Report: Five members of Canada’s 2018 WJC team told to surrender to London Police

[lomotil]

If this were true, why would she agree to testify at this trial? For MORE humiliation? She's already been paid, and she chose not to bring charges forward at the time. We're what? 8 years later? Her financial situation is light years ahead of all of the accused. She has nothing to gain from this trial, except justice for a crime she believes was committed against her.

Read the criminal code and supreme court decisions. As a matter of law, consent gained under duress or intoxication is not consent. Consent for 1 act is not consent for all acts.

Finally, we're not even through 2 witnesses in of 40 scheduled.

There is already evidence of collusion after the fact
There are already inconsistencies in the story "I thought there was food" vs. "hey guys who want's a 3-way", "we came for food, and a naked girl showed up", etc.
And there is already evidence of 2 non-consensual acts: Butt smacking and the splits.

Add spitting on her, and the dude that brought her there in the first place, and we're already at 4 of 5 with a probability of conviction.

She was paid by Hockey Canada not the Crown in a civil non disclosure settlement. The financial compensation is significant but money cannot always compensate for remorse and humiliation in a way that a legal decision can for some individuals.
There is evidence of significant consent and instigation for fellatio and sexual intercourse and none for non consent by this lady and far too much precise evidence of consent which was not mitigated by alcohol.
If the lady is found to have been so intoxicated to not have been able to give consent then so were the five accused and the Crown’s case should fall apart.

In this already muddled case, consent gained under duress or intoxication or could cut both ways arguably as both the players and the lady were intoxicated. Obviously physically five big against this lady has optics of duress, but there seems to be no evidence of threats and coercion, in fact just consensual sex in a “ gang bang” gone wrong. She

Because there was no criminal act done, the after the fact “ collusion” if any is a non starter.

The spitting might be considered to assault, but not the splits, and neither is sexual assault.


"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."??

Hamlet, William Shakespeare

 

[boobtoucher]

She was paid by Hockey Canada not the Crown in a civil non disclosure settlement. The financial compensation is significant but money cannot always compensate for remorse and humiliation in a way that a legal decision can for some individuals.
There is evidence of significant consent and instigation for fellatio and sexual intercourse and none for non consent by this lady and far too much precise evidence of consent which was not mitigated by alcohol.
If the lady is found to have been so intoxicated to not have been able to give consent then so were the five accused and the Crown’s case should fall apart.

In this already muddled case, consent gained under duress or intoxication or could cut both ways arguably as both the players and the lady were intoxicated. Obviously physically five big against this lady has optics of duress, but there seems to be no evidence of threats and coercion, in fact just consensual sex in a “ gang bang” gone wrong. She

Because there was no criminal act done, the after the fact “ collusion” if any is a non starter.

The spitting might be considered to assault, but not the splits, and neither is sexual assault.


"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."??

Hamlet, William Shakespeare

This is not how Canadian Law works. You can be equally drunk and it can still be assault. I'm not saying that is the case here. I AM saying that "I was too drunk to realize she was too drunk to consent" is not a defense, as you don't have consent.

Because there was no criminal act done, the after the fact “ collusion” if any is a non starter.

Tell that to Bill Clinton and Martha Stuart.

 

[K Douglas]

It looks like somebody’s feelings were hurt

Why the jury was dismissed at the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial

A second jury dismissed and case will be proceeding by judge alone after juror complained about the conduct of two defence lawyers

lfpress.com

This is truly unbelievable. Was this one juror really speaking on behalf of multiple members? I sure hope the judge validated that before she dismissed them entirely.

 

[K Douglas]

She was paid by Hockey Canada not the Crown in a civil non disclosure settlement. The financial compensation is significant but money cannot always compensate for remorse and humiliation in a way that a legal decision can for some individuals.
There is evidence of significant consent and instigation for fellatio and sexual intercourse and none for non consent by this lady and far too much precise evidence of consent which was not mitigated by alcohol.
If the lady is found to have been so intoxicated to not have been able to give consent then so were the five accused and the Crown’s case should fall apart.

In this already muddled case, consent gained under duress or intoxication or could cut both ways arguably as both the players and the lady were intoxicated. Obviously physically five big against this lady has optics of duress, but there seems to be no evidence of threats and coercion, in fact just consensual sex in a “ gang bang” gone wrong. She

Because there was no criminal act done, the after the fact “ collusion” if any is a non starter.

The spitting might be considered to assault, but not the splits, and neither is sexual assault.


"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."??

Hamlet, William Shakespeare

Hockey Canada never should have paid that amount. Idiots felt pressured by the MeToo movement. No backbone.

 

[Fun For All]

This is truly unbelievable. Was this one juror really speaking on behalf of multiple members? I sure hope the judge validated that before she dismissed them entirely.

Wow, again...did you not read about it?

The article says "several".

 

[Fun For All]

Hockey Canada never should have paid that amount. Idiots felt pressured by the MeToo movement. No backbone.

She should have went to trial and asked for 20 million.

 

[K Douglas]

Wow, again...did you not read about it?

The article says "several".

So what if it says that it doesn't make it true. If its several then why didn't they all put their name to the letter/note?

 

[boobtoucher]

So what if it says that it doesn't make it true. If its several then why didn't they all put their name to the letter/note?

Because that's not how juries work. There's typically a foreman who communicates with the judge.

 

[Fun For All]

So what if it says that it doesn't make it true. If its several then why didn't they all put their name to the letter/note?

Oh, I'll go ask them!

You don't understand law, you don't know facts, you don't follow the testimony or read along with the accounts of the trial...why are you commenting on this?

 

[squeezer]

I think that these guys will be found ”not guilty “ based on the evidence presented to the jury.
The Crown seems to have failed to prove that these guys knew or could have know that the sex acts were non consensual.
or that the lady was coerced.
Both the lady and these guys acted recklessly and foolishly but no crime of sexual assault occurred .
The lady is suffering from extreme humiliation and “post coital remorse” with multiple partners.

Yeah, the last few days of text are revealing and seem to be telling a different story about this young lady. I suspect they will be found innocent.

 

[Fun For All]

Yeah, the last few days of text are revealing and seem to be telling a different story about this young lady. I suspect they will be found innocent.

The texts where the players are telling each other that they didn’t do anything wrong…sure.

 

[Fun For All]

I hate to say it, but when you read this from the Toronto star, you might be thinking not guilty but there’s a lot of information here

Why didn’t police lay charges in 2019? Inside the London police investigations in the Hockey Canada sex assault case

London police documents make clear the high-profile sex assault investigation was reopened in 2022 due to “a resurgence in media attention” — with the key evidence largely unchanged from 2019.

www.thestar.com

 

[onomatopoeia]

@mandrill:

This:



is a quote from the Toronto Star link in post #297.

Do you have first hand knowledge of any instance when Crown chose to not prosecute an accused who was charged by the police? If yes, how often would this be the case?

(I'm not looking for any details about any case in particular, just the probability that this scenario might occur).

 

[K Douglas]

Oh, I'll go ask them!

You don't understand law, you don't know facts, you don't follow the testimony or read along with the accounts of the trial...why are you commenting on this?

I understand more than you that's for damn sure. I know enough to see that this definitely does not meet the bar of sexual assault and that this case should never have been brought to trial. Especially years after the incident. The only thing that concerns me is that this Justice was a Liberal appointee in 2020.

 

[mandrill]

@mandrill:

This:

View attachment 439881

is a quote from the Toronto Star link in post #297.

Do you have first hand knowledge of any instance when Crown chose to not prosecute an accused who was charged by the police? If yes, how often would this be the case?

(I'm not looking for any details about any case in particular, just the probability that this scenario might occur).

Charges are frequently dropped by the Crown. It happens 100's of times each week

 

[The Oracle]

I hate to say it, but when you read this from the Toronto star, you might be thinking not guilty but there’s a lot of information here

Why didn’t police lay charges in 2019? Inside the London police investigations in the Hockey Canada sex assault case

London police documents make clear the high-profile sex assault investigation was reopened in 2022 due to “a resurgence in media attention” — with the key evidence largely unchanged from 2019.

www.thestar.com

It's behind a paywall..Why don't you copy and paste the article.

 

[Fun For All]

I understand more than you that's for damn sure. I know enough to see that this definitely does not meet the bar of sexual assault and that this case should never have been brought to trial. Especially years after the incident. The only thing that concerns me is that this Justice was a Liberal appointee in 2020.

You are consistently wrong on the basics...

 

[K Douglas]

You are consistently wrong on the basics...

Dude you made your mind up on this before it even went to trial and you knew all the facts. I don't need a fucking lecture about what I'm right or wrong on from you. I see the facts. The girl was drunk. She consented to sex with McLeod. She consented to sex at 3:25 am with him and one or more of his teammates. She was drunk but not drunk enough to not consent. Because of her inebriated state her inhibitions were down. Afterwards she had regrets and felt ashamed about what she did. Including cheating on her then boyfriend. Look at the text exchange the next day with McLeod. Its on page 1 of this thread. She admits it was consensual and she takes responsibility for what went down.

 

[Fun For All]

Dude you made your mind up on this before it even went to trial and you knew all the facts. I don't need a fucking lecture about what I'm right or wrong on from you. I see the facts. The girl was drunk. She consented to sex with McLeod. She consented to sex at 3:25 am with him and one or more of his teammates. She was drunk but not drunk enough to not consent. Because of her inebriated state her inhibitions were down. Afterwards she had regrets and felt ashamed about what she did. Including cheating on her then boyfriend. Look at the text exchange the next day with McLeod. Its on page 1 of this thread. She admits it was consensual and she takes responsibility for what went down.

You must of missed her testimony…

 

[Fun For All]

She was paid by Hockey Canada not the Crown in a civil non disclosure settlement. The financial compensation is significant but money cannot always compensate for remorse and humiliation in a way that a legal decision can for some individuals.
There is evidence of significant consent and instigation for fellatio and sexual intercourse and none for non consent by this lady and far too much precise evidence of consent which was not mitigated by alcohol.
If the lady is found to have been so intoxicated to not have been able to give consent then so were the five accused and the Crown’s case should fall apart.

In this already muddled case, consent gained under duress or intoxication or could cut both ways arguably as both the players and the lady were intoxicated. Obviously physically five big against this lady has optics of duress, but there seems to be no evidence of threats and coercion, in fact just consensual sex in a “ gang bang” gone wrong. She

Because there was no criminal act done, the after the fact “ collusion” if any is a non starter.

The spitting might be considered to assault, but not the splits, and neither is sexual assault.


"Methinks the lady doth protest too much."??

Hamlet, William Shakespeare

Wrong…it was NOT a non-disclosure settlement…it was an out of court settlement to avoid the civil trial.