Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
If the complainant, having already made her settlement, and being told it was not strong case to win (and undoubtedly warned about the likely defence tactics) wanted to see it through anyway, that suggests strongly to me that she was telling the truth and didn’t consent.
Why at other reason could she have to see it through other than to push for what she thinks was proper?
|
I think she knew there was a small chance of a guilty verdict.
I think she wanted to get out there the boys' version of the truth. Because that doesn't shine a particularly bright light on them.
I think there was likely a mixed bag of consent and no consent going on. It was taken much too far, especially when there was 10+ guys in the room.
The hockey players have suffered greatly from this trial. Their mothers know now what kind of men their boys have turned out to be. And now the rest of the world knows as well.
I think that was likely her intended victory.