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

[Willi Plett]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

If I am not looking at this from a personal standpoint and I am on that jury so far I am saying not guilty. I think what these guys did is gross and wrong but from a legal standpoint there has been pretty strong evidence that consent was given. I am hoping the jury sees it the other way because these guys are scummy and it helps others come forward. Glad I am not on that jury.

Interesting perspective. I felt the opposite. Testimony and evidence so far has me leaning to I don’t think consent was given and where it was, it was under a state of intoxication and duress. A lot of evidence to come but at the moment, if I was a juror, I would give a guilty verdict. That said, I would be waiting to hear the balance of the evidence before forming a decision. I’m just commenting on the trial to date and where my personal perspective would be so far.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Brown asks whether she remembers being attracted to McLeod, as he asked about Howden.

“I was drunk; it was dark,” E.M. says.

“If it wasn’t Mr. McLeod’s looks that you were attracted to, why did you want to go home with him?” Brown asks.

She says they were dancing, kissing, spending time together.

Brown asks again why she was attracted to McLeod.

“He seemed taller than me — that seemed attractive to me. I’m not registering all the details,” answers E.M., who seems uncomfortable.

“As long as it’s a tall guy, you’ll go home with him?” Brown asks.


Certainly going down the route of slut shaming.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Brown asks whether she remembers being attracted to McLeod, as he asked about Howden.

“I was drunk; it was dark,” E.M. says.

“If it wasn’t Mr. McLeod’s looks that you were attracted to, why did you want to go home with him?” Brown asks.

She says they were dancing, kissing, spending time together.

Brown asks again why she was attracted to McLeod.

“He seemed taller than me — that seemed attractive to me. I’m not registering all the details,” answers E.M., who seems uncomfortable.

“As long as it’s a tall guy, you’ll go home with him?” Brown asks.


Certainly going down the route of slut shaming.

[Tbull8]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Brown asks whether she remembers being attracted to McLeod, as he asked about Howden.

“I was drunk; it was dark,” E.M. says.

“If it wasn’t Mr. McLeod’s looks that you were attracted to, why did you want to go home with him?” Brown asks.

She says they were dancing, kissing, spending time together.

Brown asks again why she was attracted to McLeod.

“He seemed taller than me — that seemed attractive to me. I’m not registering all the details,” answers E.M., who seems uncomfortable.

“As long as it’s a tall guy, you’ll go home with him?” Brown asks.


Certainly going down the route of slut shaming.

Wow...

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Brown asks whether she remembers being attracted to McLeod, as he asked about Howden.

“I was drunk; it was dark,” E.M. says.

“If it wasn’t Mr. McLeod’s looks that you were attracted to, why did you want to go home with him?” Brown asks.

She says they were dancing, kissing, spending time together.

Brown asks again why she was attracted to McLeod.

“He seemed taller than me — that seemed attractive to me. I’m not registering all the details,” answers E.M., who seems uncomfortable.

“As long as it’s a tall guy, you’ll go home with him?” Brown asks.


Certainly going down the route of slut shaming.

Jesus.

[PepsiFree]

Same lawyer who made the suggestion that the “fun” persona was the one happy to go along with the alleged assault, and the presumably not-fun persona the one to take issue with it. Because the difference between whether something is assault or not is down to how “fun” you are, obviously.

Seems like a real POS.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Titan2

This is annoying. Everything said and submitted in court is evidence. It is for the trier of fact to determine how convincing each piece of evidence is, or is not, based on a myriad of factors. The term people should be using is 'proof', and even then, it is only proof to YOU. Clearly, there has not been enough evidence called to prove anything. At the end of both cases, the trier of fact will consider ALL of the evidence presented and determine whether or not the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Shut up! I've watched enough courtroom dramas in movies and TV to know what I am talking about. You just CAN'T HANDLE THE TOOTH!

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

Its testimony, not sure I consider her statement evidence, but I guess in legal terms it is. I personally wouldn't consider it evidence until the statements are backed up by witnesses or other evidence to support her statements.

It's absolutely evidence. It's often considered the most important evidence.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Same lawyer who made the suggestion that the “fun” persona was the one happy to go along with the alleged assault, and the presumably not-fun persona the one to take issue with it. Because the difference between whether something is assault or not is down to how “fun” you are, obviously.

Seems like a real POS.

A few of Crown interjections with his questions as well. He does come across as a Saul Goodman.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A few of Crown interjections with his questions as well. He does come across as a Saul Goodman.

It's a strange line of questioning anyway. He did some damage by getting her to sound evasive about whether she found him attractive (why didn't she just say "yes"?). Didn't need to go further.

[Big Erned Nevergivn]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

Its testimony, not sure I consider her statement evidence, but I guess in legal terms it is. I personally wouldn't consider it evidence until the statements are backed up by witnesses or other evidence to support her statements.

There is nothing to guess. Any witness testimony under oath is now evidence for the jury (or judge depending on the case) to deliberate upon.

[Shazam]

Gee it's almost like these lawyers are doing their fiduciary duty.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, there's more than that. There's her own evidence about why she said what she did in the video. And assuming the accuseds take the stand, they will be grilled about the circumstances of it too.

Seeing these 5 meatheads testifying would be something.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, that’s where priggish comments toward people who have judged these guys as though they’ve already reached a verdict lose me.

Like, I’m sorry, we know what happened. We know how the victim felt and how she was treated after. We know how the boys reacted. What we’ll discover is whether the exact details of those things are enough to make any of them guilty of an actual crime under the law.

People act like every court case is a situation where the accused did everything and more or nothing at all. I don’t even think some people understand exactly what this trial is about.

One of the things this trial is definitely about is whether the complainant is telling the truth about whether she was sexually touched by each of the accused without her consent. So, how exactly is it that you can say you know what happened?

For example, on the question of whether the complainant is telling the truth, one of the things we do know what happened (she admitted it and there is now a police investigation document marked as an exhibit which confirms it) is that when showed a picture of Sam Steel the complainant told the police:

“I don’t remember him from Jack’s but he was in the room and I performed oral on him.”

We do not need to speculate about how rare false accusations are because we are staring right at one...made by the very same complainant the Crown is going to have to ask the jury to rely on as telling the truth about the sexual encounters that occurred that night.

If someone else had not been in the hotel room and able to confirm that Sam Steel was not in fact someone the complainant "performed oral on" then on that false accusation alone, Sam Steel could have:

- been charged;

- had his defence lawyer publicly trashed for aggressively challenging the complainant during cross examination;

- testified he was wrongly accused;

- not been believed because he was very nervous testifying;

- got convicted; and

- gone to prison.


Do you know how many sexual assault allegations there are where there are only the accuser and the alleged assaulter in the room? I can't give you a measured statistic, but it is most of them.

It reminds me of a submission I have made in court a few times usually after a prosecution expert tries to bolster an opinion by saying how rare something contrary to their opinion is statistically to happen...it basically goes like this:

If you were my client, would you care that something only happens once in a million times...if this is that one time it happened?

It is not asking a lot to reserve final judgments (even the non-legal kind) until after all of the evidence has been presented.

[Willi Plett]

Putting my juror hat back on, none of the answers to Brown’s line of questioning moves the needle either way for me. My thinking… if she found “Mikey” attractive while drinking well at the bar, she may not have later. She may well have forgotten the brief attraction, assuming there was one. None of any of his questioning added up to much of anything for me.

Would be interesting if the crown could have multiple prosecutors question each of the defendants over multiple days…

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Brown asks whether she remembers being attracted to McLeod, as he asked about Howden.

“I was drunk; it was dark,” E.M. says.

“If it wasn’t Mr. McLeod’s looks that you were attracted to, why did you want to go home with him?” Brown asks.

She says they were dancing, kissing, spending time together.

Brown asks again why she was attracted to McLeod.

“He seemed taller than me — that seemed attractive to me. I’m not registering all the details,” answers E.M., who seems uncomfortable.

“As long as it’s a tall guy, you’ll go home with him?” Brown asks.


Certainly going down the route of slut shaming.

ugh, gross.

[Coach]

She's a champion.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

“As long as it’s a tall guy, you’ll go home with him?” Brown asks.

Oh ####, 5'9'' Dube hoping they use his 5'11'' bloated NHL measurements.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Willi Plett

Putting my juror hat back on, none of the answers to Brown’s line of questioning moves the needle either way for me. My thinking… if she found “Mikey” attractive while drinking well at the bar, she may not have later. She may well have forgotten the brief attraction, assuming there was one. None of any of his questioning added up to much of anything for me.

It's uncontested that she was willing to go with McLeod and have sex. The victim and crown are only alleging criminal activity occurred when McLeod invited the others back to the room.

[Mickey76]

Originally Posted by MBates

One of the things this trial is definitely about is whether the complainant is telling the truth about whether she was sexually touched by each of the accused without her consent. So, how exactly is it that you can say you know what happened?

For example, on the question of whether the complainant is telling the truth, one of the things we do know what happened (she admitted it and there is now a police investigation document marked as an exhibit which confirms it) is that when showed a picture of Sam Steel the complainant told the police:



We do not need to speculate about how rare false accusations are because we are staring right at one...made by the very same complainant the Crown is going to have to ask the jury to rely on as telling the truth about the sexual encounters that occurred that night.

If someone else had not been in the hotel room and able to confirm that Sam Steel was not in fact someone the complainant "performed oral on" then on that false accusation alone, Sam Steel could have:

- been charged;

- had his defence lawyer publicly trashed for aggressively challenging the complainant during cross examination;

- testified he was wrongly accused;

- not been believed because he was very nervous testifying;

- got convicted; and

- gone to prison.


Do you know how many sexual assault allegations there are where there are only the accuser and the alleged assaulter in the room? I can't give you a measured statistic, but it is most of them.

It reminds me of a submission I have made in court a few times usually after a prosecution expert tries to bolster an opinion by saying how rare something contrary to their opinion is statistically to happen...it basically goes like this:

If you were my client, would you care that something only happens once in a million times...if this is that one time it happened?

It is not asking a lot to reserve final judgments (even the non-legal kind) until after all of the evidence has been presented.

Thanks for the ongoing analysis MBates.

One of the most ridiculous comments/beliefs that has been made throughout this thread is that false sexual assault claims are very rare: Making the players more likely to be guilty. This is a 100% unknowable stat. There is no way to know how prevalent it is or isn’t. Anyone who says they knowis simply lying. It may be rare, it’s probably rare, but there is absolutely no way to tell with any accuracy whatsoever how rare. So some think tank saying it’s rare because it’s seldom proven doesn’t make it true or not. The case should be solely determined on whether or not the Jury believes in this specific case that the players are guilty. Not influenced by a made up stat.