I'll admit she may have, but again: Was she in a position to offer concent. That includes intoxication and coersion/power differentail. That's not a value judgement on my part, that's the law.
Second: Steenburgen's texts show a clear coverup, including:
McLeod replies, “Yeah what should I say if they asked why I took the videos tho,” referring to the consent videos taken at the end of the night.
AND
In the first call, Dubé told him he’d gotten a call from Bullock, the Hockey Canada executive, to tell him there’d be an investigation. Dubé told Steenbergen to “just say what you saw” and to not mention what he saw Dubé do, and that Dubé would explain that himself.
The phone call with Foote was “pretty much the same,” Steenbergen said. “Don’t say what he did, that he would go in and explain it himself.”
Steenbergen says he understood that to mean he wasn’t to mention he saw Dubé slapping the woman’s butt or saw Foote do the splits.
(Steenbergen says he was a little confused because he didn’t actually see Foote do the splits, so he was confused about why Foote called him).
Steenbergen says that when he went to speak to the investigators hired by Hockey Canada, he decided he’d tell them what he saw if specifically asked, but wouldn’t volunteer the information.
----
I'm revising my take:
She was not in a state to be able to offer consent, as defined by Canadian Law. Im guessing she was roofied, but that'll never be proven.
She _may_ have been asking them to fuck her.
By the law, those guys need to know that she wasn't in a state to be able to offer consent.
SO: It may be more unfortunate circumstances than anything else, but the way the law is written and interpereted, you are absolutely rolling the dice bringing a girl home from the bar.
And don't forget: Hockey Canada settled for A LOT, so there's got to be enough inconsistencies in the evidence that they thought there was a reasonable chance of conviction.
