If the judge actually thought that she was inventing everything simply to frame the guys, wouldn't the judge just say that outright??
Report: Five members of Canada’s 2018 WJC team told to surrender to London Police
- Thread starter bazokajoe
- Start date
Before the fact, and that case was dismissed.
You're still pushing the narrative after the fact.
Not necessarily.
Why would she feel the need to express that after acquitting the defendants of all charges.
It wouldn't serve any relative purpose.
Why not?
Most judges are pretty angry and forthright if they think someone is lying in court. Try it sometime and you'll see.
No.
You asked me what her motive was to testify at trial and I provided the motive. The judge didn't accept her side of the story. But that can mean anything from she had a distorted and inaccurate memory of what happened - easy if you're drunk - to the judge disbelieved the wrong person.
Judges usually express rage and dissatisfaction pretty readily. And that's the usual judicial reaction to someone lying to frame 5 innocent people.
You're a little slow.
Again, I don't think you're giving the judge enough credit.
Given the nature of this case and the the obvious issues around it, she rendered a verdict that was fair while at the same time not throwing the complainant under the bus.
I will stick with the judges words, unreliable and inconsistent, which was enough to acquit the defendants.
As opposed to simply telling her mother that she "couldn't face going to trial and testifying" and getting out of it that way?
You've got a bad habit of gaslighting and backtracking when you can't prove a point. Not the first time.
BTW, I think you were right there with me.
You sure you're a lawyer?
Once again she seems to be a weak person, could not say no on the night and you expect her to now stand up to her mother? (who probably dominated her into being a weak person)
Oh come on, the whole pickup artist approach is designed to manipulate and exert subtle pressure. A great deal of sex out there does not meet your definition of consent. None of the guys AFIK made any threats to her. Where does an effort to convince cross the threshold into coercion? Answer me that. Perhaps in the morning when the alcohol wore off all parties considered the fact they made some very poor judgement calls. That is not at all unusual. There was a similar situation where some cops in Toronto went drinking with a colleague which turned into an FMM and regret and trial and I believe they were acquitted also.
Perhaps it went even further then they expected and her expression made them concerned and realized they may have crossed some of her thresholds in the heat of the action. You get some such cases in Porn as well. Of course the James Deen controversy is quite famous. But one girl accuse Ryan Madison of creampieing her without consent quite a while after, and then you see she went back and shot another scene with him before the accusation and after the alleged assault
I highly doubt he is a lawyer, lol.
There is no way anyone could be that abrasive and condescending while successfully dealing with the public.
"Convincing" is not what you should do when requesting sex from anyone.
You ASK them if they WANT to do it.
And you ask again to make sure they are actually not just saying it because they feel peer pressured, especially in situations involving multiple people.
Convincing automatically means the person is not willing or enthusiastic and you are making them say yes, which can very well be interpreted as coercion.
It's a good thing they got the consent on camera it saved their bacon.
Without that it could never have been proven that she did consent.
Smart move by McLeod...The judge rules that E.M. had exaggerated her level of intoxication and that there was consent.
The fact that he did that after the fact is what makes be suspect of what went on there.
It's a good thing he did otherwise she would have gotten away with it.
