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

[Tbull8]

Originally Posted by blankall

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

Edit: apparently at least Carter Hart answered back:



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

Carter Hart, you ARE an Edmonton Oiler

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

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.

This is very true. I had to give a statement to Police on a straight-forward incident that had just happened to me minutes prior and it was difficult to calm down and stick to just the facts.

We generally think its usually easy...."just tell me what you saw" but lots of factors can get in the way of that.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Not sure if this was shared already, but seems the 2022 player statements won't be heard in trial.

https://www.tsn.ca/hockey-canada/ric...rial-1.2309194

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Not sure if this was shared already, but seems the 2022 player statements won't be heard in trial.

https://www.tsn.ca/hockey-canada/ric...rial-1.2309194

I am kind of confused though because of this statement from the CBC reporting today:

Howden has repeatedly said he doesn’t remember some of the details about what happened in the hotel room that night.

But Cunningham keeps referring him to a 2018 interview with Danielle Robitaille, the Hockey Canada investigator, suggesting he recalled more details of that night during his interview with her than he can recall today.

Howden says that referring to that interview has mostly not helped him recall details of that night.

So they won't be heard, but they can still be referred to I guess?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is very true. I had to give a statement to Police on a straight-forward incident that had just happened to me minutes prior and it was difficult to calm down and stick to just the facts.

We generally think its usually easy...."just tell me what you saw" but lots of factors can get in the way of that.

Another issue is that human beings' psyches' and brains change constantly, and you have zero ability to put yourself into a the mindset you were when you were different. For example, we all have memories from when we were 10. However, none of those are correct as we simply don't have the same psyche and brain we had when we were 10, and we can't put ourselves back into that mode to "remember" them. At best, we have fragments of info and sensory information and we're filling in the rest.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

Another issue is that human beings' psyches' and brains change constantly, and you have zero ability to put yourself into a the mindset you were when you were different. For example, we all have memories from when we were 10. However, none of those are correct as we simply don't have the same psyche and brain we had when we were 10, and we can't put ourselves back into that mode to "remember" them. At best, we have fragments of info and sensory information and we're filling in the rest.

Right. The point I was trying to make was, when I was giving a statement I was still kind of in shock despite the incident having almost just immediately happened.

This is, what 7 years ago? And seemingly very traumatic. So much has happened since then, the scenario has probably gone through their minds so often? Its going to be tough.

[Goriders]

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.

From the testimony I have heard it’s probably like most situations. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[bluejays]

My mind wants to convict these guys just to shove it to hockey bro ######ry. But it's not the right thing to do until all the facts are heard. As someone with a sister and a mother I really don't get the impression these guys respected her at all. I also don't know what to think of her allegedly asking them to get into it with her. Seems like a he said/she said situation, where ultimately they'll get off.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by bluejays

My mind wants to convict these guys just to shove it to hockey bro ######ry. But it's not the right thing to do until all the facts are heard. As someone with a sister and a mother I really don't get the impression these guys respected her at all. I also don't know what to think of her allegedly asking them to get into it with her. Seems like a he said/she said situation, where ultimately they'll get off.

I think it will come down to whether there is a team mate who was there that says it was obvious to all she was in some sort of distress. I guess we’ll need to wait until the prosecution is done presenting their case to see if such a witness exists.

[Wedge]

Originally Posted by bluejays

My mind wants to convict these guys just to shove it to hockey bro ######ry. But it's not the right thing to do until all the facts are heard. As someone with a sister and a mother I really don't get the impression these guys respected her at all. I also don't know what to think of her allegedly asking them to get into it with her. Seems like a he said/she said situation, where ultimately they'll get off.

I haven't followed this story terribly closely, but it doesn't sound like EM had much respect for herself either. Sorry if I'm not allowed to think that.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I think it will come down to whether there is a team mate who was there that says it was obvious to all she was in some sort of distress. I guess we’ll need to wait until the prosecution is done presenting their case to see if such a witness exists.

Potentially.

If I had to bet on who could potentially be the prosecution star witness, it would be Batherson. He was pretty quiet in the group chat compared to the other guys.

I also recall when players were starting to be linked to the investigation and they were all issuing boiler plate denials, he went a little further and said this:

"I've been co-operating with the ongoing investigations. Out of respect for the person involved, I'm not going to be making a comment on it now or in the future."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...iors-1.6591533

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Wedge

I haven't followed this story terribly closely, but it doesn't sound like EM had much respect for herself either. Sorry if I'm not allowed to think that.

Women can love sex and still have lots of respect for themselves.

I reject your statement.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Women can love sex and still have lots of respect for themselves.

I reject your statement.

They exist for our pleasure and for making babies like baby rapey Jesus would have thought.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Wedge

I haven't followed this story terribly closely, but it doesn't sound like EM had much respect for herself either. Sorry if I'm not allowed to think that.

You seem so well informed..........

[Itse]

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?

They were partying. Multiple things are usually going on at once, with different combinations of people taking part in different conversations. No one is normally keeping exact track of who was part of what discussion, and confusions happen very easily.

People ordering food or at least talking about ordering food is pretty much expected at some point when people are partying late at a hotel.

Odds are there actually was food in some room at some point, and it just hasn't been mentioned because it's not relevant to the case.

Of course it's also a possibly just a convenient excuse at this point, but in any case it's very plausible.

[Burner]

Originally Posted by fotze2

They exist for our pleasure and for making babies like baby rapey Jesus would have thought.

are you just trying to be offensive - what a disgusting comment, Not sure what Jesus had to do with this

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Burner

are you just trying to be offensive - what a disgusting comment, Not sure what Jesus had to do with this

Jesus isn't real

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Wedge

I haven't followed this story terribly closely, but it doesn't sound like EM had much respect for herself either. Sorry if I'm not allowed to think that.

You’re “allowed” to think whatever you want, and you know that…

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

You’re “allowed” to think whatever you want, and you know that…

The way some people talk on here, I often wonder if they have ever been told they’re wrong or had their opinion challenged once in their entire lives.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Prosecution really going after Hayton's inconsistencies between his testimony and original statements, accusing him of feigning that he can't remember.

I think this is the heart of their case: that there has been a coordinated effort on the players to structure their story, and that narrative is not consistent with things they have previously stated.