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

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I think the turning point will be when some of the teammates who did not participate give evidence.

If they say anything like "I could see she wasn't into this and wasn't aware of what was going on, so I got out of Dodge because I didn't like what was going on", this case could turn on a dime.

Especially if they admit they are ashamed that they didn't help her, but could see that the mass of people in the room would have turned on them if they tried.

It may only take one teammate with a conscious. And maybe there are 3-4?

Just guessing, but I do believe the prosecutor is holding back the best evidence.

If I am accurately recalling old news, they have two cooperating witnesses (direct) who handed over devices to police.

[dammage79]

Even if I was down for an orgy and consented to group sex, the second they mentioned sticking golf clubs up my hoohah, consent would be withdrawn.

She could very well have previously consented to having a wild night. But consent is a second by second thing. It can end anytime. And at any point she tried to leave and they coerced her to stay is the second consent ended.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

If I am accurately recalling old news, they have two cooperating witnesses (direct) who handed over devices to police.

That can just as easily be to clear their own names

Handing over your device doesn’t mean you have evidence to the assault

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

That can just as easily be to clear their own names

Handing over your device doesn’t mean you have evidence to the assault

It was actually just mentioned that she had originally incorrectly accused 2 other players who have since been cleared. So that theory could be correct.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

That can just as easily be to clear their own names

Handing over your device doesn’t mean you have evidence to the assault

Yup. Could be.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I think the turning point will be when some of the teammates who did not participate give evidence.

If they say anything like "I could see she wasn't into this and wasn't aware of what was going on, so I got out of Dodge because I didn't like what was going on", this case could turn on a dime.

Especially if they admit they are ashamed that they didn't help her, but could see that the mass of people in the room would have turned on them if they tried.

It may only take one teammate with a conscious. And maybe there are 3-4?

Just guessing, but I do believe the prosecutor is holding back the best evidence.

Flip side is true as well. If they corroborate their teammates version.

[united]

"Savard brings up the fact E.M. at one point told detectives she performed oral sex on another man, not Hart. Savard said it was somebody else who ultimately identified Hart as a suspect, though the lawyer does not specify who pointed to Hart.

E.M. agrees with Savard that she had trouble distinguishing between the men because "a lot of them look alike."

She has said several times that she was worried about misidentifying the men in the hotel room because she knows these are serious accusations, but she was trying to be helpful to police."

The part I bolded may speak to what is potentially forthcoming from another player?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Flip side is true as well. If they corroborate their teammates version.

They are listed as witnesses for the prosecution.

I expect the players would rather not have their teammates up there. Who knows what they may say under oath.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by united

The part I bolded may speak to what is potentially forthcoming from another player?

The London Free Press live coverage identified the player as Sam Steel.

https://lfpress.com/sports/hockey/ju...rial-continues

Also, does anyone else think that this statement could end up hurting her case:

“The fact that I’m asking for it speaks to my level of intoxication,” she says. “They knew how much I was drinking that night. There were way more of them than there were of me. Nobody thought, ‘This isn’t a good situation.’ I feel like they really should have known.”

It was also mentioned by Hart's lawyer previously that Jack's drinks have half the amount of alcohol compared to other places (sneaky Jack's), implying that she may not have drank as much as she thought. She also told her not to confuse feelings with facts. The victim also said in one statement that she didn't buy any drinks for herself, but there is video showing her buying some of her own drinks, so she can't assume the accused knew how much she drank either.

Gadjovich was identified as the other player initially accused but was able to demonstrate that he wasn't involved. So I imagine we'll be hearing from Gadjovich and Steel at some point as it is likely they are the ones who had to turn over their phones to the police.

[taxbuster]

While I understand that each defendant is entitled to his own lawyer, and the 5 lawyers "supposedly" agreed to not re-ask questions already asked and answered...it doesn't seem like Hart's lawyer is doing that. It seems awful that all five lawyers can gang up (hmm....wonder what that might be similar to?) on her and badger the crap out of her in order to try to nail down some miniscule inconsistency. (One would hope that the Court would step in to stop this from occurring, at least for the main part.)


Showing once more why SA victims often don't press charges. There seems to be no good way in or out of this, unfortunately.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

The way that text message, asking for participants, casually went out, makes it seem like it was a regular occurrence.

These guys all came from different teams, leagues, and provinces. So yes, this sort of thing is not uncommon in elite junior hockey. Articles covering this issue in recent years recounted stories about girls being let into dressing rooms after practices, girls meeting players in hotel rooms on the road, etc. Some of it is consensual. Some isn’t.

[InternationalVillager]

Personally, young guys need to understand that any time there is more than 1 guy in a room with a girl where there is sexual relations happening, it's probably not a good idea to be the 2nd one in ... forget 3rd, 4th, 5th. Always turn around and head out the door unless there is explicit consent. Protect yourself.

I've heard stories of guys in situations where they share a hotel room with a buddy- 2 beds in 1 room. One of the guys comes back to the room with the girl and they do their thing. The other guy who's staying in the room comes back later on and falls asleep on the other bed. In the morning, the girl is not very happy that someone else could have potentially seen her naked and is sleeping on the other bed. Like this kind of #### is difficult enough to navigate for most people. I can't imagine why these guys thought this was a good idea - guilty or not.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

While I understand that each defendant is entitled to his own lawyer, and the 5 lawyers "supposedly" agreed to not re-ask questions already asked and answered...it doesn't seem like Hart's lawyer is doing that. It seems awful that all five lawyers can gang up (hmm....wonder what that might be similar to?) on her and badger the crap out of her in order to try to nail down some miniscule inconsistency. (One would hope that the Court would step in to stop this from occurring, at least for the main part.)


Showing once more why SA victims often don't press charges. There seems to be no good way in or out of this, unfortunately.

This is what I dislike about court watching and following a case closely like this. Many have already picked a verdict essentially. Respectfully, you are coming at this from an angle that assuredly means you believe these 5 men are rapists. The trial is meant to determine that. What if she really did ask for more men to come back to the room? What if she did tell them she wanted a wild night?

We have to cut our own moral viewpoints here. Ultimately, while potentially perverse and counter average sensibilities, engaging in consensual group sex is not illegal. The lawyers MUST ask questions to determine the nature of the consent, and whether or not their clients could have potentially believed there was consent. The only way to achieve that, save a recording of everything that happened in that room existing, is by comparing statements to determine if there are misalignments. Yes, this is a challenge to the accuser. But the rights of the accused can't just be thrown away because we dislike the story and think they're all bad. That's Trump deportation level thinking.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

It seems awful that all five lawyers can gang up (hmm....wonder what that might be similar to?) on her and badger the crap out of her in order to try to nail down some miniscule inconsistency.

Showing once more why SA victims often don't press charges. There seems to be no good way in or out of this, unfortunately.

They're doing their job.

Most SA victims aren't on trial vs 5 accused. Don't think you can draw that conclusion from this trial.

[InternationalVillager]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

This is what I dislike about court watching and following a case closely like this. Many have already picked a verdict essentially. Respectfully, you are coming at this from an angle that assuredly means you believe these 5 men are rapists. The trial is meant to determine that. What if she really did ask for more men to come back to the room? What if she did tell them she wanted a wild night?

We have to cut our own moral viewpoints here. Ultimately, while potentially perverse and counter average sensibilities, engaging in consensual group sex is not illegal. The lawyers MUST ask questions to determine the nature of the consent, and whether or not their clients could have potentially believed there was consent. The only way to achieve that, save a recording of everything that happened in that room existing, is by comparing statements to determine if there are misalignments. Yes, this is a challenge to the accuser. But the rights of the accused can't just be thrown away because we dislike the story and think they're all bad. That's Trump deportation level thinking.

I think as a society, we have overcorrected to the other extreme. Most are ready to convict simply based on accusations or consider them with a guilty bias until they can be proven innocent.

[FlamesAddiction]

Objectively I thought Hart's lawyer did a good job of building off of what McLeod's lawyer did, but it wasn't redundant IMO. McLeod's lawyer planted the seed for some of the things discussed, but I didn't think he went for it as hard as he could have.

I get that it's an emotional topic and sympathy for the accuser, but I don't think any of what they are talking about is trivial or piling on.

[PepsiFree]

We can also all recognize that yes, what the victim is currently going through is indeed awful, without having to wax poetic about the rights of the accused, guilty until proven innocent, or some lame comparison to Trumpism. To reiterate, we know what happened, and we know how the victim feels about it. This isn’t an instance where this whole thing may have been made up, people are reacting to what happened.

People are allowed to have feelings and make moral judgements about things. Nobody here is on the jury.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

We can also all recognize that yes, what the victim is currently going through is indeed awful, without having to wax poetic about the rights of the accused, guilty until proven innocent, or some lame comparison to Trumpism. To reiterate, we know what happened, and we know how the victim feels about it. This isn’t an instance where this whole thing may have been made up, people are reacting to what happened.

People are allowed to have feelings and make moral judgements about things. Nobody here is on the jury.

How is the comparison lame? Presuming guilt and desiring a no trial punishment is Exactly what Trump is doing with deportations in the states.

That is what was being suggested. Sure, you can have whatever moral opinion you want, but that doesn't make it justified, or right. It's much, much more lame to desire/seek punishment based on unproven accusations.

The extreme example here is convicting a muderer to death only to find out later they were innocent. Well, we have already opinioned these guys to cultural and career death. The weight of this trial has also already probably irreperably altered their lives. So I pose the opposite question, what if everything the two defense lawyers have said is the objective truth? What if she wasn't that drunk, what if she did request more guys enter the room, what if she encouraged them? What if her crying and later recanting was a snowball effect from regret of cheating on her boyfriend and shame?

These would be awful accusations to levy against her in reverse, and would need to be proven.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by InternationalVillager

Personally, young guys need to understand that any time there is more than 1 guy in a room with a girl where there is sexual relations happening, it's probably not a good idea to be the 2nd one in ... forget 3rd, 4th, 5th. Always turn around and head out the door unless there is explicit consent. Protect yourself.

Absolutely. And I expect that’s a key part of the awareness programs Hockey Canada players will be taking going forward.

Because what these stories are revealing is that there’s something about the culture around elite hockey where it is quite common to be the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th guy in. Some likely reasons: the entitlement that comes with being high-status heroes in their communities; the fact there are young women who throw themselves at these guys; they’re away from their families a lot and staying in shared hotel rooms; they’re trying to impress teammates in a hyper-macho environment; something weird about bonding over getting their dicks out in front of each other.

Edit: After reading the testimony from today, another to add to the list - the influence of porn. Research shows in the last decade or so the aesthetics and norms of porn have had a major influence on the kinds of sex young men expect. Unsurprisingly, this turns out not to suit the preferences of most women.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

How is the comparison lame? Presuming guilt and desiring a no trial punishment is Exactly what Trump is doing with deportations in the states.

That is what was being suggested. Sure, you can have whatever moral opinion you want, but that doesn't make it justified, or right. It's much, much more lame to desire/seek punishment based on unproven accusations.

The extreme example here is convicting a muderer to death only to find out later they were innocent. Well, we have already opinioned these guys to cultural and career death. The weight of this trial has also already probably irreperably altered their lives. So I pose the opposite question, what if everything the two defense lawyers have said is the objective truth? What if she wasn't that drunk, what if she did request more guys enter the room, what if she encouraged them? What if her crying and later recanting was a snowball effect from regret of cheating on her boyfriend and shame?

These would be awful accusations to levy against her in reverse, and would need to be proven.

Jesus, more Trump and innocent people being sentenced to death? Can you handle this conversation without using extreme examples as a crutch?

Let me just ask you two things: what are each of these men on trial for, and what does a verdict of “not guilty” mean in this trial?