Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Jake Virtanen update

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I think I missed the charges.  Jake is criminally charged, by the crown, with sexual assault?  

Nope no charges have been laid criminally crown is required to do that. Civil charges have been recorded and those are of sexual assault 

Edited by Arrow 1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surprised it took this long for Jake’s defence to make a statement. 
 

I noticed some folks a bit confused on the process.

 

No one in the Canucks organization is saying Jake is guilty. He was removed from active play for investigation purposes. He needs to remain inactive until they determine if there was a breach of contract. Jake is also facing a more troubling police investigation as well. Jake’s removal from the team was not punishment (he still collects his salary but it does not count against the Cap).

I believe the Canucks have hired an outside firm to also look into Jake’s contract and his behaviour. It can be terminated even if it doesn’t meet the threshold of criminal prosecution. 
 

Once the police investigation is completed, they will submit a report to crown counsel for the purpose of recommending charges. The police are required to obtained reasonable grounds and evidence to support. Sexual assault cases are unique in the fact that all they would need is a cooperative victim and a statement from her. This is the only offence I am aware of where there is no requirement for independence evidence such as; forensics, witness/video, etc (the case will basically be a “he said, she said” matter if there is no other evidence). If the victim is not willing to cooperate and give a statement indicating a sexual assault, then this will go no further. 

 

2) Crown Counsel will review the report and determine if:

 

a) there is a substantial likelihood of conviction

b) if it is in public interest.

 

Given how sexual assault files have become front stage in society and politics, (b) appears to have more weight than (a) 

 

This process is very slow from the police investigation, Crown review, Crown laying charges and the entire court process. This can easily take up to 2 years by the time it is all said and done. 
 

Like I’ve said before. I see two potential and equal evils here.

 

1) Jake did this and ought to go to jail for destroying the victim’s life. By the way as mentioned by others, a person has that right to withdraw consent at anytime, even during sex. 

 

OR


2) The victim is not a victim and she ought to go to jail for destroying Jake’s life. 
 

Police/Crown will unfortunately never charge folks that have proven to have lied as it would “discourage” other victims from coming forward (which disgusts me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

Surprised it took this long for Jake’s defence to make a statement. 
 

I noticed some folks a bit confused on the process.

 

No one in the Canucks organization is saying Jake is guilty. He was removed from active play for investigation purposes. He needs to remain inactive until they determine if there was a breach of contract. Jake is also facing a more troubling police investigation as well. Jake’s removal from the team was not punishment (he still collects his salary but it does not count against the Cap).

I believe the Canucks have hired an outside firm to also look into Jake’s contract and his behaviour. It can be terminated even if it doesn’t meet the threshold of criminal prosecution. 
 

Once the police investigation is completed, they will submit a report to crown counsel for the purpose of recommending charges. The police are required to obtained reasonable grounds and evidence to support. Sexual assault cases are unique in the fact that all they would need is a cooperative victim and a statement from her. This is the only offence I am aware of where there is no requirement for independence evidence such as; forensics, witness/video, etc (the case will basically be a “he said, she said” matter if there is no other evidence). If the victim is not willing to cooperate and give a statement indicating a sexual assault, then this will go no further. 

 

2) Crown Counsel will review the report and determine if:

 

a) there is a substantial likelihood of conviction

b) if it is in public interest.

 

Given how sexual assault files have become front stage in society and politics, (b) appears to have more weight than (a) 

 

This process is very slow from the police investigation, Crown review, Crown laying charges and the entire court process. This can easily take up to 2 years by the time it is all said and done. 
 

Like I’ve said before. I see two potential and equal evils here.

 

1) Jake did this and ought to go to jail for destroying the victim’s life. By the way as mentioned by others, a person has that right to withdraw consent at anytime, even during sex. 

 

OR


2) The victim is not a victim and she ought to go to jail for destroying Jake’s life. 
 

Police/Crown will unfortunately never charge folks that have proven to have lied as it would “discourage” other victims from coming forward (which disgusts me).

I'm not just means he has a good Lawyer and waited to the last min to file the statement with the court. Gives her lawyer less time to deal with his statement. Advantage are everything when it comes to court

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Nope no charges have been laid criminally crown is required to do that. Civil charges have been recorded and those are of sexual assault 

Isn’t civil sexual misconduct and criminal sexual assault?  So the victim is accusing Jake of sexual assault, but legally it’s filed as sexual misconduct is a civil matter?  If and when the crown files charges, that will be sexual assault, no?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

the fact that we still see comments with the tone of "why didn't she try harder' means we still need to keep having these conversations. 

 

Unbelievable Jimmy.  

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Nope no charges have been laid criminally crown is required to do that. Civil charges have been recorded and those are of sexual assault 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

This is a really dumb take.  

 

You don't have to have a committee of victims...one is enough. 

 

You don't have to commit multiple acts to be guilty of one.

 

I'm not of the guilty until proven innocent mentality...but I'm not sure that this spin offers anything at all.

In a civil case my point could be brought up.

It goes to his personality and likely hood off him have actually doing what she said.

Civil court is a whole different beast almost anything goes and is taken into account

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Absolutely (it's called rape dumbass).    Any normal adult would know something is wrong, ask their partner - and stop (if they said no a bunch of times and frooze).    He committed a crime in this case by not stopping, at the very least.  

 

Plus read the victim statement.   Shocking that gives JV an out somehow in your mind.   It doesn't.   Even married partners this isn't ok.   Not one bit.  Even if half of what the victim said was true, JV is a total douche-bag, including her age at the time.   Totally took advantage.   Didn't need to have sex with her.    Even if from the onset it was flirting and looking like a guaranteed hook-up.   It's called respect.   And treating the fairer sex with compassion, no doesn't mean go for it because we kissed and stuff.   He's paying the price already, just for putting himself in such a stupid position in the first place.    Ugh.   Maybe i misread or misunderstood your post,  but it looks to me like your not very sure what the definition of rape is.    And by the way, outside of murder (not even man slaughter, those are accidents), rape is the most detestable crime a human can commit to one another.   At least that's how i feel. 

lol so angry. Obviously an emotional case for you, here is a tissue. 

 

I'm just offering my point of view. In no way am I supporting Virtanen. Why are your conclusions all based on trusting the girl's story 100% and already believing that Virtanen raped her? Virtanen has already come out and said he did not force her. How do you know he is lying? Other than you obviously hate his guts right now. 

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake Virtanen has the IQ of a potato, the on-ice determination of a cream puff, and the on-ice consistency of the sewage being treated at Annacis Island.  That said, this site's guidelines do include one item about not discussing a player's personal life, which I think this legal action falls squarely into.  Not sure why this thread is still going.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crabcakes said:

The leave of absence keeps Jake away from the team, out of the public eye and having to answer awkward questions from the media.  They're trying to preserve his public reputation as best as they can.  Separating Jake from his playing duties also shows that the team does not condone this alleged behavior.

 

This seems to be playing out as expected.  There is no hard evidence.  No medical exam.  Only allegations.  Now, he is denying them.  She said..... he said..... and they can't convict on that but they can ruin a reputation. 

 

The next step will be a cash settlement.

 

 

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

Seems like an admission of guilt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

This is a really dumb take.  

 

You don't have to have a committee of victims...one is enough. 

 

You don't have to commit multiple acts to be guilty of one.

 

I'm not of the guilty until proven innocent mentality...but I'm not sure that this spin offers anything at all.

That's not really a dumb take imo 

4 years have gone by. 

If Jake virtanen did that once it's likely he could do it again.

If he had a girlfriend or two or three in the meantime that would testify he was never like that then I think that would carry alot of weight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

lol so angry. Obviously an emotional case for you, here is a tissue. 

 

I'm just offering my point of view. In no way am I supporting Virtanen. Why are your conclusions all based on trusting the girl's story 100% and already believing that Virtanen raped her? Virtanen has already come out and said he did not force her. How do you know he is lying? Other than you obviously hate his guts right now. 

My word. Did you seriously just patronize someone who is clearly upset over a rape allegation? I must be interpreting that response wrong because if I'm not you would actually be scum of the earth and that's something I don't want to assume on someone.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

lol so angry. Obviously an emotional case for you, here is a tissue. 

 

I'm just offering my point of view. In no way am I supporting Virtanen. Why are your conclusions all based on trusting the girl's story 100% and already believing that Virtanen raped her? Virtanen has already come out and said he did not force her. How do you know he is lying? Other than you obviously hate his guts right now. 

I know you’re responding to a personal attack, so I understand how things can get heated and reactive, but I’d also like to suggest that we all try to be careful not to making mocking or judgmental posts about people who get “angry” or “emotional” around these topics.

 

Just by the numbers, there are going to be many survivors of sexual assault reading this thread, and some may find it triggering, so we should try to be sensitive to this in our posts.

 

I’m not saying you should just let another poster call you names (and @IBatch should have been able to make their argument without resorting to personal attacks), but I’d just be careful about making certain comments, like “here is a tissue.”

 

I’m really not looking to criticize you here, just respectfully offering a suggestion, and one that I hope everyone reading this will consider, when it comes to how they post on this topic (and others like it)

 

I’d also suggest that we should all be sensitive about how we discuss the believability of the alleged victim and the truthfulness of her claim. Of course, Virtanen is innocent until proven guilty. But we can (and should imo) also believe victims, unless their allegations are proven to be false. I’m not saying don’t express your opinion, but just to go easy and tread carefully, when it comes to questioning the alleged victim and her account. 

  • Hydration 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Provost said:

So many “Experts” here and shocking levels of ignorance.  I would no longer be considered an expert as things have changed a lot, but I have in the distant past, investigated numerous sexual assaults.  This is a really sensitive issue for me because I still take counselling over guilt for not being able to get convictions in many cases where it was pretty evident that a sexual assault occurred and I feel like I let down many people who came to me as it was my job to help them.  It is shockingly difficult to successfully get through the courts and shockingly hard on victims.

 

There isn’t likely to be a resolution anytime soon.  It taking a few months isn’t unusual at all and most certainly doesn’t speak to the relative merits of the case either way.  They will be especially careful due to it being a high profile case.

 

Conviction rates for sexual assaults are really low…. Really, really low.  That is in addition to really low reporting rates by victims.  Mainly because there are often not witnesses and often not enough physical evidence just due to the nature of the interactions.  Very few of them are the types you see in movies where a stranger drags a woman into the bushes and attack her, most are by attackers known to the victim.  “It was consensual” is the standard defence as it negates most physical evidence that exists.

 

It is highly probable (because it is what happens in most cases) is that Crown will find that there isn’t a high enough likelihood of conviction so they won’t proceed with charges.  That doesn’t prove Virtanen innocent or guilty nor does it prove the girl was telling the truth or lying.  It means that it isn’t likely that a judge/jury would find that the evidence is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

 

You can be a grown up and give them both the benefit of the doubt if that is the way the criminal case proceeds.  You can even be grown up enough to believe that both of them are telling the truth.  She could have absolutely given lots of signals about not consenting that Jake entirely missed.  He could be like a bunch of posters on this thread who appear to have zero understanding about what consent actually is and believe that unless a girl starts kicking and eye gouging that she is consenting.  He would be wrong… but that could have been how he interpreted things at the time.  
 

Most women don’t fight with their attackers because it is just not usually an effective strategy.  This is a man about a 100lbs heavier than her and is in peak physical condition.  The outcome of fighting sexual attackers often ends up with a victim just being sexually assaulted AND badly beaten up or killed.  Maybe that helps the possibility of a conviction down the road… but who is thinking about that when they are worried about being seriously harmed or killed?
 

The reason MANY sexual assault victims use the civil side is because the burden of proof is lower.  The criminal courts are designed with a threshold that tries to make sure ZERO innocent people are criminally convicted… even if that means 100 guilty people go free.  That is a design and not a bug.

 

In civil court the burden of proof is only “on the balance of probabilities”. Meaning is it more likely than not that the person did it.  That is still a high standard of proof in a sexual assault case because unless one party or the other comes across as entirely unreliable, there aren’t many ways to decide who is telling the truth.  Both parties will be well coached by their respective counsel to not likely make mistakes in testimony that would jeopardize their case. 

 

None of this is likely going to play out in a short enough timeframe for the team to have an answer before next season.  That means either the league lets the team terminate the contract or he has to get bought out.  The league can terminate the contract and then Virtanen can appeal it with an arbitrator deciding or even not hearing the appeal until the civil process goes forward and there is some sort of resolution.  The dollars and cap hit are low enough that it would probably be way more expensive to fight a contract termination than just to let it go away and take the year or two to resolve itself through the civil system.

Everything I was saying. We agree one one thing

But for me I don't care about truth just that the rights of both parties involved are up held.

He could have done it and I still don't give a damn. In cases like this the law is all that matters. Otherwise we go back to witch trails where the prove is what ever finds a person guilty.

  • RoughGame 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -DLC- locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...