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

[blankall]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Hypothetically speaking, what if the female felt she had to make the video in order to be permitted to leave the room? Would that then be consent?

What if she was so drunk, despite stating the contrary, perhaps by coercion, that she did not know what she was saying. Would that then by consent?

Things aren't always how they appear, and that is why we have trials.
This video is evidence of something, but what it is evidence of is yet to be determined.

If you're capable of forcing a person to do many horrible sex acts against their will in front of and with a group of jeering A-holes, you can get that person to make a video too.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Experts on consent, experts on intoxication. For both sides. Probably each accused will testify and be crossed (they don't have to but I bet they do). The victim will testify and crossed by each defence counsel.

I was being sarcastic since the video proved consent.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Experts on consent, experts on intoxication. For both sides. Probably each accused will testify and be crossed (they don't have to but I bet they do). The victim will testify and crossed by each defence counsel.

She apparently made a phone call to a friend in the taxi while crying. I wonder if the taxi driver will be called to testify.

[BoLevi]

That video certainly doesn't seem like it's evidence that she consented at the time.

But doesn't the court need positive evidence that she did not consent at the time? It seems like the best were have for that is "who would consent to that?!"... Which I hope is not sufficient to convict someone.

[Strange Brew]

Well there is also her testimony and previous statements presumably. She may well be considered far more credible than the witnesses who claim to not be able to remember anything.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's insane that this has even made its way to trial. Am I misreading the latest that there's a video of the girl providing consent, on video, before and after? If that isn't consent then no such thing exists.

Still time to delete this, not many have quoted it.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I find it hard to believe that these guys have bee in so many incidents similar to this that they can't remember one from the other.

Being a famous teenage hockey player in Canada and taking advantage of girls their age? Yeah, that isn't hard to believe at all. Highly doubt this was the first time any of them took part in something like this and I doubt it ended that night too.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

That video certainly doesn't seem like it's evidence that she consented at the time.

But doesn't the court need positive evidence that she did not consent at the time? It seems like the best were have for that is "who would consent to that?!"... Which I hope is not sufficient to convict someone.

There is likely a ton of other evidence. I still feel the testimony of the non-participants will be the difference.

It’s an 8 week trial.

We are getting, so far, snippets of the evidence.

We really have zero idea of the full extent of the evidence that will be presented.

[1qqaaz]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

There is likely a ton of other evidence. I still feel the testimony of the non-participants will be the difference.

It’s an 8 week trial.

We are getting, so far, snippets of the evidence.

We really have zero idea of the full extent of the evidence that will be presented.

And it's even more difficult to determine which evidence would be admissible in Court. Just based on the facts of this case, a lot of evidence rules would come into play.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

That video certainly doesn't seem like it's evidence that she consented at the time.

But doesn't the court need positive evidence that she did not consent at the time? It seems like the best were have for that is "who would consent to that?!"... Which I hope is not sufficient to convict someone.

The standard for a guilty verdict is reasonable doubt, and in sexual assault cases, the reasonable doubt argument is almost always “the complainant consented” or “I sincerely believed the complainant consented”. Both can be used to get a not guilty verdict.

In this case, the videos seem to open a pretty wide door to those arguments.. The first one (clothed) saying “yeah, I’m okay” and the second one (1 hour later, unclothed with a towel) saying “It was all consensual. Are you recording me? K, good. You are so paranoid. Holy. I enjoyed it. It was fine. I'm so sober — that's why I can't do this right now.” Together, those could do a lot of damage to the prosecution.

Obviously, there are potential arguments the crown can make (being alone in a room with 5 prime athletes, feeling trapped, you’d say anything to get out), and we haven’t heard those yet. But in terms of convicting the players, the videos do seem to put a dent in the crown’s case that they’ll need to overcome.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Ped

Totally normal to ask a girl to record her consent afterward, especially if you have it before hand too.

Not normal with the wider public, but more common with elite athletes. After some high-profile cases involving NBA players, pro athletes were encouraged to record sexual consent on their phones. The idea being it would protect them from blackmail. But as we’re finding out with this case, it does not necessarily provide evidence of consent the way athletes believe it does.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

That video certainly doesn't seem like it's evidence that she consented at the time.

But doesn't the court need positive evidence that she did not consent at the time? It seems like the best were have for that is "who would consent to that?!"... Which I hope is not sufficient to convict someone.

Her testimony will be positive evidence. Corroborated by people she told at the time. Corroborated by experts on toxicology based on evidence about her weight and the amount of alcohol she had. Etc.

[Royle9]

I think we just need to let it play out and hopefully the truth reveals itself at some point.
There's clearly guilt on behalf of the players, they wouldn't be looking to hide discussions about it and wanting to keep it quiet if they didnt think it was wrong.

There's so much to interpret and have the LEGAL people sort out, we can speculate all we want.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by BigThief

Being a famous teenage hockey player in Canada and taking advantage of girls their age? Yeah, that isn't hard to believe at all. Highly doubt this was the first time any of them took part in something like this and I doubt it ended that night too.

You missed the point.

Hard to believe that this could have happened? Sadly no.

Hard to believe that it happens with such regularity that those involved are so desensitized such that they don't remember anything at all about it? I don't buy that at all.

[TheIronMaiden]

I am just a part of the gawk and rabble, but my interpretation of Raddysh's statements is that he was black out drunk, was woken up or at least pulled from a slumber at 3am. and doesn't want to speak too clearly and surely because he doesn't want to swing the case in either direction without being 100% sure.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's insane that this has even made its way to trial. Am I misreading the latest that there's a video of the girl providing consent, on video, before and after? If that isn't consent then no such thing exists.

There is also evidence that there's text messages "What can you do to make this go away?", not usually something an innocent person would say if there was truly consent without coercion, which is not actually consent.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

It's insane that this has even made its way to trial. Am I misreading the latest that there's a video of the girl providing consent, on video, before and after? If that isn't consent then no such thing exists.

Good morning. I’m Katie Nicholson, a senior reporter based in Toronto and I’m in London covering the trial.

On Wednesday, we saw a lot of videos, pictures and texts, but none may be as contentious going forward as two short videos of E.M., the complainant, appearing to give consent.

The videos were taken roughly an hour apart from the phone of Michael McLeod, one of the five accused men, in the early hours of June 19, 2018.

Lisa Kerr, a law professor at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., says it’s not clear if video evidence like that is particularly helpful for the defence or the Crown.

Kerr suggests the defence may argue “this is a person who was clearly OK with what happened and they only changed their story later.” Or, she suggests, they might use it if it contradicts something she says at trial and perhaps undermines her credibility as a witness.

“On the other hand,” Kerr told me, “the Crown might say, ‘Why was this video made, especially after the sexual activity? Was there a concern about the lack of consent? Was this an attempt to sort of make up for the lack of consent at the time of the sexual activities?’”

“In Canadian law,” Kerr says, “consent has to be contemporaneous with the sexual activity. So if you have a video of someone saying, ‘I consent to do the following,’ and it's in advance, the key question is still going to be: Did they change their mind?”

Kerr says the video evidence may not determine whether consent was given for each alleged act that night, and the jury, as the Crown argues, will have to consider what may have happened before and after those videos were taken.

But Kerr does think the videos will help jurors get a sense of what else might have been happening and make other inferences. Their conclusions will depend on the rest of the evidence presented in the case and what they make of all of it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...tion-9.6745871

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I am just a part of the gawk and rabble, but my interpretation of Raddysh's statements is that he was black out drunk, was woken up or at least pulled from a slumber at 3am. and doesn't want to speak too clearly and surely because he doesn't want to swing the case in either direction without being 100% sure.

Raddysh said he wasn’t drinking heavily, so he most certainly wasn’t blackout.

[FlamesAddiction]

The victim is going to be testifying after lunch.

Boris Katchouk testified that McLeod offered sex to him on the victim's behalf, but he didn't think it was serious and laughed it off. He said he was really drunk and just wanted to go to bed. He also said that the victim was being playful and flirty with him, and asked for a bite of his pizza.

For context, it sounds like Katchouk was the first one in the room after McLeod and the victim had consensual sex. McLeod left to get Raddysh, and while Katchouk and the victim were briefly alone, she seemed flirty and playful in his view. She probably didn't understand the full context of what was going down with McLeod. It sounds like Katchouk left the room shortly after.

Raddysh finished his testimony as well. He was able to give a few more details, but said he wasn't in the room long. He went back to his room next door to try and sleep, but he could hear a lot of noise.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by kipperiggy

There is also evidence that there's text messages "What can you do to make this go away?", not usually something an innocent person would say if there was truly consent without coercion, which is not actually consent.

Were these made after the investigation came to light? If so, regardless of guilt/innocence, that's likely something someone being investigated for rape would want to happen.

If the texts were made before the investigation, I'd say that is something someone that, at the very least, knows the woman was upset afterwards would say.