Canadian True Crime - The Trial of Hedley’s Jacob Hoggard [5]

Episode Date: November 29, 2022

[Part 5 of 5] This final part of the series wraps up the 2022 trial of Jacob Hoggard, exploring how the jury may have arrived at that split verdict and the new information that came out at sentencing. We'll circle back to tie up some loose ends, including the intended testimony from one particular witness who was excluded from the trial, and lastly.... that mysterious 2005 incident at The Embassy Hotel in London Ontario. * 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 allegations involving a minor that will be difficult to listen to. Please take care when listening. If you or someone you know is experiencing sexual violence or abuse, you're not alone and there is help available. Please see the show notes for more information. Hi everyone.

Before we start the final part of this series, I just wanted to publicly thank the women who bravely came forward to speak out about their experiences with Jacob Hoggard. Whether they testified at trial or not, the obstacles they faced and coming forward have been. immense, and they deserve to be publicly thanked and commended for that. So to the women we've called Emma from Ottawa, Sophie the teenage complainant, Jessica from Toronto, and the new Kirkland Lake complainant, thank you for your bravery and courage. I also wanted to thank you all for listening and for all the positive feedback I've been receiving about this series. It really means a lot. These cases have highlighted some of the most heinous and unimaginable aspects of rape. the worst-case scenarios, and I've heard from many sexual assault survivors who say they felt

seen and validated. But even when the most horrifying and distressing details are stripped away, what remains of the story are echoes of manipulation, gaslighting, and coercive control that too many of us are familiar with. And we're now looking back on our life experiences through a different lens, myself included. My goal with this series was to increase a way. about harmful rape myths and stereotypes and how they continue to be a part of the criminal justice system. I wanted to increase knowledge around the rules of consent that it has to be positive, yes-based, enthusiastic and in the moment, and for people who are exploring kink or BDSM-type relationships to know that they can do it safely through mutual consent agreements.

For me, the series has been an exploration of a wider society. societal issue. So for that reason, I want to discourage sending negativity or hate to any individuals mentioned in the series, including Jacob Hoggard, his wife, his lawyer, and his former bandmates. Thank you so much for understanding. And with that, it's on with the show. Where we left off, Jacob Hoggard had been found guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm. This was in the case of Emma from Ottawa, who met him on Tinder when she was volunteering at We Day. When it came to Sophie, the teenage complainant who had been a fan of the band for years, the jury found that Jacob Hogard was not guilty of sexual touching of a minor

and not guilty of sexual assault causing bodily injury. Pending sentencing, the 37-year-old was released on bail with much stricter conditions, and his defence lawyer, Megan Savard, strongly hinted at an appeal of the charge that resulted in a guilty verdict. In the lead-up to Jacob Hogarth's sentencing hearing, many wondered how the jury arrived at that split verdict. What was it that prompted the jury to find Jacob Hoggard guilty on the charge related to Emma, but not guilty on the two charges related to Sophie. It's a criminal offence for juries to reveal what was discussed during deliberations, and they don't give their reasons for decisions, so there was much public speculation.

Some pundits looked at the composition of the jury and wondered if the verdict was because 10 of the jurors were men. It's often difficult for people to put themselves in the shoes of someone who's had a markedly different experience in life, and despite the judge's clarifications, some of the questions the jury asked about consent seemed to stem from harmful misconceptions. Reporting for the Toronto Star, Alicia Hasham spoke with several lawyers and legal experts, and the general consensus was that it's impossible to say if a gender imbalance played a role.

There is no constitutional right to a jury composed a certain way when it comes to gender or other demographic markers. There is only the right to a fairly picked jury from a pool of potential jurors who are representative of the local community. Some legal experts pointed out that the questions the jury was asking during deliberation suggested that at least some jurors believed Sophie's account of events, even if ultimately they couldn't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. Others noted that when Sophie was testifying she appeared to be cool, calm and collected, while Emma from Ottawa appeared much more emotional at times. And while the judge had warned the jury not to make any assumptions about how a true or perfect victim would behave,

this flew in the face of the defence's cross-examination, which put Emma and Sophie under the microscope using those same assumptions. Emma was also subjected to the defence inadvertently using that incorrect interview clip to essentially berate her into falsely admitting she lied to the CBC. They unsuccessfully tried to bypass the rap shield law that prevents a complainant's sexual history from being used to discredit them. And when it came to the other rape shield law about private records, they ambushed Emma on the stand with that secretly recorded phone calls.

arguing that it was not a private record. The judge allowed it but said she felt she was backed into a corner. The Toronto Starpiece quoted lawyer Dawn Way, who said she was surprised at the judge's finding that the call was not a private record. As someone who often represents sexual assault complainants, Dawn noted that the intent of that rape shield law around private records was to give the complainant a voice, yet the decision was made about whether a call was a private record without Emma's input. Quote, it's very, very difficult for complainants to reap the benefits of

the intention of that legislation when that kind of an application is sprung mid-trial. Several legal experts said that this recorded phone call, the way it was introduced and Emma's reaction to it, may have contributed to the guilty verily. verdict in her case. The defense had been trying to discredit Emma, but perhaps it backfired and her emotional reaction was viewed sympathetically by the jury. Another thing to consider is that in Emma's case, she confirmed her intentions for the day, so the jury was free to move on to analyzing whether or not Jacob Hogarth sexually assaulted her causing bodily injury. But when it came to the teenage complainant Sophie, the jury was watching and listening as Megan Savard's

cross-examination put a lot of focus on her intentions for the day. Sophie was accused of wanting to fulfill a teenage fantasy about meeting a celebrity crush and wearing matching underwear because she supposedly wanted and intended for Jacob Hoggard to see it. Sophie's distant family member was grilled about their perception of her intentions and asked directly if they were worried the jury might base their decision on the belief that Sophie intended to meet Jacob Hoggard for sex. But the question is a red hearing because the issue at hand was whether she consented to what took place in the hotel room, not her intentions for the day. The Canadian Criminal Code states that consent must be present at the time.

time the sexual activity in question takes place. And the judge did tell the jury that consent can't be given in advance, but jury members are human and thoughts can't just be erased. In asking that question in front of the jury, the defense effectively planted the idea that Sophie's intent was an important factor for them to consider in deliberations when it shouldn't be. And not only that, but the question also served to imply that Sophie was lying about her intentions, which raised reasonable doubt. It begs the question, was that reasonable doubt only focused on Sophie's intentions that day?

Or did it spill over to the jury also doubting Sophie's testimony about what happened when she got to that hotel room? In another article by Paola LaRigio for the Canadian press, UBC law professor Janine Benedet said the special processes in place for sexual assault trials are important, but at the end of the day, it hasn't really changed the core of what is still going on. Professor Benedet noted that in Jacob Hogarth's trial, the defence repeatedly suggested that both Emma and Sophie lied about their incidents to get revenge, because Jacob used them for sex and then rejected them.

Quote, the complainants are still being pilloried using the same stereotypes that the defense always trots out. You're a woman scorned, you're embarrassed, you're ashamed, you're trying to seek revenge. The jilted lover is one trope used by the defense for its narrative, as well as the trope about groupies who fall under the sexual thrall of a famous musician. According to Farah Khan, sexual violence survivor, advocate and education. who was quoted in an article by Edina Bresge for the Canadian press. Farah noted the power dynamics at play in the case, like differences in age and social status,

quote, it's important for survivors to understand it because sometimes you can gaslight yourself in these situations. Just because you wanted to see someone, just because you wanted to kiss someone, doesn't mean you want to be sexually assaulted. Some legal experts also noted that both Emma and Sophie had been held to an impossibly high standard when it came to expectations that they would be able to accurately and consistently recall all the

finer details of their incidents, as well as the decisions they made and why. Not only had there been a six-year gap between when their incidents occurred and their testimony at trial, but the widespread scientific knowledge about the brain's neurobiological reaction to trauma needs to be taken into consideration. Their attention is dramatically affected, as well as their thinking behavior, decision-making and memory processes. Despite all these factors, the actions and intentions of both complainants were dissected by the defense from every angle possible. When it comes to a tired or wary jury who has been deliberating for days and can't reach a decision, some legal experts noted a concern that they may decide to, quote,

split the difference or come to a compromise to avoid a mistrial, but they didn't see any evidence that that was the case in the Jacob Hogard trial. We'll never know how the jury arrived at that decision, and the Crown announced it would not be appealing the acquittals. But it means that when it comes to evidence that can be used in upcoming court processes and trials related to Jacob Hoggard, only Emma from Ottawa's evidence can be used to support an argument that Jacob Hoggard has a pattern of sexual assault. Sophie's evidence can no longer be used. In the days leading up to Jacob Hogard's sentencing hearing, the media announced that Emma from Ottawa was suing him for $2.8 million.

CBC News published excerpts from her statement of claim that detailed how Jacob engaged in a pattern of behaviour that was intended to make her feel that her safety was in jeopardy and caused terror and fear in her mind. The jury's verdict meant that Jacob, Jacob Hoggard was guilty of raping Emma vaginally and anally in the hotel room. In her statement of claim, Emma says the damages and losses she suffered as a direct result of this attack included bodily injuries and physical pain, as well as severe impacts to her mental

health with panic attacks, intrusive flashbacks, and a fear of men. She wasn't able to finish her post-secondary education and she wasn't able to work and it's also impaired her ability to develop normal relationships. In the state of claim, Emma states her life was fundamentally and forever changed and she will require counseling indefinitely. As this news was announced by the media and posted on social media, the usual people were critical of Emma. Emma's motives. Superfans who originally claimed she was trying to get fame and attention

now pivoted to accusing her of only being in it for the money. One Reddit user posted, Money fixes everything, a little transparent, no? Others continued to focus on Emma's behavior and actions, what she did or didn't do, instead of the man who actually committed the sexual assault. One person tweeted, Rupi must have been doing cartwheels after the guilty verdict. Civil suit announced within minutes of the conviction. Color me cynical but why do these young ladies visit famous musicians in a hotel? No one deserves to be assaulted but she never should have been there.

The vast majority of commenters expressed support of Emma's decision to sue. One of the responses read, Money doesn't fix anything about being brutally raped, but it just might pay for, the lifetime of therapy the victim needs, and the income lost. because trying to hold down a job after something like this can be impossible. Other responses noted that Jacob Hoggard inflicted mental and physical injuries. He didn't use a condom which put Emma at risk of disease and sexually transmitted infection, and she was unable to work or finish her education.

Not only did she lose income that would have covered her basic life expenses like food or rent, but she also had new expenses she struggled to pay for. like medical bills, medication and ongoing trauma and mental health counseling. It was also noted that Jacob himself had not shown any remorse for the behavior and actions that led to his criminal charges and continued to insist that everything was consensual. There were observations made about his wife, Rebecca Asselstein, captured by the media holding his hand each day as they walked into court. The trial's media coverage strongly suggested that she was not only outwardly supportive of her husband,

but outwardly aggressive towards the complainants. And Rebecca's own social media posts provide further evidence of hostility. There is a video floating around that Rebecca appears to have posted to her Instagram reel in August this year, after the jury found Jacob guilty of violent sexual assault. The video shows Rebecca and Jacob cheerfully dancing together, set to this original audio by Crystal Carmatz. Maybe the next stage of your healing journey is just telling more people to fuck right off. At that moment, Jacob dips Rebecca as she turns her head to the camera

with an exaggerated sardonic smile. There's a screenshot of the comments that show someone believed to be a close, family member of Jacobs, saying, quote, I will also tell them to fuck right off with you. Of course, Jacob Hoggard is still a human being. He is a husband and a father. He's fortunate to have the visible and unwavering support of his wife and family, support that is also good for the general public because it will likely have a positive impact on his future prospects. But when that support includes brazen messages of defiance and flaunting hostility towards the women who've complained of sexual assault, the optics aren't great.

Jacob may have been found not guilty on the two charges related to Sophie, but there's no glossing over the fact that his own defense team acknowledged his behavior with her leading up to the incident amounted to grooming, luring, and possibly child pornography. There's also public Facebook post-apeutic. posts floating around by a person who identifies himself as the father of one of the long-time band members. When the allegations first surfaced on Twitter, he publicly courted the headly superfans with posts that supported the band, but also disparaged the complainants. In one particularly egregious example, he appears to have scrutinized Emma from Ottawa's sexual assault medical

report and posted a public picture of it along with a comment that read, quote, She stated she was raped. The evidence says otherwise. Imagine how it must feel for a complainant to see posts like that, the supporters of the well-known musician who violently raped you, flaunting their hostility as they dissect your medical records on public social media. This hostility combined with the lack of remorse and accountability might be enough for anyone to decide to sue in civil court. but that's not all that may have contributed to Emma's decision.

Jacob's legal team had strongly hinted that some kind of appeal of the guilty verdict was coming, and that means more legal fees which of course he would have to pay for. In response to a Reddit post announcing the news that Emma was suing, one person commented that they hoped she got her pound of flesh, and then some. Just days after that announcement was the first, part of the sentencing hearing, where the court would hear the sentencing submissions. There were two complainants, but because Jacob Hoggard was only found guilty on the charge related to Emma, Sophie was effectively locked out of the rest of the court process.

Jacob Hoggard had admitted that even though he didn't think their relationship was overly meaningful, he loved bombed her with compliments and romantic messages in the months leading up to her 16th birthday, which he said were lies to get her to have sex with him. After their hotel room encounter, Sophie had to confess to her mum that she'd been lying. She had to go to the hospital and tell medical staff what happened. Then the police. She was insulted and victim blamed by people online, and then she had to testify in front of Jacob Hogard and be subjected to a brutal cross-examination. And because the defence had managed to raise enough reasonable doubt,

Sophie couldn't submit a victim impact statement at sentencing. That verdict effectively erased her entire experience, which must have been unimaginably painful for her. So it was just down to Emma, and she bravely read her victim impact statement in front of all in the courtroom. The media published her statement in full, and many people shared it on social media, describing it as a powerful mic-drop moment

about the harrowing journey of a sexual assault survivor. The statement is only about five minutes long, but Emma makes a lot of insightful points worth listening to. So, here it is, read by a friend of mine. Your Honor, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I appreciate the chance I've been given to talk about the impact of the assault that sat in my life. life. It is difficult, if not impossible, to summarize such a life-changing six years into one statement.

When I try to think about the impact the assault has had on me, I cannot help too, but think of the impact that the assault will continue to have on me for the rest of my life. Six years ago, I was a 23-year-old college student. I had all the confidence in the world and a bright future ahead of me. I had dreams and aspirations of who I could be. I've always been told that your 20s are supposed to be full possibilities and figuring out who you really are. The assault stole all of that away from me. While my friends went out and did fun things as normal 20-something-year-olds would do, I would lay in my bed and cry myself to sleep until I was numb. I went to bed praying that I wouldn't wake up the next morning. Six years later, I still have these nights. Before November 22nd, 2016, I was a different

person. I was never the same after that day. Part of me died that day that I will never get back. my life as I knew it was stolen from me and shattered beyond recognition. The assault took away my worth, my privacy, my body, my confidence, and my voice. The months following the assault were the loneliest and darkest days of my life. I would wake up every night paralyzed with fear over the continuous nightmares I had of that day. To this day, I can close my eyes and put myself back into that hotel room. I silently lived with the pain until 2018. One morning around 3 a.m., I called my parents to tell them what in

happened. I heard my dad's heartbreak that morning on the phone. I would feel guilty for the rest of my life for the pain that this has caused my parents. With the support of my friends, who bravely and selflessly took the stand, to help me tell my truth, I went to the police with my story. I was ridiculed online by complete strangers. Women I've never even met were making t-shirts and signs in support of the man that raped to me. When I think about the impact that this assault has had on me, something very specific stands out. It is a very specific. It is a very important. It is a taken over four years for the trial to come to a close. Between the day of the arrest and the guilty verdict, there were 1,408 days. With each agonizing year has come and gone, so have multiple

trial dates booked and then rebooked, leaving me to relive the incident over and over and over and over again, leaving me to recoil from my family and friends over and over again. Riddled with anxiety, shame, fear and depression, every single time I felt like I was finally starting to pick myself. back up. I distanced myself from everything I loved. I lost out of major job opportunities at work. I missed important moments with my loved ones that I will never get back. I think that's what hurts me the most, the time I will never get back. I disconnected from everyone I cared about. The isolation at time was unbearable. I have pictured this exact moment every day for six years. I never thought I would be able to stand here and give this statement. One thing I know for sure is that I chose to

speak today because of the trial. The trial was one of the most difficult things I have ever had to sit through. Not because the questions were difficult. It's not hard to tell the truth when you live through the memories of it every single day, but instead it was difficult because it was part two of the trauma I have endured. When the incident happened in November 2016, I felt that I had no control. Five years, five months, and 24 days later, I would sit on the stand and be re-victimized with questions that attempted to pick apart my character and my integrity. I was asked trivial questions designed to try and find an excuse for a man that couldn't even be bothered to save my correct name in his phone. I was forced to relive my assault over and over and over again.

I was forced to listen to a phone call that I didn't even remember without any choice of my own. I was forced to recount the most traumatic and humiliating moment of my life in front of a room full of strangers and the man that assaulted me. My control was once again painfully taken away from me. hearing the voice of the man that assaulted me while he stared me dead in the face was painful beyond words. I was shown a video of a woman that wasn't even me and berated until I said it was. No one should ever have to endure the cruelty that I faced in this courtroom. The justice system is not built for survivors. With that being said, if I may, I would really like to say thank you to the detective who took my statements and never once shouted me.

I would also like to thank the crowns, Jill and Kelly, who worked tirelessly on this case for four years. I would also like to thank my two supporters from the Victims' Witness Support Program. I chose to come to the courtroom without any of my loved ones because I could not bear to watch them suffer more than they already have. Because of the Victims' Witness Support Program, I never felt alone. Being in the courtroom is one of the most traumatizing experiences of my life, aside from the assault, but it was an honor for me to watch the powerful and dedicated women in this room. Thank you for believing in me. to my parents who love me to the ends of the earth.

I know that seeing me go through this has been one of the most difficult part of your lives as well. The strength of my parents and friends are the reason I am here today, and I hope I've made you proud. And thank you, your honor. You have a job to do, but you have allowed me to be heard. In 47 days, it will be exactly six years from the day of the assault. November 22nd will forever haunt me, but now I have a new day to celebrate, June 5th.

the day I finally got to hear the word guilty. Even after being found guilty of this crime, I watched the man that assaulted me walk free. Videos were posted online of the last few months of him dancing and living a normal life. The lack of empathy and remorse is not only painful, it's terrifying. I have carried around this pain for far too long, and today I'm giving it back.

It was never mine and Mr. Hogart has rightfully earned it. Finally, before a sentence is given, I would like to offer a piece of advice to Mr. Hoggard. In his own words, don't worry, it'll be over soon. Thank you. In response to Emma's victim impact statement, one Twitter user posted that it was heartbreaking to see that even in the best case scenario for a sexual assault survivor

in our justice system, the whole thing is still this painful for them. Jacob Hogarth's defense team presented more than 50, letters from his family, friends and community, describing him as a loving person and dedicated father, a person who loves dogs and charity work and growing tomatoes. His friends and family praised him for his radical honesty and making them feel that they could tell him anything.

They said it would be out of character for him to commit a violent sexual assault. Crown prosecutor Jill Whitkin pointed out of. out that a key theme throughout the letters was blaming the fans for throwing themselves at Jacob Hoggard and tempting him, and suggested to the judge that the only thing that can be taken from the letters was that Jacob will have a supportive community waiting for him. She said it's also not uncommon for the loved ones of a convicted sex offender to see them differently like this, noting the special nature of sexual assault means it often takes place behind closed doors. The Crown also pointed out that being involved in charitable activities and

effectively maintaining an image as someone who was friendly and approachable can act as a cloak for these kinds of crimes. Jacob Hogarth's defence team had hired and retained forensic psychiatrist Dr. High Bloom to evaluate his risk of re-offending and whether he had any sexual parapherias or abnormal sexual interests. Defence lawyer Megan Savard submitted the psychiatric, sexological and risk assessment report for the judge's consideration in deciding on the sentence. The report states that Jacob Hogard maintains that he is innocent, that his sexual encounters were consensual and he expresses no remorse.

Emma had testified that Jacob tried to choke. and as you'll remember, Jacob testified that choking was not among his sexual preferences. Yet the report details that he told Dr. Bloom that he likes light slapping, dirty talk and putting his hands around a partner's neck with a, quote, slight squeeze. The psychiatrist reported that Jacob had been in counseling since 2011 because of his inability to remain faithful to a long-term partner, and he was also considering treatment for sexual addiction before he was charged. As part of the assessment, Jacob consented to fallometric testing,

which assesses male sexual arousal by exposing the subject to specific stimuli. The testing is typically used for pedophilia, but in this case, Jacob was tested to see if he had a preference for coercive sexual activity, specifically involving someone who was unwilling or in distress or injury. He was also assessed using the Hare Psychopathy checklist, where he reportedly scored in the range of a normal person with a normal capacity for empathy. The report concluded that Jacob Hogarth did not have any sexual parapherias

and was at a low risk for sexual re-offending. Crown prosecutor Kelly Slate stated that, Phallometric testing has limitations when used like this to detect a preference for coercive sexual activity, pointing out that Jacob's risk factor was heightened because he hasn't taken responsibility and does not show remorse. The Crown also argued that these findings should be given little weight in the sentencing decision because the assessment was based on limited and one-sided information. Dr Bloom only interviewed Jacob Hoggard, his wife Rebecca Asselstein, and the people who supported him, his family and friends,

the same people who submitted the positive character references. There was no information from Emma, the survivor Jacob Hogart was found guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm. No information from either of Jacob Hogarth's previous long-term partners, sexual partners, or anyone that he worked with during his 14 years in the music business. The report also states that Jacob Hogard reported having some 200 sexual partners in his life, and of those, 60 to 70% of them were fans, but there was not a word from any of them in the report either. Dr Bloom's report details that in Rebecca Asselstein's interview,

she stated that her husband had been inundated with attention from women and that he sometimes sought to gratify his human nature and seek love and comfort with them. She was quoted as saying, It's crazy, women just go nuts, I know what fame can do to a regular person. The Crown pointed out that Rebecca obviously, knew that the survivor, Emma, wasn't a fan of Jacob or the band, and that they met on Tinder. It was also pointed out that in Jacob's own interviews with Dr. Bloom, he admitted

that he pursued Sophie sexually when she was 15 and 16 years old, and while he said he was worried about how young she was, he also told Dr. Bloom that she was, quote, very gorgeous and looked 19. In the report, Jacob Hoggard states that he believes Emma from Ottawa felt rejected by him and made up her allegations, just as the defence suggested. Justice Roberts noted that in the report he was aggressive when asked questions about Emma's testimony and that he seems to blame her. The jury had found Jacob guilty on that charge, but as part of sentencing submissions, Megan Savard continued to. to argue that Emma's version of events was inconsistent and lacked credibility. She stated that the judge should find that Emma was not choked by Jacob Hoggard.

Even though he himself admitted he was aroused by the act of putting his hands around a partner's neck with what he described as a light squeeze. The defense argued that Emma's $2.8 million lawsuit is proof that financial reparation is meaningful for her. as though it's some kind of wild revelation that a woman who was violently raped by a man who took no responsibility and showed no remorse might appreciate financial compensation for losses and harm they have suffered. Megan Savard also told the judge that Jacob Hoggard actually considered pleading guilty at one point because he was willing to quote, except that it was her experience that she felt scared. The court heard this was proof that he has the

ability to show empathy. In response, Justice Roberts noted that this seems at odds with his testimony that described the encounter as passionate and consensual. As part of his assessment, Dr. Bloom suggested to Jacob that he placed some women on a pedestal, the few he had long-term relationships with, and kept others at a lower level to use for sexual gratification. Jacob bristled up when this was suggested and rejected it. Because the only people interviewed for this report were Jacob Hogarth's supporters, the report's conclusion aligned with their perspective that the fans were to blame for tempting him.

Jacob's sexual problems were determined to have been caused by his celebrity, and fans threw themselves at him sexually. The report concluded that he is capable of personal growth, and now that his life as a celebrity is over, the likelihood of him being in a similar situation with a fan again is low, and that makes his risk of engaging in the same or similar behaviours in the future also low. So in other words, his risk of re-offending is low not because he's been successfully rehabilitated, but because his rock star career is over and he's no longer in situations where he's being tempted by those fans. That is not an indication of personal growth or change, only that the situation has changed.

Crown prosecutor Jill Whitkin told the court that while Jacob Hogart is no longer a so-called rock star, he is still charming and still capable of the manipulation that resulted in this trial. He only took responsibility for his infidelity with his long-term partners, and the dealings with women that he described as reckless. yet consensual, and his potential for rehabilitation is limited because he maintains his innocence when it comes to sexual assault causing bodily injury. The Crown said, quote, Because Hogarth is not acknowledging any responsibility, the Crown's position is that he could put himself in this position again, and that he's a risk to the public. Defense lawyer Megan Savard

argued that Jacob was not a risk to the public because he had apparently already changed his ways. She told the judge that the 15-minute phone call with Emma that he secretly recorded had an immense effect on him, and he began the process of personal change back then at the end of 2016. The defense told the judge that he'd lost his music career and has little money now. He was publicly humiliated and is hesitant to be seen in public. with his family since he's effectively been branded as a sex offender for life. For those reasons, the defence was asking for a sentence of three to four years in prison. The Crown asked for six to seven years.

At the end of sentencing submissions, Justice Roberts asked Jacob Hogart if he wanted to say anything, and he replied, No, thank you, Your Honor, I'm going to pass on that. In delivering her sentence, Ontario Superior Court Justice Gillian Roberts said she didn't agree with the defense's argument that Emma's testimony was unreliable and shouldn't be believed. She said, quote, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that every aggravating fact that she described occurred, including that she was choked, that Mr. Hoggard called her a pig and a dirty slut and oint at her, and that she suffered all the injuries she described, both physical and psychological.

Justice Roberts described Jacob Hoggard's sexual assault of Emma causing bodily harm as gratuitous degradation and gratuitous violence. A paragraph from the sentencing decision court document referenced the manipulation and gaslighting involved afterwards. Quote, When Mr. Hogard was finished with Emma, he made up a lie and told her he had to leave. Shortly after, he gaslighted her with a text

about what a great day they had together. When she later texted back something to the effect that he had raped her, he doubled down on the gaslighting, surreptitiously recording a telephone call with her, during which he noted what a chill time they had together. Once he created the record he wanted, he lied that his phone was about to die and hung up. Justice Roberts told the court that whatever fleeting moments Jacob Hoggard derived from his conduct, quote, they have come at the staggering and utterly unacceptable cost of forever changing her life.

She stated that it's no exaggeration to say that because of the physical and psychological hurt, quote, Emma is no longer the same person she was before the attack. She was transformed from an adventurous 23-year-old keen to experience life to a distraught and damaged survivor, shutting herself off from much that life could offer in order to get through her days. The judge recognized that part of the harm experienced by Emma was because of the way the trial was conducted. Quote, Defense Counsel played a video clip of an individual whose voice and appearance were altered and asserted it was Emma saying something inconsistent with her evidence at trial.

The clip was not of Emma. Thanks to a member of the media, the mistake was caught. I do not know how the mistake happened and attribute no blame, but it was profoundly unfair to the complainant. She also referenced the defence's attempts to bypass both rapist shield laws, citing from a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision about the intent of the rape shield law legislation, quote, such an experience should no longer be an ordinary or expected aspect of being a complainant in a sexual assault trial.

Justice Roberts acknowledged that Emma still had a. an extremely difficult time at trial during cross-examination. When it came to the psychiatric, sexological and risk assessment report submitted by the defence, Justice Roberts found that not only was it based on incomplete information, but it also failed to address Jacob Hogarth's manipulative, gaslighting conduct towards both complainants. Referring to the explanation that he shot to fame quickly and couldn't resist the girls and women throwing themselves at him, she said it, quote, minimizes the gravity of his wrongdoing and prevents him from taking steps to address his sophisticated manipulation of women

and the exceptionally degrading and violent nature of the offense. Justice Roberts also noted that because Jacob Hogard has maintained his innocence and hasn't shown remorse or taken responsibility for his actions, she did not accept the report's conclusion that he was a low risk to re-offend. Quote, The Crown rightly points out that Mr. Hogard was always impulsive and promiscuous, prior to and apart from his life as a rock star. We cannot say that Mr. Hoggard will never again find himself in a situation where he has a sexual opportunity, wants to validate himself, and the impulse takes over. The judge stated that the sentence needed to be proportionate to the gravity of the offense

and his circumstances, including his degree of responsibility. Quote, it must be sufficient to reflect the inherent harmfulness of a manipulative and particularly degrading rape. With that, Justice. Roberts' sentence Jacob Hoggard to five years in prison. He was also put on the sex offender registry for the next 20 years and banned from possessing any weapons for 10 years. Before he was led away, the judge allowed him to say goodbye to his wife Rebecca Asselstein. Reporting for the Canadian press, Liam Casey described Jacob walking over to the gallery

dressed in a black suit and tie over a white shirt. He kissed and hugged his wife goodbye and whispered to her, Don't worry, I love you so much, I'll talk to you soon. The guards then handcuffed him and he was taken into custody. Outside court, Crown Prosecutor Jill Whitkin applauded the jury's verdict and the judge's sentencing decision, saying, quote, Mr. Hogan's conviction and sentence send a message to our community that sexual violence will not be tolerated by anyone.

She said the Crown recognises that sexual assault can be devastating to the physical and psychological well-being of survivors, their families and their communities, and she thanked both complainants. Quote, they were very brave and came forward in 2018. They spoke to the authorities they testified in court at a preliminary hearing and at trial. and they should be commended for that.

She said the Crown recognises that the trial was a difficult process that is also a necessary one, adding, quote, we can only prosecute if we have survivors who will attend court. Just hours later, defence lawyer Megan Savard launched an appeal of the guilty verdict before another judge. She argued that Justice Roberts made several errors, including refusing to sever the charges into the court. two separate trials, a charge to the jury that was embalanced, and allowing Dr. Laurie Haskell

to testify about the neurobiological effects of trauma. She also argued that Jacob Hoggard should be released on bail, in part because he does not pose a flight risk. The Crown opposed this, saying that enforcement of the jury's verdict and the judge's sentencing decision is paramount to maintaining the public's faith in the justice system. Justice Grant Husscroft released Jacob Hoggard on bail pending appeal. That's not the end of the story, though. As you'll recall, there were a number of items that were under publication ban until the trial was over, including the fact that Jacob Hougard had been charged

with a new count of sexual assault causing bodily injury, related to a third complainant from Kirkland Lake, Ontario. There were also two witnesses that the Crown had planned to call to testify, but both were excluded from participating in the trial before it even started. One of those witnesses was a young woman who had been in a consensual sexual relationship with Jacob Hoggard in 2013 and 14, and she would have testified about him asking her to urinate on her. him. The Crown argued that this evidence would be used to bolster the credibility of Emma from

Ottawa, who reported a similar detail. Justice Roberts ruled this testimony inadmissible, saying that urination isn't so unusual or specific, and that the intended witness was in a consensual relationship with Jacob Hoggard, which wasn't the case with Emma. It was a moot point because Jacob ended up testifying that urination was one of his sexual preferences anyway. You might have been wondering what happened with Headley's former drummer, Chris Crippen, the one who was fired from the band after conflict with Jacob Hoggard several years earlier. He seemed to have some not very complimentary things to say about Jacob Hoggard and had given a statement to police.

Now, as you'll remember, the agreed statement of fact that, at trial mentioned the existence of a masturbation video, but there was no mention of how the police actually obtained it. It was Chris Crippen who handed it over, and he had been called by the Crown to testify about it, as well as a conversation he'd had with Jacob Hoggard, but his testimony was excluded. According to pretrial court documents, Chris initially told police that Jacob picked on him and treated him badly over the course of about 10 years until things came to a head in 2016 and he left the tour the band was on, telling the fans that he was sick.

He wasn't fired until the first part of 2017, and he said that shortly before that, Jacob Hogarth sent him that masturbation video which he described as a kind of unwanted locker room surprise. The video is described in the court document as being about six seconds in length and shows Jacob seated in what looks to be a sterile environment that is consistent with an airplane bathroom. He's wearing a white t-shirt and a black zippered jacket with no pants or underwear visible in the video. It starts with Jacob's face looking at the camera while he's chewing gum,

with the location of his left arm suggesting that he is filming himself. After two seconds, the video pans downwards to show his right hand gripping the base of his semi-erect penis, moving it back and forth. That's the end of the video. Chris Crippen told the police that he did not consent to receiving the video, but kept it over the following 18 months. As the allegations surfaced on Twitter, as Emma from Ottawa and Jessica from Toronto publicly came forward to CBC News with their accounts

and as the band was dropped by management, the Junos and radio stations. Chris had tweeted that gif of Kermit the Frog sipping tea, but he continued to keep the masturbation video to himself. It wasn't until three months after Jacob Hogarth was first charged with sexual assault that the former drummer came forward and gave the masturbation video to the police, along with a detailed statement. So why did he wait so long? Chris Crippen had told police that he had remained on bad terms with Jacob Hogard,

and quote, I don't really like him, I'm really excited not to have him in my life. He added that, quote, one of the reasons I never wanted to bother coming forward is because I just have nothing nice to say about him. Now this statement rings hollow because the act of coming forward with information after sexual assault allegations surface generally would involve having nothing nice to say. Otherwise, there would be no need to come forward. Now just a few weeks after Chris gave his statement to the police, he gave that CBC news interview with Judy Trent, telling her that Jacob

had a long history of inappropriate behaviour. He had seen Jacob being overly touchy with fans, making lewd comments disguised as cheeky jokes, showing band members and crew nude photos of women he said he'd slept with, and sharing memes and jokes that were racist, homophobic and misogynist. Although none of the examples were specific or serious enough to attract criminal charges, Chris Crippen told the police that Jacob Hogan bullied him into staying silent about his concerns. When it came to receiving that masturbation video without consent,

the defense argued in a pretrial hearing that Chris Crippin's intended testimony should be excluded because it suggested that Jacob Hogan was prepared to impose his sexuality on others, regardless of their wishes. The judge agreed, describing this evidence as vague and ruling it inadmissible. But there was one other piece of evidence that Chris Crippen was prepared to testify about. He had also told police that Jacob shared details with him about sexual encounters that involved engaging in anal sex, followed by receiving oral sex. Jacob allegedly bragged to the former drummer that his last,

latest sexual partner had, quote, poop in her mouth. That wasn't the only anal to oral story, and Chris Crippen told the police about a conversation he initiated with Jacob after hearing several more of them. A pretrial court document details the questions Chris says he asked, and the responses allegedly given by Jacob. You did that again? Yeah. What is this thing? Is it degradation? Yeah, I'm into degradation. Okay, okay, that's the thing. You like to make them feel bad? Yeah, is this like from high school or something?

You got jilted in high school? Yeah. As you'll recall, Emma from Ottawa testified that Jacob anally penetrated her while she was lying on her stomach, and then would flip her onto her back and force his penis into her mouth, and he did this several times while she was crying. And while Jessica from Toronto wasn't part of the trial, in her interview with CBC's Judy Trin, she reported having the exact same experience.

When it comes to Sophie, who was 16 at the time, there is mention of a similar act in a pre-trial court document from 2020, but we weren't able to find any reference to her, including this level of detail in her trial testimony. Regardless, Justice Roberts ruled Chris Crippin's conversation with Jacob Hoggard about this degrading sex act was inadmissible for several reasons. The accusation came from a clearly disgruntled bandmate, she said. Chris had told police that this conversation didn't involve any sexual partners that were underage, and there was also no suggestion that this sexual activity was non-consensual.

And lastly, the judge determined this evidence was prejudicial. It could lead the jury to unfairly assume that because Jacob Hogard allegedly likes to degrade women, that he also committed sexual assault. So that's how Chris Crippin's intended testimony was excluded at the trial. The fact that the former drummer spoke out eventually may have provided some behind-the-scenes answers, but it begged a lot more questions as well. What exactly did the other members of Headley see, and why did they never speak out?

The drummer who replaced Chris Crippen was only in the band for about a year before the allegations surfaced on Twitter, but long-time bass player Tommy Mack and lead guitarist Dave Rosen have never spoken out individually. They never once commented during the trial or after the vass. verdict. It should be noted that they did not provide positive character references for Jacob Hoggard as part of the sentencing submissions, and there's also no evidence they participated in that psychological risk assessment, but they also didn't speak out against his behaviour.

Now about that, wherever articles about the sexual assault allegations and the trial have been posted, the comments always include former fans recapture. counting their own Headley stories and sleazy encounters. A search of Reddit for Headley or Jacob Hoggard brings up multiple posts with 200 to 300 comments, most commonly about inappropriate interactions former fans had with the band when they were young teenagers in the early grades of high school.

There's stories about teenage girls being scooped up to party with the band backstage, in parking lots, hotels, in the woods behind the hotels, and while the majority of the most sleazy allegations are about Jacob Hoggard, he is not the only long-time band member mentioned. And it's interesting to note that of the long-time members of Headley, Jacob is the youngest member by quite a bit. Lead guitarist Dave Rosen is three years older, Chris Crippen is 10 years older, and bass guitarist Tommy Mack is 13 years older. But even if it's assumed that

Jacob Hogarth was the main ringleader, the fans young and old knew Headley as a band that liked to party, and the majority of comments were from fans who recalled partying with all the members of the band. And it appears that they were all implicated in that mysterious 2005 incident in London, Ontario. When it comes to that 2005 incident in London, Ontario, the gossip and speculation about what went on at the Embassy Hotel was huge on MySpace and other online forums that can't be found today. And because of the way the story remains shrouded in mystery,

it's kind of part of the band's mythology and lore now, something that everyone seems to know about, but can't really say for sure. sure that it's true. After the allegations against Jacob Hoggard first surfaced on Twitter in 2018, Canadian music site Exclaim.cah published that story titled, Headley were allegedly investigated for drugging underage concert goa. Exclaim was the only media outlet with original reporting on the incident.

But because the only named source in the article was former employee Rochrane, Rob Bazanet, the headly army of extreme superfans criticised the publication because there didn't seem to be any attempts to verify any of his story with anyone else. The article doesn't credit any of the other employees of the embassy for speaking out, but it does say that the original version of the article included employee names which were removed at their request. Because only Rob Bazanette's name remained, he became another time. target for the misplaced anger of the band's extreme superfans. There was also a screenshot floating around that superfans pointed to as an indication that Rob's account of the evening

may have been some kind of fabrication. The vagueness of the whole situation bothered me, so I decided to look into it myself. I first spoke with Rob Bazanet. I've also had a very enlightening phone call with a person in a position of upper management authority at the embassy at the time. And I've also reached out and received responses from two other people who were working that night on security and behind the bar. I know and have verified their real identities and their relation to the incident that night. And I've been told that those familiar with the early 2000s music scene in London, Ontario will know who they are as well. But all three of them have asked me to protect their identities for various reasons, including

not wanting to be publicly involved or associated with this incident, not wanting their kids to see the details, and of course to avoid backlash from the extreme superfans. As you'll remember, only four years after this incident, the embassy burned in a fire. Everyone moved on with their lives and there's now a condo building there. That's another layer that makes this whole thing so mysterious. The first thing I wanted to clear up was about Rob Bazanette himself, and there's a little side tangent here. The exclaim.ca article states, quote,

Rob Bazanet worked at London's beloved All Ages venue, the embassy for 11 years, serving as its general manager until the venue burned down in 2009. When Exclaim first posted the article on Twitter, a user who identified themselves as a former sound tech who worked at the embassy, tweeted a response that implied Rob Bazanette wasn't who he said he was and that most of the details in the article were not true. It appears that the sound tech deleted their tweet, but not before the extreme superfans took a screenshot, and now the mystery around who Rob Bazanette, really is, has become a key part of the online mythology related to this embassy story. If the screenshot isn't produced in response to someone mentioning the incident, its comments like, Rob was never the general manager of the embassy hotel, which typically bring an end to the conversation.

I wanted to try and clear this up, so I tweeted at the sound tech, but they never replied. I then asked my three sources from the embassy if they had any insights into this. One employee declined to respond, but the other told me they weren't surprised by that tweet because the sound tech and Rob Bazanet were known to butt heads at one point and never really got along well. So finally, I took it to the person in the position of Upper Management Authority, a person who was also one of Rob's superiors at the time, and I asked them the question, was Rob Bazanette the general manager of the embassy hotel or not? They told me that Rob started with them as a bouncer at the bar,

and because of his personable manner and strong work ethic, he was held in high regard by upper management. This person spoke about Rob in glowing terms, saying that over the years he was given more and higher responsibilities, and while he didn't hold the official job title of general manager, he frequently performed duties that would fall under that job description and was often treated as such by management and staff. So job titles aside, the evidence indicates that Rob was quite often acting as general manager.

Moving on from confirming Rob's credibility, I wanted to verify as many of the details published in that article as I could, could. In the article, Rob says he observed Headley being jerks to everyone, which all my sources say is true. The person in the position of Upper Management Authority told me that only the person who booked the band knew who Headley was. The rest of the staff that night didn't know much about them other than the fact that Jacob Hogarth was on Canadian Idol the year before. They recalled that when Headley first arrived at the Embassy Hotel, the band members seemed nice at first, but when the fan started to arrive, Jacob Hogarth in particular was awful to them, a total jerk.

They told me one anecdote in vivid detail as they watched Jacob sign a CD for a fan, recalling that instead of handing it back, he punched it on the table so it broke, and then gave it back to the shocked fan with the comment, quote, This is a moment. This person in a position of upper management authority told me there were quite a few incidents similar to this that day, and the staff concluded that the fame had gone to Jacob's head. It was very obvious from the tone of conversation around this particular question that Headley had made quite the negative impression on staff that night.

The Exclaim.ca article states that after Headley's performance, Rob Bazanette went to the green room to check up on them to see if they had everything they needed and if their rider requirements had been fulfilled, which was part of his job. The green room was actually a green room apartment above the venue, and Rob said that one of the bedrooms had the door shut and quote, When I went to go check it, the rest of the band got in the way. Rob is quoted saying he doesn't remember which member of Headley was in the bedroom,

but the remaining three members barricaded him from entering, leaving him with the feeling that he would have to force his way in. Assuming they wanted privacy, he said he turned around and went back downstairs. At some point, he realized the band had packed up and left without anyone knowing, and then the police showed up. Now, this is obviously Rob's personal account of events that he witnessed in the course of doing his job, and he told me he still stands by what he said, but because no one else was there except the members of Headley,

there is no one else who can verify this part of the story. All my sources confirmed that the police did show up, and the person in the position of upper management authority confirmed that they were permitted to search the Green Room apart, which was exactly as Rob described. They told me that because of its separate location above the venue, it is likely that the band was able to leave without anyone noticing. This person also confirmed that the reason the police came to the embassy was because the venue stamp was found on the hand of an unconscious teenage girl,

found on the street nearby. She also had a black X on her hand, and she was missing her shoes. My source and upper management told me that the embassy was close to the police station and as an all-ages concert venue, management and staff had a good working relationship with local police in their efforts to be proactive in making sure underage fans were identified properly with the black exes on their hand and therefore not served alcohol. My source confirmed that it's because of the state,

and the Black X that the police linked the girl to the embassy and knew she was underage. And they also confirmed that police found her missing shoes, those distinctive leopard print flats in the green room apartment bedroom. And that discovery is what linked her not only to the embassy, but specifically to Headley the band. Rob has confirmed to me that there were other bands playing that day, but the green room apartment was specifically reserved for Headley. One of the other employees I spoke with recalled going to the green room shortly after the police had discovered the shoes and presumably left with them.

He said he went there as a secondary witness and he looked around and observed, quote, The bed was a mess and there were a number of used condom wrappers scattered on the floor. Rob was quoted in the article saying the police requested that the venue keep the green room barricaded off for approximately one week and they returned there several times. This was confirmed by the person in a position of upper management authority, who was there over the next week when the police returned several times, citing an ongoing investigation. Now, Rob also reported a number of things that one or more London police officers told him, and I asked him to confirm these things again. He has confirmed that the London police told him the girl was taken to hospital, where she tested positive for the date rape drug, Rehipnol.

He also confirmed to me that, quote, The police told us that the parents of the girl were contacted based on her identification. They consented to the rape kit, but before it could be performed, she woke up and refused it. Rob clarified these details confidently, but said the one detail he wasn't 100% sure about was whether the parents gave their consent over the phone or in person. One of the factors contributing to the mystery of this incident is that it seems unlikely that the police would be giving live music venue employees sensitive information. related to an ongoing investigation.

I noted that at the end of the exclaim.ca article, it said, quote, the London police have no information to share, which seems to be a direct quote from the police, but could also mean that they just didn't respond to the inquiry. In any event, a lot has happened since the article was published in 2018, so we reached out to London Police our state. on the off chance that they might want to respond now.

We did get a response from their media team that said, quote, We looked into the request and we do not have anything to share. I did ask them what kind of details they would be able to share and they didn't reply. Rob stands by his original comments, obviously, and I asked the person in a position of upper management authority about this, and thankfully they did have some information. to share. They said because of the embassy's frequent and close dealings with the police as an all-ages concert venue, the management and staff members knew many of the officers on duty at the time

on a first-name basis. And when it came to Rob specifically, this person who was technically his superior described him as a friendly and approachable person who knew everyone and had a way about him that made people feel comfortable opening up and telling him things. They told me that it is possible that a London police officer did feel comfortable confiding in Robb. They also confirmed that there was a police incident report and it had been seen and read by members of upper management and at least one employee at the venue, including Rob Bazanet. The final part of the article is about Rob's claim that the venue's management were sent a cease and desist letter from a law firm on behalf of Headley the band, their management and their label.

Rob was quoted in the article saying management took this letter seriously and warned staff and employees that they would be fired if they said anything more. My source in a position of upper management authority said that Rob was just being high. The staff weren't threatened with being fired per se, but everything else was true and it was taken seriously. They confirmed receipt of this letter, which said police had closed the investigation and advised them to stop any negative press about Headley, or there would be libel issues. Rob Bazanette told me he has a lot more to say from his years in the live concert industry. Quote, I've seen the pattern of feeding

children or young adults to rock stars. It needs to be spoken about. I've tucked this away for future reference, but several media outlets also reported on this problem during trial coverage. In a Toronto Star article with the headline, that stuff has been so normalized, what the trial of Headley's Jacob Hoggard says about his rock star lifestyle, authors Olivia Bowden and Alicia Husham, pointed out defense lawyer Megan Savard's closing statements to the jury, where she excused Jacob Hoggard's behaviour as not pretty but legal. As you'll remember, Jacob Hogarth confirmed that when he was a 33-year-old man, he engaged in behaviour that was consistent with grooming and luring a 15-year-old girl. He held back until she turned 16, and less than two months after that,

he arranged for her to be transported to his airport hotel with the explicit intention of having sex with her, which he did without a condom. Jacob Hogard was willing to confirm these details to defend himself against the much more serious charges of sexual assault and sexual touching of a minor, and he may have been successful at raising reasonable doubt with the jury, but his testimony at least still needs to be viewed as highlighting serious problems that need to change,

which are the predatory male musicians who pursue teenage fans and the way society accepts that behaviour as normal. Regardless of the legal age of consent, a male lead singer of a band with a fan base of teenage girls and young women is inherently in a position of power, according to Stacey Forrester of Good Night Out, the BC-based non-profit dedicated to sexual violence prevention in live music and nightlife.

She told the Toronto Star, quote, To begin sexually pursuing a fan who was 15, to essentially groom a teen girl, is not an acceptable lifestyle. She says that the industry needs to mentor men to be better, to really understand the nuance around consent and power, and to quote, put checks and balances into their meeting greets and their interactions, so there is never any doubt about their conduct in those spaces.

When it comes to Jacob Hogarth's supporters and defenders, they chalk his behaviour up to the rock and roll lifestyle. They point out how unfair it is to come down hard on him now when he's only doing the same thing that other things, musicians have also been doing for decades. They refer to the open secret of bands and solo musicians known for keeping teenage girls around at best and allegedly sleeping with them at worst, like the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, as well as Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley, and David Bowie. These artists may have gotten away with it, but that doesn't make it moral or

right, and labeling Jacob Hoggard as yet another rock and roll cliche where rock stars will be rock stars does nothing to fix the issue. In the Toronto Starpiece, several music industry experts were quoted saying the industry elevates performers into believing they're on top of the world, and that no one will hold them accountable for anything. And the industry is fueled by a culture of silence, where others do not speak out because it's so normalized, but also because many who could speak out are also financially reliant on the performer. If they come forward, not only do they risk losing their income and livelihood, but also being labelled in the industry as a troublemaker, someone who ruins the fun, which could affect their future employment prospects as well.

Former Headley drummer Chris Crippen had told CBC News that he raised his issues about Jacob's inappropriate behaviour with management several times over the years, but nothing was ever done. And he also said he told police that Jacob bullied him into staying silent. And as you'll remember, the president of Headley's management company for 14 years provided a statement to CBC News that confirmed the band was challenging to work. work with, and quote, at the time, we chalked it up to immaturity, attention-seeking and shock value. The band's management is obviously just one of many who have a stake in the financial pie. And unless the music industry changes on several different levels, this will continue to happen. When it comes to that 2005 incident at the Embassy Hotel in London, Ontario, the only parties left to confirm it is the London police and the underage girl herself. There is no statute of limitations

when it comes to sexual assault, so she could come forward at any time to report what happened to her. But why would she? Every accused person deserves a rigorous defence. It's one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system. But as law professor, Elaine Craig argued in her 2019 book, putting trials on trial, a defense lawyer's obligation to defend their client should not extend to cross-examination that continues to put rape myths on the record. Despite the best efforts of the judge, this is exactly what has happened with the Jacob Hogard trial. Criminal defense lawyers try to raise reasonable doubt by shifting the blame from the perpetrator to the victim. And so, predictably, the defense asked questions underpinned by the myth that sexual assault

complainants are uniquely likely to be lying because they wanted attention or they regretted having sex or that they were trying to get revenge for being rejected afterwards. The complainants were asked questions based on the myth that a real or true victim will fight back and yell and scream and try to escape the situation as soon as she can, as well as questions based on the myth that survivors will act a certain way and look a certain way after being raped. She'll be visibly injured or disheveled afterwards, and if it really was a sexual assault, she'll know it immediately, report it without delay, and not have any more positive interactions with the accused. It is expected that the defence will ask sexual assault complainants

these kind of questions. And when it comes to changing the social discontal. course around sexual assault, that's bad enough. But Jacob Hougard's defense team went further than that, attempting to bypass both the rape shield laws put in place by the Supreme Court of Canada, protections designed to counteract the harmful twin myths of sexual assault. The defense carelessly incorporated an incorrect clip into their trial materials and used it to badger a survivor until she broke down on the stand. And when a third party reported the error, not only did the defence refuse to apologise to Emma for it,

but after the judge apologized for them, they argued that the jury shouldn't be told that Emma received an apology at all. In her book, putting trials on trial, Professor Craig argues the legal profession continues to fail victims by needlessly traumatising those who come forward. And the result of this is that many sexual assault survivors actually regret participating in the legal process because of the way they were treated in court, especially by the defense counsel.

In turn, this causes other victims to hold back on reporting their own experiences, which does nothing to reduce the number of sexual assaults, let alone the ones that are reported. To use a phrase we've heard before, these defense tactics, are not pretty, but legal. But on a macro level, what is the end goal? What are they trying to accomplish? The motivation behind these tactics appears to be less about the greater good and positive societal implications,

and more about winning, crafting a certain reputation, and climbing the career or business ladder. And they're rewarded for it, criminal defence lawyers who successfully use aggressive cross-examination, tactics like this are considered to be exceptional at their craft, at least by the legal establishment. But as Professor Craig argues, that ruthlessness does not need to be a defining characteristic of what makes a criminal defense lawyer successful. They can still address a complainant or witness without stereotyping and victim-blaming language, and instead of implying or outright accusing the complainant

of lying, they could reframe questions from a point of trying to clarify uncertainty. They could also follow due process as set out by the Rape Shield laws, instead of trying to find loopholes to get around them. And these changes can be accomplished by all key players involved in the legal process without obstructing the rights of the accused. But there seems to be no appetite for this change. Rape is an extraordinarily harmful offence, violating the victim's physical, psychological and emotional integrity and often results in profound long-term effects. And unless the rules of enthusiastic consent are better understood and practiced, and ruthless criminal defence lawyers stop using aggressive and harmful tactics, the situation sadly won't be changing any time soon. Thanks for listening. If you enjoyed this series, please tell a friend, share it on social media or leave a review wherever you listen to podcasts.

To learn more, please check the show notes or see the page for this episode at canadian truecrime.ca.com. There's a list of sources and resources we relied on to write these episodes, including all the interviews, the court documents, news archives and all the Reddit, Twitter and other social media threads we mentioned. We'll also be back to report after the next trial, which is looking like it might happen next year, so stay tuned for that. 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 industry. Visit Goodnight 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 RCC.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 composed 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.