Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton charged with sexual assault

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Of the three sources I’ve gone to on this story - the Athletic, the London Free Press, and the CBC - the coverage of the London Free Press has been the most thorough. It also foregoes the subtle bias of the other two.

Curious as to where you see bias. I’ve found both the LFP and CBC (I no longer have The Athletic) reasonably similar in tone, though snippets are written at slightly different moments, so wonder if occasionally one source captures something the other missed?

[dissentowner]

Is it over yet?

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Is it over yet?

Scheduled to wrap up tomorrow with verdicts July 24th.Has ended for the day, Crown is still doing closing arguments, and is expecting finishing tomorrow. Defense still has to rebuttal, but they have all agreed to try and be completed tomorrow afternoon.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Not just the defense but I believe Crown witnesses as well. But the Crown addressed it in their closing argument about not believing the parroted false narrative.

And we know this to be fact. We have McLeod texting the group "We all need to say the same thing if we get interviewed". We also know they lied, because they contend that they went up for pizza, when we know the real texts that got them up in the room was asking who wanted to have a three-way.

We know that Bean and Steenbergen lied about going up for food. We know that Foote and Dube had told people not to say what actually happened, so the witnesses intentionally omitted it. The judge knows this too. She knows they are scumbags.

I think there is still reasonable doubt, would be pleasantly surprised if there is any guilty verdict, but I don't think it will be because of the witnesses. I'm sure the Crown would have loved for one of them to grow a conscious but they didn't. Still, at least they had them admit they conspired with one another to all have the same story that was refuted by the text messages that were available as evidence and that won't fool the judge.

Sorry I meant the crown. Not the defence.

What you’re saying is pretty subjective. Her testimony could be picked apart as well.

Per previous commentary and like most situations I’m sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Sorry I meant the crown. Not the defence.

What you’re saying is pretty subjective. Her testimony could be picked apart as well.

Per previous commentary and like most situations I’m sure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

It was, not always successfully, by FIVE lawyers over numerous days.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Sorry I meant the crown. Not the defence.

What you’re saying is pretty subjective. Her testimony could be picked apart as well.

Sure. That's not what I'm saying though. You argued the witnesses didn't help the Crown. I disagreed. It had nothing to do with her testimony at all, which is probably more where the reasonable doubt exists.

But from the witnesses, Steenbergen confirmed that he had phonecalls with Dube and Foote telling him not to mention anything, that he's sticking with the concocted story that they went up for food and were surprised to see a naked woman when we know that McLeod sent messages about having a three-way and blowjob, not food, to the group chat (admittedly I'm not sure who he all texted that but it was numerous numbers).

So them saying "hey guys just everyone tell the same thing; the truth. Also the truth is this. And sure it doesn't go at all with the facts but stick with it" would be clearly picked up by the judge. I don't think it hurt the Crown's case, it shined light on the parroted story these guys made up and were sticking with and the Crown used that in their argument that this was a concocted story so that's why they all had the same statements.

[Goriders]

No one knows that they did that.

People are just picking sides.

From what I read about the trial it seemed like all parties were culpable.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Goriders

No one knows that they did that.

What don't we know? And again this is about your statement that the witnesses didn't help the Crown's case. I'm just defending why the Crown brought them forward.

McLeod text the team asking who wanted a three-way. The chat group conspired in their text messages after the event to have the same story that they went up for food. We know this. We have the text messages. We have McLeod's interview of him straight up lying to the police.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

It's Crazy the judge needs 6 weeks to come to a decision on this, the case will likely be wrapped up tomorrow. Judge doesn't need a group of people to all agree this is one person making the decision, and it's probably already been made.

Seems crazy but probably more normal than not, I like it because even if found innocent they get to sweat for 6 weeks.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Goriders

The witnesses the defence called to the stand all seemed to corroborate what the players were saying. Whether that’s enough to get them off remains to be seen. But it certainly didn’t help the crown’s case.

Again, this is what I'm talking about. If you want to bring up EM, okay. But that wasn't your initial point.

The reason they all had the same statement is because the group chat had them agree to make the same statement (they went up for food and there ended up being a naked woman there wanting sex) despite the evidence it was never about food. It was a blunt "Who wants to be in a three-way quick Room 209" from McLeod who got the players running up to the room. We got further confirmation from witnesses that Foote and Dube called them and told them not tell them what they did.

[Buff]

Having never been in court or witnessed an entire trial I am learning a lot about how this all goes down. You see a lot of it on TV and they case is always won because the accused screws up when the ultra smart prosecutor tricks them into becoming emotional and admitting... or, they accused are too smart to reveal and justice is not served. It isn't too often that you see closing statements on TV but when you do its ultra quick...

In this case, the closing statements take up quite a bit of time. Throughout all the interviews, I was waiting for that smoking gun moment that proved or disproved the allegations. It didn't happen. Now I'm hearing the lawyers closing statements, and they go into detail to pick apart what we've learned from the witnesses, accuser and accused. Based on what we've read about all the interviews, this case all depends on how well the laywers can make their case. Right now I'd put money on the prosecution, but that's whose closing remarks are current and fresh. I don't have a month to deliberate (well, I do, but it's not my job so I'm not going to).

Hollywood needs to turn the courtoom into amazing drama to sell their stories, this is much different. Not that I expected it to mirror what we see on TV, but it is nice to get a glimpse behind the curtains as to how everything does go down.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Buff

Having never been in court or witnessed an entire trial I am learning a lot about how this all goes down. You see a lot of it on TV and they case is always won because the accused screws up when the ultra smart prosecutor tricks them into becoming emotional and admitting... or, they accused are too smart to reveal and justice is not served. It isn't too often that you see closing statements on TV but when you do its ultra quick...

For the most part, what you see on TV is fictionalized AMERICAN Court action...which is quite different from Canada. For one, there is generally more decorum here (and in the UK...watch British Court dramas!). A case like this - and others that are complex mixes of fact and law - will be slow, painstaking and drawn out, as the trial lawyers here have pointed out on numerous occasions.


It's a great eye-opener for lots of people!

[troutman]

Cunningham contends that members of the team, including some of the accused as well as players who testified for the Crown, used a group chat on June 26, 2018, to come up with the false narrative that the complainant was begging men in the room for sex, and was becoming upset when they wouldn’t take her up on her offers. On Thursday, she pointed to players’ texts about what they should say, after finding out that Hockey Canada was looking into reports of the alleged sexual assault.#

“Or they were repeating what they believe happened,” Carroccia said on the fourth day of closing arguments. “See, those are the two competing inferences from this.”#

https://apple.news/AfkFS5Z54SBeVgzZiLPzB9g

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Curious as to where you see bias. I’ve found both the LFP and CBC (I no longer have The Athletic) reasonably similar in tone, though snippets are written at slightly different moments, so wonder if occasionally one source captures something the other missed?

The latest article in the Athletic/NYT strikes a very different tone from anything I've read in the London Free Press.

Here's a heavily editorialized summary of the defense argument:

The players were shocked and embarrassed by the sexual aggressor — a woman hungry for group sex, begging for it even. They were taunted and mocked when they wouldn’t take her up on the offer. They responded with discomfort and apprehension to the orgiastic advances of the naked 20-year-old woman they surrounded.

The words "orgiastic advances" were not used by the defense or anyone else, but seem intended to make the argument that E.M. was the aggressor seem absurd. And then the framing of "the naked 20-year-old woman they surrounded."

One of them said he had vaginal intercourse with her in the bathroom because he was too bashful for a public display.

"Too bashful" seems intended to make Formenton's testimony that he was anxious seem ridiculous.

Several times through the trial the defense complained about protestors taunting the players as they entered the courthouse.

Other words could have been used to described the behaviour of the protestors towards the defendants, like shouting, yelling, or screaming. Using any of them would have evoked more sympathy towards the defendants than "taunting." Who feels threatened by a little taunting?

And when they were done with her they sent her wandering alone, into the near-dawn in tears. They had to golf in a few hours.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/642...rial-judgment/

It's all fair comment. And no doubt the stance of the reporters is shared by most readers. But I prefer the more thorough, detached approach of the London Free Press stories (at least the ones I've read) that let the testimony of witnesses and arguments of the defence and prosecution speak for themselves. Maybe because the LFP is the newspaper of record for the community they feel a greater obligation to meet certain standards.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The latest article in the Athletic/NYT strikes a very different tone from anything I've read in the London Free Press.

Here's a heavily editorialized summary of the defense argument:



The words "orgiastic advances" were not used by the defense or anyone else, but seem intended to make the argument that E.M. was the aggressor seem absurd. And then the framing of "the naked 20-year-old woman they surrounded."



"Too bashful" seems intended to make Formenton's testimony that he was anxious seem ridiculous.



Other words could have been used to described the behaviour of the protestors towards the defendants, like shouting, yelling, or screaming. Using any of them would have evoked more sympathy towards the defendants than "taunting." Who feels threatened by a little taunting?



https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/642...rial-judgment/

It's all fair comment. And no doubt the stance of the reporters is shared by most readers. But I prefer the more thorough, detached approach of the London Free Press stories (at least the ones I've read) that let the testimony of witnesses and arguments of the defence and prosecution speak for themselves. Maybe because the LFP is the newspaper of record for the community they feel a greater obligation to meet certain standards.

I also noticed in the CBC live posts, if there was an discrepancies pointing toward potential guilt, the writer would then go into more detail about it. When talking about the accuser's discrepancies, it would get mentioned in more vague detail and wouldn't back track to explain why they were discrepancies. The London Free Press didn't do it much for either side and just left it up to the reader for the most part. They were making mostly smaller posts quoting the testimony with less analysis.

But as I mentioned, even the London Free Press moderated and edited their live feed posts after the fact. In one of their live feeds, they quoted the accuser after she was questioned about egging them on for sex as saying, “The fact that I’m asking for it speaks to my level of intoxication,” she says. “They knew how much I was drinking that night. There were way more of them than there were of me. Nobody thought, ‘This isn’t a good situation.’ I feel like they really should have known.”

It was a direct copy and paste from this link and then deleted at some point later. https://lfpress.com/sports/hockey/ju...rial-continues

I am on the fence on what the verdict will be because it's impossible to know exactly what was said and how it was said.

[Goriders]

I think anything could come in terms of convictions or acquittals. Seemed to be a lot of conflicting testimony. Don’t think anyone was an angel that night. Lots of bad decision making on both sides.

Probably defines why the legal system is so busy.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by troutman

https://apple.news/AfkFS5Z54SBeVgzZiLPzB9g

This is actually a good example of how different media outlets reported different details. CBC didn't get right into the nitty gritty of the judges questions and criticisms, and only made this vague comment:

Carrcoccia has been asking Cunningham a lot of questions about her closing submissions, interjecting and asking for clarification, case law, and sometimes telling Cunningham she’s putting forward evidence that isn’t allowed.

On the same date, the London Free Press coverage mentioned that the judge disagreed with the prosecution that the accuser's testimony was concise and direct, and said there were times when she was "colouring" the way she was giving evidence. CBC didn't mention that either.