Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
The Crown’s closing statements did a good job of discrediting the testimony of Macleod and highlighting the discrepancy in statements between the players who were in the group chat after the incident and those who weren’t. Don’t know if it’s enough to secure convictions, but laid out like that in the closing statements, the prosecution’s case seems stronger to me than it was a week ago.
|
I agree.
One thing I noticed though is that CBC has been really filtered about how they have been reporting thing. I was following both the CBC and the London Free Press live updates, and the London Free Press posted things regarding the accusers testimony that CBC didn't touch on, things that really made me question some of the accusations. The funny thing is that even the London Free Press went back and deleted some of it. There is a post in this thread where I copied and pasted a post from their live feed, but when I go back now and look at the London Free Press live feed, the post was deleted. I assume because there may have been pressure from external agencies or something.
I understand why they would want to filter it and don't disapprove, but hours of testimony and closing arguments summed up in a few short posts likely isn't giving anyone the full picture of how the proceedings went in general.
Anyway, this part from yesterday's live feed gave me a chuckle:
Quote:
Cunningham plays the video of McLeod speaking to the detective in 2018 (it was played to the court earlier in this trial during Newton’s time in the witness box). In it, McLeod says he doesn’t know how the men got to his hotel room and maybe they were going there for pizza.
The audio doesn’t quite work, so Cunnigham reconstructs McLeod’s version, making her voice low and mocking him, saying, “‘Duhh, I dunno why they were there, maybe pizza?’”
|
I do feel that McLeod and Dube at the very least could be found guilty. Just based on the very limited snippets we received through the press, I get the sense that there was more consensual stuff that happened than what the accuser admits, but that some non-consensual stuff still happened. If that is how the judge sees it, I guess it comes down to whether the witness reliability created enough reasonable doubt overall.