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

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

It's Crazy the judge needs 6 weeks to come to a decision on this, the case will likely be wrapped up tomorrow. Judge doesn't need a group of people to all agree this is one person making the decision, and it's probably already been made.

Yeah CrAzY eh!?!?


Hey, what’s your frame of reference???? What do you know that the general public doesn’t?

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Yeah CrAzY eh!?!?


Hey, what’s your frame of reference???? What do you know that the general public doesn’t?

I guess we will find out in 6 weeks, but my opinion based on everything I have read/seen about this trial, all 5 guys are going to be found not guilty. There was no real evidence presented to help prove EM's story. The only evidence that would have helped was the text message that wasn't allowed.

It is her story against 5 that all seemed to have the exact same story, the prosecution witnesses all had the same story as the Defendents, any part that would have potentially helped the prosecution, everyone seemed to have memory lapses of those moments.

The only charge I think could have stuck was Mcleod on the inviting everyone, but from what I have read he can only be found guilty of that if one of them is convicted on the other charges, so he is going to walk on that.

The prosecution didn't prove anything without reasonable doubt. There was no smoking gun, no witness backing up her testimony. Nothing in the group chats etc. Other than the text message that was disallowed.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

I guess we will find out in 6 weeks, but my opinion based on everything I have read/seen about this trial, all 5 guys are going to be found not guilty. There was no real evidence presented to help prove EM's story. The only evidence that would have helped was the text message that wasn't allowed.

It is her story against 5 that all seemed to have the exact same story, the prosecution witnesses all had the same story as the Defendents, any part that would have potentially helped the prosecution, everyone seemed to have memory lapses of those moments.

The only charge I think could have stuck was Mcleod on the inviting everyone, but from what I have read he can only be found guilty of that if one of them is convicted on the other charges, so he is going to walk on that.

The prosecution didn't prove anything without reasonable doubt. There was no smoking gun, no witness backing up her testimony. Nothing in the group chats etc. Other than the text message that was disallowed.

I think Dube is at risk. His story doesn't add up and he minimized his slapping.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

The judge needs to go through the evidence with a fine toothed comb, review the law, do their own research, and then write a written decision.

If the judge makes any mistakes in law, their verdict will just get overturned. Judges should also be not making snap decision based on how they feel that day on the last day.

Says who?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think Dube is at risk. His story doesn't add up and he minimized his slapping.

His lawyer seemed to be scrambling a little bit based on the CBC live feed. The judge was asking questions that seemed to put her in a tizzy trying to explain. Saying that he didn't mention the butt slapping to the police because he didn't think it was anything noteworthy doesn't pass the logic test when it was also reported that he asked other players not to mention it.

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think Dube is at risk. His story doesn't add up and he minimized his slapping.

If the judge does go that way then I think McCleod gets hit with the second charge. Just not sure with the text being disallowed that she will find that way.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by blankall

The judge needs to go through the evidence with a fine toothed comb, review the law, do their own research, and then write a written decision.

If the judge makes any mistakes in law, their verdict will just get overturned. Judges should also be not making snap decision based on how they feel that day on the last day.

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Agreed. And these decisions can be dozens and dozens, some nearly one hundred, pages long.

It’s not as simple as “guilty” or “not guilty” and leave it at that.

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

Agreed. I am quite pleased if I get a trial judgment within a few months.

Do judges typically have more than one case on their plate at any given time? In other words is she fully focused on just this single case or is it typical to be writing judgements on multiple cases simultaneously?

Also this is really in essence 5 cases all being tried at once, correct? She is really judging 5 defendants independently and writing 5 individual judgments.

July 24 seems quite reasonable and actually quite quick to me.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Do judges typically have more than one case on their plate at any given time? In other words is she fully focused on just this single case or is it typical to be writing judgements on multiple cases simultaneously?

Also this is really in essence 5 cases all being tried at once, correct? She is really judging 5 defendants independently and writing 5 individual judgments.

July 24 seems quite reasonable and actually quite quick to me.

She has had this one case solely for the last month. But she probably has other cases to decide, and not just criminal ones.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Do judges typically have more than one case on their plate at any given time? In other words is she fully focused on just this single case or is it typical to be writing judgements on multiple cases simultaneously?

Also this is really in essence 5 cases all being tried at once, correct? She is really judging 5 defendants independently and writing 5 individual judgments.

July 24 seems quite reasonable and actually quite quick to me.

Judges will typically have a bunch of "reserved" decisions that they are working on at any one time. Judges don't just hear cases. They also hear all sorts of applications, desk order matters, and other interlocutory type matters. Trial will typically start at 10:00 AM, judges may here small portions of other matters starting at 8:30 AM. Given how high profile this case is, it's likely the only one the judge is hearing right now though.

In BC, there's a huge judge shortage. So the judges are pretty overworked. They also need to travel between courthouses, which takes up their time. For example, they will typically rotate judges in rural areas.

Yes, this is 5 different cases. It's not in essence anything, it's 5 different cases being heard at the same time and sharing evidence/findings of fact, etc... Having all the trials heard at once prevents the courts from making inconsistent findings of fact. For example, finding that person X did Y in once case but a totally different finding in another. In this situation, its also a lot more efficient and it doesn't put the victim through the trial process 5 separate times.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

I guess we will find out in 6 weeks, but my opinion based on everything I have read/seen about this trial, all 5 guys are going to be found not guilty. There was no real evidence presented to help prove EM's story. The only evidence that would have helped was the text message that wasn't allowed.

It is her story against 5 that all seemed to have the exact same story, the prosecution witnesses all had the same story as the Defendents, any part that would have potentially helped the prosecution, everyone seemed to have memory lapses of those moments.

The only charge I think could have stuck was Mcleod on the inviting everyone, but from what I have read he can only be found guilty of that if one of them is convicted on the other charges, so he is going to walk on that.

The prosecution didn't prove anything without reasonable doubt. There was no smoking gun, no witness backing up her testimony. Nothing in the group chats etc. Other than the text message that was disallowed.

So, your first issue is that you have neither (unless you were in the Courtroom throughout) HEARD or SEEN any evidence, other than the predigested versions and some images that were published. In other words, you have nothing.

In doing so, you have NO ability to judge the veracity of ANY statements by ANY witnesses. You can’t tell if their body language was this or that, if they stumbled over simple explanations or even if anyone made an uncaptured error of fact.

So, at best you’re making a guess based on third-party interpretations of what they think they saw and heard.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

I guess we will find out in 6 weeks, but my opinion based on everything I have read/seen about this trial, all 5 guys are going to be found not guilty. There was no real evidence presented to help prove EM's story. The only evidence that would have helped was the text message that wasn't allowed.

It is her story against 5 that all seemed to have the exact same story, the prosecution witnesses all had the same story as the Defendents, any part that would have potentially helped the prosecution, everyone seemed to have memory lapses of those moments.

The only charge I think could have stuck was Mcleod on the inviting everyone, but from what I have read he can only be found guilty of that if one of them is convicted on the other charges, so he is going to walk on that.

The prosecution didn't prove anything without reasonable doubt. There was no smoking gun, no witness backing up her testimony. Nothing in the group chats etc. Other than the text message that was disallowed.

The witnesses the defence called to the stand all seemed to corroborate what the players were saying. Whether that’s enough to get them off remains to be seen. But it certainly didn’t help the crown’s case.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Goriders

The witnesses the defence called to the stand all seemed to corroborate what the players were saying. Whether that’s enough to get them off remains to be seen. But it certainly didn’t help the crown’s case.

Not just the defense but I believe Crown witnesses as well. But the Crown addressed it in their closing argument about not believing the parroted false narrative.

And we know this to be fact. We have McLeod texting the group "We all need to say the same thing if we get interviewed". We also know they lied, because they contend that they went up for pizza, when we know the real texts that got them up in the room was asking who wanted to have a three-way.

We know that Bean and Steenbergen lied about going up for food. We know that Foote and Dube had told people not to say what actually happened, so the witnesses intentionally omitted it. The judge knows this too. She knows they are scumbags.

I think there is still reasonable doubt, would be pleasantly surprised if there is any guilty verdict, but I don't think it will be because of the witnesses. I'm sure the Crown would have loved for one of them to grow a conscious but they didn't. Still, at least they had them admit they conspired with one another to all have the same story that was refuted by the text messages that were available as evidence and that won't fool the judge.

[CliffFletcher]

The Crown’s closing statements did a good job of discrediting the testimony of Macleod and highlighting the discrepancy in statements between the players who were in the group chat after the incident and those who weren’t. Don’t know if it’s enough to secure convictions, but laid out like that in the closing statements, the prosecution’s case seems stronger to me than it was a week ago.

[united]

From CBC this morning, as a reminder:

Here are three things the Crown is not allowed to reference and the judge isn’t allowed to consider:

- In 2022, Forementon told investigators he remembers Foote not having his pants on during the splits. His lawyers have argued he had his pants on. E.M. has said he was naked from the waist down.

- In 2022, McLeod told investigators E.M. fell outside the bathroom at Jack’s bar. E.M. also testified to this. However, he did not say that to the police and it is not allowed to be considered as evidence of her intoxication.

- On June 26, 2018, Brett Howden texted Taylor Raddysh, telling him “Dude, I’m so happy I left when all that sh–t went down…When I was leaving, Duber [Dillon Dubé] was smacking this girl’s ass so hard. It looked like it hurt so bad.” That text exchange was not allowed by Justice Maria Carrocia because she ruled it was hearsay. Lawyers at this trial have argued the buttocks slapping that night was “playful” and akin to “foreplay.”

[taxbuster]

From the CBC reporting, Meaghan Cunningham as Crown Attorney is hitting back very well...the Defence lawyers (at least in the reporting) seem to have been putting a particular spin on things by "suggesting" various interpretations of what happened. None of that is, of course, evidence, just an attempt to spin for acquittal. As well, their attempts to show how E.M. is not a perfect victim (ie doesn't have total recall, didn't leave, didn't resist forcefully etc.....I'm not sure many women would have acted too differently, once they realized they were in a bit of a no-win situation like that.)

The back-and-forth flow of this is fascinating, and I think that the Crown is doing a good job of representing her complainant.

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Crown’s closing statements did a good job of discrediting the testimony of Macleod and highlighting the discrepancy in statements between the players who were in the group chat after the incident and those who weren’t. Don’t know if it’s enough to secure convictions, but laid out like that in the closing statements, the prosecution’s case seems stronger to me than it was a week ago.

I agree.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Crown’s closing statements did a good job of discrediting the testimony of Macleod and highlighting the discrepancy in statements between the players who were in the group chat after the incident and those who weren’t. Don’t know if it’s enough to secure convictions, but laid out like that in the closing statements, the prosecution’s case seems stronger to me than it was a week ago.

I agree.

One thing I noticed though is that CBC has been really filtered about how they have been reporting thing. I was following both the CBC and the London Free Press live updates, and the London Free Press posted things regarding the accusers testimony that CBC didn't touch on, things that really made me question some of the accusations. The funny thing is that even the London Free Press went back and deleted some of it. There is a post in this thread where I copied and pasted a post from their live feed, but when I go back now and look at the London Free Press live feed, the post was deleted. I assume because there may have been pressure from external agencies or something.

I understand why they would want to filter it and don't disapprove, but hours of testimony and closing arguments summed up in a few short posts likely isn't giving anyone the full picture of how the proceedings went in general.

Anyway, this part from yesterday's live feed gave me a chuckle:

Cunningham plays the video of McLeod speaking to the detective in 2018 (it was played to the court earlier in this trial during Newton’s time in the witness box). In it, McLeod says he doesn’t know how the men got to his hotel room and maybe they were going there for pizza.

The audio doesn’t quite work, so Cunnigham reconstructs McLeod’s version, making her voice low and mocking him, saying, “‘Duhh, I dunno why they were there, maybe pizza?’”

I do feel that McLeod and Dube at the very least could be found guilty. Just based on the very limited snippets we received through the press, I get the sense that there was more consensual stuff that happened than what the accuser admits, but that some non-consensual stuff still happened. If that is how the judge sees it, I guess it comes down to whether the witness reliability created enough reasonable doubt overall.

[Eric Vail]

The only consent I am convinced of is that she agreed to have sex with McLeod at the beginning of the night.

After McLeod invited all his buddies into the room, I don't see any consent, but a fearful woman that is trying to get through the night.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

One thing I noticed though is that CBC has been really filtered about how they have been reporting thing. I was following both the CBC and the London Free Press live updates, and the London Free Press posted things regarding the accusers testimony that CBC didn't touch on, things that really made me question some of the accusations. The funny thing is that even the London Free Press went back and deleted some of it. There is a post in this thread where I copied and pasted a post from their live feed, but when I go back now and look at the London Free Press live feed, the post was deleted. I assume because there may have been pressure from external agencies or something.

Of the three sources I’ve gone to on this story - the Athletic, the London Free Press, and the CBC - the coverage of the London Free Press has been the most thorough. It also foregoes the subtle bias of the other two.

[IliketoPuck]

Rick Westhead also has an ongoing summary page where he will typically go into a bit more detail of the daily proceedings. It's on the TSN website.