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

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I disagree. Dillon was captain of this team, right? I think it's pretty natural that he be the one to start/ lead conversations and don't think you can attribute any guilt because of that. Further, again, I don't think it's out of the ordinary for a group who is in a crisis situation to wish to discuss the crisis situation. The fact that the group chat exists doesnt demonstrate any guilt on whether or not there was consent at any point.

The contents of the chat so far don't seem to be very predatory. If anything, it seems at the time that the group felt they would be easily vindicated by details of the story. Repeated requests to tell the truth... that doesnt really read like trying to fix a story. They're not repeating specific details of events to each other in the chat. There are some loose details. I'm not privy to all details of the case, but I don't think that's smoking gun evidence of anything.

I also don't think a desire to use different messaging software can really be taken as evidence of guilt. Though, I agree, the use of snapchat in particular is typical of wanting to hide or delete conversations. But it's not a 1+1=2 situation.

Are we reading the same texts? Why do you need a massive group text to make sure everyone gets their story straight, and Dube telling someone not to say what he did. Also discussing using different messaging apps that we both agree that messages disappear. Why do you think people send nudes through snapchat, sure it can be screen captures but the person can see that it has been.

Or messages of but we took a video having her say she consented to this all. Why would you need that unless you didn't feel like you did something wrong.

Not sure him being the captain has anything to do with it, unless he felt something wrong was done and they all needed to say the same thing.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by flamesfan1297

I don't think the group wanting to use Snapchat necessarily implies that they were trying to hide the messages or have them covered up, in 2018 Snapchat was very popular with teenagers and could have just been the app that they were using most commonly at the time

Sure, if the whole chat started in Snapchat maybe you could argue it was their default, but they were already in a group chat....so why move it to another app?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Just based from what I’ve read, last two days really don’t sound great for the prosecution. No smoking gun really.

I hadn't realized they had rested their case.

[Shazam]

This is why managers and execs meet in person.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I hadn't realized they had rested their case.

They have not

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

They have not

Some people have apparently made up their minds based on…nothing at all?

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Some people have apparently made up their minds based on…nothing at all?

Plenty of people made up their minds months ago it seems.

[smithtofuhr86]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Source?

Have been looking for info on her, but don’t see much available other than stuff she’s written.

I made reference to this yesterday as well without mentioning that part. You’ll have to look a bit closer because there is an article written about possibly her as I can’t confirm because I don’t know her at all & student debt plus background.

https://precedentjd.com/magazine/thi...e-bank-195000/

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

They have not

That was actually my sarcastic replay to the person who said there was obviously no smoking gun.

I assume any smoking gun will be near the end of the prosecution's case to have it fresh in the jury's mind.

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Source?

Have been looking for info on her, but don’t see much available other than stuff she’s written.

Google - Heather Donkers - article written in Precedent JD by Katherine Laidlaw on August 28 2019

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Why would you even need a group chat to coordinate what the truth is?

Even if they felt they were innocent, it would be really unusual if they just shrugged it off, assumed everything would be fine, and didn’t reach out to each other to talk about. And it’s not as though these guys weren’t already setting up and using group chats every day already.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I hadn't realized they had rested their case.

What makes you think they have? I was referring to the past two days only.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

What makes you think they have? I was referring to the past two days only.

He was being sarcastic because you isolated two days of a multi-week trial. I’m not sure anyone expected a smoking gun on the second day after the victim testified, and it’s really impossible to say whether the last two days were good for them or bad for them.

[SuperMatt18]

I'll be honest...I'd be terrible at having to come to a conclusion in a case like this.

My initial reaction is to side with the victim, because anytime a woman is alone in a room with that many guys alone there is some form of risk of pressure or feeling defenseless.

But the nuances of this case show why cases like this can be so difficult. Doesn't feel nearly as cut and dry as it maybe seemed it would be before this trial started.

[CalgaryJay]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

One thing we haven't discussed is that one or more of the accused could potentially be "victims" to some extent as well. If the argument is that peer pressure and going along with the group overrode some of the complainant's own will and desire to participate (consent) then couldn't it potentially be argued that one or more of the accused also felt similar pressure to proceed with sexual acts due to the setting, environment, and perceived expectation?

Put more crassly, if there was a naked girl in the middle of the room asking "who's going to #### me" and you've been called gay on the ice by a few guys on the team also in said room, could you have additional peer pressure or motivation override your own true consent to participate in these activities and go along with them in an out of body experience, too?

Totally imagined scenario.

That's something I haven't thought about. If we are talking about coercion or feeling pressure to do something that you didn't want to do, couldn't the guys pretty much use the same defense?
Especially if a naked girl is laying on the ground and is calling you a ##### for not having sex with her while all your stupid Neanderthal friends are watching and maybe critiquing your bravado?
I wonder how EM would respond if the defense asked if there could be a possibility that when she called the room of guys pussies, they may have felt pressured to respond "like a pornstar" to keep the respect from other guys?

What if one turns around and counters and presses charges on EM for "rape" because they felt coerced into doing things that were like an out of body experience because she questioned their manhood and took advantage of them in a situation where they felt like they had to "perform" and act like they enjoyed it when they were revolted inside? All because of peer pressure which is even more heightened at that age.
How would we ignore a claim like that while taking EM at face value? that would be gender prejudice.

I don't think this case is so cut and dry. If anything, I think Steenbergen's testimony is actually damaging to EM.

That being said, I find the whole thing disgusting and really hope the truth prevails.

Either way, I doubt we see anymore of these types of incidents coming out of Junior Hockey.
Now that the rug has been lifted, I bet we see major changes on how hockey players conduct themselves.

[curves2000]

I haven't chimed in too much on this thread but the vast majority of these types of cases have a lot of nuances and a lot of doubt that can be raised as to certain decisions.

We can blast some of these guys for some of the moves they made that night and I am pretty confident that not everything that happened should have happened. On the other hand there are some very strong details in this case and some testimony from EM that may not sit well with a lot of people and may sow some serious doubts. I assume there is a mot more evidence too from both sides.

Saying #webelievevictims and what not is not a legal principle and the facts and the decisions need to be made in the justice system. Up to this point I can also see where London Police decided to not lay charges initially. On the flip side the settlement that was paid out from Hockey Canada suggest that this was a brutal sexual assault and so far evidence does not back that from my quick observation.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by smithtofuhr86

I made reference to this yesterday as well without mentioning that part. You’ll have to look a bit closer because there is an article written about possibly her as I can’t confirm because I don’t know her at all & student debt plus background.

https://precedentjd.com/magazine/thi...e-bank-195000/

Thanks -saw that but skipped it looking for a fuller bio on her. Impressive.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I'll be honest...I'd be terrible at having to come to a conclusion in a case like this.

My initial reaction is to side with the victim, because anytime a woman is alone in a room with that many guys alone there is some form of risk of pressure or feeling defenseless.

But the nuances of this case show why cases like this can be so difficult. Doesn't feel nearly as cut and dry as it maybe seemed it would be before this trial started.

The way the testimony is disclosed in a case like this creates a Rashamon-like effect, where our understanding of what happened shifts with each new perspective. I expect there are more shifts still to come.

I don’t envy being a juror in this trial.

[GullFoss]

I increasingly think McLeod gave the others inaccurate context "come for pizza bros." And when they get there, "theres a nympho in my room, she wants to #### all of you" and then the girl is scared and goes along with it. And the other players legitimately think "oh this nympho is ####ing crazy and wants to bang us all" and some of them get their dick on and others who came for food are super uncomfortable with the idea of a gangbang session with a drunk chick they don't know and GTFO asap.

In this scenario, McLeod is literally a pimp who forces a girl to have sex with guys who are blind to the full context of the situation. Which explains why so many of the guys are like "what's the big deal" while Dube - under pressure from McLeod - is trying to make sure everyone "gets their story straight."

There is one person who deserves to be in jail imo.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by curves2000

I haven't chimed in too much on this thread but the vast majority of these types of cases have a lot of nuances and a lot of doubt that can be raised as to certain decisions.

We can blast some of these guys for some of the moves they made that night and I am pretty confident that not everything that happened should have happened. On the other hand there are some very strong details in this case and some testimony from EM that may not sit well with a lot of people and may sow some serious doubts. I assume there is a mot more evidence too from both sides.

Saying #webelievevictims and what not is not a legal principle and the facts and the decisions need to be made in the justice system. Up to this point I can also see where London Police decided to not lay charges initially. On the flip side the settlement that was paid out from Hockey Canada suggest that this was a brutal sexual assault and so far evidence does not back that from my quick observation.

That’s why trials and guilt aren’t (usually) determined from “quick observation”. Details MATTER.