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

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

As of now, it seems that the lawyer for Michael McLeod has suggested that EM wanted to participate in a gangbang and provoked the other guys on. I'm sure he has to have corroborative evidence for that? Otherwise it's not really evidence? Someone let me know how that works.

Link:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...=1746559933556

"Different views on what was ‘crazy’"

Originally Posted by blankall

If he wants to establish that fact, he definitely needs evidence. If that's what the players are all saying, that is evidence, as the accused are witnesses too (assuming they are called to the stand, they don't have to testify). Evidence from any witness will always be scrutinized for its credibility. It's also not a numbers game, so the fact that there are more accused than victims isn't conclusive.

The lawyers will be looking for objective evidence to corroborate their sides' story. For example, physical evidence, cameras, texts, etc....Often, you can't really tell how that's all going to come out until the evidence is heard.

To repeat, if they intend to have one or more of the accused testify that she said those things, they are pretty much required to ask her about it first. The questions aren't evidence, though her denial now is. I asume there will be evidence from one or more accused that she did say those things.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

To repeat, if they intend to have one or more of the accused testify that she said those things, they are pretty much required to ask her about it first. The questions aren't evidence, though her denial now is. I asume there will be evidence from one or more accused that she did say those things.

Definitely. "Browne V. Dunn" is an old English case that states you have to put contradictory evidence to a party if you plan to challenge their credibility on the issue.

So you can't, during argument, just say the player said the victim said X, unless the victim has a had a chance to respond.

[slybomb]

Mentioning these things may also be a way of the defense suggesting maybe these things were said without actually putting their defendant on the stand.
I was a juror on a sexual assault case a few years back and the defense suggested all sorts of things like that, then when it was the defense's turn to present their evidence, I figured we'd hear those things from the defendant and they just said they had no evidence to present, the defendant didn't testify and we immediately started deliberations.
I feel like it is pretty typical that the defendant doesn't testify. It'll be interesting to see if any of these guys take the stand.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Today's testimony by EM is absolutely brutally inhuman....if true, these guys treated her worse than a junkyard dog.


It must be absolutely terrifyingly awful for her to have to recount this in open court. And she hasn't met the defence lawyers yet who, no doubt, will attempt to rip her and her story to shreds in as many different ways as they can exploit.

I believe she is on video/zoom. Still horrible but at least better.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Dion

These hockey players are not human. No human would ever do what they did to that woman.

You severely underestimate the cruelty and villainy in the heart of man.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Coach

^^^ It's not a mistake.

It should be required reading for all Canadians so we stop shielding these s***stains. People not reading what happened allows them to dismiss it as "regret" or "implied consent" or some BS.

Or my favourite, boys will be boys. #### that.

[the-rasta-masta]

You can see the direction the defence is taking.

-Establishing that she wasn't walking as though she was severely drunk while on high heels while entering the hotel after being at the bar, perhaps establishing that the players wouldn't be able to determine that she was drunk enough to not be in her right mind.

-Demonstrating the consent videos, where from the written transcription it seems she is putting together coherent sentences. Without hearing them myself and the way she is speaking in them, this is speculation on my part. She then testifies that she doesn't remember this video being recorded. If she's not slurring her words in the video, then it makes the same point as the above that it wouldn't be apparent she was out of her mind.

-She tried to stay the night after all this, before being asked to leave by McLeod. When she finally left the room, she came back for a ring that she left behind. This doesn't seem like the behaviour I'd personally expect, you'd think she would want to get as far away as possible.

-Lastly, it will be interesting to hear evidence presented around her asking for a wild night and for the others to join. She has now testified that "she doesn't remember saying that, and it doesn't sound like something she'd say", but she didn't categorically deny that there was potential it was said... She didn't remember making the consent video, is it not plausible that she could have been asking for "a wild night" and "who is going to have sex with me" without remembering that? Her testimony should be the one to say this 100% never was said, but instead it's now on record only that she does not remember.

If I put myself in a juror's shoes, I think I'm having a hard time putting forth a guilty conviction right now, as I think there exists reasonable doubt and that the consent piece is just very difficult to prove one way or another.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by slybomb

Mentioning these things may also be a way of the defense suggesting maybe these things were said without actually putting their defendant on the stand.
I was a juror on a sexual assault case a few years back and the defense suggested all sorts of things like that, then when it was the defense's turn to present their evidence, I figured we'd hear those things from the defendant and they just said they had no evidence to present, the defendant didn't testify and we immediately started deliberations.
I feel like it is pretty typical that the defendant doesn't testify. It'll be interesting to see if any of these guys take the stand.

Well, if she denied it and there's no evidence put forward by them to the contrary, there's no evidence and thre judge will instruct the jury to disregard those suggestions.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

If I put myself in a juror's shoes, I think I'm having a hard time putting forth a guilty conviction right now, as I think there exists reasonable doubt and that the consent piece is just very difficult to prove one way or another.

Let's see what the next 7 weeks of testimony sounds like.

I'd wait until what some of the other players have to say on the matter.

I expect that's the smoking gun. Or at least I hope so.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

You can see the direction the defence is taking.

-Establishing that she wasn't walking as though she was severely drunk while on high heels while entering the hotel after being at the bar, perhaps establishing that the players wouldn't be able to determine that she was drunk enough to not be in her right mind.

-Demonstrating the consent videos, where from the written transcription it seems she is putting together coherent sentences. Without hearing them myself and the way she is speaking in them, this is speculation on my part. She then testifies that she doesn't remember this video being recorded. If she's not slurring her words in the video, then it makes the same point as the above that it wouldn't be apparent she was out of her mind.

-She tried to stay the night after all this, before being asked to leave by McLeod. When she finally left the room, she came back for a ring that she left behind. This doesn't seem like the behaviour I'd personally expect, you'd think she would want to get as far away as possible.

-Lastly, it will be interesting to hear evidence presented around her asking for a wild night and for the others to join. She has now testified that "she doesn't remember saying that, and it doesn't sound like something she'd say", but she didn't categorically deny that there was potential it was said... She didn't remember making the consent video, is it not plausible that she could have been asking for "a wild night" and "who is going to have sex with me" without remembering that? Her testimony should be the one to say this 100% never was said, but instead it's now on record only that she does not remember.

If I put myself in a juror's shoes, I think I'm having a hard time putting forth a guilty conviction right now.

If you were to put yourself in the juror’s shoes, you’d have the responsibility not to treat the lawyer’s suggestions as evidence or anything that has been established.

But this is why it’s so hard for victims of sexual assault to come forward and go through a trial. People find reasons not to believe them, even just based on suggestion.

Nobody has even testified that she’s said the things she doesn’t believe she said. But it’s already not enough.

[the-rasta-masta]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If you were to put yourself in the juror’s shoes, you’d have the responsibility not to treat the lawyer’s suggestions as evidence or anything that has been established.

But this is why it’s so hard for victims of sexual assault to come forward and go through a trial. People find reasons not to believe them, even just based on suggestion.

Nobody has even testified that she’s said the things she doesn’t believe she said. But it’s already not enough.

Hmm, I don't think I ever said I didn't believe her, I was trying to establish that I think there is a strong chance that this trial will be hard to prove one way or another what actually went down beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm merely commenting on my reaction to the facts as they've been presented to this point.

I'd argue that my comments showed more of an open mind and consideration to trying to decipher the facts around what happened that night, and that your reaction indicates you've made up your mind on guilt already.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

Hmm, I don't think I ever said I didn't believe her, I was trying to establish that I think there is a strong chance that this trial will be hard to prove one way or another what actually went down beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm merely commenting on my reaction to the facts as they've been presented to this point.

I'd argue that my comments showed more of an open mind and consideration to trying to decipher the facts around what happened that night, and that your reaction indicates you've made up your mind on guilt already.

Your original quote said that if you were a juror, you’d have a hard time putting forth a guilty verdict right now, when the only evidence you have to go on are a statement of facts and the testimony of the victim, or in other words, evidence that what they are being tried for did in fact happen with no evidence presented to the contrary… and you’re saying you’d struggle with “guilty.”

You can argue whatever you want, but in no world is saying you’d struggle with a guilty plea when there is no evidence of anything but guilty to this point open minded or deciphering the facts (extra odd considering you’re jumping to conclusions and making stuff up).

[tkflames]

Sexual assualt cases are horrible, because you need to go to excruciating detail to determine consent based on different perceptions. Curious on a lawyers view on this, but I would guess most other criminal trials can pull back on the gory details as it's more around physical evidence. Maybe just my bias.

I think this thread is already showing the difficulty in this. Jurors are just average people...so I am sure there will be every variation of the thoughts discussed in this thread. Some that hold off judgement, others that form a bias and then try to disuade themselves from it.

On the surface...what I gather is that the two sides are framing up as follows:

A) EM wanted a wild night, wanted to get with the whole team, gets off on getting completely disrespected and wanted to feel the excitement of having half a hockey team of men try to humiliate her. How were the guys supposed to know that they went to far, when she was giving "signals to the contrary"

Or

B) she made some poor choices by going home with McLeod (maybe even liked the though of the attention at the time), but was willing to live with the hookup itself. It then got completely out of hand when half a hockey team showed up and egged each other on to ultimately escalate into a group rape while she didn't know how to respond to get out of it without a massive (potentially dangerous) confrontation.

Both sides will now use emotions and relateability to sway the emotions of average people (jurors). From my view, the hardest part in now being invested in this case, is not determining what is more likely that happened - I think that's obvious. It's proving beyond a reasonable doubt that that scenario B happened for each defendant individually...

[manwiches]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

The flip side of that is I would be mortified if my son ever did something like that, and I would be very disappointed if he knew about it and didn’t try to stop it.

My wife and I have raised our 10yo to respect everybody. If he sees a wrong, don't be afraid to speak up. If hes afraid to speak up, find an adult. If his friends or company are doing something offside or questionable, question them, and remove yourself from the situation. And above all, stick up for people that can't defend themselves. It really is that simple. Parents need to be parents.

If your kid is passive or a bit of a follower, teach them to remove themselves from the situation and find an adult or superior to help

If your kid is more outgoing and outspoken, teach them to stand up for others and what's right.

Our son has asked questions about the case. While alot of the detail is way more than he should be privy too, our message to him is to always stand up for what's right, if something doesn't seem right, question and ask, stand up for others, and no always means no. We've also told him a bit about intimacy and trust, and to only do things with someone you love and trust. That's our message to him, and he gets it.

Sent from my SM-F946W using Tapatalk

[dammage79]

Hopefully this trial sets the standard for player conduct and how to raise athletes out of childhood. Because they need guidance on behavior more than anybody. They live in a bubble and moral reality is far different in that bubble and it needs to change. Hope this does that.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by the-rasta-masta

You can see the direction the defence is taking.

-Establishing that she wasn't walking as though she was severely drunk while on high heels while entering the hotel after being at the bar, perhaps establishing that the players wouldn't be able to determine that she was drunk enough to not be in her right mind.

-Demonstrating the consent videos, where from the written transcription it seems she is putting together coherent sentences. Without hearing them myself and the way she is speaking in them, this is speculation on my part. She then testifies that she doesn't remember this video being recorded. If she's not slurring her words in the video, then it makes the same point as the above that it wouldn't be apparent she was out of her mind.

-She tried to stay the night after all this, before being asked to leave by McLeod. When she finally left the room, she came back for a ring that she left behind. This doesn't seem like the behaviour I'd personally expect, you'd think she would want to get as far away as possible.

-Lastly, it will be interesting to hear evidence presented around her asking for a wild night and for the others to join. She has now testified that "she doesn't remember saying that, and it doesn't sound like something she'd say", but she didn't categorically deny that there was potential it was said... She didn't remember making the consent video, is it not plausible that she could have been asking for "a wild night" and "who is going to have sex with me" without remembering that? Her testimony should be the one to say this 100% never was said, but instead it's now on record only that she does not remember.

If I put myself in a juror's shoes, I think I'm having a hard time putting forth a guilty conviction right now, as I think there exists reasonable doubt and that the consent piece is just very difficult to prove one way or another.

It’ll basically be she said they said.

Guessing most of these trials are.

[MegaErtz]

The problem for the defence is the whatsapp group messages. There are a bunch of players who were on that team who had nothing to do with a gang rape, and happily turned their phones over to the police.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

The problem for the defence is the whatsapp group messages. There are a bunch of players who were on that team who had nothing to do with a gang rape, and happily turned their phones over to the police.

What? This hasn’t been presented as evidence yet.

[MegaErtz]

Yeah, I've been following this case closely since it first broke in the mainstream media. The major issue here are the phones.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Just sickening and deplorable that anyone would think this is a decent way to act as a human let alone as somewhat of a community figure (which they were).

You have to be a special POS to participate in that, treat another human like that, and at the very least not realize she is not ok with it pretty early on.

I truly hope they are able to tie specific acts to specific players based on group chats and or images from phones etc. so that there is no doubt and nobody gets out of this usncathed.

The truly unfortunate thing is this has probably happened 100's of times in the hockey world but never reported. There are undoubtedly many well known and unknown hockey players walking around with these heinous skeletons in their closets.