Virginia-Highland residents on edge as 'Peeping Tom' lurks outside home
Residents in Virginia-Highland are on high alert due to a man seen lurking outside homes and peering into windows, raising safety concerns.
Atlanta police briefly pursued the suspect after responding to a victim's home, noting similarities with another "peeping Tom" incident.
Authorities urge anyone with information or similar experiences to come forward, as the suspect's identity remains unconfirmed.
ATLANTA - Residents in the Virginia-Highland neighborhood say they are on high alert after a man was seen lurking outside homes and peering into windows, sometimes near bedrooms and bathrooms.
At least two families report separate incidents involving the same individual, raising concerns throughout the community.
What they're saying
Alisha Brown, one of the victims, said her family's sense of safety has been shattered.
"We're both on high alert," Brown said. "My son, he had to talk to his counselor today because he's been super hypervigilant and suspicious of everything and everyone around him."
Brown said she woke up Wednesday morning to find the man standing just outside her bedroom window.
"He would just stand here, which made me feel like he didn't want to be seen, but he could see into my bathroom," she recalled.
Just two days earlier, Brown noticed the same man watching her while she was in the garden.
"He made it all the way over and he saw me standing on my porch and then he jumped back," she said.
Brown also recognized the man in Ring camera footage captured at a neighbor's home this week.
"My heart dropped into my stomach again," she said. "It was him. It was him. It fit my description to a T."
What we know
Atlanta police responded to Brown's home on Wednesday and briefly pursued the suspect, but he got away. Authorities say there are similarities between this case and another recent "peeping Tom" incident, though they have not confirmed whether it is the same person.
What's next
Brown said she hopes going public will help police find the man.
"I don't want this to happen to anyone else because it's very violating," she said. "It's hard to put into words. I wasn't touched, but I feel touched."
What you can do
Police are urging anyone with information or who has experienced similar activity to come forward. The man's face has been blurred in surveillance footage as authorities work to confirm his identity.
The Source
The Atlanta Police Department provided the details of the Peeping Tom case. Residents in the area spoke with FOX 5 giving their reaction.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
6 hours ago
- CNET
My Guide to Discussing Police or ICE Raids on Your Ring and Nextdoor Apps
As the number of ICE raids has increased this year, so has the discussion on social media. And that includes a lot of talk on apps like Ring Neighbors and Nextdoor as people catch events through security cams or video doorbells. This has led to some conflict, too: Users want to post about police activity in their area and warn others, but many have found that their posts get taken down. That's led to worries that apps are censoring certain kinds of discussion -- so I reached out to the companies to see what was going on. The news is mostly good: Posting about events like ICE raids is allowed and these social apps want people to have as many open conversations as possible, but only if you follow certain rules. Here's how stay inside the lines and keep your neighbors informed at the same time. Rules about reporting law enforcement activity on apps like Ring Neighbors Posts that name streets and other nearby locations are less likely to be removed. Tyler Lacoma/CNET When I reached out to Ring about its Neighbors app policies regarding recent events and police raids (as well as Reddit reports about posts being taken down), the company provided helpful information about its specific policies. I found out the reasons why Ring tends to remove certain posts or stop them from going live on Neighbors. For one thing, posts about a general law enforcement presence can get nixed. So if someone said ICE was spotted in "Bell Gardens," their post would be denied because that's just too vague. Or if a post asked, "Hey, is there any ICE activity in town?" it wouldn't be allowed. Other posts get banned if they: Explicitly obstruct law enforcement Voice political opinions Assume immigration status, or other types of prejudice Don't pertain to local events Ring Neighbors does allow posts about specific law enforcement activity Ring posts generally allow for specific information, but not broad discussion or accusations. Tyler Lacoma/CNET Posts that cite an exact location, or images showing agents directly connected to an event, tend to be fine. If someone said, "I saw ICE knocking on doors at the IHOP on Florence and Pico," that would be allowed, according to Ring's guidelines. Other allowed posts provide info on the exact cross streets, addresses, complexes, blocks and so on. Bans aren't always immediate. Sometimes posts that violate guidelines are taken down after the fact, either as a result of postpublication moderation, user flagging or user deletion. And customers can usually appeal moderation decisions for the sake of consistency. When I turned to Nextdoor, another popular neighborhood app used for discussing events, a company spokesperson said something similar: "Our platform fosters discussions of local issues and, as such, our Community Guidelines prohibit broad commentary or personal opinions on national political topics." As long as it's a local issue and users follow the basic community guidelines (be respectful, don't discriminate and use your true identity), then posts should be fine. Guidelines for posting on Ring Neighbors and more App users need to give details and thorough descriptions in their posts, especially if they're including a picture. Tyler Lacoma/CNET When I visit my own Neighbors app, I see -- contrary to some reports -- that users frequently post about hearing sirens or police activity in their own neighborhoods, ask about masked strangers or raise questions about law enforcement. Posts like these make it clear: You can still post about security concerns on Ring Neighbors and other apps, even and especially when they involve police activity. You can also post about people you don't recognize and strangers knocking, which opens the door (not literally) to talking about masked federal ICE agents that aren't wearing any identifiers. In other words, it looks like what Ring said holds true. Explicit information citing current, local events, preferably with address data, is allowed. "Focus on the behavior that raised your suspicion," Nextdoor recommends. "Describe the potentially criminal or dangerous activity you observed or experienced -- what the person was doing, what they said (if they spoke to you). Include the direction they were last headed." If you post with an eye toward the safety of your neighborhood, your post is less likely to be removed. Finally, avoid posts that include gruesome content, or that violate someone's privacy, which are also red flags likely to lead to a block. Can users coordinate with one another on apps like Ring Neighbors? Ring tends to allow conversations about what people can share concerning ongoing police events. Tyler Lacoma/CNET This is a gray area and it's difficult to know if discussions will get removed. In my experience on the Neighbors app, many discussions about sirens and unexplained police presence were left up, allowing people to provide additional information from their own perspectives, what they heard on police scanners and more. It's possible that the more these posts mention ICE or federal enforcement, the more likely they'll be removed, and if conversations move into discussions about national issues or general legal advice, they may be taken down. But many people have reported that they've successfully used apps like Neighbors to talk about nearby law enforcement raids, so I don't see any evidence of a blanket ban. Groups using the Neighbors app to communicate important information or provide help should also be aware of the Neighbors Verified tag, which is available to both public safety agencies and community organizations. This tag makes it easier for users of Neighbors to trust information and announcements from specific accounts. Verified accounts don't have access to any additional information about users. Reports of law enforcement covering up home doorbells and cameras An NBC affiliate in Denver, 9News, published footage of what it reported were federal agents covering up a video doorbell during a raid. (The Independent reported that ICE said it "does not comment on specific tactics, capabilities, or operational details.") It's unclear if a move like this is illegal under protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, but civil rights attorneys have said it is. If anything like this happens, it's best to immediately save the recording -- and remember that agents almost always need a warrant to enter your home. A few final rules to follow Often the best response to a federal raid is no response at all, as well as remembering your rights. Westend61/Getty Images Whether you're concerned about federal raids, curious about what law enforcement is doing in your area or just want clarification about worrying events, remember a few basic rules as outlined by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigrant Justice Center: Don't escalate: In cases where federal agents or people appearing to be agents have knocked on doors, people have done nothing and simply waited for agents to leave. Remember, without a warrant, they usually can't enter a house, and if you have a video doorbell, it can still record everything that happens. Avoid confrontation when possible, and don't give law enforcement anything to act on. Remember, everyone still has the right to remain silent. If you feel your safety is endangered, call 911 or seek help from a nonprofit: Calling 911 is very helpful if you feel unsafe because of nearby events. You can explain the situation and have a record of the call. 911 is an emergency response service and isn't in the business of reporting to federal agents. There are also local immigrant rights agencies you can contact to report ICE, and groups like the ACLU can usually point you in the right direction. For more information, take a look at the latest news on what Ring is letting the police see (it's good news for privacy fans), the legal ramifications of recording video or audio in your home, and what you and landlords can legally do with security cameras.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Anna Friel steals every scene in Jimmy McGovern's Unforgivable
Liverpool-born TV luminary Jimmy McGovern first rose to prominence – after a stint on soaps like Brookside and Corrie – with Cracker, a detective series starring Robbie Coltrane as a misanthropic criminal psychologist. Since then, he has become the great chronicler of Britain's ills. From the Hillsborough disaster to the Iraq war, via inquisitions on joint enterprise, unemployment, and disability cuts, he has run the gamut of social failings. And a recurring theme, running from 1994's Priest to 2017's Broken, is the legacy of child abuse, a subject he explores in profound detail, again, in BBC Two's Unforgivable. Joe Mitchell (Bobby Schofield) is in prison, having been found guilty of sexually assaulting his 12-year-old nephew, Tom (Austin Haynes). Tom's mother, Anna (Anna Friel), struggles with Tom's increasingly erratic behaviour, while grieving for her and Joe's mother, who has just died. When Joe is released from prison, he is offered a second chance by a group of Christians, led by Katherine (Anna Maxwell Martin), who believe in rehabilitation and offer Joe a chance to, if not start again, resume some sort of quotidian existence. 'Isn't forgiveness selfish?' she asks Joe, as they explore how he can rejoin society. But Joe isn't really looking for absolution; he's looking for answers. And here, the long, multi-generational shadow of abuse casts its shade. 'No one's perfect,' family friend Paul (Mark Womack) consoles Anna's widower father Brian (David Threlfall), who, in addition to losing his wife, is estranged from his paedophile son and watching his daughter's family life disintegrate. In a way, he's right. All of McGovern's characters are dealing with the fractured messiness of life (even Maxwell Martin's God-botherer has breast cancer, 'the nun's disease'). This panoply of personal disasters gives rise to some brilliant acting from the assembled ensemble of McGovern regulars. Schofield is transformed from his roles in This City Is Ours and SAS: Rogue Heroes, imbuing Joe with a magnetic, itching discomfort. Friel, meanwhile, steals every scene she's in as a desperate, but still poised, mother. The material is red meat to fine actors, and they eat it up. Whether it's so nourishing to audiences is debatable. There is no challenging McGovern's willingness to gaze into the abyss – he has been doing it for more than 30 years now – but is the abyss gazing back? As it progresses, Unforgivable tries to engage with the cyclical nature of abuse ('Some men who abuse have themselves been abused,' Katherine informs Joe) but ends up feeling simplified and rushed. A complex, nuanced narrative that might've stretched over the course of a multi-episode mini-series is, here, condensed into 105 minutes. Joe's dual role – as both victim and abuser – is one that oscillates, the very instability of its nature forming the crux of how these crimes are perpetrated and then covered up. But the constraints of the plot dumb this down somewhat, and the narrative becomes increasingly procedural. 'I could cope with the lying,' Joe laments, as he picks at old wounds. 'But all this truth? It's too much for me.' McGovern has worked with non-fiction in the past (Sunday, for example, is about Bloody Sunday), but more often he builds, like Ken Loach, stories as composites of abstracted case studies. At its best, this approach adds an intimacy that true life portraits can struggle with, where the interiority is limited by the strictures of fact. But, at other times, it can feel like these characters are only being imagined into life in order to put them through intense suffering. Unforgivable is undoubtedly a sympathetic piece – even Joe is afforded a reluctant dignity – but it is also a concatenation of personal miseries. Sunlight, it seems, doesn't often fall on Merseyside. For some, it will be enough simply to give these tough issues an airing. 'Important' is an easy adjective to apply to a McGovern drama. But for viewers to endure a couple of hours of fairly unrelenting gloom, there needs to be a spark beyond great performances and plausible writing. Unforgivable feels like an endurance test, whose message – that empathy must prevail – could've been expressed with more dynamic light and shade.
New York Times
3 days ago
- New York Times
The Hockey Canada trial could have been a reckoning. It was something else
LONDON, Ont. — On Day 13 of the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial, in the Ontario Court of Justice, defense attorney Daniel Brown stood at a lectern cross-examining the 27-year-old woman at the center of the allegations against five former pro hockey players. 'You have this alter ego. We'll call her 'Fun E.M,'' Brown said. 'You feel like you can't be fun without the alcohol.' Advertisement As he suggested that a 'metamorphosis takes place' when she drank, Brown taunted her, using her real name — not 'E.M.' as she must be called here, to protect her identity: 'Fun E.M. needs more alcohol. … Fun E.M. dances freely. … Fun E.M. is outgoing. … Fun E.M. acts on her impulses. … Sober E.M. wouldn't have chosen to cheat on her boyfriend. Right?' During a pause in this intense back-and-forth, Justice Maria Carroccia interjected: 'I've been advised that there is a street party outside on Dundas Street. I think it might get loud.' The London Knights — the Ontario Hockey League's top team — had a playoff game later that evening, and the brick road between the Ontario Court of Justice and the Canada Life Place, where the major junior team plays, was closed as fans reveled in advance of the big game. The bass from loud music below buzzed the courtroom wall. A short time later, court was dismissed early … on account of the raucous hockey party outside. If there was a moment that encapsulated the Hockey Canada trial, this was it. The most high-profile legal battle in the sport's history was muted by a celebration of a junior hockey team. On Thursday, Carroccia acquitted all five players — Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Alex Formenton, Cal Foote, and Carter Hart — on sexual assault charges, stating that she did not find the victim's claims 'credible or reliable.' It ended an eight-week trial and a seven-year saga that began one night in London between a 20-year-old woman and members of the 2018 Canadian World Junior Hockey team. In an austere, wood-paneled courtroom, the five players were on trial and, to some degree, so too was the woman. But the case has always been viewed more broadly. After the allegations emerged three years ago via news of a settlement quietly paid by Hockey Canada, it highlighted how the sport and its leaders have long been unable or unwilling to create accountability. The lurid accusations against the Hockey Canada 5 echoed decades of similar incidents, and the case became a stand-in for other allegations that were minimized or ignored. Advertisement The sport faced scrutiny and shame, including Parliamentary hearings and lectures from, among others, then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, but would anything truly change? The Hockey Canada case — involving Canada's gold medalists turned professional players — would be the test of it, the chance to send a resounding message about the sport's direction. And that message was sent. It was just not the one many expected. From the glass elevator within the Delta Armouries hotel, you can look out over London and, within one panorama, see all the key locales featured in the case: the concrete court of justice that neighbors Canada Life Place, the Knights' 10,000-seat home arena; and beyond a large public park and a gothic cathedral, Jack's bar, where the woman and the players first connected. London is the largest city in southwestern Ontario, home to close to 450,000 people. It is the central commercial hub for the rural communities that stretch to the shores of Lake Erie to the south and Lake Huron to the northwest. It is home to more than 80,000 university and college students. But more than anything, London is a hockey town — home to the Knights, a team that boasts the highest attendance in major junior hockey and has had more players drafted to the NHL than any other team. The Knights would win their third national championship in June, with thousands of fans flocking to celebrate in the street between the court and the arena, littered with green and gold confetti. This was the backdrop in which a 20-year-old woman met members of the 2018 Canadian World Junior team at Jack's on dollar-beer night seven years ago. After a consensual encounter with one of those players, she claimed to have been assaulted by several members of the national team in room 209 of the Armouries hotel. Advertisement Though London police closed an initial investigation without charges, an out-of-court settlement for an undisclosed amount was reached between the alleged victim and Hockey Canada five years later. That settlement was supposed to have been the end of it. But news broke of the allegations and the payout, creating a firestorm of media attention and public outcry. Canada's national pastime became a national crisis. Trudeau criticized Hockey Canada's handling of the incident. Politicians demanded mass resignations. Amid that scrutiny, the London Police Service reopened its investigation. The five players were charged with sexual assault in late January 2024 and were granted indefinite leaves of absence from their pro teams. There was wide speculation that none of them would play in the NHL again. Before those charges were brought, E.M. and her mother sat on the second floor of 254 Pall Mall St. in downtown London and were presented with the opportunity to end the case. Meaghan Cunningham, a veteran Ottawa-based prosecutor who chairs the Sexual Assault Advisory Group within the Crown's criminal division, was there. So was Heather Donkers, an assistant crown attorney, just a few years older than E.M. As a university student, she was a victim of sexual assault. She went through a lengthy police investigation and testified in court. That experience, which ended in a guilty verdict, led her to a career in criminal justice. Karen Bellehumeur, a former Crown attorney who specializes in representing victims of sexual violence, sat beside them. They believed E.M. and wanted to prosecute the players, Cunningham said, but if E.M. was hoping to see them convicted, they warned her to think hard about moving forward. Her life would be picked apart. Media coverage would be intense. Public discourse would be cruel. Advertisement Despite that reality, some victims want to be heard. They want to be seen. They want to fight back. In a six-page document outlining the 68-minute meeting, two sentences offer the only glimpse into E.M's thoughts: No questions, the notes state. EM wants to proceed. It was a circus almost from the start. During a three-hour stretch early in the trial, one courtroom attendee would be arrested on suspicion of secretly recording proceedings with his smart glasses; another attendee would be banished from the building for exploding at a reporter and blaming him for 'ruining those boys' lives.' Later, a police officer would intercept a man for trying to find E.M. in the courthouse while she testified remotely. A local newspaper accidentally breached a publication ban and published materials that revealed E.M.'s identity. There were also multiple delays caused by a malfunctioning HVAC system that made the heat in the courtroom almost unbearable, and there were near-constant IT issues that slowed or stopped the proceedings. Even the clock in the 13th-floor courtroom didn't work, ticking four hours ahead. On top of all that, two juries were dismissed. Shortly after Crown attorney Heather Donkers' opening statement, one juror claimed that, while standing in the same line at a nearby market over lunch, defense attorney Hilary Dudding noted all the 'head-nodding' that had occurred that morning. Dudding denied the allegation when it was discussed in court, but the defense lawyers agreed that the jury of 11 women and three men had to be dismissed. Carroccia declared a mistrial. Then, on May 22, after E.M. finished nine grueling days on the stand, a juror handed Carroccia a note: 'Multiple jury members feel we are being judged and made fun of by (defense) lawyers (Daniel) Brown and Hilary Dudding. Every day when we enter the courtroom they observe us, whisper to each other and turn to each other and laugh as if they are discussing our appearance. This is unprofessional and unacceptable.' Advertisement In both instances, the Crown fought to preserve the jury, asking that intermediate measures be applied to remedy the situation, but the defense argued vehemently that even the optics of impropriety were too problematic and it would be impossible for their clients to receive a fair trial. Carroccia agreed with the defense. The second jury was dismissed. E.M. sat alone in a sterile gray office 10 floors below the courtroom, at a desk that held a glass of water and a box of tissues, throughout a withering cross-examination by five teams of defense attorneys. 'I'm going to suggest that part of what made Mr. McLeod attractive to you is that he was an elite hockey player and that he was loaded,' said David Humphrey, McLeod's lawyer. 'One of your coping mechanisms may have actually been offering things and asking to have sex with these men,' Megan Savard, Hart's lawyer, suggested. 'As long as it's a tall guy, you'll go home with him?' Daniel Brown asked, rhetorically. 'You refer to these individuals as man and men over and over, and you not once, not one single time, refer to them as boy or boys,' said Julianna Greenspan, Foote's attorney, arguing that E.M. had a 'clear agenda' in doing so. 'In your head you wanted to be the focus of the room,' said Lisa Carnelos, Dubé's lawyer, 'But these boys were having fun amongst themselves separate and apart from your existence.' Early in those cross-examinations, E.M. was apologetic and compliant. But as the days passed, she grew agitated and combative. By the end, she was self-assured. At one point, Brown questioned why she didn't disclose what had happened when she spoke with a friend the next morning. 'I was really embarrassed,' she testified. 'I felt so much shame. I was just messaging her as if nothing was wrong. I was coping.' Brown saw an opening. Advertisement 'Shame and embarrassment at the choices you made,' he said, and then: 'Thank you, your honor …' 'No, I'd like to finish,' E.M. interrupted. 'I made the choice to dance with him and drink at the bar. I did not make the choice to have them do what they did back at the hotel.' It is impossible to know how a jury would have viewed E.M.'s many hours of testimony. But Carroccia, on Thursday, said: 'I conclude that I cannot rely on (her testimony).' We all need to say the same thing if we get interviewed, McLeod texted on June 26, 2018, in a group chat with his teammates who were in room 209, can't have different stories or make anything up. They debated organizing a phone call or a group chat on SnapChat. Jake Bean, one of the players in the room, reminded everyone that McLeod took two videos that night in which he pressed E.M. to say she consented after sexual acts had occurred. Ok ya f— boys we are fine the boys who did things got consent so just tell them that and it's fine, Dubé responded. Brett Howden agreed. All we have to say is 'someone brought the girl back to the room. We were all in there ordering food and then this girl started begging from everyone to have sex with her,' he wrote. Nobody would do it. But then as time went on she gave three guys head. Once things started to get out of hand we all left and got her out. Yeah or no? Howden asked. Sounds good to me, Maxime Comtois responded. In another exchange, the players strategized how to deal with the investigation. Howden, for one, expressed anger that the woman's claims had caused them such embarrassment. If anything we should put an allegation on her, he wrote. Carroccia rejected the Crown's premise that players were attempting to get their stories straight. During the trial, the Crown called Howden, Taylor Raddysh, Boris Katchouk and Tyler Steenbergen as witnesses. Teammates testifying against teammates. Advertisement 'Sitting here today, I don't remember exactly what interactions I had,' Raddysh testified of that night. Katchouk was asked what happened at Jack's bar that night. 'I can't remember.' It was his birthday. He was pretty drunk, he said. Did he have any memory of receiving the group text message from McLeod that night inviting his teammates to join in a three-way? 'I don't recall.' Steenbergen didn't recall that text message from McLeod either. But he remembered that he made it to the room, looking for food, and that everyone was in 'shock' over E.M.'s request for sex acts. Donkers asked who was standing around the bed when Foote straddled E.M. 'I don't remember.' Was he clothed? 'He came in with them on, and I couldn't see afterward.' Howden, who vividly described E.M being slapped on the buttocks 'so hard it looked like it hurt so bad' in a text to Raddysh a week after the incident, had no memory of it while on the stand. Did he remember where in the room it happened? 'No, I don't. … I don't remember seeing it.' Does he remember if she was clothed or unclothed? 'No, I don't.' Does he remember what she was doing in the moment she was spanked? 'No, I don't.' Did he remember how he felt when it happened? 'I don't remember how I felt. I don't have a memory of that.' Howden's recollection was so poor that Cunningham accused him of feigning memory loss to protect his former teammates. The defense jumped in, bringing up the multiple head injuries Howden has suffered in his hockey career as a plausible reason why he wouldn't be able to even recall the text message he sent describing Dubé slapping E.M.'s buttocks. Hart was the only defendant to take the stand. He remembered much: E.M. asking for sex, receiving oral sex from her, E.M. leading Formenton to the bathroom, holding his hand. He recalled her offering more sex, in various ways. He remembered that E.M. laughed when Foote straddled her in the splits, with his pants on. Advertisement Was there physical contact between them? 'No, there was not. … I was standing right beside them.' Hart was also certain he did not see Dubé slap her naked buttocks or hear the woman cry. Was it possible he forgot? 'No. I wouldn't have stayed in the room.' By his own account, Hart could only recall about half of what happened while he was in the room, but what he remembered featured no wrongdoing. Later, Hart acknowledged his memory loss. 'Yes, I do have gaps,' to which the Crown attorney remarked that he spent more time in that room doing things for which he had no memory than doing things for which he had a memory. Did Hart agree with that assessment? 'I'm really not sure.' Carroccia, in her analysis, considered these memory lapses to be the understandable result of the influence of alcohol and time passing. Even before the verdict came, hockey teased the final message the scandal would deliver. In early May, as the trial entered its fourth week, Joel Quenneville was hired as head coach of the Anaheim Ducks, after a four-year exile from the league for his part in covering up the sexual abuse of one of his former players by a member of his coaching staff with the Chicago Blackhawks. A few days later, two-time Stanley Cup champion and Olympic gold medalist Adam Foote was named head coach of the Vancouver Canucks. At the news conference introducing Foote, he declined to discuss what was happening in the London courthouse where his son sat charged with sexual assault. Carroccia's verdict was not needed for the discourse to turn to the pros and cons of signing one of the Hockey Canada 5, presuming the NHL reinstates them. Those musings swirled mostly on social media until former goalie and current NHL Network analyst Kevin Weekes mused on TSN's 'Free Agency Frenzy' special whether Carter Hart might be a fit in goal for the Edmonton Oilers. Popular blogs and podcasts soon followed with similar speculation. Carroccia's complete exoneration of the players clears the path for teams to add them. It will only be a matter of time. Advertisement In the final accounting, the most tangible change resulting from the scandal is that Hockey Canada no longer has a slush fund to quietly pay off victims. Yes, some sponsors left, but several — like Tim Hortons, Telus, and Bauer — have already returned. Others, undoubtedly, will follow. There will be Hockey Canada galas in the years ahead to fete young heroes, just with no open bar, per new alcohol policies. As for the message sent… The players and the sport were the victims. And now the game is free to move on. (Illustration: Dan Goldfarb / The Athletic; Andy Devlin, Peter Power / AFP / Getty Images; Geoff Robins / The Canadian Press / AP Photo; iStock)
