Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote, Formenton found not guilty of sexual assault

[CFO]

Pretty major if what Steenbergen said is accurate.

[GullFoss]

I wonder if it's as simple as confirming which guys had sex with the accused. And why others chose not to.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by CFO

Pretty major if what Steenbergen said is accurate.

Not necessarily. In the Crown’s opening Donkers argued that consent has to be to each and every act and is an ongoing requirement. eg. while she may have been fine with it at (say) 1:03am, by (say) 2:26am she was not.

Whether that argument is eventually made remains to be seen. So Steenbergen may well aver that she was ok at first…and he, or others, may counter that for later in the sequence of events.

[Wormius]

As a hypothetical, what would happen to the whole case is one of the defendants admitted guilt? I assume the cade hinges on them all being innocent here.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Wormius

As a hypothetical, what would happen to the whole case is one of the defendants admitted guilt? I assume the cade hinges on them all being innocent here.

If one admitted quilt, he would presumably be quilty.

The rest would not necessarily be quilty.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

If one admitted quilt, he would presumably be quilty.

The rest would not necessarily be quilty.

Is this like some sort of obscene, raunchy knitting circle or something?

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by MBates

I think the cynical comment that it is "shocking" Steenbergen's testimony so far appears to corroborate the story of the defence is not very fair.

He has been called to testify by the prosecution, almost certainly compelled to do so by a court-issued subpoena, has sworn or affirmed he will tell the truth, and from reports appears to be giving candid and detailed testimony of what he remembers.

There is no reason that I am aware of so far to question his integrity because he used to be a teammate of the accused.

My guess at this point is that the prosecutors believe his testimony is integral to their case. Which seems counterintuitive based on what he has said so far about what he witnessed in the room:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...rial-9.6759988



In my opinion it makes no sense for the Crown to call this witness as part of their case unless when it gets to later parts of the events they know he will describe observations of the complainant and / or the accused that would appear to be obviously non-consensual sexual contact (notwithstanding the above testimony which on its own could be enough to make jurors have a reasonable doubt and therefore vote for an acquittal).

This would make him a potentially devastating witness to the defence because presumably they will not be in a position to credibly assert he is fabricating his testimony (not that it could never happen, it just seems very unlikely to me).

It will be very interesting to see what his full evidence is in direct and then to see the strategies that will be employed in cross examination. It is very possible this is where individual defence lawyers will seek to focus on very specific evidence that Steenbergen can give as to exactly what he saw individual accused players do (or not do).

I also thought the timing of the break for end of day was interesting.
I.e. Get the “bad” stuff as far as the Crown is concerned out of the way today, then start fresh tomorrow and today’s testimony could get a little lost.
Tomorrow will certainly be interesting.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by MBates

I think the cynical comment that it is "shocking" Steenbergen's testimony so far appears to corroborate the story of the defence is not very fair.

He has been called to testify by the prosecution, almost certainly compelled to do so by a court-issued subpoena, has sworn or affirmed he will tell the truth, and from reports appears to be giving candid and detailed testimony of what he remembers.

There is no reason that I am aware of so far to question his integrity because he used to be a teammate of the accused.

My guess at this point is that the prosecutors believe his testimony is integral to their case. Which seems counterintuitive based on what he has said so far about what he witnessed in the room:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...rial-9.6759988



In my opinion it makes no sense for the Crown to call this witness as part of their case unless when it gets to later parts of the events they know he will describe observations of the complainant and / or the accused that would appear to be obviously non-consensual sexual contact (notwithstanding the above testimony which on its own could be enough to make jurors have a reasonable doubt and therefore vote for an acquittal).

This would make him a potentially devastating witness to the defence because presumably they will not be in a position to credibly assert he is fabricating his testimony (not that it could never happen, it just seems very unlikely to me).

It will be very interesting to see what his full evidence is in direct and then to see the strategies that will be employed in cross examination. It is very possible this is where individual defence lawyers will seek to focus on very specific evidence that Steenbergen can give as to exactly what he saw individual accused players do (or not do).

In other words, we haven't heard his full story yet. Tomorrow seems like a pivotal point so far.

[InternationalVillager]

“She went onto the floor and started masturbating and asked guys to come have sex with her,” Steenbergen says. “She said, ‘Can one of you guys come over and f–k me?’”

I'm pretty shocked.

Maybe McLeod was telling the truth or someone stated that she requested him to call more people for her to have sex with? And she denied that in her testimony I believe.

I think it was the defence attorneys that suggested the idea during their cross examination of EM.

Can't imagine being the parent or the significant other in this case. I believe she has the same boyfriend as that night.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

I'm pretty shocked.

Maybe McLeod was telling the truth or someone stated that she requested him to call more people for her to have sex with? And she denied that in her testimony I believe.

I think it was the defence attorneys that suggested the idea during their cross examination of EM.

Can't imagine being the parent or the significant other in this case. I believe she has the same boyfriend as that night.

She can say that all she wants. But then up in the room if she decides she’s not consenting it doesn’t matter what she said before.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

She can say that all she wants. But then up in the room if she decides she’s not consenting it doesn’t matter what she said before.

Well it's about credibility right - atleast I think that's a major part of this case. How credible is she?

She flat out denied that she requested McLeod to ask more people to come into the room. If there's testimony that indicates otherwise, it diminishes her credibility. Seems to me from Steenbergen's intial testimoney that she was atleast happy to have them in the room even just in the beginning. This goes against her testimony where she said she felt uncomfortable having the other guys in the room as soon as they walked in.

[GullFoss]

Lawyer should ask Steenbergen why he declined to have sex with the victim

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

I'm pretty shocked.

Maybe McLeod was telling the truth or someone stated that she requested him to call more people for her to have sex with? And she denied that in her testimony I believe.

I think it was the defence attorneys that suggested the idea during their cross examination of EM.

Can't imagine being the parent or the significant other in this case. I believe she has the same boyfriend as that night.

Messed up for sure if true. If it is true why would she take them to court.

Two extremely different takes on what happened.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

She can say that all she wants. But then up in the room if she decides she’s not consenting it doesn’t matter what she said before.

That’s a pretty shakey argument. Telling everyone in the room to screw her. Calling them pussies for not doing it. When some of them take her up on her offer she was just joking?

If all of the testimony is true her story is getting more and more unreasonable.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

She can say that all she wants. But then up in the room if she decides she’s not consenting it doesn’t matter what she said before.

So far, Steenbergen specifically testified to what she said in the room and what happened immediately afterwards.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Wormius

As a hypothetical, what would happen to the whole case is one of the defendants admitted guilt? I assume the cade hinges on them all being innocent here.

What does admit to guilt mean in this case? That he knew she was not consenting? That wouldn’t necessarily mean other defendants knew she wasn’t consenting to particular acts. As MBates remarked in an earlier comment, consent is a murky concept, and people who believe they’re having consensual sex can be breaking the law as defined by the courts.

Difficulties in defining bright lines in this area of human behaviour are, in practice, revealing a routine disconnect between what the law is and how members of society generally act. How the law is applied to factual circumstances is, in my opinion, becoming increasingly unpredictable and therefore unsatisfactory for the realm of criminal law.

In my estimation, there is a high frequency of sexual interactions every day in Canada that would not be thought of by an average person as unlawful, and yet are prohibited sexual assault.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...postcount=1667

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Goriders

That’s a pretty shakey argument. Telling everyone in the room to screw her. Calling them pussies for not doing it. When some of them take her up on her offer she was just joking?

If all of the testimony is true her story is getting more and more unreasonable.

No, not just joking. Changing her mind. Consent can be withdrawn.

Look, the Crown obviously knew what Steenburgen was going to say, they’ve decided to call him and draw out the negative testimony so they can then say why that part of the night doesn’t matter. I suspect something changed and he will be the one to say what.

Bean being in the room is new info, no?

[Jiri Hrdina]

So far at minimum does it not seem like she did not consent to having the splits thing done against her? That certainly seems like an example where consent was not provided (not suggesting it was or wasn't for other stuff).

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

So far at minimum does it not seem like she did not consent to having the splits thing done against her? That certainly seems like an example where consent was not provided (not suggesting it was or wasn't for other stuff).

So how does that work? Would just McLeod be convicted of a lesser SA charge and the rest go free? Is there a list of consensual and non consensual acts? When someone has likely consented to a number of acts but not consented to others, do they have to specifically name the exact acts that were non consensual and prosecute those ones? I haven’t been following super closely, maybe this has been covered. If there was some consensual group sex but other parts of the group sex weren’t consensual and EM has said her memory isn’t good because she was drunk, how do they determine what happened and with whom?

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Well it's about credibility right - atleast I think that's a major part of this case. How credible is she?

She flat out denied that she requested McLeod to ask more people to come into the room. If there's testimony that indicates otherwise, it diminishes her credibility. Seems to me from Steenbergen's intial testimoney that she was atleast happy to have them in the room even just in the beginning. This goes against her testimony where she said she felt uncomfortable having the other guys in the room as soon as they walked in.

To the bold part, I thought she said something along the lines of; I don't recall saying that but that doesn't sound like something I would say/do?