Court worked as it's designed to in the Hockey Canada case. That's the problem, survivors and lawyers say

It's easily the weakest case ever put forth attempting prosecution in Canada. Pure disgrace attempting to cash in on the 51% majority in the court of public opinion.
A legal embarassment.
- I've heard a few analysts say that the verdict is not a surprise. I'm not a lawyer, care to explain why you consider this case weak?
  
  I'm not a lawyer either, but reading the judge's verdict, it sounds like the only evidence the prosecution had was the woman's testimony. The defence had video recordings of the women verbally consenting. Kinda hard to prove beyond a doubt that the woman did not consent when it's on video. Not that some non-consenting stuff didn't happen when the video was turned off but again, a guilty verdict requires no doubt.
  That's what the CBC article is about. How sexual assault victims often don't come forward since securing a conviction is incredibly difficult on testimony alone.

I am completely unfamiliar with the Canadian judicial system so I hope someone can help explain!
If 4 of the 5 players declined to testify, no matter the verdict, isn't that a lot of relevant testimony missing to reach verdict? Two thirds of the alleged parties involved had nothing to say. Considering the victim in this case was in the witness box for something like 9 days, it's a little confusing in my eyes to not even have them testify for 20 minutes.
- Like some other jurisdictions, Canada has protections against self-incrimination.
  Any person charged with an offence has the right ... not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence ...
- Section 11(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms confirms that defendants cannot be compelled to testify in their own matter. It's Canada's verision of the right to remain silent.
  A witness can be compelled to testify however their testimony can't be used against them in other proceeding except for prejury charges. This is found in section 13 of the Charter.
  Ultimately, it's up to the Crown to prove their case. It all comes back to being innocent before proven guilty. Section 11(d) of the Charter.
  If you were to flip it all around, you would be considered guilty until proven innocent, you would always have to testify, and any witnesses that could help you would be open to being charged. In that scenario, good luck at not ending up in jail. The vast majority of defendants don't have the resources to take on the State in a criminal matter.
- Because she/they made the complaint and prosecuted it. The onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty of the charges.
  The defense need not nor should not be required to lift a finger unless their lawyers saw the need for it. The stand is always a huge risk and theres plenty of opportunity to poke holes in the case since the prosecution basically had to put her on the stand in order for the case to have any credibillity

The NDP has brain worms when it came to this issue. They seemingly hate men which is ironic given the party of supposed diversity.
- What's the NDP to do with this trial or you mean in general in the context of sexual assault prosecution?