Hockey Canada sex assault scandal

[EagerBeaver]

That's possible but you're speculating. The media is not allowed to report the reason for the mistrial. The only thing that has been reported is that: "...Wednesday afternoon, Carroccia told jurors that something had happened over the lunch hour that she needed to think about and discuss with the lawyers." That implies that something happened outside of the court proceedings, not during the trial.

Well, all we can do is speculate. But since you added that piece of information, what likely happened during the lunch hour is someone overheard an inappropriate conversation with a juror. The only possible "out of the court proceedings" reason for a mistrial would be improper tampering or contact with a juror. And it then got reported to the Judge. Either the Court reporters, clerks or marshals could have been the reporters. They are all advised to report any such transgressions to the Court. Jurors are specifically told not to talk about the case when they are adjourned for the lunch hour.

Most courts have separate special elevators for the jurors so they are segregated from the public so that the chances of having such a conversation or overhearing something they should not overhear are lessened. I am not familiar with these London courts. I don't know how they are set up.

 

[CaptRenault]

From an article in Friday’s Toronto Star: “it was all consensual.” It will be hard for the prosecution to get past that statement on video by the complainant.

The complainant said on video that “it was all consensual”
Smiling and wrapping herself in a towel, the woman was recorded in the hotel room on McLeod’s phone around 4:26 a.m. on June 19 saying “it was all consensual,” about 20 minutes before she’s seen on camera leaving the hotel.
“Are you recording me? OK, good, it was all consensual,” says the woman on the video, which was shown to the jury on Wednesday. “You are so paranoid, holy. I enjoyed it. It was fine. It was all consensual. I am so sober, that’s why I can’t do this right now.”
In a shorter video recorded at 3:25 a.m., a voice off-camera asks the woman if she’s “OK with this” and she replies: “I’m OK with this.”
Both recordings were turned over to London police by McLeod in July 2018.

 

[Doc Holliday]

From an article in Friday’s Toronto Star: “it was all consensual.” It will be hard for the prosecution to get past that statement on video by the complainant.

Not only do they have it on two videos that she was consenting & even enjoyed it but even the prosecutor said in her opening statement that the jury will hear testimony that she was even asking some guys to have sex with her. I know that some people will be shocked to hear the explicit details of what went on however from what i’ve read & heard what is alleged to have happened isn’t much different than what i’ve seen happen at some sex parties & swingers clubs. I’d even say it’s tamer considering it now looks like only 1 or 2 guys actually had sex with her including the guy she had initially consented to have sex with! It seems like a few guys kept their clothes on & only got a bj…if i’d see this in a sex club i’d say it’s pretty fucking lame! And they seem to want to make a big deal that Cal Foote slapped her ass! I mean geez! I’m not saying that she deserved to have what happened to her is right & that she may have made some bad choices due to her excessive drinking. But who knows if she was really that intoxicated? That will likely never be proven according to what i’ve read. She even said on one of the videos that she was sober. And the guys were drinking also. One guy who plays for the Capitals testified the other day that he barely remembers anything from that night other than briefly stopping by that room to get something & only remembered seeing her sitting or lying on the bed with two guys & doesn’t remember if he spoke with her or if she was dressed or naked. Why? Probably because he was hammered! I dunno. I can’t see how a jury of 12 people will vote to convict any of these guys. Mikie Mcloud may get something but i doubt it. They had consented sex & then he invited other guys to join them. But he’ll likely testify that she’s the one who suggested it or agreed to it. It’ll basically be who you believe & if you believe that she was as drunk as she now claims how can you believe her? Where’s the proof? On top of that i read that she will not be testifying. If true how the hell can you convict any of them if the alleged victim won’t even be testifying?

I’m not taking sides here i’m simply asking questions that i have about the case & the true reasons why they chose to press charges. This only happened after it was found out that Hockey Canada had a secret slush fund to silence accusers in alleged sex crimes by junior hockey players over decades. The real scandal is there. For me it seems that they picked to prosecute this case in order to shock the public & make an example of the players involved. Unfortunately i believe that the alleged victim’s well being was the last thing that concerned the prosecution.