It proves she tried to leave. - It proves she slipped and fell at the bar. All of these points were contested by the defence and used to discredit her. McLeod’s own lawyer David Humphrey went as far as to call the report a “virtual treasure trove” of evidence. However, this 2022 report was ruled during the pre-trial process to be coerced on the threat of barring the players from representing Canada again, and thus ruled inadmissible. The judge who acquitted the players NEVER saw the evidence. But it is naive to believe that the “threat” would make the men tell a MORE damning account of the night. Common sense suggests that even those confessions were a sugar-coated version of their conduct. There is no logical explanation for them to exaggerate their impropriety. Hockey Canada’s investigator Danielle Robitaille agrees; she referred to the statements as the most “truthful versions from the players”. But regardless of common sense, the way the information was obtained spoiled the “legality” of the evidence; but it does not change the “reality” of it. To illustrate this distinction, look no further than R. v. Collins; a landmark 1987 Supreme Court of Canada decision that shaped how Canadian courts handle unlawfully obtained evidence. In Vancouver, Ruby Collins was under surveillance as part of an investigation into a "heroin problem". An officer approached her in a local pub, told her that he was a police officer, and then grabbed her by the throat and in the process dragged her down to the floor in what is known as a "throat hold" used to prevent suspects from swallowing drug filled balloons. The officer then told her to let go of a heroin filled balloon she had in her hand, and she did so. The officer then arrested Collins for drug possession. The reality? Collins was in possession of an illegal drug. Plain as day. The legality? Grounds for the officer's belief that Collins possessed heroin was never established, and the trial judge concluded that the search was illegal. Because of the method the evidence was gathered, Collin’s walked free. Legally she was “innocent”. But the reality isn’t as black and white, it exists in a grey area. Legal scholars can debate the outcome, but regardless, it is clear that crucial evidence CAN be omitted from a trial regardless of how “real” it is. In the case of Carter Hart and his fellow accused, anyone who claims the “judge saw all the evidence” is telling a half-truth. The reality is the judge saw only the admissible evidence. Because no matter how obviously crucial to a case evidence can be, nothing is immune to the web of legal loopholes that complicate courtrooms. Unfortunately for EM, so many people will only see the headlines: “Players acquitted” or “Justice rules complainant unreliable”. But it is irresponsible to pretend that a “treasure trove” of evidence doesn’t exist because of a technicality. It will never have the impact it deserved in court, but it deserves to have its impact felt in the court of public opinion. And on the point of Foote’s party trick, the evidence proves that EM was sexually assaulted (the judge, in her own ruling, acquitted Foote solely on Carter Hart’s false testimony that he was clothed). Hart testimony was the epitome of his entitled privilege; lying under oath because he knew legally he could not be held accountable for those lies.