Keeping Track of Criminal Cases & SafeSport Suspensions in Skating

[jackson]

His "pinnacle of our career" comment suggests that they are considering retirement after this season.

And the comment that "the damage is done and that was the point" was not a good look. Did his agents/coaches/SC really tell him to say that?

Wow, well his true colors really have come out. I hope his partner realizes who she is entangled with post career, and runs for the hills.

 

[MacMadame]

Theoretically. In reality, most 'regular' rinks don't have "security" on the premises

They don't have security where you are? Rinks around here do and they all have at least one burly guy who makes people follow the rules.

I can't see someone who knows they are under investigation making a fuss tbh. I also think, if they did make a fuss, the police absolutely would come as that's trespassing which is illegal. They come out for stuff like that all the time.

 

[Debbie S]

They don't have security where you are?

Not at the two rinks where my club members skate and I've never seen one at the rink where we have our comp.

I can't see someone who knows they are under investigation making a fuss tbh. I also think, if they did make a fuss, the police absolutely would come as that's trespassing which is illegal. They come out for stuff like that all the time.

It's not exactly trespassing since the individual would be banned from the comp but not from the facility (unless the facility has also banned them independently of USFS). So i could see some back and forth over whether the rink can actually require someone to leave, etc. But yes, I would hope anyone who is banned would not try to test the rules. But some people are crazy.

One year, a (adult) comp entrant listed a banned coach as her coach. As discussed here previously, USFS/SafeSport bans apply to USFS-sanctioned activities, such as club-run FS sessions, but not to sessions run by rinks. Some rinks are crazy. Fortunately, the banned coach did not appear (I think comp chair contacted entrant to tell them their coach would not be credentialed).

 

[MacMadame]

But some people are crazy.

Can't argue with that.

 

[Trillian]

After Bob Young was banned in the early 2000s, he was still listed as the coach of record on USFS’s website for skaters who received national team funding and competed internationally. (Two of those skaters later publicly accused him of sexual abuse.) I would hope he wasn’t allowed to travel internationally with them in an official capacity, but my understanding at the time was that he was in attendance at domestic events. “Coaching from the stands” was how it was described to me at the time - though to be clear, this was word of mouth and I don’t know at what events it happened.

That was 20ish years ago, pre-SafeSport, so I hope some things have changed. But my expectations are low, to be honest.

 

[overedge]

I was at an adult competition where a banned coach was coaching a skater. It was tricky because they were banned in Canada, where the competition was being held, but not banned in the US, where they were working and where the skater they were coaching was from. They only had the one skater and the skater was only in one event, so I think the competition organizers decided not to do anything because the coach and skater were only there for a few hours.

 

[overedge]

Apologies if this story has been posted already, but I haven't seen it. It says there are now four complainants in the lawsuit involving Mark Cockerell. And then there's this:

By 2020, the South Carolina Skating Club had received credible allegations against Cockerell, but continued to support him as a coach, the lawsuit claims. Attorneys claim the club's president helped Cockerell overcome complaints made through the U.S. Center for SafeSport. ....

In mid-2022, the mother [of one of the complainants] told the rink Cockerell was grooming students and emotionally abusing them, according to the lawsuit. He continued to coach and she filed a complaint with SafeSport.

According to the lawsuit, SafeSport claimed it needed the skater's name to move forward with the complaint.

U.S. Figure Skating failed to act on ex-Olympian abuse complaints, new lawsuit claims

Sexual misconduct by former Olympic figure skater Mark Cockerell happened long before he became a coach at a South Carolina ice skating rink, attorneys claim.

www.postandcourier.com

 

[Cant Skate]

I'd forgotten about the case regarding Matthew Power, Canadian coach from NFLD, who has been accused of several sex related crimes against skaters he coached. I just randomly ran across several updates to this case. A word of caution, there are some explicit details in this article which could be upsetting.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7093360

 

[bladesofgorey]

I'd forgotten about the case regarding Matthew Power, Canadian coach from NFLD, who has been accused of several sex related crimes against skaters he coached. I just randomly ran across several updates to this case. A word of caution, there are some explicit details in this article which could be upsetting.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7093360

Ugh. Sounds like he was a long time friend of, and collaborator with, Kaetlyn Osmond. Predators are very good at using their connections to put themselves in positions of power and/or authority and in order to gain admiration and allegiance. https://www.starsonice.ca/skaters/kaetlyn-osmond

 

[overedge]

Not to defend him, but the skating community in Newfoundland & Labrador is pretty small. So anyone involved long enough to become an elite skater, or to qualify to be a coach, would probably know and/or have worked with everyone else at that level of involvement. Which TBH makes me kind of surprised that he was able to do what he did without being caught a lot sooner.

 

[Aceon6]

Which TBH makes me kind of surprised that he was able to do what he did without being caught a lot sooner.

My guess is that EVERYONE knew, but with so few options in the area, just kept their mouths shut.

 

[Lynn226]

My guess is that EVERYONE knew, but with so few options in the area, just kept their mouths shut.

And/or the abuser was able to isolate the survivors during the period of abuse. One of the survivors of Larry Nassar was abused in the Nassar home while her parents were there. Her parents and the Nassars were friends. Her dad originally believed Larry's side of the story and committed suicide after he realized what had actually happened.

 

[marbri]

I have reason to say that I really do not believe EVERYONE knew and I think this came as a shock to parents, coaches etc..

But I will also add that fellow skaters around his age that knew him are less shocked. They didn't know but the vibe they remember from him led to "I'm not surprised" when hearing about the case.

What that tells me is parents can sit in the stands watching training sessions, coaches can work alongside other coaches and have really good relationships BUT none of those people know what is being done and shared on SM (snapchat in this case) and the grooming that stems from that.

Just adding that because I think it's helpful also to know that it isn't always obvious and those today with young skaters to talk to their children about good attention and bad attention from the people in their atmosphere.

 

[ignosk8er]

Adding the obvious that's often overlooked: As a third party, accusing someone of sexual abuse/assault, especially if it involves underage and depending on the laws of the land, usually requires evidence. In the US, falsely accusing someone of a crime is slander. Without evidence to back it up, the accused can sue for slander. That's a slippery slope for the accused but it's typically the reason why "everyone knew but said nothing". Because "everyone knew" is usually based on hearsay and that won't stand up in court even if a dozen more join the accusation.

Inviting FSULegal to chime in, please.

 

[Former Lurve Goddess]

Adding the obvious that's often overlooked: As a third party, accusing someone of sexual abuse/assault, especially if it involves underage and depending on the laws of the land, usually requires evidence. In the US, falsely accusing someone of a crime is slander. Without evidence to back it up, the accused can sue for slander. That's a slippery slope for the accused but it's typically the reason why "everyone knew but said nothing". Because "everyone knew" is usually based on hearsay and that won't stand up in court even if a dozen more join the accusation.

Inviting FSULegal to chime in, please.

Haven't had a chance to read it yet but this new book Suing for Silence looks at some of this in a Canadian context. "As Mandi Gray demonstrates, Canadian defamation law is being employed to silence survivors and advocates who speak out about sexual violence, perpetuating the myth that false allegations are common."

 

[Debbie S]

Adding the obvious that's often overlooked: As a third party, accusing someone of sexual abuse/assault, especially if it involves underage and depending on the laws of the land, usually requires evidence. In the US, falsely accusing someone of a crime is slander. Without evidence to back it up, the accused can sue for slander. That's a slippery slope for the accused but it's typically the reason why "everyone knew but said nothing". Because "everyone knew" is usually based on hearsay and that won't stand up in court even if a dozen more join the accusation.

Inviting FSULegal to chime in, please.

Not "FSULegal" but noting that, at least in the U.S., mandatory reporters (health care professionals, teachers, coaches, and in the case of USFS/SafeSport, club volunteers and any adults at the rink who witness something) are protected from such lawsuits, assuming they make the report in good faith. No, 'I heard a rumor' isn't grounds for a report, but if anyone saw something or overheard someone talking about something that happened to them, that is sufficient for a report. Reporters are not expected to investigate prior to reporting.

 

[MacMadame]

Adding the obvious that's often overlooked: As a third party, accusing someone of sexual abuse/assault, especially if it involves underage and depending on the laws of the land, usually requires evidence. In the US, falsely accusing someone of a crime is slander. Without evidence to back it up, the accused can sue for slander. That's a slippery slope for the accused but it's typically the reason why "everyone knew but said nothing". Because "everyone knew" is usually based on hearsay and that won't stand up in court even if a dozen more join the accusation.

This is something I didn't understand from the article. One victim took pictures of the Snapchat conversations and pictures. And that is the charge that the judge wants to throw out because "there isn't enough evidence."

 

[ignosk8er]

Not "FSULegal" but noting that, at least in the U.S., mandatory reporters (health care professionals, teachers, coaches, and in the case of USFS/SafeSport, club volunteers and any adults at the rink who witness something) are protected from such lawsuits, assuming they make the report in good faith. No, 'I heard a rumor' isn't grounds for a report, but if anyone saw something or overheard someone talking about something that happened to them, that is sufficient for a report. Reporters are not expected to investigate prior to reporting.

Thanks for this. If someone saw something or overheard specific reference to an act, that’s admissible testimony.

But I’m going out on a limb here and suggesting that the bulk of “everyone knew” stems from typical gossip. Gossip between kids/teens/young adults and/or among adults.

IOW, “it’s so gross when he grabs her ass” vs “she’s getting better programs cuz she lets him hit on her”. The latter could be 100% true and yet it’s just mushy enough to permeate the larger group, resulting in “everyone knew”.

 

[ignosk8er]

This is something I didn't understand from the article. One victim took pictures of the Snapchat conversations and pictures. And that is the charge that the judge wants to throw out because "there isn't enough evidence."

Did not see that in the article but my reading skills suffer during allergy seasons because I literally cannot see well.

My understanding from the article above is that Sullivan, the defendant’s attorney, wants the some of the Snapchat evidence thrown out: “But Sullivan argued Tuesday the evidence supplied by the prosecutor in support of the second complainant's allegations doesn't meet the bar for charges.”

Bogus in the least. IMHO (not a lawyer but the rest of my family is including ancestors. FWIW).

One aside: Am impressed with the younger complainant’s Snapchat savvy. Not only did she use a different phone but included part of her bedroom in the background. Whether that was purposeful or serendipitous, bravo to her. That would be difficult to dupe.

 

[overedge]

Thanks for this. If someone saw something or overheard specific reference to an act, that’s admissible testimony.

But I’m going out on a limb here and suggesting that the bulk of “everyone knew” stems from typical gossip. Gossip between kids/teens/young adults and/or among adults.

IOW, “it’s so gross when he grabs her ass” vs “she’s getting better programs cuz she lets him hit on her”. The latter could be 100% true and yet it’s just mushy enough to permeate the larger group, resulting in “everyone knew”.

Grabbing students' asses and hitting on students are both unacceptable behaviours from coaches, and both violate Skate Canada's Code of Ethics (https://www.skatinginbc.com/sites/default/files/pages-resources/skate_canadas_code_of_ethics.pdf). I don't understand how everyone knowing about them makes them any less true or problematic.

 

[MacMadame]

My understanding from the article above is that Sullivan, the defendant’s attorney, wants the some of the Snapchat evidence thrown out: “But Sullivan argued Tuesday the evidence supplied by the prosecutor in support of the second complainant's allegations doesn't meet the bar for charges.”

Yeah, it was the defense attorney, not the judge. I got confused. And how can actual SnapChat images not be good enough evidence?!

 

[ignosk8er]

Grabbing students' asses and hitting on students are both unacceptable behaviours from coaches, and both violate Skate Canada's Code of Ethics (https://www.skatinginbc.com/sites/default/files/pages-resources/skate_canadas_code_of_ethics.pdf). I don't understand how everyone knowing about them makes them any less true or problematic.

I'm walking the thin line between evidentiary observations and gossip. “she’s getting better programs cuz she lets him hit on her” is not admissible, regardless of whether the behavior is acceptable or not. "I saw him grab her ass yesterday afternoon during my lesson between 2-3" is likely more admissible for a report vs gossip which is typically hearsay and often based on a reputation only.

My point is that "everyone knows/knew" is usually based on gossip/hearsay and therefore, "everyone" couldn't come forward because they didn't have personal knowledge (observed behavior, actual hard evidence, or overheard a description of the act) and they would therefore slander the individual. But "some people know/knew" who do have evidentiary observations and those are the ones who must come forward to an accusation to stand.

 

[ignosk8er]

And how can actual SnapChat images not be good enough evidence?!

They can and are, especially if the metadata is intact. My digital artist pal tells me that Snapchat images can be subpoenaed as confirmation, which I didn't know. It's just chef's kiss that she caught her bedroom in the background, saving the investigators some time initially though it wouldn't surprise me if the prosecutor has requested the original images from Snapchat.

 

[MacMadame]

They can and are, especially if the metadata is intact. My digital artist pal tells me that Snapchat images can be subpoenaed as confirmation, which I didn't know. It's just chef's kiss that she caught her bedroom in the background, saving the investigators some time initially though it wouldn't surprise me if the prosecutor has requested the original images from Snapchat.

But the defense attorney is saying they aren't and those charges should be dropped. I'm saying that makes no sense. So why does the defense attorney think this is a good tact to take?

 

[overedge]

I'm walking the thin line between evidentiary observations and gossip. “she’s getting better programs cuz she lets him hit on her” is not admissible, regardless of whether the behavior is acceptable or not. "I saw him grab her ass yesterday afternoon during my lesson between 2-3" is likely more admissible for a report vs gossip which is typically hearsay and often based on a reputation only.

My point is that "everyone knows/knew" is usually based on gossip/hearsay and therefore, "everyone" couldn't come forward because they didn't have personal knowledge (observed behavior, actual hard evidence, or overheard a description of the act) and they would therefore slander the individual. But "some people know/knew" who do have evidentiary observations and those are the ones who must come forward to an accusation to stand.

OK, now I see what you meant. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[ignosk8er]

But the defense attorney is saying they aren't and those charges should be dropped. I'm saying that makes no sense. So why does the defense attorney think this is a good tact to take?

Because the images are damning and indefensible? Just a guess without more details. Futility is a common tactic, especially a delay tactic.
Oddly, the article states that there was to be a hearing on Feb 8 but there's no update on it, that I can find.

 

[Aceon6]

But the defense attorney is saying they aren't and those charges should be dropped. I'm saying that makes no sense. So why does the defense attorney think this is a good tact to take?

She’s counting on a judge whose clerks don’t understand social. It still happens. We had one recent case in Boston where the elderly judge (and his clerks) thought that a social post wasn’t “in writing” and it took all the internal fortitude of the prosecutor to avoid strangling him.

 

[marbri]

But the defense attorney is saying they aren't and those charges should be dropped. I'm saying that makes no sense. So why does the defense attorney think this is a good tact to take?

I've read a few different articles about this case and iirc some of the snapchat evidence the defense was trying to get thrown out was someone took a picture of a saved snapchat on another persons phone (who since deleted) so the evidence is a picture from another phone so there is no metadata or anything to trace and/or verify its authenticity. I don't think that is the case with all the evidence, just some of the evidence/counts.

I know of another child luring case in this area (nothing to do with figure skating or sport ie.. this case). It was I think just over a decade ago and I know a friend of the child being lured who was subpoenaed to testify (as were a few other friends) because the actual victim had second thoughts and deleted a lot of evidence. But she had told the court, through questioning, of logging into her fb account at a few friends houses on their computers so they were trying to access any evidence that way. In the case of the friend I originally mentioned she no longer had that laptop, and what they were trying to do is get it on record so they could subpoena other laptops to make their case.

 

[overedge]

FWIW there is a long record of unreported and ignored cases of sexual abuse in this region. (TW for this link https://thewalrus.ca/how-a-sexual-a...ns-exposed-a-police-forces-predatory-culture/ Also Google "Mount Cashel").

I'm not saying this is any better or any worse than other regions, but I would guess that prosecutors are well aware of this history, and are being careful to build a case with the strongest evidence they can get.

 

[ignosk8er]

Speaking of evidence, for those who witness what appears to be unacceptable behavior in any setting (goddess forbid) but you're reluctant to insert yourself at that time, if you can describe what you saw/heard on your phone with the date, time, and, location during or immediately after it occurred, you'll help the prosecution build a future case. Whether you choose to report it or not is your decision. But your record will help establish that not only were the predator and prey in the same place at the same time but that you were also there to observe. Crafting a prosecution is like solving a Rubik's cube. The more tiles they have to piece together, the stronger the case. FWIW