Canadian True Crime - The Trial of Hedley’s Jacob Hoggard—Part 4

Episode Date: November 22, 2022

Content warning: This episode includes graphic details of alleged sexual assault specifically involving a minor.[Part 4 of 5] The May 2022 trial of Jacob Hoggard continues, with testimony from complainant “Emma”, Jacob Hoggard himself, and the jury's verdict. Resources for Sexual Violence and Abuse:REES CommunityEnding Violence Canada More information:Court documentsCourt reporting of Alyshah Hasham for the Toronto StarLive tweets from Sean O'Shea for Global NewsDispelling the myths about sexual assault | Ontario.caReporting by Judy Trinh:New Kirkland Lake complainant"Emma from Ottawa""Jessica from Toronto" Get early, ad-free access via CTC premium feeds, available on Amazon Music - included with Prime, Apple Podcasts, Patreon and Supercast. Credits:Research: Eileen MacFarlane of Crimelapse PodcastAdditional research, writing, sound design: Kristi LeeAudio editing and production: We Talk of DreamsProduction assistance: Jesse HawkeTheme songs by We Talk of DreamsDisclaimer voiced by the host of TrueFull list of resources, information sources, and 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. And with that, it's on with the show. And with that, it's on with the show. Where we left off, Jacob Hogarth's trial had started in May of 2022. The first witness for the Crown testified about the neurobiological effects of trauma, specifically in the context of sexual assault. The court heard that the brain activates its defense circuitry, which can lead to reactions like fight, flight, or freeze. This automatic reflex also impairs a sexual assault victim's ability to make decisions in the moment and clearly remember all the details of what

happened afterwards, and they often can't understand why they reacted the way they did. That is what trauma does to the brain. The first complainant to testify was the teenager who we've referred to as Sophie. Now 21 years old, she testified about being a fan of Headley since she was five and how at 13 she bumped into the band at their hotel, and Jacob Hogard suggested he exchange numbers with her parents so he could get them tickets and backstage passes. About two years later, Jacob suggested that she text him directly, and he admitted that he knew she was only 15 years old because he specifically asked her when her birthday was

so that he wouldn't break the law. He arranged transportation to take her and two friends to a show without any parents and at the meet and greet afterwards, Sophie testified Jacob kept trying to move his hand down from her waist and that he groped her butt. He denied this, but admitted he sent her a text message the next morning that read, I want you in this bed so bad, which he said was likely their first sexual message.

Sophie had testified that Jacob was her favorite male celebrity at the time, and the 15-year-old decided that all this behavior was just out of character. That was April of 2016, and Jacob admitted that in the months leading up to Sophie's birthday in August, he communicated with her in a way that his own defense team labeled as grooming and luring. He admitted he lied to her and told her she was beautiful, gorgeous, he wanted to marry her and have children with her, when he really only wanted sex and thought of their relationship as not overly meaningful. At one point, he suggested they spend the day in Toronto together, but he cancelled at the last minute. And then, after she turned 16 in August, the plans were back on again and the text

messages became overtly sexual. Jacob Hogard confirmed that at 33 years old, he asked 16-year-old Sophie for a nude photo and sent her one back along with a masturbation video. And then, the next month, he arranged for her to be transported to where he was staying at an airport hotel. Sophie testified she didn't want anything sexual to happen, but Jacob was forceful and aggressive. She told the jury she asked him to stop repeatedly as he raped her vaginally and orally, and tried to rape her anally but wasn't successful. He didn't use a condom, he called her degrading names, he spat on her and slapped her, among other things. Jacob testified that he couldn't remember the encounter, but it was possible that these acts happened because they were part of his sexual repertoire. He denied that she asked him to stop and insisted the encounter was consensual.

that put rape myths and stereotypes back on the public record, Sophie was essentially accused of lying about everything because she felt rejected by Jacob Hogart. Next to take the stand would be the second complainant, Emma. Now in her late 20s, complainant, Emma. Now in her late 20s, Emma's testimony was consistent with the interview she gave to CBC's Judy Trinh, but obviously with a few additional details. She started off by describing how she met Jacob Hogard when she was a 24-year-old college student. And it wasn't because she was a fan of his his or a fan of the band. Emma matched with him on Tinder, where his profile had a real photo that she recognised under a fake name. The band was in town to play a prominent role in the Wee Day Stadium event,

which Emma happened to be volunteering at, and she told the jury that she declined Jacob's request to meet him in the green room because she was too shy. Emma testified that over the next few weeks, they messaged daily on Snapchat and then made plans for her to catch a train from Ottawa to meet Jacob in Toronto. She testified that Jacob met her in the lobby and when they got to the first hotel room, he pushed her against the wall and tried to kiss her, which she described as uncomfortable and awkward as she pushed back with her body. She told the jury that he lay in bed and drank a beverage he said was made of prescription cough syrup and soda, and that he appeared to be high. cough syrup and soda and that he appeared to be high. She said that he seemed annoyed that she appeared standoffish, that he complained that she was all talky-talky and he expected more,

and that he said she could just go home if she wanted. Emma testified that she decided to stay because she was already there and had no way to get home until her train left at 6.40pm. She told the jury that when they got to the second hotel room, he took her phone and over the next few hours he raped her several times, vaginally, anally and orally, without a condom. He anally penetrated her while she was lying on her stomach, and then he would flip her onto her back and force his penis into her mouth while she was crying. He called her a slut. He made pig noises. He slapped her multiple times and kept telling her to hit him back.

He choked her using both hands until she couldn't breathe. He forced her mouth open and spat in it. Emma said she cried, protested, asked him to stop many times, but he didn't care. In fact, at one point, he condescendingly patted her on the head, saying, Good girl, it'll be over soon. Emma testified that Jacob Hogard was acting like a psychopath and she was afraid of him. Quote, His eyes were absolutely terrifying. She told the jury that he grabbed her legs and dragged her off the bed and into the bathroom, where he sat on her chest and said he was going to urinate on her. He asked her to urinate on him, and she said she refused. She testified that over

the course of three or four hours, he ordered room service and took several showers. During one of those showers, she told him she was bleeding vaginally and anally, but he didn't respond. At the end of the incident, she said he called her a taxi and she left the hotel crying uncontrollably. She told the jury that as she waited at Union Station for her train back to Ottawa, she called a friend and told her the basics of what happened. That friend also testified about receiving the phone call, saying that Emma was upset, embarrassed and had mixed emotions but she knew something wrong had happened. On cross-examination, Jacob Hogard's defence lawyer questioned Emma about the first hotel room where Jacob pushed

her up against the wall and made rude comments about her being all talky talky. She was asked why she agreed to go with him to the second hotel room and she said she still thought they would have consensual sex. The defense referenced the fact that Emma was left alone several times while Jacob showered, and she had access to her phone at that point and for an hour before she left. It was suggested that she could have left the hotel room at any time. Emma agreed that she was not being held down the entire time and that she could have spoken to hotel staff. She explained that it was very difficult to think rationally at the time because she was terrified and in a traumatizing situation and if she could go back she would have called someone. The defense referred to the fact

that Emma had brought a change of clothes and makeup with her for the long day in Toronto, and suggested she was expecting to go to an event later that day with Jacob, but instead, he asked her to leave. It was a rejection, and that's why she was upset. Emma responded by saying it was typical of her to bring extra clothes and makeup for touch-ups, and while she believed Jacob may have had an event that day, she hadn't expected to go with him. It was also suggested to Emma that in the time after leaving the hotel, before she caught her train, she was not sure that she had been sexually assaulted. The defense lawyer suggested that in a phone call to her friend, Emma might

have said that maybe Jacob was just interested in rough sex and she wasn't sure if he crossed a line. Emma said that she did not say this. She maintained she was certain she had been raped, but still found it embarrassing and awkward to discuss. In the agreed statement of facts, Jacob Hogard admitted to booking Emma's train tickets on November 22, 2016. She left Ottawa at 5.30am and then returned home on a train that left Toronto at 6.40pm. The agreed statement of facts also confirms that Jacob had a sexual encounter with Emma at the Thompson Hotel. On the stand, Jacob testified that his usual room wasn't ready, so they went to a different room first and kissed. He denied forcing the kiss, but did confirm that Emma told him to slow down and also

that he told her that she could leave if she wanted to. He told the jury that he went to get a coffee and when he returned, the other room was ready, so they went there and engaged in, quote, fun, exciting sex. On cross-examination, the Crown suggested that he assumed she consented because she didn't leave when he went for a coffee. He agreed that was part of it, but said she also gave verbal and non-verbal cues as they were having sex. Quote, Adding that when she did not seem to be enjoying herself as much at one point, they Jacob Hogard categorically denied raping Emma and denied that she cried or said no, just as he had done with Sophie.

Back to Emma's testimony, she told the jury that hours after the meeting in the hotel room, when she was on the train home to Ottawa, she received a message from Jacob commenting on what a wonderful time they had together. Emma said she was disgusted by the message, quote, He knows what he did, and I don't know why he would say that after doing that to someone. She didn't reply to the message, and the next night Emma said she told another friend and a roommate what happened. Two of her friends would later testify that she was distraught, very upset, and they were taken aback when they saw her. In fact, one friend said they didn't recognize Emma, describing it as hard to see because she seemed physically unwell and in pain. She was limping and could barely sit down. The friend testified to seeing significant bruising on Emma's pelvic region and legs,

which the defense suggested wasn't true and the friend was only repeating what Emma had told her. The friend insisted that she did see the bruising. Emma's roommate also testified that as Emma was speaking about what happened, she became more distraught and was crying heavily. He said he heard her crying in bed quite often in the weeks afterwards, which wasn't a normal occurrence. Emma told the jury that when she confided in her friends and roommate about what happened, they advised her to message Jacob, so she did, telling him, you raped me, and also that she wanted an apology. She said he replied and insisted it was consensual, but she noticed that the message seemed different from his usual casual tone. She said that Jacob called her a day or two later,

and she stated again that he raped her and she wanted an apology, but he denied it and again wouldn't give her one. She described the phone call as only being about 30 seconds long, and when the call ended, Jacob blocked her number. Emma testified that she deleted all her messages with Jacob in her efforts to move on from that day. She said she felt stupid that she travelled to the hotel in Toronto and let someone do that to her, and she never planned to tell anyone what happened apart from a few close friends.

Her plan at the time was to pretend like it never happened. Quote, me because I went there thinking that we would have consensual sex and I got raped instead. It appears that Jacob had kept some of those text messages they exchanged in the days after the incident. On cross-examination, the defense showed one of them to Emma, where Jacob texted, quote, I had was, quote, Emma had also testified that in deciding to move on from the incident, she didn't take any photos of her bruises, but the defense suggested that she was lying

and wanted to tell others those lies as some kind of retribution. Quote, If he wasn't going to keep talking to you, you were going to make up stories about him as a form of revenge. Emma insisted that she just wanted him to tell the truth. Quote, If he wasn't going to apologize for raping me, I was going to tell people about it.

She was then shown a text message from the end of a conversation where Jacob texted, quote, Darling, that is of course very upsetting. I meant you no harm and I am very sorry you feel I hurt you. Emma's response was, quote, No worries, maybe just overreacting, it's all good. Thanks for even replying to me about it. I appreciate it. Sweet dreams. Emma told the court that she often would make light of difficult situations in order to move on,

so she was minimizing the situation in some of the messages. Emma may not have realized this, but her reaction and the thought process behind it is very common when it comes to sexual assault survivors, so common in fact that there is a whole body of research about it. A 2020 article titled, Why Victims of Sexual Violence Often Stay in Contact with Abusers and Other Key Facts About Trauma, reports that because most victims know their abuser in some way, they quote, sometimes cope by focusing on their perpetrator's loving side and shutting out the abuse, maintaining contact to elicit such affirmative behavior from the abuser. The article, authored by the Time's Up Foundation, reports that often, victims may blame themselves for the encounter and either convince themselves or be convinced

by their abuser that an assault was not what they thought it was. Multiple studies suggest that a large proportion of teenage girls and women who had an experience that met the legal definition of rape often reduce it to labels like bad sex, a miscommunication, a regrettable hookup, a mistake, or they even put a positive spin on it and call it a learning experience. This happens so often that there is a term for it, unacknowledged rape. One study reported on the reasons why women and teenage girls denied that what happened to them was an assault. And many survivors said it was because the man involved did not fit the image of a rapist. He may have been too nice in all other situations, or perhaps everyone loved him. Other survivors said that if they labeled their experience as rape, they would feel obligated to report it to the police

and would likely have to tell their loved ones, which were all things they wanted to avoid. loved ones, which were all things they wanted to avoid. Others reported wanting to avoid labeling the man as a rapist. They may have considered the incident to be out of character for him, or didn't want to be the reason why he got in trouble. And some survivors said they didn't feel their incident was violent or forceful enough to be rape, adding that they expected to be beaten up and held against their will the entire time. And of course there's the science around the brain and body's complex responses to trauma, how sexual assault survivors often find themselves unable to explain why they responded the way they did, deferring to those rape myths and stereotypes around how sexual assault survivors should act during and after the assault. They blame themselves

for drinking, for going to that hotel room, for freezing up and not fighting back enough, or for not fleeing at the first chance they got. There are many complex reasons why a person who has been raped may not label it as rape, and because the data indicates that most survivors know their perpetrators, it means that they often have to communicate with them afterwards while they're still trying to sort out what happened in their own minds. And that's why they might appear angry one minute and confuse the next. Why they might give mixed messages or say something positive or even complimentary to the person who assaulted them. On the stand, Jacob Hogard told the jury that he was shocked and scared when he received a text from Emma indicating she wasn't

happy about their encounter. Quote, I didn't understand and I felt immediately concerned that she was trying to screw me. It made zero sense. He said that he did consult a lawyer after the text message because he felt like he had a target on his back. Same as with Sophie, Jacob Hogard acknowledged that he doesn't remember the details of the encounter with Emma, but insisted he had no doubt that they were both consensual because their verbal and non-verbal cues suggested that they were consenting and enjoying themselves. When he was asked how he could be certain of that, given his issues with remembering the details, he said he recalled a positive experience and that he always communicated with sexual partners. I know that's how I treat people, he said.

Jacob told the jury that he exchanged more messages with Emma after that and admitted there was romantic affection in the messages which he participated in, even though he only saw Emma as a one-night stand. He explained that he regularly deleted messages so his partner wouldn't find them, and the only records he had were a few screenshots he sent to a friend at the time. Hi everyone, today we're talking passion projects that turn into careers, a topic that obviously resonates quite a bit with me. In collaboration with the Ontario Cannabis Store and ACAST Creative, I want to introduce you to someone who took his passion for cannabis, turned it into a career and is now an

industry trailblazer. This is Nico Soziak. He's the Chief Financial Officer of Canara Biotech, a prominent producer based in Montreal. Nico, I know that you've had a passion for cannabis for quite a few years, but you seem a lot younger than what I was expecting. I have to know how and when you got into the cannabis business. Yeah, absolutely. I look younger, but I'm aging by the day. But no, I'm 35 years old. I got into cannabis about five years ago. Started with Canara. But you were a consumer before that. Yeah, I've been a consumer.

I had friends in the legacy side of the business and watched what they did. I tried the different strains and genetics, watched how they grew. Really found a passion for cannabis and the products. But my professional career is an accountant. So while I had a passion for cannabis, I was also a straight A student. Wow. Then Canada decided to legalize cannabis. And that was when I was like, okay, this is kind of my calling. I have to try to figure out how do I can get into the industry. And Canara had just

became a public company. I joined them in April 2019 and built the finance department here at Canara and worked with the founder. And at one point, I was given the keys to that. And now I'm here today. Wow, that's such a cool story. So how do you feel about being called a trailblazer in the legal market now? It's an honor. I've looked up to many trailblazers in this industry today that come from the legacy side that went to legal. You know, I'm happy to be part of that. Actually, I wanted to ask you about the legacy market. How did you

incorporate it into operations on the legal side? I don't pretend that the cannabis market just got created in 2017, right? For me, legacy means everyone that's been working, all the businesses that have been in the industry pre-legalization. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel in terms of thinking I know what consumers want. There's been an industry that's been built for many, many, many years. So it's all the ideas and creations that were pre-legalization, figuring out how do we evolve that into the legal side with all the regulatory frameworks. What would you say is the best part of working in the legal market? Knowing that your product is clean, knowing what you're consuming, we're ensuring quality, we're ensuring the price. I think we're ahead of other industries.

Okay, so final question. What gets you excited to go to work every day? This is my dream. This is my passion. I get excited. Work doesn't feel like work for me. When you're creating things that you dream about, I give the idea to the team. The team is able to execute different innovations. That's what really gets me excited. Thanks for listening to this Trailblazers story brought to you by the Ontario Cannabis Store and ACAST Creative. If you like the trail Nico Soziak is blazing, you will love what's happening in legal cannabis. Visit ocs.ca slash trailblazers to learn more. There were several moments during Emma's cross-examination that caused considerable outrage. of sexual assault from ambushing the complainant with private records to try and discredit them, for example, medical files, personal journals or private emails. This is a fairly new protection

that came out of the 2016 trial of CBC media personality Jian Gomeshi, who was charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of overcoming resistance by choking. Jian Gomeshi's lawyer was Marie Hennen, the same lawyer who regular listeners will remember also represented Michael Bryant in the Darcy Ellen Shepard case. cross-examination of one of the complainants in the Jian Gomeshi case, Marie Hennon suddenly introduced a handwritten love letter that he had received from her after the incident where she alleged he violently attacked her. The defense effectively ambushed the complainant with the letter during cross-examination to catch her off guard and disparage her credibility. She told the jury that she blamed herself for the incident, and she wrote that letter in an effort to please and placate Gomeshi. In that case, the defense was able to successfully put forward the narrative that if she were a true

victim, a perfect victim, then she wouldn't be sending a love letter to the man she later accused of assaulting her. When Giango Meshi was acquitted of all charges, it resulted in an application before the Supreme Court of Canada, proposing that it should no longer be permitted to ambush a complainant with private records during cross-examination at a sexual assault trial. And it's interesting to note that among the lawyers who appeared before the Supreme Court to argue for and against this proposed legislation were both the Crown Prosecutor from the Jacob Hogard trial, Jill Witkin, and his criminal defense lawyer, Megan Savard. Jill Witkin, and his criminal defense lawyer, Megan Savard. At the Supreme Court hearing, Savard argued against the legislation, saying that it would force the defense to reveal key pieces of evidence that could contradict the testimony of a complainant, in effect giving

them time to potentially adjust their testimony before cross-examination. In essence, criminal defence lawyers want to be able to continue to ambush complainants with personal records during cross-examination in sexual assault trials. Crown Prosecutor Jill Whitkin argued for the legislation, saying that it will protect complainants from the humiliating and unfair use of intimate personal private records, with the intended end result to encourage more reporting of sexual assaults. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed, ruling that private records will need to be revealed before trial,

at a hearing that will examine whether the records are private and then whether they are relevant to the charges. The legislation went through, but it didn't prevent this very issue from coming up again at the Jacob Hogard trial, specifically related to that 30-second phone call Emma said she had with Jacob Hogard in the days after the incident. At one point, the defense paused the cross-examination and produced a surprise recording of a 15-minute phone call between Jacob Hogard and Emma that she hadn't mentioned in her testimony. that she hadn't mentioned in her testimony.

This phone call had been recorded by Jacob Hogard without Emma's knowledge, and Emma said she did not remember the call, saying, Superior Court Justice Gillian Roberts was outraged by this defence tactic, and later told Megan Savard, quote, you, for some reason, thought you were above the law. The trial paused for the justice to make a decision on how to proceed. The defence argued that the phone recording was not a private record because there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a phone call. Therefore, it is not covered by the process Megan Savard argued that revealing the call in advance of the trial would have undercut the defense's case and effectively ruined their element of surprise,

the same argument that she gave to the Supreme Court of Canada. Justice Roberts said she wasn't buying this argument because it essentially sidestepped the intent of the new legislation. Crown Prosecutor Jill Whitkin argued that the record should be deemed private because it was an emotional, vulnerable phone call recorded without Emma's knowledge. Therefore, it should have been brought up in advance of the trial per the new legislation.

Justice Roberts said she'd been backed into a corner, noting that Emma had travelled from Ottawa to testify and was in the middle of cross-examination when this phone call recording was introduced. If they took the time to have the appropriate hearing now, a hearing that should have happened before the trial, it could possibly result in a mistrial. Feeling her hands were tied, Justice Roberts ruled that the phone call was not a private record. Justice Roberts ruled that the phone call was not a private record. The call was admitted into evidence, but the justice specified that it would need to be played for Emma first without the jury present. Quote, it strikes me as exactly the kind of thing the witness should be notified of before

she gets in the box. She shouldn't hear that for the first time in front of all these people. That strikes me as flat out cruel and exactly the kind of thing the legislation is trying to avoid. So the defense played the audio of the phone call for Emma and then for the jury. The call begins with a calm sounding Jacob telling Emma that she sounds upset and that this came out of left field. Emma says she really is upset. Reporting for the Toronto Star, journalist Alicia Harsham described Emma's voice in the recording as sounding strained and emotional. Jacob said, quote, and emotional. Jacob said, quote, I thought we had a really nice time together and I hope you can agree. Like, I mean, it seemed just organic and like a chill time. I really thought you felt like

that. Emma replied, no, not exactly. And Jacob asked, what happened that you felt like that? Emma told him that every time she was trying to say no to him, quote, you just pushed me like to the point where it was so painful. Jacob said he didn't know what to tell her, quote, that really shocks me only because I know that we talked a lot about the way we were sexually before we even got together and all those texts that we have and it seems like we were entering, you know, a very agreeable situation. In the call, Emma repeatedly tells Jacob that he sounds scripted or coached, as if he'd consulted a lawyer, that it seemed like he had this kind of conversation before and was trying to save his own ass. At this point, Emma was described as being visibly distressed,

shaking and weeping as she listened. When asked by the judge if she wanted to take a break, Emma said no. She said that while it was a very traumatising event for her that she'd spent six years of her life trying to block out, and it was difficult to hear Jacob's voice on the call, it would be no different on any other day. She opted to continue. She told Jacob that going to the doctor was extremely embarrassing. She said that she needed stitches in her vagina and told him that she was going to contact a lawyer.

stitches in her vagina and told him that she was going to contact a lawyer. On the stand later, Emma told the court that she didn't need stitches, but she told Jacob that she did because she wanted him to know how badly he hurt her and scare him into telling the truth. She also said she never planned to contact a lawyer, nor did she actually contact one. she never planned to contact a lawyer, nor did she actually contact one. Back to the phone call, in response to the mention of stitches, Jacob replied, quote, I don't feel like there was a moment where that could be, you know, the result. And I mean, between you and I, it was very obvious I paid close attention to how you felt and I wasn't ignoring how you felt. Emma told him, I guess I just have a different opinion than you do.

The defense pointed out that Emma didn't mention that particular longer phone call in her testimony or the fact that Jacob Hogard expressed concern for her. It was suggested that the reason why she said he blocked her number after the shorter phone call was because that's how she thought a rapist would respond, and she thought it would win over the jury. Emma stated that Jacob Hogard is the only rapist she knows. Jacob confirmed he called Emma a day or two after that initial text message. He recorded the 15-minute phone call without telling her, and while he admitted to choosing his words wisely, he denied that he was using a script. During the call, he told Emma that he cared about her and was there for her, which he admitted was not true. At the end of the call, he told Emma that he cared about her and was there for her, which he admitted was not true. At the end of the call, he told her that his phone was running out of battery, which he admitted was a lie because he wanted the call to end.

He told the jury that he didn't particularly enjoy Emma's company and blocked her number after he ended the call. company and blocked her number after he ended the call. On cross-examination, the prosecution pointed out that after his encounters with both Sophie and Emma, Jacob messaged them both saying they had a wonderful time together and suggested he was trying to make it seem like everything was fine, that nothing unusual happened in the hotel room. Jacob replied, quote, Certainly nothing unusual did happen in the hotel room. As part of the arguments around the recorded call, the court heard that the defence hadn't always planned to play the recording at trial, they were just keeping it in their back

pocket. Megan Savard told the judge that she first decided to play it after hearing Emma's testimony and argued that the call is no smoking gun and could cut both ways by also corroborating some of Emma's testimony and her emotional state at the time. Jacob had confirmed that he consulted a lawyer after Emma's first text message, and it appeared that his intent with the 15-minute phone call, and the reason why he secretly recorded it, was to demonstrate that he believed he had advanced consent for what happened in the hotel room. As you'll recall, when he was insisting that it was an organic and chill time, he told Emma, quote, We talked a lot about the way we were sexually before we even got together,

and all those texts that we have, and it seemed like we were entering, you know, a very agreeable situation. The Crown suggested that Jacob assumed that Emma was consenting because of the text messages they'd exchanged previously, and he denied this, saying, The defence would later suggest to the jury that they view Emma's emotional response to hearing the recorded call as evidence of her being caught in a lie. The Crown would argue that the jury should consider Emma's own explanation for her emotional response, which was that it was traumatising for her to be ambushed with that recording. for her to be ambushed with that recording. This wasn't the only time that the defence tried to push this advance consent narrative, and it also wasn't the only time they tried to violate a rape shield law.

They also tried to sidestep the rape shield law that prevents a complainant's past sexual history from being used against them. At one of the pre-trial hearings, the Crown had been given permission to introduce some evidence related to text messages between Jacob Hogard and the two complainants, and the defence was permitted to cross-examine them on this specific evidence. In Emma's case, neither she nor Jacob had retained screenshots of their Snapchat messages before they disappeared, so the only evidence about this was her testimony, which was just a high-level confirmation that some of the messages they exchanged were sexual or explicit in nature. On cross-examination, though, the defense tried to question her about specific sexual comments she may have made in those messages,

arguing with the judge that they thought the pretrial ruling had given them permission. Justice Roberts said her ruling had been a mistake which she regretted and what the defense was requesting in terms of cross-examining Emma went far beyond what was permitted when it came to Sophie's testimony about romantic and sexual messages. In response, defense lawyer Megan Savard argued that Jacob Hogard was planning to testify that the messages he exchanged with Emma included discussion of, quote, kinky sex, and he wanted to tell the jury that it was because of those specific messages that he was comfortable initiating what amounted to unusual sexual activities for a one-night stand. Besides the fact that consent cannot be given in advance, Justice Roberts stated that a complainant's sexual preferences are irrelevant. During a heated exchange with the defense, the judge pointed out that there was no evidence of these messages other than Jacob's own memory

and questioned how Emma's sexual preferences are relevant to what she consented to in that hotel room. The judge told the defence that Jacob's intended testimony about these alleged messages risked poisoning the jury with the twin myths of sexual assault. In this case, the myth would be that because Emma may have discussed certain aspects of sex with Jacob prior to their encounter, that she would be more likely to consent to them in person. The judge did not permit the defense to ask Emma questions about specific acts and chastised Megan Savard for trying to violate another rape shield law by not following the proper pre-trial application process as set out by the legislation. court that the process is important because it prevents complainants from being subjected to humiliating and irrelevant cross-examination about evidence underpinned by rape myths. She said the middle of the trial, while a complainant is on the witness stand,

is not the place to spring something like this. When Emma told Jacob she needed stitches, it may have technically been a lie, but it was based on a truth. She told the jury that six days after the incident, she did go to the doctor because of the pain. She was worried that there was a tear in her vagina, and she wanted to get tested for sexually transmitted diseases. She testified that less than two years later in 2018, she was introduced to journalist Judy Trinh of CBC News, which led to her interview. Quote,

She reported the incident to police. On cross-examination, the defence asked Emma if she told a CBC reporter that she was celebrating Jacob Hogard's downfall. She said she doesn't remember saying that, quote, But I was, absolutely. Emma also testified that in late 2016, she contacted Jacob Hogard's then ex-girlfriend, Rebecca Asselstein, via Instagram DM. As you'll remember from part two of this series, As you'll remember from part two of this series, Rebecca was retweeting Headly photos from WeDay in November 2016, the same day that Jacob first matched with Emma on Tinder. Emma said she contacted Rebecca in December, which, as you'll recall, is the same month that Rebecca started posting cryptically, suggesting a difficult period in her life.

The court heard that Emma DM'd Rebecca and asked if she had a similar experience with Jacob. Quote, she told me that he had done this to other people in that conversation. The defense asked Emma to confirm that she was talking about Jacob's now wife, who was sitting in the gallery. Emma said, quote, At this point, journalist Alicia Harsham reported that Rebecca took off her mask and leaned forward with her mouth open in disbelief, shaking her head. This was one of several moments during the trial that Jacob Hogard's wife attracted attention by giving a reaction perceived to be aggressive towards a complainant. And at one point, the judge had words with her. Later in the cross-examination,

the defense presented Emma with a cropped screenshot from her Instagram DM conversation with Rebecca and suggested that Rebecca's reply only mentioned that she had been contacted by others about Jacob cheating on her, but never about him physically hurting anyone. Emma pointed out that the screenshot was cropped to only show a portion of the conversation, and asked where the rest of it was. Jacob's lawyer, Megan Savard, suggested that the real reason Emma was upset was because she felt rejected by Jacob, because during the call he seemed to no longer be interested in her. Quote, You thought he was being inconsiderate not to check in with you, and it added to the hurt feelings you had as a result of having been essentially dropped by this rock star. In response, Emma said a firm no.

The defense then asked her if she thought that having a written apology from Jacob Hogard would give her power over him and force him to keep talking to her, and she was also hoping for money. Emma denied these suggestions, she just wanted him to apologize. The defense had already tried to violate both rape shield laws and were successful when it came to being able to play that recorded phone call. But there was one more shocking moment during Emma's cross-examination, this time related to the defense's repeated accusations that she was lying. At one point, Jacob Hogarth's defense lawyer paused to play a video that she told the jury was a clip from Emma's CBC interview with Judy Trinh. The video clip shows a silhouette of a woman with her face disguised and her voice altered. The woman in the clip says that Jacob Hogard flipped her over onto

her stomach and raped her anally, and because she was recovering from surgery at the time, the position she was in was extremely hard to get out of. She said that it hurt even more. After playing the clip, Megan Savard suggested to Emma that she neglected to provide any details of this surgery to the police or during her testimony. Emma was visibly confused. She confirmed that she had been interviewed by the CBC, but insisted she never said that about the surgery because that wasn't true. The defense continued to push her about it,

accusing her of lying to the CBC about recovering from the surgery to make herself appear more sympathetic. Again, Emma insisted this wasn't the case, and she didn't say that, but Megan Savard kept pushing, berating her even as she broke down in tears. Confused, shaken, and defeated, Emma eventually agreed with the defense's continued insistence that it was her in the video. But the problem was, Emma was right all along. The woman in the video clip was not her. This is a prime example of how easily false confessions can happen. When there's repeated questioning, badgering and gaslighting involved, it puts the person being questioned in a very stressful situation that they will often do anything to escape. caught was actually from the other CBC interview with the other complainant we've called Jessica from Toronto, who met Jacob Hogard at the Canadian Music Week event. As you'll recall,

it was Jessica who was recovering from shoulder surgery at the time. And when it came to who reported the mistake to court, it wasn't Megan Savard or any member of Jacob Hogarth's defence team. It was actually Judy Trinh herself and a CBC producer covering the trial who brought to the court's attention that the clip shown was not of Emma from Ottawa. It was Jessica from Toronto, which posed quite a problem because the jury had been instructed to disregard any allegations outside the trial. When Justice Roberts told the jury about the mistake, she said that the speaker is not Emma, and the clip was played to her by mistake and quote, It has nothing to do with our trial. mistake and quote, it has nothing to do with our trial. So if Jessica wasn't part of the trial, and it can be assumed that her two CBC interview clips were therefore not included with the trial materials and disclosure, then how could this mistake have happened? In our research, we did notice that the only place we found that clip in one other of Jessica's interview was embedded within the CBC exclusive article with the headline,

Woman accuses Headley singer Jacob Hogard of ignoring her ground rules during sex. Journalist and author Judy Trinh has confirmed to us that to her knowledge, none of those exclusive clips were posted on any other platforms or websites. So it appears that for a reader to view that particular clip of Jessica talking about recovering from surgery, they would have to scroll down to the second half of the CBC article where it is embedded, past a subhead that reads, Toronto woman said alleged incident occurred in March 2013. Even though the trial material has Emma as the Ottawa complainant, and both her and Sophie's incidents happened in 2016. The reader would also have to scroll past a large photo of Jacob Hogard with his arm around Jessica,

who's wearing a fitted cream jacket with her face blurred out, with a caption that states they were at a 2013 Canadian Music Week event. These key details are very specific to Jessica from Toronto, as is her report about recovering from shoulder surgery, none of which have anything to do with the trial. And in preparation for a trial, both the defence and the Crown spend months and months poring over the evidence as they put together their cases,

becoming intimately familiar with the facts of the case so that they can respond quickly at trial. So how was it that no one from Jacob Hogarth's defense team realized their error? As the clip was selected, as it was incorporated into the trial materials, and as the defense relentlessly questioned Emma about it until she gave what amounted to a wrongful confession. How was it that no one from the defence realised the error until later, after the CBC had come forward about it? After being advised of the error, Megan Savard corrected it but the damage had already been done. She refused to apologize to Emma for the defense's mistake,

and for falsely accusing her and berating her on the stand until she broke down. Justice Roberts apologized to Emma on behalf of the court, but the defense argued that the jury should not be told about the apology because it could lead to Jacob Hogard being seen in a negative light. The judge didn't agree and argued that telling the jury about the apology would reflect well on Jacob Hogard and also on public confidence in the justice system. But despite this, she decided not to tell them that she had apologised to Emma, only noting that the clip played for them had nothing to do with the trial and that human mistakes can happen. So with that, the Crown witnesses had finished testifying and being cross-examined,

and it was time for Jacob Hogard to take to the witness box. Jacob Hogard testified that he was working as a carpenter again, just as he had done before he was on Canadian Idol, renovating houses in the Vancouver area. He told the jury that his music career was done. He said that in high school he wasn't very popular, and Canadian Idol gave him the life he had only dreamed of. After he shot to fame at age 19 in 2004, he said it was much easier for him to meet women and he enjoyed the attention he received from them as a high-profile musician. The 37-year-old testified that the majority of Headley fans were women and that one-night stands became a common occurrence while he was touring with the band. He said he built up a significant roster of potential

sexual partners in various cities and confirmed that it was common for him to arrange transportation to bring sexual partners to his hotel while he was on tour. He said he had three long-term relationships while he was in the band, including his now-wife Rebecca Asselstine, and he acknowledged that he was often cheating on a partner. He told the jury that it was hard to be faithful, and he lied to his partners often, saving the names of potential sexual partners under random men's names in his phone contacts, and regularly deleting his messages

so that his partner wouldn't see them. But he experienced a conflict of emotions because, quote, I enjoyed having a partner and being loved and being in love. Always truly wanted that part of life. Jacob Hogard confirmed that he had a sexual encounter with both Sophie and Emma. You've already heard Jacob's responses to many of the details that Sophie and Emma testified to. On the stand, he told the jury his version of what happened in both of those encounters, which he claimed were consensual. When it came to Sophie, you'll recall she had described approximately five months of exchanging messages, both text and via Snapchat, where Jacob essentially loved bombed her with compliments as the messages became more and more sexual. The defense had

stated that this amounts to grooming or luring, words that the judge said that the court was not allowed to use. But the end result, according to Sophie, was that she was wowed and described having a, quote, pinch me feeling. Jacob Hogarth's side of the story was this. From the witness box, he told the jury, quote, I guess I knew of her. I knew her for a few months in 2016. He described Sophie as a fan. He confirmed he had met her and her family once or twice, but denied grabbing her bum backstage or touching her in a sexual way before she was 16. As you'll remember, the next morning he sent her a message saying, quote, I want you in this bed so bad.

And he told the jury that this was a typical message he sent to women, even though Sophie was only 15 at the time. Under cross-examination, he agreed that it was possible he sent the message to test Sophie's reaction. was possible he sent the message to test Sophie's reaction. Jacob confirmed that he made a video of himself masturbating, which he sent around to sexual partners, describing it as being in rotation, and said it's possible that he could have sent it to Sophie. He told the jury that it was she who told than two months after Sophie turned 16 was his idea.

According to journalist Alicia Harsham, Alicia Harsham, quote, Hogard sighs slightly before agreeing that he waited until after she was 16 to plan a sexual encounter with her. He denied that the plan involved having lunch downtown and told the jury that both he and Sophie were clear about their plan, which was, quote, to meet up, have sex sex and spend some time together. Jacob testified that they were both happy to see each other, that they kissed by the window and then had, quote, passionate sex on the bed. He denied raping Sophie and denied that she cried stop or told him that he was hurting her. Afterwards, he said they watched TV and lay

on the bed chatting, and then he lied to her that he had to leave before calling her a car. When it came to Jacob's version of the encounter with Emma, he said he did the same thing, that on both occasions it was he who lied to end their time together earlier than expected. In reference to the way he met Emma, Jacob said that the Tinder app was an easy way to meet a woman with the explicit intention of having sex, easier than meeting them at a bar. them at a bar. As with Sophie, he said it would have been his idea to meet up, and he usually used a travel agent to arrange the transportation. Jacob confirmed that his sexual preferences included spitting, urinating, derogatory name-calling using words like slut and whore, and also something he referred to as love tapping, which he described as gently tapping the face of his sexual partner. Emma and Sophie were clear that they were slapped

by Jacob Hogart. When it came to choking or pushing a sexual partner's face into pillows, Jacob denied that these were among his sexual preferences, and also denied that he takes pleasure in causing his sexual partner's pain, in humiliating them, or in non-consensual sex. He told the jury he wanted his partners to be enjoying themselves as much as he was, describing that as the fun of it. He also confirmed that he didn't use a condom or lubrication. How fun. Jacob testified that when he and Emma were having consensual anal sex, he could tell she wasn't really enjoying it, so he stopped.

He also denied making pig noises. He told the jury that he called her a car after their encounter and just as he was leaving, he said something like, can't wait to see you again and she rolled her eyes like, yeah whatever. He told the jury that he received mixed messages from Emma after that. The Crown suggested that when she told him she had injuries, he didn't ask her how she got them, and he agreed. The Crown suggested it was because you knew. Jacob replied, I didn't believe she was injured. He described her messages as confusing because she kept asking him to apologise, and when he said he didn't know why he would, she would apologise for overreacting and say,

you're right, I guess. As mentioned earlier in this series, self-gaslighting is common among survivors of sexual assault. Instead of blaming the perpetrator of the assault, society has conditioned women to question our own actions and behaviour that we're told might have led to it. And as we attempt to safely navigate this rough terrain society has set out for us, we're the ones accused of giving confusing messages. Now, as you'll remember, Emma from Ottawa had testified that after her encounter with Jacob Hogard, she contacted his then on-off girlfriend,

Rebecca Asselstein, the next month, which was December of 2016. In Jacob's own testimony, of 2016. In Jacob's own testimony, he told the jury that after the incident with Emma, he confessed to Rebecca that he had cheated and assured her that he had changed. The media described him as sounding emotional for the first time as he testified about having to own up to her because, quote, I wanted her to not feel crazy. He said they broke up for a while, got back together in 2017, and then in 2018, the same year that he was charged with sexual assault, they got engaged and were married at the end of that year. He told the jury that he has not been unfaithful to his wife again, and now they have a son who is staying with his mother while he and his wife were in court. Under cross-examination, the Crown pointed out that both Sophie and Emma had testified that they cried out and said no to him multiple times.

Jacob denied this. multiple times. Jacob denied this. The Crown suggested that he wasn't used to people saying no to him, and Jacob agreed, but insisted that he didn't really have any crazy requests. The Crown suggested to him that, quote, you did not care, you still got what you wanted. Jacob said that's not true, and even though he didn't have detailed memories of the encounters, he was certain that they both consented. He wasn't able to detail exactly how they consented though, but insisted it would have been based on their verbal and non-verbal cues. The Crown pointed out that Jacob had admitted he lied to Sophie,

saying that he loved her and wanted a future with her. He also admitted to lying to Emma from Ottawa when he told her he cared about her and was concerned about her feelings. He had testified that he lied to each of them to get them to leave his hotel room, and he also admitted to lying to past partners and concealing evidence of his cheating. Jacob had a track record of lying to get out of difficult situations, so the Crown asked him, was he also lying on the stand, saying that Emma and Sophie consented to sex to get out of another difficult situation? Jacob insisted that right now he is only telling the truth and added that he was not proud of his lies in the past. That was the end of trial testimony and the jury would hear closing arguments before they

deliberated. There were three charges and several possible verdicts to consider, including one count of sexual interference or sexual touching of a minor related to Sophie's allegations that Jacob groped and tried to kiss her when she was 15. Then there were two counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm, one each for Sophie and Emma. In closing arguments, the Crown and the Defence painted very different pictures of Jacob Hogard and also of the two complainants. Defence lawyer Megan Savard described her client as an insecure, attention-starved man who sought validation from women through meaningless but consensual sex. And the way he got that validation was from making sure his

sexual partners were satisfied, which was incompatible with sadistic serial rape, she said. Jacob's actions in taking a shower and ordering room service during the encounters, while the hotel room was unlocked and both complainants could leave at any time, is far more consistent with consensual sex than sadistic rape, according to the defence. And Jacob may have been disrespectful towards women, but he did not take delight in their struggles. He is not a monster, but a flawed human being, she said. In the Crown's closing arguments, prosecutor Jill Witkin described Jacob Hogard as an entitled sexual opportunist, who didn't think he had to take no for an answer when it came to satisfying his unusual sexual desires. He was a person who sought his own sexual gratification with no regard for the boundaries of Emma or Sophie,

and the fact that they did not make rational decisions to leave when they could have was explained by the neurobiological trauma response they were experiencing, which can include not only fight or flight, but also freeze. When it came to the charge of sexual interference or sexual touching of a minor, the Crown pointed out that Sophie had testified Jacob repeatedly moved his hand down on her bum, and she tried to push him off. moved his hand down on her bum and she tried to push him off. Her best friend had testified to witnessing this as well as Jacob's attempt to kiss Sophie's cheek or neck. Jurors were reminded to consider the charge of sexual touching in the context of that text message Jacob sent Sophie

the next day, where he told the 15-year-old that he wanted her in his bed. Defence lawyer Megan Savard told the jury that the groping did not happen and was implausible, pointing to photos taken of the backstage meet and greet that she said showed no sign of anything amiss. She stated that the reason Emma and Sophie were upset was not because they'd been sexually assaulted, but because Jacob Hogard rejected and dismissed them, leaving them feeling humiliated, upset and embarrassed. The defense asserted that both complainants would have felt there was a stigma around admitting they regretted a sexual encounter because it was too painful, and they felt they wouldn't get a

sympathetic response if they admitted this to their support network, or said they were embarrassed that Jacob effectively discarded them immediately afterwards. So instead, the jury heard that Emma and Sophie both spun nuggets of truth into extravagant, inconsistent and false allegations to save face. And while neither of them initially planned to contact police, by 2018 their friends and family were pressuring them and quote, they'd lived with their lies so long they had to follow through. so long they had to follow through. The defense told the jury that they must not convict Jacob Hogard because he engaged in unusual sexual acts with both complainants or showed sexual interest in one of them when she was just 15 years old. Jacob's behavior was described as not pretty but legal. Quote, his fame and power gave him the capacity to engage in hurtful conduct, and two women were hurt by his callous approach to their sexual relationships.

But Mr Hogarth is not on trial for breaking hearts or disrespecting women, or for being cavalier with their feelings. cavalier with their feelings. Crown Prosecutor Jill Witkin told the jury that what happened in those hotel rooms wasn't what Emma or Sophie wanted, but it was exactly what Jacob Hogard wanted. Jacob's inability to recall the details from either incident was described as convenient, and the court heard the reason he couldn't give specific details about how exactly he knew that both Sophie and Emma were consenting was because there were none to give. The Crown pointed out that Emma and Sophie had never met or spoken with each other, but their account shared a number of similarities beyond those specific sexual acts that they testified to. The way Jacob communicated with them, sending them a masturbation video arranging their

transportation, and how he changed once he got to the hotel room, which led Sophie to call him a monster and Emma to describe him as a psychopath, and how they both reported that outside the hotel room afterwards, he transformed back to the person they thought he was, and later sent them both gaslighting messages as if nothing had happened, telling them he had a good time. It was the defense's position that both Emma and Sophie consented to these sexual acts in the short amount of time that Crown prosecutor Jill Witkin described this position as absurd, and a front to common sense. She told the jury that they didn't need to find that Jacob Hogard was a premeditated rapist, but instead an entitled sexual opportunist on a mission to, quote, carry through with his sexual preferences in the face of resistance and pain and hurt. That is not consent. With that, the jury retired to deliberate.

But only a few hours in, they revealed to the judge that they were deadlocked on some counts and couldn't reach a unanimous agreement. Justice Roberts reminded them that they were required to reach a verdict in all three of the counts, and if they are deadlocked on any of them, it results in a hung jury and a mistrial is declared. With this in mind, she encouraged them to keep deliberating and to ask questions. At this point, the media reported that in March of 2022, two months before the trial started, police charged Jacob Hogard with a third count of sexual assault causing bodily harm, related to a new complainant.

This was one of a number of items that were under publication ban until deliberation because of their potential to prejudice the jury. There was a new complainant who had come forward and filed a formal complaint with police, alleging that she had been sexually assaulted by Jacob Hogard in June of 2016. This was the same summer that Jacob was texting with Sophie just before she turned 16. This new complainant also felt comfortable sharing the full details of her story with Judy Trinh of CBC News, provided that her identity was protected. She reported that she was 19 years old at the time and was in northeastern Ontario to see Headley, who were

headlining at the Kirkland Lake Homecoming Festival. After the concert, she hopped in a van that was taking fans to party with the band at a wooded area behind their hotel, the Comfort Inn. She reported that after she became drunk, Jacob Hogard took her to his hotel room, where she alleged he accused her of being talky-talky. He took away her phone and then sexually assaulted her in a similar way to that described by the other complainants, also without wearing a condom. This new charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm is headed towards another trial, and because this series has already been heavy enough, we're going to hold back on more graphic details of violent sexual assault. But if you would like to read the

article and watch this new complainants interview, there is a link in the show notes, as well as links to Judy Trinh's other CBC exclusives with Emma from Ottawa and Jessica from Toronto. When this new charge was announced, the extreme Headley superfans and others with a poor understanding of the special sensitivities involved in sexual assault, complained about suspicious timing, and accused this new complainant of only coming forward to try and make things worse for Jacob Hogart. How convenient. One person tweeted. Another wrote. How convenient. One person tweeted.

Another wrote, But as it turned out, this new complainant was actually the first one to come forward. The allegations started on Twitter in February of 2018, just as Headley's Cageless tour was kicking off, and Judy Trinh reported that this complainant actually came forward and spoke with a CBC reporter, but ultimately she decided not to share her story because at that time she was worried that no one would believe her because he was a celebrity. It wasn't long after that that Emma from Ottawa bravely came forward with her story. By 2022, this new complainant said she felt more confident to come forward and file a report with police and give an interview with CBC News. She expressed relief that she had taken a step to hold Jacob Hogard

accountable. Again, the extreme Headley superfans went for journalist Judy Trinh, with one tweet reading, quote, You've done everything in your power to compromise the evidence and integrity of this case. Great use of taxpayers' money, by the way. Hashtag defund CBC. Great use of taxpayers' money, by the way. Hashtag defund CBC. The superfans claimed that the new complainant, quote, went to CBC and told her story in public instead of letting the courts decide, so she put herself in the position of having her story and intentions questioned.

With that rationale, they went ahead and poked holes in her story and details, particularly the last part of the CBC News article where she says she still gets flashbacks about the scary look in Jacob Hogarth's eyes. Quote, They scare me, his blue eyes. The superfans pointed out that Jacob's eyes are actually green and insisted this was a gotcha moment that proved she must have been lying about that and everything. But as you'll recall, Dr. Laurie Haskell testified that the trauma of sexual assault affects the survivor's ability to think rationally, to reason, and to clearly remember all the details of what happened. This was demonstrated throughout the trial. On Jacob Hogarth's side, his lawyer denied the new allegation on his behalf

and indicated that he plans to plead not guilty. In the meantime, the jury, made up of 10 men and two women, was still deliberating, but they had begun asking some questions of clarification that were concerning. so-called real victims would or should respond to a sexual assault, Justice Roberts warned the jury not to use this evidence to assess whether Emma or Sophie acted in a way that was consistent with being sexually assaulted. But while deliberating, the jury asked a question that indicated they were trying to do just that, and the judge had to warn them again. Another question the jury asked was whether sex is considered consensual if someone doesn't say no but also doesn't say yes. This question speaks to misconceptions around consent mentioned earlier in this series, that the absence of hearing a no should never lead to an assumption that it's a yes.

True consent is enthusiastic, clear, ongoing and retractable at any time. Justice Roberts told the jury that in the context of sexual assault, consent is about whether the complainant, quote, in her mind wanted the sexual touching to take place. She quoted from an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that states it's the complainant's perspective on the touching that exclusively drives the analysis, and that perspective is completely subjective in nature. The jury also asked her for clarity on what constitutes a relationship of authority for the purposes of establishing consent to sexual activity. They gave an example, if a person believed a lie about love and consented to sex based on that,

is that consent still valid when it's revealed that it was a lie? Justice Roberts told them that there is no relationship of power or authority in the case, nor any fraud. When it came to that secretly recorded phone call, the jury asked for clarification on how to interpret that evidence. The judge told them that they could infer that Emma was upset in the call, and if they do, they should ask themselves what she was upset about. By day five of deliberations, the jury announced that they were still deadlocked on some counts. In what was described by the Toronto Star as an unusual step, they asked to hear Emma's testimony again, as well as Jacob's testimony about Emma. They also asked to hear Sophie's testimony again and the testimony given by Sophie's best friend about the meet and greet when they were 15. On day six, the jury reached a verdict. On the count of sexually touching Sophie

when she was 15 years old, the jury found Jacob Hogard not guilty. They also found him not guilty of sexual assault causing bodily injury when Sophie was 16. But on the count of sexual assault causing bodily harm related to Emma from Ottawa, the jury found Jacob Hogard guilty. It should be noted that juries do not give reasons for their decisions, including to the judge, and it is a criminal offence for them to reveal what was discussed during deliberations.

After the verdict was read, Jacob Hogard hugged his wife, Rebecca Asselstine, who reportedly wiped away tears. The sentencing hearing would be coming at a later date, where the media reported he would likely face a sentence of more than two years in prison. Immediately after the verdict, though, the Crown requested that his bail be revoked in light of the, quote, brazen, brutal, degrading, traumatic nature of the crime he had been convicted of, and the fact that he was facing another trial for a new charge of sexual assault causing bodily injury. Jacob Hogard had been on bail since he was

arrested in 2018, and his lawyer, Megan Savard, argued that he should be allowed to remain on bail. She noted that he is no longer a musician, that he is not a flight risk given that he has a wife and young son in Canada, and that he could better prepare for sentencing while out of custody. Superior Court Justice Gillian Roberts allowed it. He was told that he had to live at his Vancouver home, with a curfew between the hours of 10pm and 6am, and other than his court appearances in Toronto, Ontario, he has to remain in the province of British Columbia and submit to regular check-ins and random compliance checks. Justice Roberts required him to have his wife, Rebecca Asselstine, as a residential surety, noting that she has been present throughout the trial and is fully aware of

the seriousness of the situation. She had pledged $200,000 in equity in their home, an amount which the judge said was, quote, sufficient to focus Mr. Hogarth's attention on the need to comply with the terms of release and attend court. Otherwise, he risks visiting the hardship of losing his money on his wife, and by extension, his son. In a statement issued to the media, Jacob Hogarth's lawyer, Megan Savard, said that he is disappointed with the verdict, but grateful that the jury, quote, rightfully acquitted him on the charges related to the younger complainant. Quote, while the verdict is not what Mr. Hogard hoped, we thank the jury for its diligence and careful attention, and its recognition of the fact that the evidence on some counts was too frail and dangerous to support a conviction.

As for Jacob, she said that he was leaning on his wife, friends, and family, and added that the case is far from over, noting that there were some novel or new issues that might benefit from the Court of Appeal's attention. This was a strong hint that Jacob Hogard was planning to appeal his guilty verdict. But next would be the sentencing hearing. Thanks for listening. In the final part of this series, we'll wrap up this particular trial, going through the public reaction, some of the possible reasons why the jury may have reached that verdict and what went wrong for the Crown and the defence.

We'll cover the important new details revealed during the sentencing hearing, Emma's victim impact statement and the results of a psychiatric and sexological risk assessment of Jacob Hogard conducted by a forensic psychiatrist. And lastly, we'll report back on what we learned about that 2005 incident at the Embassy Hotel in London, Ontario. If you enjoyed this episode, we'd love for you to tell a friend or leave a review wherever you listen to podcasts. Canadian True Crime donates monthly to Canadian charitable organisations that help victims and survivors of injustice. For this series, we've donated to two organizations. The first is Good Night Out, a BC-based non-profit dedicated to sexual violence

prevention in entertainment industries. Visit goodnightoutvancouver.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 orcc.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.