They are all on leave from their teams and all of their contracts expire at the end of the season. I think that means that they aren’t getting paid any longer. They are effectively free agents without a team.
They’re all technically on paid leave - at least, the ones in the NHL, not sure about Alex Formenton’s situation with the Swiss league. A suspension would result in them not getting paid, but I’m not sure how much power the NHL has to suspend them for events that occurred before they were employed in the NHL. Maybe a broad morality clause? Even if they did suspend them, the players union might feel compelled to appeal, and that would keep the story in the news and be horrible optics for hockey in general. The NHL would prefer that this just go away, and they seem to think doing nothing is the best way to accomplish that.
London police set up a special review committee in conjunction with a local centre for victims of sex assault, designed to review allegations of sexual assault in case the police missed something.
The committee was set up shortly before the Covid pandemic, and had to shut down in the early days, because of limited access to the police station where files were kept.
The committee members are really disheartened that they missed their chance to review this file.
Police chiefs, here in London, and elsewhere, seem to spend an inordinate amount of time formerly apologizing and placating the overlooked and mistreated. It’s getting to look like it’s their number one required job skill.
I know they think this, ‘almost sounds like it might actually mean something’, is working, but it’s not.
Athletes, cops, politicians, if not immediately challenged or called out, seem to imagine we’re buying this weaselling language.
If any dare to ask awkward or impertinent questions, ‘Times up, no more questions!’ Ugh.
And the trial starts:
5 ex-world junior hockey players plead not guilty to sexual assault as jury selection starts in London, Ont.
That is good news. I hope the woman is psyched up for the questions the attorneys will ask, as each player’s individually represented.
The OP mentioned 8 players, but only 5 have been charged. What happened with the other three?
Dunno. this is the first article I’ve seen in a while.
Presumably the police did not feel they had sufficient evidence for a criminal trial for the remaining three.
Judge declares mistrial; dismisses jury.
Reasons for mistrial are under a publication ban, so as to not prejudice the next jury, which the judge hopes to seat next week.
I know it’s pointless to speculate, but let’s do it anyway.
According to the article, on Wednesday after the noon break, the judge told the jurors “something happened over the lunch hour that I need to think about and to discuss with the lawyers.” Presumably this is related to the mistrial. What could cause that?
In the US, I’d guess that a juror was caught reading something they shouldn’t, but even that would usually lead to one juror being dismissed, not an entire mistrial. What are possible causes this early in the trial?
My guess: the whole jury and alternates were told something in court that they shouldn’t’ve heard and the judge decided it was impossible to expect them to ignore it.
Here’s the outline of the Crown’s opening statement from the day before the mistrial was declared.
Well now. Another jury has been discharged and the trial will continue with judge alone.
Since it’s no longer a jury trial, the restrictions on saying what happened in both the first trial and the second have been lifted.
The reason for the discharge of the first jury is that during a lunch break in the first day, one of the defence lawyers for one of the players, Alex Formenton, approached a juror during the lunch break and chatted with the juror, saying that she’d seen a lot of head-nodding from the jurors at one point in the Crown’s opening.
Mistrial due to that lawyer’s conduct. It’s ironclad that a lawyer doesn’t have any contact with a juror while the case is pending.
Reason for the discharge of the second jury is linked to that same lawyer. Jurors on the second jury sent a note to the judge, saying that the two lawyers for Formenton seemed to be discussing the jurors’ appearance when they would come into court and were laughing at them. Jurors felt it was disrespectful and unprofessional.
Second jury discharged, but no mistrial. The judge will decide the case herself, which is an option under Canadian criminal law.
Details in this CBC article:
Is it too much to hope that this lawyer might face professional consequences?
Early days yet. Trial has to conclude. But I wouldn’t be surprised.
Likewise. That’s pretty rude and unprofessional, not to mention contrary to your client’s best interests.
Ruling is apparently imminent.
They are expected Thursday morning (EDT):
All five players have been found not guilty: