Analyzing the Hockey Canada trial [3]

Summary

[Part 3 of 5] In Part 3, we unpack the confusing timeline of Room 209 and the contradictions at the heart of the case. A clear pattern emerges: the five accused players were repeatedly given the benefit of the doubt, while E.M. was scrutinized and cast as unreliable. Thanks for your patience with this deep-dive series and for allowing us the time to give it the attention it deserves. Part 4 will wrap this series up, and then we’ll be back to our usual schedule. Please note: this series does not dispute the judge’s not guilty verdicts.Our position is that the framing of the evidence in the written decision was unnecessary and damaging, with impact that extends far beyond the trial.*Additional content warning: Graphic details of sexual acts.More information and resources:WATCH: Hockey Parents - A profile of Mitch Marner and Michael McLeod's parents from 2009, by Peter Wall for CBC via YouTubeREAD: What Was Left Unsaid in the Hockey Canada Trial | The Walrus, by Ariella Garmaise, Sept 10 2025FYI: The “Junior Hockey Bible” via Internet Archive (content warning!)LISTEN:  The Trial of Jacob Hoggard (JB’s story). Kelly Favro’s StoryIf you or anyone you know is experiencing sexual violence and abuse, help is available at REES Community or Ending Violence Canada - Sexual Assault Centres, Crisis Lines and Support ServicesBeyond The Verdict: www.beyondtheverdict.caLet us know what you think! Follow Canadian True Crime on Facebook and InstagramFull list of resources, information sources, credits and music credits:See the page for this episode at www.canadiantruecrime.ca/episodes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.