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

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Goriders

The defense lawyers are getting some shots in. They are going for reasonable doubt and planting a lot of seeds.

That's pretty much the strategy of defence lawyers in every case.

I hope the prosecution has some evidence to corroborate the testimony of the victim.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

So far it seems like Hart's lawyer, Megan Savard, did a lot of the heavy lifting. From what I heard, she is kind of a big deal in the defense attorney world.

Yup- Megan Savard is the real deal.

"I will be very shocked if she loses this trial."
- My Lawyer Friends.

[442scotty]

It is going to be very hard to convict these losers. I worked with a guy years ago that after only one drink would become a different person completely. He was a police officer and after having a few drinks one time he ended up breaking into a school and trashed it. He had no idea what he had done. It’s quite possible that when the victim drinks something similar happens although she seems to have no problem remembering most of what happened. Booze can really mess with your personality as it shows with everyone involved in this mess. There are no winners in this trial. It’s the attempts to clean it up that will do a lot of damage to the defence I think.

[FlamesAddiction]

I am curious as to whether a medical professional and the nurse at the hospital is called to testify. The accuser said the nurse told her that there was no point in doing toxicological tests 2 days after she thinks she may have been "roofied", which seems like really bad advice. Flunitrazepam and other benzodiazepines can stay in your system longer than that and nurse dealing with sexual assault victims should have known that. Even if it was just a small chance of showing up, it is such a serious crime to drug someone, you would think that they wouldn't have downplayed it.

[the-rasta-masta]

I'm curious if this bouncer friend they keep bringing up is called to testify too.

[TheIronMaiden]

EM is done being cross examined for now. That could not have been easy.
I am interested to read the group chat should it be provided as evidence.
That might be the most damning thing.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

EM is done being cross examined for now. That could not have been easy.
I am interested to read the group chat should it be provided as evidence.
That might be the most damning thing.

That is going to be all kinds of grim.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

EM is done being cross examined for now. That could not have been easy.
I am interested to read the group chat should it be provided as evidence.
That might be the most damning thing.

Redirect tomorrow or does that happen later?

[MissTeeks]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Redirect tomorrow or does that happen later?

Tomorrow morning according to Westhead.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1922387156938449043

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I am curious as to whether a medical professional and the nurse at the hospital is called to testify. The accuser said the nurse told her that there was no point in doing toxicological tests 2 days after she thinks she may have been "roofied", which seems like really bad advice. Flunitrazepam and other benzodiazepines can stay in your system longer than that and nurse dealing with sexual assault victims should have known that. Even if it was just a small chance of showing up, it is such a serious crime to drug someone, you would think that they wouldn't have downplayed it.

Pretty sure she wasn’t roofied. She went willingly to McLeod’s room to have sex with him. She admitted that.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

Tomorrow morning according to Westhead.

I will defer to one of the many lawyers on here, if the witness contradicts her testimony giving under cross examination, during redirect is the defense allowed to cross again?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Pretty sure she wasn’t roofied. She went willingly to McLeod’s room to have sex with him. She admitted that.

She presumably could have been roofied later on.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I will defer to one of the many lawyers on here, if the witness contradicts her testimony giving under cross examination, during redirect is the defense allowed to cross again?

I do believe Defense is only allowed to respond to what is raised during redirect.

[taxbuster]

Lotsa lawyer wrangling going on. Defence doesn’t seem to like much of the re-direct.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Lotsa lawyer wrangling going on. Defence doesn’t seem to like much of the re-direct.

My sense is that the Crown is bringing up some things that should have been brought up in the initial examination, like why she didn't participate in the first HC investigation, as well as getting her to modify statements she said in the cross examination. The defense didn't get a chance to cross-examine on those statements. The re-examination is supposed to stick only to specific things brought up in the cross-examination.

Granted, it's hard to know not being there if the HC thing was brought up before since the reporters don't type everything into the live feed. Between the CBC and London Free Press live feeds though, I didn't see it mentioned.

[smithtofuhr86]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Yup- Megan Savard is the real deal.

"I will be very shocked if she loses this trial."
- My Lawyer Friends.

Look up Heather Donkers as well from the Crown side of things. There is a really interesting article about her life and background plus the reason why she decided to get into law. Between Savard and her there is some heavy hitters in the court room battling it out according to my cousin who is a lawyer out in Ontario.

[taxbuster]

There WAS some kind of instruction to the Jury by the Judge wrt the whole HC agreement-settlement some days ago. Can’t find it rn though.

[gildo]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

I've stayed very quite through this thread but followed along for good reason.

I don't ever talk about this and only a few people outside who I was friends with at the time but when I was 18 I was falsely accused of rape. My god was it the worst time of my life . Cops showed up at work didn't haul me off it was a busy night. Juat had a manager to relay the message to come in after work. I got off work at 1 am . Went home showered ,changed and headed right over to the local rcmp dispatch. Went through a door and said are you x . I said yes, do you have x type of tattoo , I said yes, was asked to turn around and was read that I was charged with rape of a minor. I was 18 she was 17.


It was hell through interrogation. I was honest. We did make out but when she wanted more I was the one to halt the breaks . She wanted to include a friend who I was absolutely not attracted to . I was down for 1 v1 but she wanted her friend included so I pulled the plug .

Luckily after 5 months investigation a neutral friend of ours had told a few guys that my accuser wanted to get back at me which lead her to have to own up she was lieing. We all where drunk and there was 8 of us drinking. And not drinking a bit like EM . We were properly drunk. She told the rcmp eventually she was pissed off because I rejected the proposition and it was easier for her to come to terms with her "sinful feelings " and to explain where she was to her parents why she was out till 3am and drunk coming home because the were religious zealots.


That's why in these types of cases with videos that she consents makes it hard for me to belive victims which makes me feel awful as a human. Their are definently cases I go ya that guy is terrible. But then I see cases like this that raise my trauma especially when I hear she had a boyfriend willingly cheat which has been established then Maccloud texts want a 3 some? I have a hard time believing she didn't ask for a 3 some. I've been there . I was still too shy at the time and said no. And saying no burned me for a time. Seeing such a similar situation playout where maybe she regrets doing what she did to her now fiancee dosen't seem like a stretch to me. At the same time she could be telling the complete truth.

I personally have a strong biased towards EM because she says she forgets and the partner situation. I'll tell you one thing till this day I remeber everything vividly to this day. I don't buy any I can't remember that was so long ago arguments from either side. I had this happen over 20 years ago. Only bringing my story up as false accusations arguments came up. I was falsely accused and rightfully not charged after alot of hell.

Thanks for sharing your story, I am sure that wasn't easy to do and probably brings up a lot of a tough time in your life. Mine is nowhere nearly like yours or this current case, but back in 1998 I was going through a tough time while in school & looking ahead to life. I was in a toxic relationship and in early 1999 was charged with impaired driving. Anyway fast forward to the year 2000, I wasn't drinking, living a clean life, working and as I was trying to get out of this relationship my girlfriend threatened call the police on me and her words exactly were "I can make stuff up and they will believe me". She was convinced that she could use my impaired against me and tell the police that I was drinking and assaulted her (physically or sexually), remember no technology then so it would have truly been he said / she said. I didn't know what to think and got absolutely freaked out. I immediately left and only returned with co-workers of mine (so I had other eyes on the situation) when she was at work to pack up my stuff up.

[FlamesAddiction]

Steenbergen testifying. So far it sounds like he is corroborating the story that the defense presented (shocking, I know), but he won't finish until tomorrow. I doubt the Crown would call him though if there wasn't something they can pick apart from it.

[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

Steenbergen says that when he went to sit down at the desk at the far side of the room, he heard someone say, “Guys, there’s a naked girl in the bathroom.”

He testifies he was shocked to learn that. Soon after, he says, a naked woman came out of the bathroom.

“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?’”

That’s when Hart got oral sex from her, Steenbergen says, and it lasted for about 30 seconds or a minute.

“He unbuckled his belt and pulled [his pants] down toward his knees.”

Steenbergen says that while this was happening, he was trying to have a conversation with someone else, so wasn’t paying much attention.

After that, Steenbergen says, he remembers the woman saying, “You guys are being pussies” and then he remembers McLeod “getting a blow job” in a similar manner to Hart.

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).