Report: Five members of Canada’s 2018 WJC team told to surrender to London Police
- Thread starter bazokajoe
- Start date
I would, but I'm worried he's going to come on here and say he didn't consent. And then say you wouldn't be able to tell if he was drunk or not by the way he walked down some stairs wearing 8" heelsSounds like mellow and fun need to just get a room.
I suggest a duel. Pool noodles at six paces.Sounds like mellow and fun need to just get a room.
Just want to add my two cents:
There are two defenses for sexual assault: One is "It never happened", which obviously doesn't apply to this case. The other one is "Honest but Mistaken Belief in Consent"
"Honest but Mistaken Belief in Consent" cannot be a defense if:
1. If drugs/alcohol used which affect thinking: I don't think alcohol affected the hockey players or EM's thinking because she just had consensual sex with McLeod earlier, so they were definitely not too drunk to consent, and judging from the video of her leaving the hotel, she was not too drunk to walk, that's why detective Newton did not lay charges years earlier.
2. Reckless attitude about whether other person is giving consent: I don't think they were reckless, if there's a naked girl in the room already doing sexual stuff, the hockey players would assume they have "implied consent", like you would expect a woman to have sex at an orgy, there's no need to ask.
3. Intentionally ignoring signs that the other person may not be consenting: there's some detail about her crying, but it's all he said she said hearsay, and no concrete evidence.
4. Guessing about given consent: see above comment about "implied consent".
So even if EM felt she had no choice but to perform blowjobs on a bunch of big hockey players in order to get out of the room, her lack of objection / acquiescing could be mistaken for ""positive affirmative consent", so the guys could simply had mistaken belief in consent, and they shouldn't be convicted.
Of course, this is really a grey area, now you have a female judge pressured by the public, who knows what the hell she's gonna do, I dunno why she needs another 6 weeks to deliver the verdict...it could totally end up Mike Tyson vs Desiree Washington, because public seems to sympathize with EM. Even if the players were not found guilty, their careers have been ruined, plus the huge amounts of legal cost defending themselves.
My personal opinion:
Just because you have sex with multiple guys, and feel cheap, dirty and used the next day doesn't mean you're assaulted, judging by the way she sways her hips when she walks, and grinding against the guys with her butt at the bar, she's definitely very open-minded.
Also, there's definitely a financial motivation behind the whole thing, remember it's her mother's boyfriend that contacted Hockey Canada instead of the police, this was the height of MeToo movement, mother's boyfriend probably had dollar signs in the eyes when making that phone call.
There are two defenses for sexual assault: One is "It never happened", which obviously doesn't apply to this case. The other one is "Honest but Mistaken Belief in Consent"
"Honest but Mistaken Belief in Consent" cannot be a defense if:
1. If drugs/alcohol used which affect thinking: I don't think alcohol affected the hockey players or EM's thinking because she just had consensual sex with McLeod earlier, so they were definitely not too drunk to consent, and judging from the video of her leaving the hotel, she was not too drunk to walk, that's why detective Newton did not lay charges years earlier.
2. Reckless attitude about whether other person is giving consent: I don't think they were reckless, if there's a naked girl in the room already doing sexual stuff, the hockey players would assume they have "implied consent", like you would expect a woman to have sex at an orgy, there's no need to ask.
3. Intentionally ignoring signs that the other person may not be consenting: there's some detail about her crying, but it's all he said she said hearsay, and no concrete evidence.
4. Guessing about given consent: see above comment about "implied consent".
So even if EM felt she had no choice but to perform blowjobs on a bunch of big hockey players in order to get out of the room, her lack of objection / acquiescing could be mistaken for ""positive affirmative consent", so the guys could simply had mistaken belief in consent, and they shouldn't be convicted.
Of course, this is really a grey area, now you have a female judge pressured by the public, who knows what the hell she's gonna do, I dunno why she needs another 6 weeks to deliver the verdict...it could totally end up Mike Tyson vs Desiree Washington, because public seems to sympathize with EM. Even if the players were not found guilty, their careers have been ruined, plus the huge amounts of legal cost defending themselves.
My personal opinion:
Just because you have sex with multiple guys, and feel cheap, dirty and used the next day doesn't mean you're assaulted, judging by the way she sways her hips when she walks, and grinding against the guys with her butt at the bar, she's definitely very open-minded.
Also, there's definitely a financial motivation behind the whole thing, remember it's her mother's boyfriend that contacted Hockey Canada instead of the police, this was the height of MeToo movement, mother's boyfriend probably had dollar signs in the eyes when making that phone call.
Last edited:
Can anyone provide the video of dancing at the bar, I can't find it anywhere.
So you're saying that just because a woman sways her hips and walks sexy, dances with guys in a club, even grinds her ass up on guys fully clothed she's open minded and willing to have sex with an unknown amount of strangers in a room ?
That's a big stretch
Also this happened in 2018, it didn't come out till 2024, these guys went on to their NHL careers without any affect from this night. Their success or lackof was free to their own making.
There is some pretty damning evidence for Michael McLeod.
Was thinking the same thing.
onomatopoeia got behind the paywall earlier in the thread maybe he can assist.
In post #296, you quoted a post with the Toronto Star link. I opened that link in a new browser window, and saved that page as text. I got the full article this way, ie: the full text of the article plus all the coding for the page. Saving the page as html gave me only the opening couple of paragraphs
I'm assuming that anyone can acquire the full text of the page by using this method. Somewhere in the page should be a link to the video you are looking for.
Not sure but maybe…I don’t know if any video that could identify the girl could be released to the public though the court order…the video I saw of her walking through the hotel lobby leaving doesn’t show her face
Wow, where to start...
-some players testified that they were "really drunk" and can't remember details because of "memory loss", the girl should have the same claim of "really drunk"
-the video of her leaving the hotel a few hours after she had left the bar and stopped drinking isn't evidence of how drunk she was in the hotel room
-Steve Newton was terrible...watched a 4 second video of her walking thru the hotel lobby and determined she wasn't drunk and did not even watch the bar footage...did not see any text messaging that McLead invited the players to the room for a 3-way and he sent a couple of those and called another, the group chat that went on after between the players after, McLeod and the girl the next day, even when Formenton told him he got a message from McLeod inviting him for sex at the hotel he STILL didn't follow up on it, and then McLead lies about it...he interviewed only 4 of the 10 players in the room...I wouldn't put a lot of faith in Steve Newton's efforts
-if a girl is naked in the room that is NOT implied consent that it is ok to line up for blow jobs, this was not an orgy, she did not ask or invite the players into the room for sex, McLeod did that on his own without her knowledge...these players were reckless thinking McLead gave them consent
-there is video of her wiping a tear out of her eye and Brett Howden in a statement said she was sobbing in the bathroom...they should have known something was wrong and they did which is why McLeod took a protection/consent video
-again, because she is naked and had sex earlier with one of them does not mean 3 guys can line up for blowjobs under "implied consent" or "affirmitive consent"...she did not communicate consent
-mistaken belief? guys dropping their pants and waving there dick in her face is not "mistaken belief"
-female judge is not a factor, she has made decisions that favoured the defense...more trials do favour the defense
-this is a lot like Mike Tyson and his case...she never said No and never fought back, she submitted because she thought it was the safest thing to do
- because she walks sexy and was grinding on the dance floor does not mean she is open'-minded for what happened that night
-they contacted Hockey Canada after the shitty job the London Police did and it was Hockey Canada that offered the 3.5 million settlement, if she went to court she might have gotten 20 million
I do respect your comments and opinions, you're not the only one with those views...this will be a tough case to decide on.
The winners are the defence law firms...when decision day comes on July 24 they would have been on this case for 18 months...what a fee that will be.
Last edited:
More breaks for the players...
Here are three things the Crown is not allowed to reference and the judge isn’t allowed to consider:
Carter Hart lied about Cal Foote, what an outstanding guy he is...McLeod lied about how drunk she was to the Police, I guess walking around in those heels drunk might have been difficult...Dube gets a break also.
This is one of the many examples of why I think they're guilty but they may get off...they are lying their ass off to protect one another.
Here are three things the Crown is not allowed to reference and the judge isn’t allowed to consider:
- In 2022, Forementon told investigators he remembers Foote not having his pants on during the splits. His lawyers have argued he had his pants on. E.M. has said he was naked from the waist down.
- In 2022, McLeod told investigators E.M. fell outside the bathroom at Jack’s bar. E.M. also testified to this. However, he did not say that to the police and it is not allowed to be considered as evidence of her intoxication.
- On June 26, 2018, Brett Howden texted Taylor Raddysh, telling him “Dude, I’m so happy I left when all that sh–t went down…When I was leaving, Duber [Dillon Dubé] was smacking this girl’s ass so hard. It looked like it hurt so bad.” That text exchange was not allowed by Justice Maria Carrocia because she ruled it was hearsay. Lawyers at this trial have argued the buttocks slapping that night was “playful” and akin to “foreplay.”
Carter Hart lied about Cal Foote, what an outstanding guy he is...McLeod lied about how drunk she was to the Police, I guess walking around in those heels drunk might have been difficult...Dube gets a break also.
This is one of the many examples of why I think they're guilty but they may get off...they are lying their ass off to protect one another.
Last edited:
They could sign a contract today, I don't believe they are suspended, they are free agents they can sign with anybody.
It would be a controversial signing though...explain it too your season ticket base.
Explain what to the season ticket base, that they were found not guilty and they will be allowed to play?
So you're saying even if they're found not guilty in a court of law, they should be banned from the sport and their careers terminated.
No stupid I didn't say that...average players with baggage, who would want them
