I mean the answer to your question is in my response: one can intuit that something is amiss based on what we've seen: this case was presumably settled but it's been reopened. Why?There are players involved with the 2018 team that still haven't come out and denied involvement. A game of lawyer is afoot. Why? Clearly if we are to presume innocence then it's in every player's best interest to absolve themselves from the incident. Unless they're lying.
Things like the chair stepping down, public outcry, and the House of Commons seeking answers are ultimately auxiliary to the actual happenings of the case itself. These cannot be inherently used in a similar train of thought.
I do like to think this is rational thought. Worries about the cancelation of games is less so.
I very much appreciate the criticism though, and it's very much warranted. I was borderline unhinged in that early argument (an initial inability to separate a personal connection to the case I suppose). I'm in a bit of a bind in regards to it: I want to leave it up as a means of not hiding behind my ability to moderate and delete posts, to own my mistakes and admit where I've learned and/or been able to step back from the ledge. At the same time I look like a complete ass the longer it stays up. I'll continue to live with those consequences I reckon. I never really meant to dictate this conversation and regret that's ultimately what happened until I stepped away from it.
It is an emotional topic and your response was not unlike many of ours. But I think the fair route is to reserve judgement, even if (especially if) that runs counter to our feelings.
There were 9+ defendants on the civil case that settled. It could have been one bad egg that spoiled the lot. It could have been all of them. It could have been just an economic decision, or one to avoid negative publicity, or one to avoid discovery process. We don't know.
A non-denial does not mean guilt. I imagine everyone involved is getting different legal advice. And its possible that part of the settlement could have involved an agreement not to comment publicly on the case (ie, a "gag order"), which is common. There are a not of reasons someone might not comment.
Also, it really is a difficult topic. But important to know that there is a very wide range of standards involved around these issues. There are those used for criminal behavior, others used for civil complaints, others for personal conduct policy with NHL. Private organizations and institutions may adopt broad rules around personal conduct or more narrow standards, using "affirmative consent" or "revoked consent" that cannot be applied to criminal laws (as they are written today). And then there are the cultural standards that society expects, not just for those involved, but for anyone involved of the case at all.
The accused could have crossed a line on the cultural standards, but not be open to civil or criminal problems. Or they could have broken personal conduct policies, but not have committed a crime. Again, we don't know enough to make a judgement. These are rarely as black and white as we want them to be.