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

[IliketoPuck]

The selectivity of the memories is interesting. Can't remember much, until they remember enough to be completely coordinated.

Curious the direction the Crown decides to take this. If it is only going to be corroborating story after story, it doesn't leave much room for the prosecution.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

The selectivity of the memories is interesting. Can't remember much, until they remember enough to be completely coordinated.

Curious the direction the Crown decides to take this. If it is only going to be corroborating story after story, it doesn't leave much room for the prosecution.

The accuser's memory was the same way. Could remember potentially incriminating details easily, but other details couldn't be recalled because she was too out of it (like the "consent" video for example that happened hours after they left the bar).

Both sides have legal representation and 7 years of coaching to get here. I suspect the judge is used to this kind of thing and isn't being fooled.

[taxbuster]

I would suspect that there is some portion of the story that will fall apart among the players and that is what the Crown wants to expose (assuming they know at what point the story collapses).

Of note is todays column in the Globe (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ments-told-to/) — may be paywalled.


The interviews with HC are revealing, but have been ruled as inadmissible by a different judge as being “coerced”. Interesting, because the tale there is quite different.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The accuser's memory was the same way. Could remember potentially incriminating details easily, but other details couldn't be recalled because she was too out of it (like the "consent" video for example that happened hours after they left the bar).

Both sides have legal representation and 7 years of coaching to get here. I suspect the judge is used to this kind of thing and isn't being fooled.

People's memories are typically poor. Many years after the fact people will have formulated a story in their mind, they now believe to be true. Having focused on (and potentially fabricated) certain details and forgotten others. That's pretty typical.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

I would suspect that there is some portion of the story that will fall apart among the players and that is what the Crown wants to expose (assuming they know at what point the story collapses).

Of note is todays column in the Globe (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ments-told-to/) — may be paywalled.


The interviews with HC are revealing, but have been ruled as inadmissible by a different judge as being “coerced”. Interesting, because the tale there is quite different.

Dube continued to be a leader years after the sexual assault, telling the boys what they should and should not tell the investigator.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

I would suspect that there is some portion of the story that will fall apart among the players and that is what the Crown wants to expose (assuming they know at what point the story collapses).

Of note is todays column in the Globe (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ments-told-to/) — may be paywalled.


The interviews with HC are revealing, but have been ruled as inadmissible by a different judge as being “coerced”. Interesting, because the tale there is quite different.

Highlights or summary for us on the wrong side of the pay wall?

[FlamesAddiction]

Does that mean statements from just the accused, or also statements from the accuser?

Because when the accuser was being cross-examined by the defense, they made reference to the to HC investigation. They mentioned that the statements made in that investigation, the police investigation, and her court testimony were different. If the HC investigation is not to be used as evidence, I am surprised that they were even allowed to mention it at all. Then again, maybe there was an objection to it and it wasn't reported.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Does that mean statements from just the accused, or also statements from the accuser?

Because when the accuser was being cross-examined by the defense, they made reference to the to HC investigation. They mentioned that the statements made in that investigation, the police investigation, and her court testimony were different. If the HC investigation is not to be used as evidence, I am surprised that they were even allowed to mention it at all. Then again, maybe there was an objection to it and it wasn't reported.

A pre-trial judge ruled that the players were coerced and bullied into giving statements (threats of lifetime bans etc) so the statements by them were inadmissible. The funny thing is that the "bully" was HC's investigator. So HC's tactics (not the Crown's) made those statements inadmissible.

[Monahammer]

To me, culpability in part revolves around the exact nature of who invited everyone else into the room and why that was done.
A few possibilities are present:

1. EM legitimately requested that McLeod invite others to the room. This one seems fairly far fetched, but is seemingly the story the accused are jointly presenting, buttressed by this episode where the complainant is allegedly in the middle of the room taunting players and asking to be "####ed".

2. McLeod unilaterally decided to invite the boys over post initial coitus, reason unknown, and wasn't clear to the invitees about the current situation. EM wasn't aware of other attendees being invited until they arrived. Once they arrived, EM potentially acted out in an effort to regain some element of control over the situation (the "who's going to #### me!") This would explain why some people seemingly thought this was a food related invitation and left reasonably promptly after finding out there was more to it. What doesn't make sense to me, if this is the case, is why the accused would want to present a unified front. Theoretically, they could diverge strongly from Mcleod if this was the case and act as though they were under the impression of consent from Mcleod and from the present actions of EM. This would make McLeod highly culpable and potentially diminish the case against the other accused. So if this were the case, it would be confusing that the lawyers of the other accused aren't pursuing it.

3. Most disturbingly, it could be a case where a select group of individuals (some of whom are the accused) had some element in "planning" this encounter. This is highly speculative, but if she had been drinking with the team and hitting on multiple of them (as is alleged) I can envision a scenario where several of these guys are together making a bigger plan. The plan being that they would get her alone and spring a group sex encounter on her in hopes that she "rolls with it". Here, the confusion for me belongs in why invite the other guys who weren't part of the "plan" if this were the case?

The truth is probably not any one of these, but these are the types of scenario i envision based on the reported testimony so far.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

To me, culpability in part revolves around the exact nature of who invited everyone else into the room and why that was done.
A few possibilities are present:

1. EM legitimately requested that McLeod invite others to the room. This one seems fairly far fetched, but is seemingly the story the accused are jointly presenting, buttressed by this episode where the complainant is allegedly in the middle of the room taunting players and asking to be "####ed".

2. McLeod unilaterally decided to invite the boys over post initial coitus, reason unknown, and wasn't clear to the invitees about the current situation. EM wasn't aware of other attendees being invited until they arrived. Once they arrived, EM potentially acted out in an effort to regain some element of control over the situation (the "who's going to #### me!") This would explain why some people seemingly thought this was a food related invitation and left reasonably promptly after finding out there was more to it. What doesn't make sense to me, if this is the case, is why the accused would want to present a unified front. Theoretically, they could diverge strongly from Mcleod if this was the case and act as though they were under the impression of consent from Mcleod and from the present actions of EM. This would make McLeod highly culpable and potentially diminish the case against the other accused. So if this were the case, it would be confusing that the lawyers of the other accused aren't pursuing it.

3. Most disturbingly, it could be a case where a select group of individuals (some of whom are the accused) had some element in "planning" this encounter. This is highly speculative, but if she had been drinking with the team and hitting on multiple of them (as is alleged) I can envision a scenario where several of these guys are together making a bigger plan. The plan being that they would get her alone and spring a group sex encounter on her in hopes that she "rolls with it". Here, the confusion for me belongs in why invite the other guys who weren't part of the "plan" if this were the case?

The truth is probably not any one of these, but these are the types of scenario i envision based on the reported testimony so far.

Didn't McLeod send texts out asking guys to come up for group sex?

[Monahammer]

I haven't seen the content of the invite texts shared anywhere, but if you have please link it! I have only seen the post incident group message

[traptor]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

The selectivity of the memories is interesting. Can't remember much, until they remember enough to be completely coordinated.

Curious the direction the Crown decides to take this. If it is only going to be corroborating story after story, it doesn't leave much room for the prosecution.

Yeah these testimonies are almost too convenient.

They all look squeaky clean, with the girl egging literally everything on and all the guys being like "erhmm uhmm, this doesn't seem right, but maybe i'll do it, should I guys???? but she's begging..."


I'm not saying that couldn't happen. It just feels very strange and convenient for all of them.


Surprised they're not questioning them more on the golf clubs and those comments. Or about her trying to leave.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I haven't seen the content of the invite texts shared anywhere, but if you have please link it! I have only seen the post incident group message

McLeod and E.M. left Jack's bar together that night and had consensual sex in his hotel room, the Crown said. He then started texting people, and the jury will see texts that include a message McLeod sent to a group chat asking "'who wants to be in a 3-way quick. 209 -mikey.'"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...ndon-1.7516876

Edit: apparently at least Carter Hart answered back:

At 2:10 a.m. on June 19, 2018, a message in the chat showing as coming from ‘Mikey McLeod’ said “who wants to be in a 3 way quick. 209 - mikey.”

A contact in the chat named as Carter Hart answered, ‘I’m in."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/london/articl...assault-trial/

[blankall]

Originally Posted by traptor

Yeah these testimonies are almost too convenient.

They all look squeaky clean, with the girl egging literally everything on and all the guys being like "erhmm uhmm, this doesn't seem right, but maybe i'll do it, should I guys???? but she's begging..."


I'm not saying that couldn't happen. It just feels very strange and convenient for all of them.


Surprised they're not questioning them more on the golf clubs and those comments. Or about her trying to leave.

It's especially silly, as at least some of the guys were invited up - by McLeod that is - expressly for sex. Then they passed around videos of the incident afterwards. Doesn't really lend to the reluctant participant story.

[Monahammer]

It could still be that they were under the impression of a willing participant then... but it strains credulity to believe that anyone went into the room expecting just Pizza if that was the text message that got people to the room.

Also- wth, "who wants a 3-way" text to ~10 guys and most of them show up? That is not a first time thing.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

It could still be that they were under the impression of a willing participant then... but it strains credulity to believe that anyone went into the room expecting just Pizza if that was the text message that got people to the room.

Also- wth, "who wants a 3-way" text to ~10 guys and most of them show up? That is not a first time thing.

Was everyone on that text the same people who showed up to the room? I think only a couple of the guys said that they went there because people were ordering food, but I don't think most of them said that. At least it hasn't been stated in the live feeds, which again are only a snippet.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Was everyone on that text the same people who showed up to the room? I think only a couple of the guys said that they went there because people were order food, but I don't think most of them said that. At least it hasn't been stated in the live feeds, which again are only a snippet.

I guess that's the specific part i am confused about. How could people have been under the impression there was some sort of food ordering taking place in the specified room while some were expressly aware of the sexual nature of the invitation?

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I guess that's the specific part i am confused about. How could people have been under the impression there was some sort of food ordering taking place in the specified room while some were expressly aware of the sexual nature of the invitation?

Steenbergen (IIRC) testified to this...that he went for food but saw no food or containers. eventually felt uncomfortable and left with Bean.


Likely saw a text that intimated this, while a different text to others said something different (eg the "quick 3-way").

[taxbuster]

Ah...things are breaking down it seems..from the last CBC update:


Assistant Crown attorney Cunningham asks Howden about one of the messages he sent to the group chat.

Howden texted to the group that all they had to say is that while they were in the hotel room, the woman started begging for sex and that nobody would do it. But as time went on, she gave three guys oral sex, and that’s when “things started to get out of hand.”

(Howden has previously testified he saw two defendants receive oral sex — McLeod and Hart. When asked about this message and his reference to three, he said at the time he thought maybe Formenton had also received oral sex.)

Howden testified that he was just trying to say what happened and “being honest” about the situation.

I think the Crowns may have a pretty good idea of where they are heading....there is some (pardon the expression) butt-covering happening by the men.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Highlights or summary for us on the wrong side of the pay wall?

One interesting inconsistency in the stories from different times:

At one point, they walked over to a sidebar, where a representative from Nike was buying “Jägerbomb” drinks – a mix of red bull and Jägermeister. Mr. McLeod told Ms. Robitaille he saw E.M. take three Jägerbombs.

Shortly after, they decided to go to the bathroom, but E.M. slipped and fell, getting covered in beer before she got back up, Mr. McLeod said. He told Ms. Robitaille he thinks she slipped because the floor was wet, not because she was drunk.

The fall was a brief moment in the narrative of the night, but one that has become a point of contention at the players’ criminal trial and an example of inconsistencies that have emerged in the case. Mr. McLeod denied seeing the woman fall when he first talked to police in 2018, according to the Crown, and several of the players’ defence lawyers pressed E.M. during cross-examination about whether Mr. McLeod witnessed the fall.