Doesn't prove anything.
E.M. has lied and contradicted herself right from the beginning, she must be making everything up according to your logic.
Oh, sorry, there is no logic, just predetermination of guilt.
Report: Five members of Canada’s 2018 WJC team told to surrender to London Police
- Thread starter bazokajoe
- Start date
E.M. has lied and contradicted herself right from the beginning, she must be making everything up according to your logic.
Oh, sorry, there is no logic, just predetermination of guilt.
The guys had already been drinking at two other venues before they got to Jack's. Nonetheless, I believe that she was drunk. Which is why she consented to the extracurricular activity. Then regretted it after.
We'll take your word for it since you weren't there and most of the evidence says otherwise.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/lond...se-ends-were-tied-up-detective-says-9.6781654
So after the leak of the civil suit payout to the press. LPS decides to open the case.
With a new investigator..Det. Lyndsey Ryan..So we have a woman here with a new set of eyes.
''E.M. didn’t tell Ryan that she was texting with her co-worker while at the bar, Ryan says, adding that wouldn’t have added anything to her investigation.
Sayani suggests to Ryan that she could have determined E.M.’s level of sobriety or her efforts to “escape” McLeod at the bar. Ryan responds she wouldn’t have put much weight on that from the texts.''
Well we'll never know will we?...If I'm a detective I'd like to know what those texts were all about.
''Ryan says she didn’t speak to E.M.’s co-workers who were with her at Jack’s bar on the night in question in June 2018 because she was told by E.M. that they didn’t have anything valuable to add, as they weren’t with her when she was consuming the majority of the drinks that night''
This another odd one...She went to the bar with her co-workers...Maybe they remember something.
''Ryan says that when she went to E.M.’s house to tell her the investigation was being reopened E.M. was “quite upset” and Ryan felt “pretty bad.” (NOTE: The new investigation was launched after media reported Hockey Canada had settled E.M.’s civil lawsuit).''
Looks like Ryan is pushing an agenda perhaps...Interesting that E.M. was upset. She clearly doesn't want to relive the ordeal.
''Ryan testifies she didn’t speak to E.M.’s co-workers who were with her at Jack’s bar that night because E.M.’s anonymity was important to her and her co-workers had “no idea” what had happened after E.M. left the bar.
“I was trying to respect that.”
Ryan tells Cunningham she didn’t “feel the need to investigate” E.M. Her job was to corroborate what E.M. told her and what she told police in 2018.''
Believe all women....Politics of the times coming in to play here.
''Cunningham asks Ryan if E.M.’s “self-blame” in 2018 was problematic.
“No, I found it quite normal based on previous experience with victims of sexual assault,” Ryan says.''
Ryan has decided she is a victim right from the get go...You know what maybe she is but that should left open to interpretation after examining all of the evidence.
Formenton, Dube and Foote won't be called by the defense.
''Now that all the defence lawyers have closed their cases, as has the Crown, all the lawyers will make their closing arguments.
A closing argument is a final speech by each lawyer to the court, and can include summarizing the evidence and the main points of the case.
In this case, the defence will go first. Each legal team (and there are five of them) will take one to two hours to make their arguments before Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia.
After that, the Crown, Meaghan Cunningham, will give her closing arguments. She says she’ll need about a day to do that.
To give everyone time to prepare (and because court wasn’t set to sit on Wednesday anyway as some of the lawyers had prior appointments), court is adjourned until the morning of June 9.''
So after the leak of the civil suit payout to the press. LPS decides to open the case.
With a new investigator..Det. Lyndsey Ryan..So we have a woman here with a new set of eyes.
''E.M. didn’t tell Ryan that she was texting with her co-worker while at the bar, Ryan says, adding that wouldn’t have added anything to her investigation.
Sayani suggests to Ryan that she could have determined E.M.’s level of sobriety or her efforts to “escape” McLeod at the bar. Ryan responds she wouldn’t have put much weight on that from the texts.''
Well we'll never know will we?...If I'm a detective I'd like to know what those texts were all about.
''Ryan says she didn’t speak to E.M.’s co-workers who were with her at Jack’s bar on the night in question in June 2018 because she was told by E.M. that they didn’t have anything valuable to add, as they weren’t with her when she was consuming the majority of the drinks that night''
This another odd one...She went to the bar with her co-workers...Maybe they remember something.
''Ryan says that when she went to E.M.’s house to tell her the investigation was being reopened E.M. was “quite upset” and Ryan felt “pretty bad.” (NOTE: The new investigation was launched after media reported Hockey Canada had settled E.M.’s civil lawsuit).''
Looks like Ryan is pushing an agenda perhaps...Interesting that E.M. was upset. She clearly doesn't want to relive the ordeal.
''Ryan testifies she didn’t speak to E.M.’s co-workers who were with her at Jack’s bar that night because E.M.’s anonymity was important to her and her co-workers had “no idea” what had happened after E.M. left the bar.
“I was trying to respect that.”
Ryan tells Cunningham she didn’t “feel the need to investigate” E.M. Her job was to corroborate what E.M. told her and what she told police in 2018.''
Believe all women....Politics of the times coming in to play here.
''Cunningham asks Ryan if E.M.’s “self-blame” in 2018 was problematic.
“No, I found it quite normal based on previous experience with victims of sexual assault,” Ryan says.''
Ryan has decided she is a victim right from the get go...You know what maybe she is but that should left open to interpretation after examining all of the evidence.
Formenton, Dube and Foote won't be called by the defense.
''Now that all the defence lawyers have closed their cases, as has the Crown, all the lawyers will make their closing arguments.
A closing argument is a final speech by each lawyer to the court, and can include summarizing the evidence and the main points of the case.
In this case, the defence will go first. Each legal team (and there are five of them) will take one to two hours to make their arguments before Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia.
After that, the Crown, Meaghan Cunningham, will give her closing arguments. She says she’ll need about a day to do that.
To give everyone time to prepare (and because court wasn’t set to sit on Wednesday anyway as some of the lawyers had prior appointments), court is adjourned until the morning of June 9.''
Last edited:
I have no doubt there was an agenda at play here. I think Hockey Canada was pressured into paying off E.M. as they didn't want any more bad publicity. That move worked out well, didn't it? 
I wonder who leaked the story after the settlement? I thought it was E.M. at first but judging by Ryan's sworn testimony that she upset with her visit we know it wasn't her.I have no doubt there was an agenda at play here. I think Hockey Canada was pressured into paying off E.M. as they didn't want any more bad publicity. That move worked out well, didn't it?
Why did LPS reopen the case?...Why did E.M. choose to tell the Crown that she wanted to take this to trial? The crown told her they didn't have a strong case. Somewhere E.M. got swayed to go forward. The Crown told her there probably wasn't going to be a conviction. Maybe in the end she just wanted to end these players careers. Hell hath no fury and all...
The Oracle predicts the players will be found innocent of all charges.
Thank you !!Fabulous news: Your opinion doesn't mean shit.
The Law of Consent in Sexual Assault - LEAF
Canada has a broad definition of sexual assault. It includes all unwanted sexual activity, such as unwanted sexual grabbing, kissing, and fondling as well as rape. Sexual activity is only legal when both parties consent. Consent is defined in Canada’s Criminal Code in s. 273.1(1), as the...www.leaf.ca
by "taking advantage of a girl who is clearly intoxicated", you've committed sexual assault. That's the law. The split personality defense violates Item 5. "Porn Star EM" can't consent for "regular EM".
How do you think it would have played out if she said no to the consent video and they’re all in the room. Drunk maybe on drugs. Blocking the exit
It’s part of hockey and lacrosse culture to be rapists and cover it up for eachother. Ask anyone who grew up in a small town especially
The case was completely political. LPS investigated and determined there wasn't enough to charge. Then there is scandal and politicians talking about Hockey Canada scandals and suddenly Crown Prosecutors decide there is enough for a trial.
This prosecution was doomed to fail because politics always corrupts the justice system. Most of these cases are usually he said/she said, but in this instance there are 5 "he"s, a video of her giving consent, and at least one uninvolved party who mentioned coming to the room and hearing the girl demand some of the guys to hurry up and fuck her.
Thanks for posting this. This is a really good breakdown of all the evidence submitted, and the case for each side
They still are. I know personally of two people who have been accused and “got off”. Groups of men still throw out dismissing claims and character bash an individual or group of women as a whole. Police have been Known to have the highest incidents of intimate partner violence and have their own industry issues with cover ups regarding this
Do you think they're all found innocent ?
Or is it possible that McLeod could be found guilty ?
Especially with the 3 way text , lieing to the police detective about not knowing why the guys came to the room , and then texting EM the next day pushing her to straighten things out with police
Why did he feel the need to contact her if it was consensual, and he had the videos to prove it ?
Could she say no if he was in her mouth and another inside her ? Disassociating is also common during traumatic events. She could have been expressing no with action but they won’t admit this
because men need to stand up for once against the Horrendous acts men are allowing. We need to be the ones to say to eachother this isn’t okay
