Report: Five members of Canada’s 2018 WJC team told to surrender to London Police
- Thread starter bazokajoe
- Start date
From today...Interesting point...She had a boyfriend at the time and she is engaged to him now.
He's hoping that he has 1 or 2 jury members like Kirk or Ono who want to believe that the girl secretly loved it and that they will hang the jury and cause a mis trial.
With McLeod's attorney and what Carter Hart's attorney has done, the defence hasn't changed my mind on the players guilt...the girls story is more believable than the suggestions the attorneys have presented about her.
We're not sitting in the court room and we might not pick up the actual vibe. But I think the girl is believable, as well.
But all the defence needs is 1 witness who thinks the girl is a "lying slut who was asking for it and deserved what she got" to hang that jury.
And that's all the cards the defence is holding in its hand.
If society would not value a girl that decides to have a bit of fun as a slut we would not have that trial. And these guys would have their normal lives again.
I had to read that twice to make sure I read it right you have to be kidding or that’s the most stupidest thing anybody has written on here
It's the thrust of the defence cross examinations and the defence lawyers are clearly hoping there are Jalimons on the jury..
It's the hackneyed "She really enjoyed getting fucked by 5 guys, but felt guilty the next morning"
I think that none of these guys will ever see a day in jail with respect to this trial and that some of these guys if not all will eventually sue the London Police down the road.
These guys are reckless and stupid but not criminals .
These guys are reckless and stupid but not criminals .
Last edited:
They might not see a day in jail but I think they’ll get convicted on all charges…
Saying they are going to sue the London Police is ridiculous, they’ve committed crimes.
If they are convicted on all charges then they will be incarcerated !
However, I don’t think that that will be the verdict.
This strategy tells me how little the defense actually has:
1: you dissociated due to your alcohol consumption and fear of being raped
2: the new personality decided it "wanted it"
3: your newly minted new personality consented on your behalf.
i.e.: the trauma, caused by my client, caused you to have a trauma response, and the trauma response made it o.k. for my client to continue traumatizing you.
The crown is going to eat this up on closing. Defense is going to have to present an expert that will be able to verify Dissociative Identity Disorder with no prior symptoms.
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".
Without seeing the cell phone videos of EM in the hotel room, there's no way for anyone who wasn't there to know how clear her level of intoxication was.
So, I was quoting K Douglas with the "girl who is clearly intoxicated", but I can quote the DEFENSE attourney too:
That she was drunk is not really for debate. Both the crown and the defense have stated that. It looks like the defense attorney is trying to confuse the jury on the matter of law: i.e. make them forget that drunk people can't consent.
