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

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Locke

I have seen a lot of Matlock but this never happened on the show.

Man, I'm a lot older than you, and when Matlock was on its run, only people who were old then watched it.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I just saw a photo of Dan Brown and Hilary Dudding. Let's just say for at least one of these two people, making fun of the appearances of the jury members is kind of like pot talking smack about the kettle.

Really? I’m just not really finding your wisecracks all that funny.

Seems like another bad day for the prosecution. Their witness not helping them much at all and now trying to discredit his testimony by pointing out inconsistencies from earlier statements.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I do find it interesting that a bunch of guys on a hockey board are biased against a bunch of guy hockey players.

We are nerds though and hockey players lean to the bully side of the spectrum.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by fotze2

We are nerds though and hockey players lean to the bully side of the spectrum.

Shut up loser

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I just saw a photo of Dan Brown and Hilary Dudding. Let's just say for at least one of these two people, making fun of the appearances of the jury members is kind of like pot talking smack about the kettle.

Completely unnecessary post.

Everyone in that picture looks like a perfectly normal human being, and this comment is unnecessary even if they weren't.

[nieuwy-89]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Seems like another bad day for the prosecution. Their witness not helping them much at all and now trying to discredit his testimony by pointing out inconsistencies from earlier statements.

Yeah I'm struggling to understand the Crown's objectives with Steenbergen. If anything he is corroborating the defense's story.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Sled

If they are found innocent then I hope they take this experience and speak out how close they came to losing everything so the next generation has more respect for themselves and the public they are around.

They can not be found innocent, they can only be found guilty or not guilty.

I doubt anyone will ever truly believe they are innocent, at least on moral grounds.

I doubt they ever speak out about this trial in public.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

I just saw a photo of Dan Brown and Hilary Dudding. Let's just say for at least one of these two people, making fun of the appearances of the jury members is kind of like pot talking smack about the kettle.

I expect you are no oil painting yourself.

You might want to stop digging, you're close to burying yourself already.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Accusing lawyers of behaving unprofessionally constitutes a bias now? these are people who make their living defending alleged sex pests, not much of a leap to see them behaving like dicks

In the context of a trial and the feelings they directly told the judge via the notes, also-####ing-lutely that’s a bias. It’s textbook first day of lawsuit case study.

[Sled]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

They can not be found innocent, they can only be found guilty or not guilty.

I doubt anyone will ever truly believe they are innocent, at least on moral grounds.

I doubt they ever speak out about this trial in public.

Good point, but it would be powerful if they did.

Myself, In life I choose to try and cultivate the flower that grows from rather just slinging it around and just living in a world of but I'm an optimist.

[dustygoon]

Someone said this isn't the thread for jokes, but it is the thread to come to if you like getting triggered by bad jokes.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by nieuwy-89

Yeah I'm struggling to understand the Crown's objectives with Steenbergen. If anything he is corroborating the defense's story.

The defense is loving everything he is feeding them now.

Maybe the prosecution is scoring some points by pointing out some inconsistencies from his earlier statements, but in general, they are getting little corroboration from him.

Which seems really tough when you consider the victim has testified to not remembering everything and using statements like "that doesn't sound like something I would say".

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The defense is loving everything he is feeding them now.

Maybe the prosecution is scoring some points by pointing out some inconsistencies from his earlier statements, but in general, they are getting little corroboration from him.

Which seems really tough when you consider the victim has testified to not remembering everything and using statements like "that doesn't sound like something I would say".

I still go back to the accusers response early in her testimony when asked about her egging them on, and she said; "The fact I was doing that should have indicated how out of it I was..." (paraphrasing). She didn't outright deny doing it. At that point, I realized this wasn't going to be that straight forward.

[Yeah_Baby]

And like even if she was, consent can be revoked at any time. So yeah, this case (from a legal standpoint) is very complex. And as others have said, we have two different standard. A moral one and a legal one. And that threshold is can be different.

[OminousFlames]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I do find it interesting that a bunch of guys on a hockey board are biased against a bunch of guy hockey players.

This is a very liberal messageboard, so it doesn't surprise me at all.

[Kipper_3434]

Not the first woman to have regrets after sobering up. The precedent if charges stick would create a ton of victims and criminals.

[taxbuster]

At a guess, the point of Steenbergen’s testimony might be that there may have indeed been consent … FOR THOSE ACTS INITIATED BY HER…but NOT ones that were not so initiated (the “splits” or the gonad tub on her face). Consent can be given and withheld at any time would be the argument.

We DO NOT KNOW the remainder of the evidence, and I doubt that the Crowns are stupid.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Not the first woman to have regrets after sobering up. The precedent if charges stick would create a ton of victims and criminals.

Apparently the guys sobered up really fast when they suddenly realized…something. Like that they may well not have had consent.

(Only women can have regrets? Seems specious to me.)

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

And like even if she was, consent can be revoked at any time. So yeah, this case (from a legal standpoint) is very complex. And as others have said, we have two different standard. A moral one and a legal one. And that threshold is can be different.

It can be revoked, but she also admitted to acting like she was enjoying it because she felt trapped. It's quite possible that she was scared and did what she felt she needed to, to get out safely. But if those were not the signals she was giving them... I just don't think "they should have known" is something you can convict on.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Locke

Sorry...what? Protestors?

What are they protesting? We dont have a verdict yet. Like? Set the hockey players free? Lock them up? Deliver sandwiches to the jury so grocery line foul-ups dont happen?

What are they standing for?

You’re not aware of the “believe women” political movement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women