It can be revoked, but she also admitted to acting like she was enjoying it because she felt trapped. It's quite possible that she was scared and did what she felt she needed to, to get out safely. But if those were not the signals she was giving them... I just don't think "they should have known" is something you can convict on.
Yeah. If you've actively given consent, you need to also actively revoke, simply because people can't read your mind.
If there had been an experienced Dom in the room, he likely would have explicitly checked on her being okay multiple times, simply because it's so common that people can't bring themselves to actively say "no", or use a safeword, or do anything other than let the situation continue.
This was however a bunch of drunk kids. You can't actually expect them to be smart enough to do that. The real mistake was to even start.
However, so far the evidence suggests that she was at least at some point into the idea of a "locker room gangbang"
(Which is a super typical fantasy, and absolutely nothing to ashamed of.) If so, it's extremely understandable that that's where the situation went.
Unfortunately it wasnt actually fun in reality, which honestly is to be expected. She then apparently wanted to get out but was too scared (and drunk and also very likely just confused because she's probably never been in a similar situation) to do anything other than to go along with was happening. She extremely understandably felt very abused afterwards, and probably very much feels like it was rape, because that's an easy way to label that feeling.
Problem is, if she never said or did anything to signal how she was really feeling inside, I don't think you can set the legal standard for consent at "you should have guessed it was possible she wasn't actually having fun anymore".
From what's been described of the sex, it sounds kind if like what you'd expect: a bunch of kids acting out porn. Yeah they shouldn't have done all that without specifically asking if she was having fun, but again... I wouldn't expect even inexperienced adults to navigate those situations properly. This isn't even a guy thing, women also struggle to ask their partners about their actual comfort zones.
To me, this is basically "a bunch of kids were young, drunk and stupid, and then someone got hurt". The equivalent of "a bunch of drunk kids got into a car and then someone died". Doesn't mean you can't convict anyone, but I don't see them as anything other than dumb kids.
This is the kind of stuff that even sober adults often struggle with. The real mistake was a bunch of drunk kids thinking that doing anything beyond a normal one-night stand was somehow a good idea. Probably this is the situation where you could actually say "kids these days have seen too much porn".
To me the real takeaway message here is "birds and bees don't cut it, if you really want kids to be safe, you need to talk to them about how to safely engage with risky sexual fantasies".
As someone with quite lot of experience with kink, lot of women are really into the idea of group sex and rough sex, but in practice it takes work and experience for that to be safe and fun. Most kinksters know very well that you shouldn't play drunk, because it can so easily go wrong, even among experienced adults.
It's also extremely normal that a woman, even a sober, experienced adult kinkster, might just go along with a bad experience because the momentum of the situation feels inevitable and it's just emotionally difficult and scary to use a safeword. In a situation where there clearly wasn't any talk of safety or boundaries, or an established mechanism for stopping things if necessary, it's a recipe for disaster.
This situation is exactly why kink scenes have a lot of rules and established best practices.
It wasn't inevitable that this went bad, but it was definitely likely. I also agree that very likely at least one of the guys didn't even really want to be there, but felt pressured to participate, and now ending up charged with assault because of something you yourself wanted to just get out of would likely also be traumatizing as hell.
I also want to say that "when things got out if hand we stopped and got her out of there" sounds to me like kids that are not bad, but dumb.
Now, we don't know (at least not yet) what that means exactly, but it sounds to me like the guys DID realize that she wasn't having fun at some point, and then stopped, which is exactly what normal people would and should do.
The problem is the "got her out of there" part. Again, if there had been an experienced Dom in the room, they would have gone into aftercare mode. Re-establish feelings of safety and comfort, validate her feelings of fear and hurt, tell her no harm was intended and that she is now once again completely safe, apologize for any mistakes you made, maybe discuss what happened to the extent that she wants to.
Instead, they very likely kinda panicked and dumped her into the street like a bunch of dumb guys... drunk, alone, confused and emotionally and physically hurting.
That's how a person goes from feeling hurt to feeling abused and assaulted.
(And if laws were written the way I'd want, doing that would be some kind of a crime. But they're not.)
...that went a bit long I guess
I want to emphasize that I don't think it's possible to actually know what happened at this point. Which means I also don't know, I'm just speculating on one possible string of events, mostly because I feel like there's much more to talk about here than just what we know for sure happened.
It's an interesting, difficult case.
Last edited by Itse; 05-17-2025 at 08:52 AM.
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Instead, they very likely kinda panicked and dumped her into the street like a bunch of dumb guys... drunk, alone, confused and emotionally and physically hurting.
Macleod told the other guys to leave the room, then he and EM had sex again and a shower together. That’s when he filmed the second consent video. She left to call an uber, then returned to look for a ring she lost.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Macleod told the other guys to leave the room, then he and EM had sex again and a shower together. That’s when he filmed the second consent video. She left to call an uber, then returned to look for a ring she lost.
That definitely doesn't help the question of
"How were these guys supposed to know something was wrong".
...and obviously, it IS also possible she's making up the accusations for bad reasons, even if not likely.
In any case, those facts can't really answer what the vibe of all that was.
Yeah. If you've actively given consent, you need to also actively revoke, simply because people can't read your mind.
If there had been an experienced Dom in the room, he likely would have explicitly checked on her being okay multiple times, simply because it's so common that people can't bring themselves to actively say "no", or use a safeword, or do anything other than let the situation continue.
This was however a bunch of drunk kids. You can't actually expect them to be smart enough to do that. The real mistake was to even start.
However, so far the evidence suggests that she was at least at some point into the idea of a "locker room gangbang"
(Which is a super typical fantasy, and absolutely nothing to ashamed of.) If so, it's extremely understandable that that's where the situation went.
Unfortunately it wasnt actually fun in reality, which honestly is to be expected. She then apparently wanted to get out but was too scared (and drunk and also very likely just confused because she's probably never been in a similar situation) to do anything other than to go along with was happening. She extremely understandably felt very abused afterwards, and probably very much feels like it was rape, because that's an easy way to label that feeling.
Problem is, if she never said or did anything to signal how she was really feeling inside, I don't think you can set the legal standard for consent at "you should have guessed it was possible she wasn't actually having fun anymore".
From what's been described of the sex, it sounds kind if like what you'd expect: a bunch of kids acting out porn. Yeah they shouldn't have done all that without specifically asking if she was having fun, but again... I wouldn't expect even inexperienced adults to navigate those situations properly. This isn't even a guy thing, women also struggle to ask their partners about their actual comfort zones.
To me, this is basically "a bunch of kids were young, drunk and stupid, and then someone got hurt". The equivalent of "a bunch of drunk kids got into a car and then someone died". Doesn't mean you can't convict anyone, but I don't see them as anything other than dumb kids.
This is the kind of stuff that even sober adults often struggle with. The real mistake was a bunch of drunk kids thinking that doing anything beyond a normal one-night stand was somehow a good idea. Probably this is the situation where you could actually say "kids these days have seen too much porn".
To me the real takeaway message here is "birds and bees don't cut it, if you really want kids to be safe, you need to talk to them about how to safely engage with risky sexual fantasies".
As someone with quite lot of experience with kink, lot of women are really into the idea of group sex and rough sex, but in practice it takes work and experience for that to be safe and fun. Most kinksters know very well that you shouldn't play drunk, because it can so easily go wrong, even among experienced adults.
It's also extremely normal that a woman, even a sober, experienced adult kinkster, might just go along with a bad experience because the momentum of the situation feels inevitable and it's just emotionally difficult and scary to use a safeword. In a situation where there clearly wasn't any talk of safety or boundaries, or an established mechanism for stopping things if necessary, it's a recipe for disaster.
This situation is exactly why kink scenes have a lot of rules and established best practices.
It wasn't inevitable that this went bad, but it was definitely likely. I also agree that very likely at least one of the guys didn't even really want to be there, but felt pressured to participate, and now ending up charged with assault because of something you yourself wanted to just get out of would likely also be traumatizing as hell.
I also want to say that "when things got out if hand we stopped and got her out of there" sounds to me like kids that are not bad, but dumb.
Now, we don't know (at least not yet) what that means exactly, but it sounds to me like the guys DID realize that she wasn't having fun at some point, and then stopped, which is exactly what normal people would and should do.
The problem is the "got her out of there" part. Again, if there had been an experienced Dom in the room, they would have gone into aftercare mode. Re-establish feelings of safety and comfort, validate her feelings of fear and hurt, tell her no harm was intended and that she is now once again completely safe, apologize for any mistakes you made, maybe discuss what happened to the extent that she wants to.
Instead, they very likely kinda panicked and dumped her into the street like a bunch of dumb guys... drunk, alone, confused and emotionally and physically hurting.
That's how a person goes from feeling hurt to feeling abused and assaulted.
(And if laws were written the way I'd want, doing that would be some kind of a crime. But they're not.)
...that went a bit long I guess
I want to emphasize that I don't think it's possible to actually know what happened at this point. Which means I also don't know, I'm just speculating on one possible string of events, mostly because I feel like there's much more to talk about here than just what we know for sure happened.
It's an interesting, difficult case.
Thanks for this. Very helpful.
What I recall though is her trying to leave and one of the guys saying 'don't let her leave'. This changes the dynamic and then she my have reverted to the 'porn star' to keep them happy until it was safe to go. To be clear I am speculating on what she said. If this is a real strategy, and I have no reason to doubt it is, she may have appeared to consent to everything that happened, when in reality she was frightened for her life and saying whatever she thought would keep her safe. However, where does this leave the young dumb guys? They see themselves in a scenario where she appears to be consenting, so participate. What a conundrum.
This is why the say bad facts make bad law. The fallout from this case will be very interesting.
Finally, I agree with Itse that we need to be much clearer in educating and communicating around sex. In a way, the parents of everyone involved let their kids down by not clearly explaining how to handle 'out of the box' situations. I am not blaming the parents, but if they knew their kids would be in situations like this as very high-calibre hockey players, maybe some more education would have been beneficial.
__________________
E=NG
The Following User Says Thank You to Titan2 For This Useful Post:
What I recall though is her trying to leave and one of the guys saying 'don't let her leave'. This changes the dynamic and then she my have reverted to the 'porn star' to keep them happy until it was safe to go. To be clear I am speculating on what she said. If this is a real strategy, and I have no reason to doubt it is, she may have appeared to consent to everything that happened, when in reality she was frightened for her life and saying whatever she thought would keep her safe. However, where does this leave the young dumb guys? They see themselves in a scenario where she appears to be consenting, so participate. What a conundrum.
I think a lot of it is going to come down to how reliable her testimony is. Some of the things she said in her testimony weren't mentioned or were changed from the three statements she made previously over the past 7 years. There is also the selective memory aspect where she said she was too out of it to recall certain things that don't help prove her accusations, some of which were shown on video and backed up by other witnesses, but meanwhile still being able to vividly recall other things that may help get a conviction (like trying to leave the room and being guided back in).
She also seemed, by her own testimony, prepared to stay after everything happened and admitted to thinking McLeod was a "jerk" for basically telling her to leave. After everything that happened, there was no guarantee that more guys weren't going to pop in, so it seems like the rational thing would be to leave the first chance you had especially if you had already tried to leave and couldn't.
I am not calling her a liar because I know memory can work in weird and unpredictable ways, and maybe they will be calling experts to testify that can bring light to it, but as of right now with what's been presented, I would have a hard time relying on it if I was a juror. Recalling previously forgotten things well into the future is a real phenomenon, especially when alcohol is involved or the experience is traumatic, but it's a hard thing to prove. False memories are also a real thing that can happen over time and this applies to the accused as well.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
What I recall though is her trying to leave and one of the guys saying 'don't let her leave'. This changes the dynamic and then she my have reverted to the 'porn star' to keep them happy until it was safe to go. To be clear I am speculating on what she said. If this is a real strategy, and I have no reason to doubt it is, she may have appeared to consent to everything that happened, when in reality she was frightened for her life and saying whatever she thought would keep her safe. However, where does this leave the young dumb guys? They see themselves in a scenario where she appears to be consenting, so participate. What a conundrum.
In EM’s original statement to the police three days after the incident, she said the players said “come, on don’t go.” Her testimony that they said “don’t let her leave” was years later. This discrepancy was raised by the defence, who pointed out the very different connotations of the two remarks.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 05-17-2025 at 02:06 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
In EM’s original statement to the police three days after the incident, she said the players said “come, on don’t go.” Her testimony that they said “don’t let her leave” was years later. This discrepancy was raised by the defence, who pointed out the very different connotations of the two remarks.
Not arguing but even come on don't go can mean different things with tone, body language, body positioning, etc. taken into account. But a difference in testimony will hurt her credibility.
I'll admit I don't follow a lot of trials closely but I do have some experience dealing with the legal system through my career.
This trial seems like its been a bit of a hot mess. Mistrial, new jury, now no jury. Constant tech issues. Protestors outside the court harassing the accused. Just not a good look for our justice system.
So the dirt bags trying to defend a bunch of alleged criminals and 100% confirmed sleazeball human beings are accused of harassing the jurors... and the jurors get dismissed?
Canadas justice system in a nutshell right there, bend over backwards making sure accused criminals have their rights respected
That’s actually the whole point of the system. What’s the alternative? Kangaroo courts?
I would say that this board is consistently progressive and fact based with lots of well educated people.
It’s why the people that come here and try to spew hate, misinformation and bigoted views always get ripped to shreds.
Funny enough the former has come to be associated with liberals and the latter with conservatives. Well that and being fascist Nazi sympathizing pieces of ####.
Now you’re showing your bias. You hid it so well till now.
Macleod told the other guys to leave the room, then he and EM had sex again and a shower together. That’s when he filmed the second consent video. She left to call an uber, then returned to look for a ring she lost.
Don’t remember hearing this part before. I.e. McLeod and EM having sex one more time before she left.
Very hard to figure out what really happened based on all of the different testimonies. But the fact EM doesn’t refute a lot of what the players are saying is going to make it hard to get convictions in my mind.
Steenbergen’s testimony was probably pretty damning to the crown’s case.
I would say that this board is consistently progressive and fact based with lots of well educated people.
It’s why the people that come here and try to spew hate, misinformation and bigoted views always get ripped to shreds.
Funny enough the former has come to be associated with liberals and the latter with conservatives. Well that and being fascist Nazi sympathizing pieces of ####.
Maybe I'm mistaken. But wasn't it Trudeau's Liberal parliament who recently honoured a Nazi vet?
The Following User Says Thank You to OminousFlames For This Useful Post:
