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

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I get we’re all armchair quarterbacks here. Whether somebody was into weird kinks isn’t relevant though. What would explain her making a video absolving the players? I mean, be reasonable here, if you were into gang bangs with sports teams, would you record a video stating everything was all consensual just because? It being coerces under duress sounds a lot more logical than she just wanted to make that statement on video for no reason.

Yeah, the whole existence of the video is the issue for me as opposed to anything it says. It seems like if you are in a situation where you have to tell the girl, hey before you leave, maybe we should make a consent video for all the stuff that just happened. To me it kind of seems like you are admitting that things could be interpreted in a way that maybe it wasn't consensual.

Having said that, I don't think it points to obvious guilt beyond a reasonable doubt either. It could have been that she consented, then afterwards started to sober up (keeping in mind that this went on for a couple of hours after they stopped drinking) and felt instant regret and humiliation, and McLeod sensed that that and wanted everything recorded. It's plausible IMO and without actually seeing it, it's hard to know but my gut tells me that the video is more problematic for the defense than helpful.

[dissentowner]

I am sure the excuse will be that McLeod taped consent because he wanted to protect himself from something like this. It isn't out of the possibility that he made the video to cover his ass in case she accused him of assault after. The second video she states "are you recording?" The jury has to decide if she was told to say that or if she legitimately was reacting on her own. The problem is the doubt is there. Regardless of the outcome hopefully the publicity this has gotten will change the culture of young men in sports thinking this stuff is ok.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I live 10 minutes from London, how do you I am not?

Because you're not. Like are you actually hinting or pretending you're attending the court proceedings right now buddy?

[The Cobra]

I'm not sure how anyone who has not seen the video (which I assume is all of us) can make any assessment of its contents and whether the victim was coerced into making the video or not.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by BigThief

Because you're not. Like are you actually hinting or pretending you're attending the court proceedings right now buddy?

I am not even going to entertain you anymore, onto the ignore list you go.

[Bonded]

The video could also be giving POW stating I love my captors vibes. The defense of course will address it and say it’s proof of consent but that doesn’t mean much without seeing the video.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Where was everybody else from the team while this was going on, like the coaching staff or other more mature responsible adults?

The tournament was long finished and this was after a gala celebrating their victory. Can’t really expect the coaches to be responsible for these guys at that point.

But Hockey Canada did get them all good and drunk at this gala before they all headed to the bar. Pretty fair to question that IMO.

[bluejays]

Guys, just relax. On boards everyone wants to say the right thing under these circumstances but it’s hard to take an objective look. I guess that’s what discussion boards are for but don’t get heated over something that we’re all going to be armchair experts on. It sucks to hear how she was wronged but ultimately a trial is in place to bring the evidence out. No amount of arguing here is going to sway anyone one way or another.

[CFO]

I think the truth is somewhere in-between. Not in the middle but more skewed to players being inappropriate and in the wrong.

Where a potential issue will come up - is that the lady claims being heavily intoxicated and not able to leave but also able to remember certain things in detail. It's somewhat conflicting the state of mind.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I get we’re all armchair quarterbacks here. Whether somebody was into weird kinks isn’t relevant though. What would explain her making a video absolving the players? I mean, be reasonable here, if you were into gang bangs with sports teams, would you record a video stating everything was all consensual just because? It being coerces under duress sounds a lot more logical than she just wanted to make that statement on video for no reason.

As I noted upthread, consent videos have been a thing among professional and elite athletes for a while now, under the belief that they protect the athletes from blackmail. Why would someone agree to being filmed saying they consented? Because they were asked to, and they did consent.

I’m not saying that’s necessarily the case here. Clearly there’s a big question around duress. But I imagine many hundreds or thousands of women have made statements of consent on video without being coerced.

[GullFoss]

One of the interesting things about this case is that very few are blaming the victim. Everyone realizes the bros are disgusting individuals who went out to find a girl to get wasted so they could sexually degrade her in some type of celebratory, domineering male bonding activity.

This event has ruined their careers and reputations, with very few people having sympathy for that. The only question is whether or not there is reasonable doubt as to whether they're gang rapists in addition to being disgusting and broken human beings.

We've come along way from 20+ years ago where many would have called the girl a dirty slut who wanted it and was at fault for getting wasted and going back to the hotel with McLeod.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I am not even going to entertain you anymore, onto the ignore list you go.

So you're not pretending that, right? Just want to be clear. Ten minutes away ten days away, you don't have access to the trial information. And being cutesy about your answer doesn't change that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I'm not sure how anyone who has not seen the video (which I assume is all of us) can make any assessment of its contents and whether the victim was coerced into making the video or not.

Well, there's more than that. There's her own evidence about why she said what she did in the video. And assuming the accuseds take the stand, they will be grilled about the circumstances of it too.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

As I noted upthread, consent videos have been a thing among professional and elite athletes for a while now, under the belief that they protect the athletes from blackmail. Why would someone agree to being filmed saying they consented? Because they were asked to, and they did consent.

I’m not saying that’s necessarily the case here. Clearly there’s a big question around duress. But I imagine many hundreds or thousands of women have made statements of consent on video without being coerced.

I would guess most of those consent videos are being made before the acts and most likely pertaining to a one on one situation. I think it's pretty different from this case.

[GFG#1]

Neither side has proven anything one way or another yet, almost no evidence has been put forth by either side, aside from the consent video's and before videos at Jack's bar, as well as her statements from 2018 and 2022 that I believe everyone has seen.

I am no lawyer, but I assume the prosecution has called EM early in the trial so that they can get the cross examination done before all evidence is submitted to the court. I am sure the defence has all the info, however, not certain how it is going to be presented to the court. There is no way the Crown brought charges based on just EM's story, or statements.

I suspect further evidence from group chats and witnesses could be pretty damning, and prosecution wants the cross to EM done prior to putting forth that evidence.

I am certainly no expert on PTSD or have any experience in a situation like this, however, based things I have heard, read etc, I definitley find it plausible that she was definitely afraid in the situation and that she would be reacting in the moment to what she thought they wanted to preserve her safety. I also believe it plausible that her memory of the evening may not be completely accurate as she could very well have sent her mind to a different place in the moment to get through it.

As the days, months, years have progressed, as well as I imagine some form of therapy or at least talking about the situation memories of that night have come back which would be why not everything matches her statement from 2018.

The crown definitely needs to present more factual evidence in order to obtain a guilty verdict, but I am fairly certan that is coming down the line.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

Neither side has proven anything one way or another yet, almost no evidence has been put forth by either side, aside from the consent video's and before videos at Jack's bar, as well as her statements from 2018 and 2022 that I believe everyone has seen.

Everything EM said under oath is evidence.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Let’s ask this question - why would she make the video unless being pressured to?

I get what you are saying, but the existence of the video isn't proof of duress or external pressure either. It neither proves nor disproves anything.

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Everything EM said under oath is evidence.

Its testimony, not sure I consider her statement evidence, but I guess in legal terms it is. I personally wouldn't consider it evidence until the statements are backed up by witnesses or other evidence to support her statements.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Everything EM said under oath is evidence.

Originally Posted by GFG#1

Its testimony, not sure I consider her statement evidence, but I guess in legal terms it is. I personally wouldn't consider it evidence until the statements are backed up by witnesses or other evidence to support her statements.

This is annoying. Everything said and submitted in court is evidence. It is for the trier of fact to determine how convincing each piece of evidence is, or is not, based on a myriad of factors. The term people should be using is 'proof', and even then, it is only proof to YOU. Clearly, there has not been enough evidence called to prove anything. At the end of both cases, the trier of fact will consider ALL of the evidence presented and determine whether or not the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

Its testimony, not sure I consider her statement evidence, but I guess in legal terms it is. I personally wouldn't consider it evidence until the statements are backed up by witnesses or other evidence to support her statements.

Nobody cares what you personally consider it.