Canadian True Crime - The Trial of Hedley’s Jacob Hoggard [3]

Episode Date: November 15, 2022

[Part 3 of 5] The trial of Jacob Hoggard started in May of 2022. The first complainant to testify would be the underage complainant who was only 15 and 16 years old at the time of her encounters with Hoggard. * Additional content warning: Graphic details of violent sexual assault and allegations involving a minor.Canadian True Crime donates monthly to help those facing injustice.This month we have donated to Good Night Out Vancouver & Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre.Look out for early, ad-free release on CTC premium feeds: available on Amazon Music (included with Prime), Apple Podcasts, Patreon and Supercast.Full 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.

Canadian True Crime is a completely independent production, funded mainly through advertising. You can listen to Canadian True Crime ad-free and early on Amazon music included with Prime, Apple Podcasts, Patreon, and Supercast. The podcast often has disturbing content and coarse language. It's not for everyone. An additional content warning. This series includes graphic details of violent sexual assault, and this particular episode details the allegations specifically involving a minor, or underage girl, which will be difficult to listen to. Please take care when listening. If you or someone you know is experiencing sexual violence or abuse, you are not alone and there is help available. Please see the show notes for more information. One last thing, I've got a bit of a bad cold at the

moment. I'm doing everything I can to make my voice sound normal, but if you do notice that in some places it sounds slightly different, that's why. And with that, it's on with the show. Where we left off, two women had come forward anonymously with allegations of sexual assault and sexual misconduct aimed at Jacob Hoggard. There was the 24-year-old college student from Ottawa. We called her Emma, who matched with Jacob on Tinder during We Day, and he paid for her return ticket to meet him in a Toronto hotel two weeks later. Emma's story encouraged the woman we called Jessica from Toronto to also come forward. She met Jacob Hoggard at a 2013 Canadian Music Week event. He requested her business card and started sending her flirty messages,

and it culminated in a meeting at a Toronto hotel room, where Jessica alleged he broke all three of her ground rules. Jessica also told her story anonymously to CBC News, and in response, Jacob stated that both encounters were entirely consensual. and quote, it devastates me to know somebody feels differently after entirely consensual sex. After a four-month investigation, the Toronto police announced they had charged Jacob Hogard with two counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm and one count of sexual interference related to two complainants. One was Emma from Ottawa and the other was a completely new complainant who had since come from four.

a girl who was underage at the time of her encounter with Jacob Hoggard. Complainance is a word that you'll hear quite a bit in this episode. It's a special term used by the court to avoid referring to them as alleged victims of sexual assault, which implies that they are not victims until there is a conviction. Using the term complainants instead acknowledges their trauma while also acknowledging that the accused has not been proven guilty of the crime at trial. The charges had been announced in 2018, but due to COVID-19, the trial was delayed several times. When jury selection finally started in 2022, the public had no idea that Jacob Hogarth was already

facing another charge in relation to a new third complainant. There were fears that this news may influence the jury, so there was a publication ban until the trial was over and the jury was deliberating. Jacob Hoggard went on trial in May of 2022, and media outlets snapped photos and videos of the 37-year-old walking into court holding hands with his wife, Rebecca Aslstein. As you'll recall, the couple had a surprise wedding on New Year's Eve at the end of 2018, five months after Jacob was charged in relation to sexual assault.

By the time the trial started, the couple had been married for more than three years, and they had one child. The media captured Rebecca walking into court with her husband each day of the trial, her deportment giving off a very clear message that she was standing by her man. Crown prosecutor Kelly Slate, told the jury that they would hear evidence that in 2016, Jacob Hogart groped a 15-year-old girl backstage at a concert, and in September of that year, after she'd turned 16, he repeatedly and violently raped her in a Toronto airport hotel.

The court would also hear evidence from Emma from Ottawa about her incident, which only happened about six weeks later. Both women went to the police in 2018 after the allegations surfaced online. Now about that, the jury was specifically warned to disregard any mention of allegations leveled at Jacob Hoggard that were not a part of this trial. This included the Twitter allegations and any media reports about them, as well as the CBC interview with a woman we've referred to as Jessica from Toronto. the only complainants in this trial were Emma from Ottawa and the teenage girl. And one other thing. We know that trials typically unfold in a set order.

The Crown prosecution starts by presenting its case with each witness subject to cross-examination by the defence. The burden is on the Crown to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, but if the defence chooses to respond, it's the same process again. For the purposes of simplicity, we've chosen to present parts of the trial in a different order to how they actually unfolded, and we're primarily relying on publicly available court documents, as well as the court reporting of Alicia Harsham for the Toronto Star and Paola LaRigio for the Canadian press, as well as the live tweets of Sean O'Shea for global news. The Crown presented to the court an agreed statement of,

where Jacob Hoggard confirmed that he had a sexual encounter with each complainant, but denied their allegations of sexual assault. The 37-year-old would be testifying in his own defense. The first witness was Dr. Laurie Haskell, a clinical psychologist with expertise on neurobiological and behavioral responses to sexual assault. The Crown explained this witness was not going to provide an opinion on the facts. of the case, but would instead assist the jury in explaining the research about how survivors respond to sexual assault. Jacob Hogarth's defense team objected to this evidence multiple times,

but the judge permitted the witness to give the jury a mini science lesson to combat stereotypes about how real victims of sexual assault might act. But she warned the jury not to use this evidence to determine whether or not the two complainants acted in a way that was consistent with being sexually assaulted. Dr Haskell testified that when it comes to traumatic events, sexual assault ranks up with dealing with a terrorist attack. It can cause a person to fight, flight or freeze, and it affects their ability to think rationally and clearly remember all the details of what happened. Under cross-examination, defense lawyer Megan Savard asked the witness if it's possible to have no outward response to traumatic stress,

and she replied, yes. Next, the court heard from the first of the two complainants, the teenage girl. We'll call her Sophie. At the time she testified in 2022, she was a 21-year-old university graduate and described herself as a long-time fan of the band Headley since the age of five. At the time of her reported incident, she lived about 90 kilometres north of Toronto, just over an hour's drive from the downtown area. According to court documents, Sophie saw the band live for the first time when she was 10 years old

and recalled a vivid memory of sitting on her father's shoulders as Jacob's. Jacob Hoggard sang directly to her from a catwalk off the stage. Three years later, to celebrate Sophie's 13th birthday, her family traveled to Kirkland Lake, a town in northeastern Ontario to see the band live. They happened to be staying in the same hotel as Headley, and when they bumped into each other, the band invited Sophie and her family to party with them in the parking lot. According to court documents, Jacob kept making comments to Sophie to the effect of, Contact me when you're 18.

On the stand, Sophie testified that Jacob gave her backstage passes for an upcoming concert, which is something that the band was known to do, and he also gave her parents his phone number. She told the jury that over the next few years, Jacob maintained contact with her parents. and helped them to get tickets and backstage passes to other Headley shows. At some point, she said she secretly copied Jacob's number from her mother's phone, but she didn't do anything about it. In April of 2016, 15-year-old Sophie attended a Headley Meet and Greet event. Jacob recognized her and she whispered to him that she had his number.

He replied, you should just use that sometime. So she did. She texted him shortly afterwards and before long they were exchanging messages, chatting about general things like Headley's touring schedule and how the band would soon be appearing at We Day. Before long, Jacob suggested they moved the conversation to Snapchat,

the social messaging platform where messages, photos and videos, disappear after they're read. Now, as you'll remember, Jacob Hoggard had been charged with three offences, two counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm, and one count of sexual interference or sexual touching of a person under the age of 16. The following part of Sophie's testimony is in relation to that third charge of sexual interference. Sophie told the jury that a few weeks after she and Jacob began texting in April of 2016, he arranged for her to attend a Headley show,

but told her to come with her friends, not her parents. He sent a limo to pick up Sophie and her two friends to drive them downtown Toronto to the stadium then known as the Air Canada Centre. She testified that Headley's manager called her and told her to come to Jacob's dressing room after the concert, and when she got there, he played. placed his hands under her bum and swung her around. She told the jury that he was clearly excited to see her, but it made her uncomfortable,

and she pushed against his chest with her hands so that he would put her down. While Sophie and her friends were taking photos with Jacob, she said he had his hand on her lower back, but moved it down to her bum. She grabbed his wrist and moved it away, but he kept trying again, occasionally squeezing it until she just moved away.

Sophie's best friend testified that she witnessed Jacob Hoggard tried to kiss Sophie on the neck or cheek, and she also saw him try to grab her butt, quote, she definitely tried to push him off. Sophie told the jury that in the car on the way home, she and her friends talked about, quote, how strange it was that he was touching me in that manner, since it was. wasn't consistent with what they knew of him up until that night. Attempting to understand his behavior at the meet and greet, Sophie chalked it up to being just out of character. She testified that after the concert,

she received a message from Jacob asking if she had a good time, saying, quote, I wish you stayed. I want you in this bed so bad. When Jacob Hogarth took to the witness stand later in the trial, he confirmed that he confirmed that he. he started communicating directly with Sophie via text and Snapchat messages, after seeing her at that meet and greet. He said early in the conversation he asked Sophie when her birthday was

in an effort to, quote, be responsible and not break the law. When his lawyer asked him if he knew the age of consent, he said he was pretty sure in Canada at 16 years old. Jacob Hogarth confirmed that later that month, When he knew Sophie was still 15 years old, he invited her and her friends to a headly show in Toronto and arranged to have a limo pick them up and drive them home. He told the jury that after the show, Sophie ran up to him and jumped into his arms. He denied that he groped Sophie's bum or that he tried to kiss her.

He said they were together for about 20 minutes, during which time they took some photos, and had a video call with Sophie's mom. Jacob confirmed that the next day, he sent 15-year-old Sophie a text message that said, I want you in this bed so bad. He told the jury that he believed this was the first sexual message they had exchanged. Under cross-examination, Crown prosecutor Kelly Slate suggested it was possible

that Jacob sent that text to gauge Sophie's response, and he agreed. It was also suggested that Jacob grabbed Sophie's bum after the show for the same reason to gauge her reaction. To this, Jacob said, absolutely not. Back to Sophie's testimony, she told the jury that she and Jacob continued to chat after the meeting greet. He told her that she was gorgeous, beautiful and he loved her.

He said he saw a future with her. He wanted to take her to his cabin in the woods in British. Columbia and he wanted her to bear his children. Sophie said she was wowed and described having a quote, pinch me feeling. She said Jacob suggested that she could come to Toronto for a day by herself and he would send a car to pick her up. She told Jacob that her mom would never go for it, but she could just lie and say she was with a friend instead. She said Jacob replied, According to court documents, they made a plan for May of 2016, and Sophie testified that she assumed other band members or crew would be there as well, and they'd have lunch, go shopping and check out the sites of downtown Toronto. But Jacob cancelled at the last minute, saying that he had a meeting.

Sophie told the jury that over that summer, she and Jacob kept in touch. A few weeks after their plans fell through, she said they'd been chatting and after she had fallen asleep, he sent her a message saying, quote, Let me see what's under the sheets. Sophie told the jury that their conversations became sexual and Jacob would say things like, I miss your boobs and I miss your butt. That was the spring and summer, and Sophie said that when she turned sick, 16 in August, Jacob phoned her to wish her a happy birthday.

And then, most likely after she turned 16, she testified that he asked her to send nude photos. Sophie told the jury she complied with his request, and he sent her back a picture of his penis, as well as a video of him masturbating. The agreed statement of facts mentions the existence of a masturbation video, but it doesn't actually specify whether it was shared with anyone. These messages were on Snapchat where they disappear after they've been read, and if one party takes a screenshot, the app notifies the other party. Sophie told the jury that she got a notification that Jacob had screenshoted one of her naked photos, and she asked him not to. She said he replied, quote, I just want to keep them

because you are so special to me. I won't show them to anybody. Sophie testified that she didn't take any screenshots of her own on Snapchat, but the jury saw printouts of some of their normal text message conversations. In one, the user she identifies as Jacob Hoggard refers to her as love and baby. When she asks him, when are you free? He replied, quote, When are you 18, L.O.L.

It should be noted that before the trial began, Jacob Hoggard's defence lawyers had applied to exclude Sophie's testimony about these romantic and sexual messages, and also the exchange of nude photos that she said he instigated. His defence team referred specifically to the messages where he told the 15-year-old he loved her, and that he wanted her in his bed, arguing that they would be too prejudicial for the jury to hear,

because it amounts to grooming behaviour. Child grooming is described as befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a minor and sometimes the child's family to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse. The defence argued that this evidence was bad character evidence and could make jurors more likely to punish Jacob Hoggard because he appears to be a bad person. Superior Court Justice Gillian Roberts didn't agree, ruling that the majority of this evidence was admissible because the nature of the communications between Jacob and Sophie is essential

to understanding her decisions and reactions. The justice pointed out that the fact that Sophie sent him nude photos is relevant to her assertion that she trusted him and added that while jurors might think poorly of Jacob because of this behaviour, it wouldn't lead them to assume that he was a rapist. But she noted that the defence themselves attached the labels of grooming and potentially luring and possession of child pornography, arguing that they are highly prejudicial labels because they essentially show that Jacob Hoggard had a propensity to break down social norms in pursuit of his own sexual gratification. Essentially, the defence was arguing that breaking social norms is not a crime.

Justice Roberts agreed with them on this and prevented anyone in court from using the label of grooming or luring in front of the jury. She also told the Crown to limit the evidence of the messages to avoid gratuitous detail. At the trial proper, Justice Roberts told the jury that they could not take evidence of sexual conversations and nude photos to conclude the women are more likely to have consented to sex with Jacob Hoggard, or that because they had been participating in these communications, that they were less worthy of being believed.

Quote, in a nutshell, there is no such thing as advanced consent. Consent must occur at the time and in relation to the specific sexual acts. occurring. Sophie continued with her testimony, telling the jury that after the summer of exchanging messages with Jacob Hoggard, they returned to that plan for her to meet him downtown again. Another date was scheduled, September the 30th, 2016. Sophie testified that based on the nature of some of their text messages, she thought there was a possibility that Jacob might try to kiss her or something. He had assured her that she could trust him, and she testified that if he tried something and she asked him to stop, she believed he would respect her boundaries. The morning of September 30, 2016, Sophie's mom dropped her off at her best friend's house.

She brought clothes with her so that she and her friend could decide what she was going to wear for what she thought was going to be a lunch in downtown Toronto. She testified that she was nervous and shaky because Jacob Hoggard was her favorite male celebrity and she'd been a fan of the band Headley for more than 10 years. The limo showed up as promised and Sophie hopped in. She thought she was going to downtown Toronto, about an hour south from the city where she lived. But because she wasn't really familiar with the Toronto highways, she didn't realize that they were actually headed in a slightly different direction, towards Toronto Pearson International Airport.

The limo driver would later testify for the defence that when he picked Sophie up, he confirmed her destination as being the Sheraton Gateway, but under cross-examination, he agreed that Sophie may not have known that it was even a hotel unless it was specifically stated. Sophie testified that Jacob met her at the airport hotel and took her up to his room, telling her to step in for a minute. She told the jury that she believed they were only meeting there and would be going elsewhere. Quote, I didn't want anything sexual to happen.

She described the room as having a king-sized bed and a mirrored wall, and she walked over to the window to take a look outside. She said Jacob suddenly came up behind her, grabbed her by the hips and started kissing her aggressively. She described being put off by his awful breath, which smelled of something dirty, a mixture of cigarette and cannabis smoke, she said. Sophie said she tried to push him away, but he grabbed her wrists and pinned them at her sides. He then used his weight to push her backwards onto the bed so her feet weren't touching. the ground and was kissing her while he held her down. He then started to undress her before undressing himself. She testified that he tried to perform oral sex on her and spat on her.

She told the jury that he started to rape her vaginally and she was crying and attempting to get away or stop him, but he used his body to hold her down. When she told him that he was hurting her and she didn't want this, she said he didn't stop. Instead, she testified that he told her she deserved what was happening and called her derogatory names like, You're such a little whore, you dirty little slut. I'm doing whatever I like to you. Sophie broke into tears and she testified that she froze, quote, I was like, I can't fight this, I'm too weak compared to him. I can't physically fight him off. She told herself that this is clearly going to happen.

She just needs to survive at this moment. Quote, I shut myself down. Continuing Sophie's testimony, she told the jury that Jacob Hogard penetrated her vaginally and repeatedly attempted to penetrate her anally but he was not successful, so he inserted his finger instead. She testified that he flipped her from front to back

while forcing sexual acts that were unwanted. She alleged that he pushed her face into the pillow so hard that she couldn't breathe. And in that moment, she told the jury that she actually hoped she would pass out, so she wouldn't be aware and present for what was happening. At one point, Sophie testified that she noticed Jacob wasn't wearing a condom and pointed it out, and she said his reply was something like, quote, trust me, I'm not new at this, or I'm not an amateur. She said that she told him to stop repeatedly.

At one point, she testified that he forced her to perform oral sex on him. He grabbed her by the hair and shoved her head down on his penis so she couldn't breathe. She told the jury that she was crying and gagging. She said he shoved his fingers in her mouth and slapped her across the face several times. She testified that he asked her, Whose pussy is it? And when she refused to give him the answer he wanted, he spat on her and opened her mouth and spat into it.

She said he kept shoving her face into the sheets and pillow so she couldn't breathe. And every time she tried to get away, he would grab her legs and pull her closer. She said she was bleeding vaginally. Sophie testified that this went on for about two. hours. She said Jacob didn't ejaculate inside her but on her face, and she also had semen on her stomach and back. She estimated that he ejaculated about three times. At one point, Jacob went to the bathroom, and Sophie testified that she grabbed her phone and texted her best friend,

asking her to call back and pretend it was her employer. Sophie's intent was to pretend she'd been called into work and use that as an excuse to leave. Sophie's best friend testified that she was aware of Sophie's communications with Jacob Hoggard and her plans to meet him on September 30, 2016, for what they both thought would be a, quote, fun day in downtown Toronto. Regarding the plan to pretend to be Sophie's manager, the friend testified that she couldn't recall receiving the text message with instructions, but she did receive a confusing phone call from Sophie, where she was pretending to speak with her manager.

Sophie told the jury that when Jacob came back from the washroom, she told him she'd been called into work and he called a car to pick her up. As they were waiting, he turned on the TV and made conversation about the show E-talk. Sophie said that slowly he changed. He changed back into the, quote, nice, caring person she had expected to meet. The shift shocked her. Jacob walked her to the lobby and made conversation with her, joking and talking about a vacation he'd been on. Sophie said that as he hugged her and told her he hoped to see her again, all she could think of was, quote, I just want to get out of here.

Don't touch me. Don't talk to me. On the way home, she said he called her several times and she didn't answer. He also texted her and asked if she was okay and whether she'd arrived home safely. Sophie said she did not reply and blocked his number. The car dropped Sophie at her best friend's house. She immediately told her what had happened and that she had semen all over her. Her friend suggested that she'd take a shower. Sophie testified that she noticed her white underwear was full of blood, and her friend saw it too.

She said her body was sore in various places. It hurt to walk and she had bruises on her back, legs and butt. She said she felt embarrassed, used, betrayed and dirty. Her best friend testified that Sophie was upset and shaken. Quote, her entire aura seemed completely off. She didn't notice any injuries, but confirmed that she had seen the blood in Sophie's underwear. At that point, Sophie was scared for her parents to find out that she had lied about where she was going that day, and she decided not to get medical treatment.

Quote, I felt this sense of embarrassment that I let myself believe what he was saying the entire time about being romantic and loving, and that everything was true. I felt betrayed, I felt confused and dirty. But after a week, she changed her mind and decided to tell her mum. Sophie's mum testified that she didn't know the nature of the conversation between her daughter and Jacob Hoggard, and she also did not know at the time that Sophie reported Jacob grabbed her bum and tried to kiss her after the concert when she was 15. She told the jury that her daughter originally told her that she was going shopping with her best friend that day, and in the week after that, she had a phone call with Sophie where she learned Sophie's account of what happened. Quote, she was crying and she was hyperventilating.

Sophie's mom said she was heartbroken after that phone call. She told the jury that she would absolutely not have let her daughter go on the trip to Toronto to meet with Jacob Hoggard. Quote, She's young and she is impressionable, and I would have been worried about her meeting with a grown man who was twice her age. I don't see a reason why she would ever have needed to do a thing with him by herself. When it comes to Jacob Hogarth's side of the story, according to the agreed statement of facts, he confirmed that he arranged for a limo service to pick up Sophie at 10am. He also agreed that she was then driven to the sheriff's.

Gheriton Gateway Hotel, where they had a, quote, sexual encounter. At the time, Jacob was 33 years old, and he knew that Sophie had just turned 16. When Jacob testified in his own defense, he told the jury about the original plan he made to meet with Sophie four months before that in May of 2016 when she was still 15 years old. He said that the plan was for them to sightsee, or something along those lines, but those plans fell through. Sophie had testified that Jacob cancelled at the last minute. The Crown Prosecutor questioned why Jacob would make plans to spend a day with someone he saw only as a prospective sexual partner and asked him whether he had intended to have sex with Sophie that day. He replied, I don't think so.

Jacob confirmed that his messages with Sophie grew sexual over the spring and summer, but he said that the messages also had a romantic edge that involved telling her he loved her and that he saw a future with her. It should be noted that Sophie was 15 through the spring and didn't turn 16 until August during the last half of the summer. On cross-examination, the Crown suggested that Jacob Hogarth, lied to Sophie for months, making her believe he wanted a future with her when he only wanted sex. Jacob agreed that he lied. He confirmed that he didn't mean what he said to Sophie and described their

relationship as not overly meaningful. But he also said he enjoyed the emotional context of saying romantic statements and also hearing them said back. Jacob testified that in September of 2016, just a month after Sophie turned 16, he sent a limo to pick her up and confirmed that that time the plan was for them to have sex. He confirmed the limo brought her to his hotel and they had, quote, consensual, passionate sex for one to two hours. But then he felt the encounter had run its course, so he called the limo to take Sophie home and escorted her out of the hotel. Sophie had told the jury that she looked dishevelled, with messy makeup. The limo driver had testified that he didn't recall anything about Sophie's appearance when he picked her up,

although he acknowledged that he originally told police that when she returned to the limo, her hair was no longer in a ponytail and she looked like she was wearing blush. He testified that it also could have meant her face was red. He told the jury that Sophie was very quiet on the ride back home, but described her as seeming otherwise normal. On the stand, Jacob Hogard denied taking pleasure and causing pain or humiliating his sexual partners. He denied forcing them into non-consensual sex and told the jury that restricting breathing was not among his sexual preferences. But he did acknowledge that some of the acts described. by Sophie, like spitting, slapping and calling her degrading names, may have happened because they

were part of his, quote, sexual repertoire. It's interesting to note that Jacob's response focuses solely on his own wants, his sexual repertoire, while also insisting it was a mutually consensual encounter. But the thing is, his preferences indicate that he enjoys sexual degradation and elements of rough sex, which is considered to be outside the norms of conventional sex. Responsible practitioners of unconventional sex that includes acts of kink or BDSM know that it's a very high-risk activity that should never be conducted impulsively or without the appropriate controls. The primary way BDSM-type activities are distinguished from abuse is through mutual consent agreements, where there is negotiation about what will and won't occur during the encounter before it starts.

This includes deciding on safe words that signal one party is uncomfortable and the activity must immediately stop, no questions asked. But setting ground rules in advance does not mean. there is consent in advance. There is still ongoing communication and checking in both during the encounter to make sure everyone is on the same page and afterwards to make sure that the emotional and physical needs of both parties are tended to. Or they're supposed to be. Jacob Hoggard did none of this. He confirmed that his preferences include unconventional sex practices. But like many accused men in history who claimed they had a preference for rough sex and insisted they had consent for it, Jacob's actions show he only cared about what was in it for him.

He either didn't understand or ignored the immense responsibility that comes with having those kind of preferences. There's no evidence of discussion or negotiation or mutual consent agreements, No evidence that he took any steps to ensure the encounter would be safe for both parties. And there's one other thing. We've said that being silent or passive or submissive is not consent. But some men have insisted that's a ridiculous thing to say, because there are many people that are into being submissive, including women. But there's an important distinction to be made here.

Enduring sex or submissively allowing. it to happen is a completely different thing to actively wanting to be a sub or take a submissive role in sexual activity. One is abuse and the other is a part of BDSM and the thing that separates them is that mutual consent agreement, the establishment of boundaries and safe words in advance so that both parties can go into the activity confidently. And during the encounter, the person playing the submissive role can feel safe in the knowledge that if they want things to stop for any reason, they just have to say the agreed safe word. So what if they say no, but it's just part of roleplay and they don't

really mean it? Well, this is one of the things that falls under the mutual consent agreement, because it should never be ambiguous. BDSM roleplays can include a party saying no or stop when they don't really mean it, which again would be. be mutually agreed to in advance. And when it comes to the safe words, they're typically words that you wouldn't hear in that type of situation, like umbrella or grandma. So what did Jacob Hogard have to say about this? On cross-examination, Crown prosecutor Kelly Slate noted that this hotel room encounter was the first time Jacob Hoggard and Sophie had been alone together. and suggested he did not seek consent before engaging in sexual preferences,

which would be considered unusual for a 16-year-old. When asked if he felt he'd built up enough trust in that time for her to consent to those acts, he said yes, adding that her non-verbal cues, sounds and body language communicated consent. Quote, we both were enjoying it. At another time, he said he didn't remember everything they did, and how consent was communicated each time during what he described as a typical sexual encounter for him. He categorically denied raping Sophie and denied that she cried, said no, or asked him to stop. So that happened in late September of 2016.

Sophie told the jury that she never communicated with Jacob Hogard again, nor did she ever attend another headly concert. She testified that after she told her mum what happened, they went to the hospital for medical treatment and testing for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. But she decided not to go forward to the police at that time. She said she just wanted to forget what happened and move on with her life. But that plan didn't work. Sophie testified that over the next 18 months, she experienced vivid flashbacks, panic attacks

and nightmares. Although not mentioned at trial, these are classic symptoms of PTSD or post-traumatic stress disorder. Sophie's mum confirmed this, saying that in the days and weeks after the meeting with Jacob Hoggard, her daughter became withdrawn. She had nightmares and panic attacks. The court heard that Sophie continued to need the light on when she slept. Sophie told the jury that it wasn't until Emma from Ottawa came forward that she reported her own incident to police a few weeks later in March of 2018. She said that she and Emma didn't know each other and had never spoken. So that was Sophie's testimony on the stand. For a person complaining of sexual assault, testifying to their experience at trial in front of the person they're accusing is one of the

most difficult things they might ever have to do. But the reality is that the testimony itself often ends up being the easy part of the trial, because they're being questioned by the Crown Prosecutor. It's a whole other story when they're being cross-examined by the defense. We know that sexual assault is a crime like no other. It involves an intimate act. There are usually no witnesses. The perpetrator is usually known to the victim, and there's often little, if any, forensic evidence. We know that victims of sexual assault are often reluctant to go to the police for a variety of reasons. It's common for them to feel shame and blame themselves for what happened, which can lead them to wonder whether what happened to them was a crime. They might worry that the

circumstances of the assault or the way they may have reacted afterwards won't be viewed favorably, in the context of what society has traditionally considered to be a true or perfect victim. It's because of all this and more that sexual assaults are the most underreported crime in Canada, with only 6% of them being reported. When a sexual assault case makes it to trial, it has the potential to ruin lives and re-traumatize complainants, so there are special rules in place, like the option to protect the identities of complainants with publication bans. Canada also has several rape shield laws in place.

One is a response to what the Supreme Court of Canada called the twin myths of sexual assault, which is that a woman who has already had sex is both more likely to consent to it again and less worthy of being believed. The rape shield laws prevent a complainant's sexual harassment, history from being used to discredit them. Another rape shield is that a person accused of sexual assault can't ambush their accuser with private records to try and discredit them, like medical files, personal journals or private emails.

But even with these protections, the application of them at trial can still be highly problematic, as you'll find out later. And outside of these rape shield protections, Rape myths and stereotypes remain embedded in the fabric of our society and the criminal justice system. In the 2019 book Putting Trials on Trial, Sexual Assault and the Fail of the Legal Profession, author and Dalhousie Law Professor Elaine Craig argues that it's not the laws that are the problem. It's that they are not strictly applied during cross-examinations, which are often used to intimidate complainants,

than test evidence that relates to the alleged incident before court. Because there are often no witnesses to a sexual assault, the complainant usually has to testify, and because the defence has an obligation to defend their client, there is, of course, a cross-examination of that testimony. And while lawyers are not supposed to ask questions underpinned by harmful rape myths and stereotypes, it still happens, often.

It might be suggested that the complainant was at fault, that they were asking for it, that they lied or changed their mind about what happened after the act because of some perceived slight. It might be suggested that how they reacted after the alleged assault was odd, questionable or out of harmony, or that if there was a sexual assault, there would be some kind of physical injury to prove it. These questions are asked by defense lawyers, and when they're allowed by the judge, they end up being part of the analysis when a trier of fact is deciding whether the accused is guilty or not. That is how rape myths and stereotypes continue to be introduced in sexual assault trials, and it is also how these trials continue to perpetuate them. It's a vicious circle. In the book Putting Trials on Trial, Professor Craig argues that a defense lawyer's obligation to defend their client shouldn't extend to cross-examination that continues to put rape

myths on the record. She also argues that judges and lawyers alike have an obligation not to cross the line with the relevant questions intended to denigrate an alleged sexual assault victim. But unfortunately, it keeps happening, as we'll see next in Sophie's cross-examination. After Sophie's testimony, she was cross-examined by Jacob Hogarth's defence lawyer, Megan Savard, who referenced the fact that Sophie said Jacob touched her bomb after a meet and greet when she was just 15 years old. The defense suggested that Sophie just made that up, which she denied. As you'll recall, Sophie's best friend also testified to having seen Jacob touch Sophie's bum.

It was also suggested to Sophie that she continued to communicate positively with Jacob Hogarth after that, and when he texted her the next day saying he wanted her in his bed so bad and wish she'd stayed the night, she didn't tell him that he crossed a line. Now this line of questioning is based on the rape myth that a true or perfect victim will behave a certain way afterwards, that they will report or complain about what happens straight away and never initiate communication with the person they're accusing again, certainly not positively.

Sophie answered that she saw Jacob as a friend and she didn't want his mistake to taint their communication going forward. Sophie had also testified that when she arrived at the hotel room, she thought they were just stepping in for a minute and then they'd be going out again. She testified that she didn't want anything sexual to happen. On cross-examination, the defense suggested two things. That of the screenshots of text messages Sophie had taken, there would have been messages that showed she was coming to Toronto

to have a sexual encounter with Jacob Hogan. She denied this, and she also denied the suggestion that she deliberately neglected to send these alleged extra screenshots to police. This line of questioning that speculated on what Sophie's intentions were, or what the plan for the day was, continued. The court heard from another witness, Sophie's distant family member, who testified that she knew that Sophie was in communication with Jacob Hoggard, via text and Snapchat. Her understanding was that Sophie was going to meet Jacob and possibly other band members in downtown Toronto for lunch and shopping, and she didn't have the impression that Sophie was going to see Jacob to have sex.

On cross-examination, the defense pointed out that in this distant family member's original police statement, she didn't mention anything about lunch or shopping, but instead said that Sophie told her Jacob was going to wine and dine her and stay at a hotel in downtown Toronto. The witness agreed that this is what she originally told police. The defence then asked her if the plan, as relayed by Sophie, was to have sex with Jacob that night, and she said no. Again, the distant family member's statement given to police was brought up, where she reportedly said that Sophie was, quote, under the speculation that they were going to have sex,

but not to that extent. The distant family member acknowledged that she said that, and didn't make attempts to correct her statement afterwards, but asserted that Sophie was planning to hang out with Jacob and possibly the band downtown, but not have sex. The defense suggested that her testimony was slightly different because she was worried that the jury might base their decision on the belief that Sophie was meeting Jacob to have sex. It was also suggested that Sophie wanted to fulfill a teenage fantasy about meeting a celebrity crush. The distant family member agreed with this suggestion and that she was worried that the jury might believe Sophie was meeting for sex, but maintained Sophie did not think the meeting was for sex. But maintained Sophie did not think the meeting was for

sex, so she wasn't concerned about a possible sexual encounter that day. The distant family member told the court that she spoke with Sophie the night of the incident and she was crying. She felt upset and had a lot of guilt. It was the worst case scenario for her. When the defense cross-examined Sophie's best friend, she was asked if she remembered Sophie asking for advice about which underwear to wear. The friend said she did, and they picked out a matching set of underwear and bra.

During Sophie's cross-examination, the defence suggested that she was careful to make sure her underwear was matching because she was planning on having Jacob Hogarth see it that day. Sophie denied that suggestion, saying that she regularly wears matching undergarments. The jury was watching and listening as the defence repeated. questioned Sophie about her intentions, as though it was the lynchpin in the defense. But it's a smokescreen. Even if she did break down and suddenly admit that, yes, a month after she turned 16, she did travel to a hotel with the explicit intention of meeting 33-year-old Jacob Hogard

for sex, that doesn't mean that what happened in that hotel room was consensual sex. Yet to the jury, this line of questioning serves to raise reasonable doubt, which is exactly what the defence is looking for. When it came to Sophie's account of what happened in the hotel room, the defence questioned how Jacob could have held her down during the incident, while simultaneously removing her clothes as well as his own. It was suggested that the encounter was not a sexual assault because hotel staff would have knocked on the door. door if she had of been screaming or making a lot of noise, and they didn't. It was also suggested that Sophie didn't appear dishevelled or in pain when she left the hotel room afterwards. Jacob publicly escorted her out to the lobby and wasn't hiding from her presence. And it was also suggested

that no one at the hotel intervened then either, because Sophie looked like she had just had normal and consensual sex. This line of questioning is directly related to the harmful myth that a real victim of sexual assault will be physically injured. The fact that Jacob publicly escorted Sophie out of the hotel, or that the hotel staff didn't intervene, or that she might not have been screaming or making a lot of noise to attract attention, is not an indication of a lack of physical injury. And it shouldn't need to be stated, but a lack of physical injury is also not any kind of indication that the sex was consensual. Now, as you'll remember, Sophie testified that when Jacob went to the bathroom, she arranged for her best friend to fake call her into work, so she could use that as an excuse to leave.

She said she told Jacob she had to work, and he called for the limo to pick her up from the hotel. On cross-examination, the defence suggested that it was actually Jacob who initiated the end of their encounter by calling the limo hours earlier than expected. It was suggested that Sophie became upset after she realised she'd been rejected by Jacob Hoggard, and she invented the sexual assault because she was too embarrassed to tell her best friend the real reason why she was coming home earlier. Quote, you were upset that you had fallen in love with a rock star and that he used you for sex. This is a prime example of cross-examination that appears to serve little purpose but to denigrate a person complaining of sexual assault. Sophie had already testified that Jacob did not suddenly call the car to pick her up hours earlier than expected,

that it was she who initiated the sequence of events that led to the car being called. And Sophie's best friend had also testified to receiving a call where Sophie was pretending to speak to her manager. Sophie stated she was very happy to get out of that hotel room. In fact, she couldn't wait to get out of that room. And when it came to why she was upset, she restated, quote, The thing that upset me was that he had unconsensual sex with me. He hit me. I was bleeding. and I continuously told him no and was crying. That's what upset me.

The defense pointed out that when Jacob went to the bathroom, Sophie went to the trouble of arranging that fake call with her friend to pretend to be called into work. It was suggested that she could have just called 911 to report a sexual assault, or she could have gotten dressed, left and called a cab while she waited for the friend to call her back. Sophie replied that she was worried Jacob might try to stop her from leaving and she didn't want to involve the police. She said her own mother didn't know where she was.

In fact, only two people did and she texted the one who was most likely to respond quickly. She said she didn't know how to get home and she'd never called a taxi before. So in her mind, the quickest option was to let Jacob call her a car. At a different point during cross-examination, it was suggested that Sophie told the same story to her mother more than a week later to get sympathy and ensure that she wouldn't be upset that Sophie had lied, and also so that her mother would help her by giving her a ride to the hospital to seek treatment. So putting it another way, the defence is saying that 16-year-old Sophie consensually had unprotected sex, with 33-year-old Jacob Hoggard and regretted it afterwards. So a week later, she lied and told her mum it was sexual assault so she could get a free ride to the hospital to get tested for pregnancy and STDs

after supposedly consensual sex. Sophie said that this was not at all true. Quote, I told her just because I was upset about it and she was the one who suggested we go to the hospital. She stated she never planned to have sex with Jacob Hoggard on that day, and while she did send naked photos when Jacob asked for them, and while he did send her photos back as well as that masturbation video, they never discussed doing any sexual acts in their messages.

The defense suggested that some of Sophie's messages may have included verbal expressions of sexual interest in Jacob Hoggard, and she replied, but said they weren't sexting or describing sexual acts, and she rejected the suggestion that she had expressed agreement to any consensual sexual acts that Jacob may have proposed. Sophie told the jury that this was not part of their communication leading up to the date when they met.

The defense also suggested that Sophie felt like a fool for believing what Jacob told her in the messages before their encounter and for consenting to sex that she later realized was meaningless to him. Quote, you were upset that you had fallen in love with a rock star and that he used you for sex. Sophie confirmed that she was upset, but it was because she had been raped by Jacob and felt used and betrayed. Sexual assault victims are told that reporting the assault immediately is the remedy. That's the only way to make it.

things right. But even with rape shield laws, it's well known that the court process is still a gauntlet for the complainant, and that so-called remedy often leaves them just as traumatized as the original assault, except this time the trauma happens in public. At every step of the way, starting from the first time a complainant reports the offence to the police, through to the actual court process, they face scrutiny and distrust. It's not difficult to understand why sexual assault victims often decide to pretend it didn't happen and move on. In her book, Putting Trials on Trial, Professor Elaine Craig argues that defense lawyers and judges

can make modest changes that can mitigate the feelings of shame and self-blame that sexual assault complainants feel throughout the trial process and not interfere with the fairness of the trial. There is no need for complainants to feel so much shame throughout the sexual assault trial process. Yet when criminal defense lawyers continue to rely on problematic trial tactics and judges continue to allow these tactics to fly under the radar, they are only contributing to complainant trauma. In the witness box, 21-year-old Sophie had to endure a brutal cross-examination that not only put myths and misconceptions around rape and consent back on the record, but also in the forefront of the jury's mind. The defense's questions indicated that not

only were Sophie expected to react and behave like the so-called true and perfect victim, but also a grown woman, even though she was only 15 and 16 years old at the time of her encounter. Next to take the stand would be Emma from Ottawa, who at 24 was a grown woman at the time of her encounter. Emma would likely have expected the same kinds of questions on cross-examination, but because there are rape shield laws in place, she probably didn't expect to be ambushed on the stand multiple times. But that's exactly what would end up happening. That's where we'll leave it for part three. Thanks for listening.

Next week in part four, we'll cover the rest of the trial, with testimony from the second complainant, Emma from Ottawa, which leads to several shocking moments during cross-examination. We'll also hear the rest of Jacob Hogarth's main testimony and cross-examination and the jury's verdict. Please see the show notes for the series' release schedule. If you enjoyed this episode,

we'd love for you to tell a friend, or leave a review wherever you listen to podcasts. Canadian True Crime donates monthly to Canadian charitable organizations that help victims and survivors of injustice. For this series, we've donated to two organizations. The first is Good Night Out. A BC-based non-profit

dedicated to sexual violence prevention in entertainment industries. They even have a nightlife street team, the first of its kind in North America. Visit Good Night Out. Vancouver.com for more info. And the second is the Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre, which provides programs focused on supporting survivors,

raising awareness, empowering the community and more. Visit or C-C-C-dot net or see the show notes for more information. Thanks to Eileen McFarlane from Crime Lapse Podcast for research in this series. Audio editing and production was by We Talk of Dreams, who also compose the theme songs. Production Assistance was by Jesse Hawke, with script consulting by Carol Weinberg. The host of True voiced the disclaimer,

and writing, narration, sound design, and additional research was by me. I'll be back soon with another Canadian True Crime episode. See you then.