Jake Virtanen update

[Ghostsof1915]

6 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

 

Seinfeld predicted Trump years ahead! 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

4 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Seinfeld predicted Trump years ahead! 

Ghost *wants* to believe..

 

 

[Crabcakes]

12 hours ago, IBatch said:

A cash settlement admits guilt.   Either way.    This is a crappy situation.    JV has a reputation as a party boy and a womanizer.   To the point that he's never fully committed to his profession.    

 

Lie detectors could be utilized in both cases.   And there are ways to find out guilt, police are experts at this sort of thing.    Hope they are involved at this point.   Can't victim blame and can't not give JV the benefit of the doubt.   I highly doubt JV will ever play another game in the NHL at this point though, even if no formal charges are laid.   Seattle was interested in him - not anymore.  

As far as I know, lie detector results aren't admissible in court.  They indicate stress, not lying.  

 

Patrick Kane got away with some tough allegations.  We'll see if Jake can.

[canuktravella]

On 6/9/2021 at 6:03 PM, Bertuzzipunch said:

I think her text messages and social media direct messages to him might save jake 

i hope he makes them public  so we can actually see wat was said is he a scumbag or is she out for the money 

[Crabcakes]

11 hours ago, erkayloomeh said:

Would you cash settle if you didn't do it ? 

Seems like an admission of guilt.

I think what you do is have the other party sign some kind of a paper that says if they spill any details, that they have to pay the money back (if you can make that stick) and never explain what exactly happened.  Over time it goes away.  You have to wait until the other party realizes that that is the most satisfaction they'll get.  And hopefully, for Jake he can carry on with his career (such as it is)

[canuktravella]

On 6/9/2021 at 7:31 PM, bigbadcanucks said:

It took this long because Virtanen waited to give his sworn testimony in a court of law, through a lawyer.  To his credit, it is clearly evident that he isn't trying to have his case heard through the media or a public forum.  And not surprisingly, his statement is the Kobe Bryant defence statement - "it was consensual" (paraphrased).

 

FTR, Virtanen has been brought up on allegations of sexual misconduct, not rape.  Big difference, as sexual misconduct could include anything and everything, with rape being one of those allegations. Sorry for splitting hairs.

 

On another matter, as I'm reading the article, I couldn't help but think this is sport imitating life and vice-versa, in that my thought was "Does Jake Virtanen have the same real-life IQ as he does with his hockey IQ?".  Jake's side of the story is essentially "yah, we had sex.  But she wanted to" when sworn statements from the plaintiff is clearly the opposite.  Regardless, we've all seen how stupid Jake is as a hockey player (this is a fact).  Wouldn't surprise me if he was as equally stupid in all other aspects of his life (this one is pure conjecture).  

 

Regardless of how the case turns out, I hope the Canucks cut him loose.  Even though this matter is something more important and much larger than hockey, Virtanen is not good at hockey. 

 

he scored 18 the yr before with 18 apples im pretty sure hes better at hockey that most people 

[Arrow 1983]

4 hours ago, PetterssonOrPeterson said:

Neither have the Canucks.

He was accused of a criminal act and the organization respected the authorities to fully investigate the matter, and Jake has the right to sue this team because of it? 

 

Give me a break.

 

Accused not found guilty

 

She could out right be lying, and the accusations are completely false, It could end his career and he could claim the Canucks organization helped to do so by giving him a leave of absence which help eroded his reputation. So you might want a break but he would have a strong claim for a lawsuit against the Canucks organization. If a player in his position loses out on 10 million or more in future pay a court will consider that as a viable claim. Even a regular joe losing out on a million in future compensation would have a viable claim.

 

Further more, he has a public image, the leave of absence was made public in a statement to the public eye. The Canucks had no reason other to protect their image to release that statement. It was not for the benefit of Virtanen. They could have just as easily given him a a leave of absence and not released a statement to the public eye. They could have asked Virtanen's group to release the statement. They could have released a statement together, saying that it was in the best interest of both sides and said they stand by the rule of law and that both sides have the right to be heard. Instead they released a damaging statement toward JV saying they take sexual misconduct claims seriously. They could have said that but also said something on the lines that the law must prevail and that JV is innocent until proven guilty.

[Arrow 1983]

54 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

As far as I know, lie detector results aren't admissible in court.  They indicate stress, not lying.  

 

Patrick Kane got away with some tough allegations.  We'll see if Jake can.

Lie detector test are a joke and I would advise even if you where not guilty never to take one.

 

You make one mistake and it shows a lie where you are telling the truth and the police will focus on you like you did it

Edited June 11, 2021 by Arrow 1983

[Arrow 1983]

12 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

There is also an active police investigation.  I doubt we ever learn the entire "truth" in this, but it'll also likely be some time to learn what the outcome is.  I, too, feel there will likely be a payout and this will be one and done.  Which will never satisfy the truth/lies questions.

He wont settle their is something in his respondent that tells me this. 

 

Virtanen is asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed and for the court to award him special costs, due to the nature of the allegations.

 

That special cost tells me he is not going to settle and that he and his lawyer are telling the other side that if they pursue with this claim they will seek defamation costs

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, canuktravella said:

i hope he makes them public  so we can actually see wat was said is he a scumbag or is she out for the money 

That also begs the question right?  If she has a legit case, then why hasn’t SHE made these messages on Social media public?  

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, Arrow 1983 said:

 

That special cost tells me he is not going to settle and that he and his lawyer are telling the other side that if they pursue with this claim they will seek defamation costs

Good, and I hope this serves as a wonderful reminder to all of the scam artists out there that IF you go after a public figure for fraudulent reasons, you will be punished and held accountable for your actions.   

[UKNuck96]

1 hour ago, Arrow 1983 said:

He wont settle their is something in his respondent that tells me this. 

 

Virtanen is asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed and for the court to award him special costs, due to the nature of the allegations.

 

That special cost tells me he is not going to settle and that he and his lawyer are telling the other side that if they pursue with this claim they will seek defamation costs

It’s a common tactic in cases like this, the accused party seeks damages and other costs in order to raise the stakes in what could essentially boil down to he said she said, which is hard to prove, you then convince other party of this and that if their fail to prove it they will be hit with a crippling reparations.

 

it’s a way of trying to bring the parties to the table to sign a payoff pre court. Bear in mind a good lawyer often will try to avoid situation getting to court in the first place. 
 

Also the women in the case does not and should not have to reveal anything to the public, and why would she sabotage her own case.

 

like someone said above it’s possible both are actually telling the truth it’s often not as simple as some may point out. 

[UKNuck96]

24 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

That also begs the question right?  If she has a legit case, then why hasn’t SHE made these messages on Social media public?  

Because she has no reason to, the court of public opinion is not the place for it. By releasing anything like that you run the risk of it becoming inadmissible 

[goblix]

1 hour ago, Patel Bure said:

Good, and I hope this serves as a wonderful reminder to all of the scam artists out there that IF you go after a public figure for fraudulent reasons, you will be punished and held accountable for your actions.   

I know we are all Canucks fans here but remember that regardless what the victim or the accused say, we as the public have no clue what is fact or false allegations

 

It is best to take a step back and recognize that a woman could've been victimized and respect the legal process in place to hopefully find the truth.

[Patel Bure]

24 minutes ago, goblix said:

I know we are all Canucks fans here but remember that regardless what the victim or the accused say, we as the public have no clue what is fact or false allegations

 

It is best to take a step back and recognize that a woman could've been victimized and respect the legal process in place to hopefully find the truth.

Agreed with you, but on that note, we need to also take a step back and recognize that a kid that we’ve been cheering over the last 6 years may have been victimized as well.  

[UKNuck96]

2 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Agreed with you, but on that note, we need to also take a step back and recognize that a kid that we’ve been cheering over the last 6 years may have been victimized as well.  

And you can do that without castigating the other party or making wild speculation. We just don’t know the details nor may we ever know the details. Sexual abuse and rape is under reported because victims are not believed and blamed or hung out to dry on social media when the alleged perpetrator is a liked public figure. Let’s not add to that 

 

 

[Arrow 1983]

2 hours ago, UKNuck96 said:

It’s a common tactic in cases like this, the accused party seeks damages and other costs in order to raise the stakes in what could essentially boil down to he said she said, which is hard to prove, you then convince other party of this and that if their fail to prove it they will be hit with a crippling reparations.

 

it’s a way of trying to bring the parties to the table to sign a payoff pre court. Bear in mind a good lawyer often will try to avoid situation getting to court in the first place. 
 

Also the women in the case does not and should not have to reveal anything to the public, and why would she sabotage her own case.

 

like someone said above it’s possible both are actually telling the truth it’s often not as simple as some may point out. 

That's such bs both are not telling the truth.

Either she is lying or He raped her. She remove consent and that is rape or there was consent and now she is lying to get money. Where is the Grey area?

The only area up for debate is which one is telling the truth. As only the 2 of them know all the courts will care about is which one is likely telling the truth. Likely isn't a prove enough to go for criminal charges so the crown will wait to see how the civil case plays out and then will come out with a statement that says something along the lines of there is not enough evidence to seek charges at this time, the file will stay open if there is new claims or evidence submitted. But what it really means is the police investigation has hit a dead end and the crown doesn't believe they can get a conviction 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Arrow 1983

[Arrow 1983]

2 hours ago, UKNuck96 said:

It’s a common tactic in cases like this, the accused party seeks damages and other costs in order to raise the stakes in what could essentially boil down to he said she said, which is hard to prove, you then convince other party of this and that if their fail to prove it they will be hit with a crippling reparations.

 

it’s a way of trying to bring the parties to the table to sign a payoff pre court. Bear in mind a good lawyer often will try to avoid situation getting to court in the first place. 
 

Also the women in the case does not and should not have to reveal anything to the public, and why would she sabotage her own case.

 

like someone said above it’s possible both are actually telling the truth it’s often not as simple as some may point out. 

You have to ask what does she have that JV doesn't know. Unless there was a secret camera on her which also begs the question what was the point of a secret camera for. JV knows everything she knows and if he is smart his lawyer does to. As long as he doesn't say out right to his lawyer he did it his lawyer will be able to defend the case as if JV is telling him the truth

[Arrow 1983]

2 hours ago, UKNuck96 said:

It’s a common tactic in cases like this, the accused party seeks damages and other costs in order to raise the stakes in what could essentially boil down to he said she said, which is hard to prove, you then convince other party of this and that if their fail to prove it they will be hit with a crippling reparations.

 

it’s a way of trying to bring the parties to the table to sign a payoff pre court. Bear in mind a good lawyer often will try to avoid situation getting to court in the first place. 
 

Also the women in the case does not and should not have to reveal anything to the public, and why would she sabotage her own case.

 

like someone said above it’s possible both are actually telling the truth it’s often not as simple as some may point out. 

It is not that common as you think. Most wealth people understand that getting blood from a stone is impossible so is getting money from some poor 21 year old unless her family comes from money and even than it's not her money. This is a play by her lawyer telling her side that this is going to court and when it does she won't be able to stay anonymous.

Which is interesting in itself. Why does she what to remain anonymous does she come from wealth does she have her own reputation to protect. A poor person usually doesn't care especially if it did happen. But some one who has a reputation that's is trying to black mail a hockey player would want to stay anonymous. If I were JV lawyer I would want to get her out in the open. She had one shot to fire it might have wounded JV but it didn't kill him

Now it is JVs turn to fire a shot in this game I think JV has more than one to fire. His response and denial was one. Second any messages between them that may provided implied intent or even prior consent.

Third her wanting to stay anonymous. She was 18 at the time that is not a minor in this province if it goes to court her name will be revealed.

[RU SERIOUS]

If the Canucks are somehow able to unload Jake The Ripper onto some American team before his trial and thereafter he is sentenced to prison, does anyone know if he can serve his prison sentence down in an American jail or will he have to come back to Canada to serve out his prison sentence here?

Edited June 11, 2021 by RU SERIOUS