Asia Studios Massage

Report: Five members of Canada’s 2018 WJC team told to surrender to London Police

Previous Thread Next Thread
onomatopoeia

onomatopoeia

Bzzzzz.......Doink
Jul 3, 2020
22,855
18,376
113
Cabbagetown
boobtoucher said:
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.
Click to expand...
Her level of intoxication matters. It's not a crime to have sex with a girl who has been drinking alcohol. It's a crime if she drank enough that she is unable to offer consent.

Here is another possibility, consistent with the evidence presented through May 8:

EM, a shy girl by her own admission, likes to have sex with strangers on occasion. She drinks alcohol before doing this, both to remove inhibitions, and to relieve herself of taking responsibility for the consequences of her actions. She may have consented to the porn star scenario while it was happening, but she felt regret after the fact. This may not be the most likely scenario, but it is a possible truth.

It's not uncommon for people to intentionally get drunk in order to act irresponsibly without feeling guilt afterwards. I have first hand experience with that, having grown up with a father who was an alcoholic in denial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roadhog and The Oracle
B

boobtoucher

Well-known member
May 25, 2021
576
818
93
onomatopoeia said:
Her level of intoxication matters. It's not a crime to have sex with a girl who has been drinking alcohol. It's a crime if she drank enough that she is unable to offer consent.

Here is another possibility, consistent with the evidence presented through May 8:

EM, a shy girl by her own admission, likes to have sex with strangers on occasion. She drinks alcohol before doing this, both to remove inhibitions, and to relieve herself of taking responsibility for the consequences of her actions. She may have consented to the porn star scenario while it was happening, but she felt regret after the fact. This may not be the most likely scenario, but it is a possible truth.

It's not uncommon for people to intentionally get drunk in order to act irresponsibly without feeling guilt afterwards. I have first hand experience with that, having grown up with a father who was an alcoholic in denial.
Click to expand...
Again, Canadian law says: Drunk = No Consent. So even if she gets drunk to relieve herself of responsibility, for the expressed purpose of getting raped, the legal onus is on the other party to not have sex with her.
 
F

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
11,833
6,018
113
boobtoucher said:
Again, Canadian law says: Drunk = No Consent. So even if she gets drunk to relieve herself of responsibility, for the expressed purpose of getting raped, the legal onus is on the other party to not have sex with her.
Click to expand...
The evidence against the players is overwhelming…but…after 12 plus cops knocked the shit out of Rodney King breaking his nose jaw cheekbone with Billy clubs and kicks to the head a jury said that they didn’t use excessive force…a jury said OJ was not guilty despite his blood being found at the crime scene…huh

Jury decisions can be a roll of the dice
 
onomatopoeia

onomatopoeia

Bzzzzz.......Doink
Jul 3, 2020
22,855
18,376
113
Cabbagetown
boobtoucher said:
Again, Canadian law says: Drunk = No Consent.
Click to expand...
Please provide a quote from the Canadian Criminal Code to support this statement.

We don't have a breathalyzer measurement to quantitatively confirm EM's level of intoxication. I don't know if any evidence has been presented as to how much food EM may have eaten before or during the time she was imbibing. I don't know her weight, which would be a factor in determining how intoxicated she may have been, based on the amount of alcohol she consumed. Did she have any additional drinks at the hotel?

Don't get the impression that I'm advocating for acquittal. I just don't believe that a determination of guilt can be derived from some of the evidence.

EM DID say on the cell phone videos that she was acting with consent. Whether or not she was in a state of mind in which she could consent is the focus of the cross examination.
 
onomatopoeia

onomatopoeia

Bzzzzz.......Doink
Jul 3, 2020
22,855
18,376
113
Cabbagetown
boobtoucher said:

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 www.leaf.ca
Click to expand...
LEAF is Women's Legal Education & Action Fund. If there are any discrepancies between how consent is defined by LEAF and how it is defined by the Criminal Code of Canada, the CCC shall prevail.
 
B

boobtoucher

Well-known member
May 25, 2021
576
818
93
onomatopoeia said:
Please provide a quote from the Canadian Criminal Code to support this statement.

We don't have a breathalyzer measurement to quantitatively confirm EM's level of intoxication. I don't know if any evidence has been presented as to how much food EM may have eaten before or during the time she was imbibing. I don't know her weight, which would be a factor in determining how intoxicated she may have been, based on the amount of alcohol she consumed. Did she have any additional drinks at the hotel?

Don't get the impression that I'm advocating for acquittal. I just don't believe that a determination of guilt can be derived from some of the evidence.

EM DID say on the cell phone videos that she was acting with consent. Whether or not she was in a state of mind in which she could consent is the focus of the cross examination.
Click to expand...

A Definition of Consent to Sexual Activity: Policy Centre for Victims Issues

Department of Justice Canada's Internet site
www.justice.gc.ca www.justice.gc.ca

For greater certainty, subsection 273.1(2) sets out specific situations where there is no consent in law; no consent is obtained:

  • where the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant
  • where the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity
  • where the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority
  • where the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity, or
  • where the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.
Click to expand...
There is also supreme court precident backing up the "ongoing, enthusiastic consent"

She has said she was

1: Drunk
2: in a power imbalance (5-7 elite hockey players versus 1 girl, threats of physical assault w/golf clubs)
3: Crying and trying to leave (actions that would not imply consent)
4: Telling people to stop (when they were slapping her ass)
4: o.k. with going with the first guy, but not o.k. when the others showed up (no ongoing consent)

Further:

Section 273.2 limits the scope of the defence of honest belief in consent to sexual activity by providing that the defence is not available where the accused's belief arose from the accused's self-induced intoxication, or where the accused's belief arose from the accused's recklessness or willful blindness or where the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether the complainant was consenting.
Click to expand...
Each of the other 4 accused will have had to have walked into the room, said "Hey, can I also fuck you while the other guys watch", and had her say "Yes, go ahead". Testimony so far says that did not happen
 
B

boobtoucher

Well-known member
May 25, 2021
576
818
93
Supreme court rulings:

Supreme Court of Canada | R. v. G.F.

www.scc-csc.ca www.scc-csc.ca
.

Better summary. "how drunk" almost doesn't matter. 10+ drinks is a lot, and we've established that she had that or more.

Smry | AI Summarizer and Free Paywall Remover

Remove paywalls and summarize articles for free, covering NYT, Washington Post & more. Instant access to content without login for faster insights.
www.smry.ai www.smry.ai

On intoxication, the majority said that just because someone can walk, or talk, or retains their motor skills, or remembers an event, does not mean they had the capacity to consent. The key is whether the complainant “understood the sexual activity in question and that she could refuse to participate.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
L

lomotil

Well-known member
Mar 14, 2004
6,723
1,578
113
Oblivion
Fun For All said:
No...a conviction doesn't mean mandatory prison time.
Click to expand...
Sexual assault under the CCC does have minimum mandatory jail time.
What is the purpose of this trial if the crown wins and the convicts are not incarcerated ?
Does that make sense to you, and if there is no jail time, what would be their penalty?
 
onomatopoeia

onomatopoeia

Bzzzzz.......Doink
Jul 3, 2020
22,855
18,376
113
Cabbagetown
boobtoucher said:
The key is whether the complainant “understood the sexual activity in question and that she could refuse to participate.”
Click to expand...
Evidence from the cell phone video, (her own words), suggests that she was a willing participant.

We're still in the early stages of the trial. I think the reasons why the London Police did not pursue the matter seven years ago will be a relevant factor.
 
B

boobtoucher

Well-known member
May 25, 2021
576
818
93
onomatopoeia said:
Evidence from the cell phone video, (her own words), suggests that she was a willing participant.

We're still in the early stages of the trial. I think the reasons why the London Police did not pursue the matter seven years ago will be a relevant factor.
Click to expand...
And she's said under oath that she has no memory of filming the videos. And we've established she was drunk and/or dissociating due to the assault.

We've also established that it's not her who brought the case that is being tried. London Police re-opened the case after the Hockey Canada settlement leaked. She doesn't stand to gain financially from this trial.

My guess (based on the HC leak) is that there are going to be multiple witnesses who are going to testify that they were in the room and the girl was not in a good state, which is why they left.

I am secondarily interested in whether she knew that Hockey Canada initiated a coverup. I'd bet she could go for a larger settlement if that information was withheld from her, or sue the HC exec separately.
 
F

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
11,833
6,018
113
lomotil said:
Sexual assault under the CCC does have minimum mandatory jail time.
What is the purpose of this trial if the crown wins and the convicts are not incarcerated ?
Does that make sense to you, and if there is no jail time, what would be their penalty?
Click to expand...
No…there is no minimum sentence for a victim over 16

www.kruselaw.ca

Minimum Sentence Sexual Assault Canada | Kruse Law Firm

The minimum sentence for sexual assault depends on a variety of factors. Learn all the factors that affect the sentence given for a sexual assault conviction.
www.kruselaw.ca www.kruselaw.ca
 
F

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
11,833
6,018
113
onomatopoeia said:
Evidence from the cell phone video, (her own words), suggests that she was a willing participant.

We're still in the early stages of the trial. I think the reasons why the London Police did not pursue the matter seven years ago will be a relevant factor.
Click to expand...
My God, you are wrong almost every time
 
mandrill

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
80,428
105,303
113
K Douglas said:
I'm going to say this. I don't like what these guys did, they took advantage of a girl who was clearly intoxicated. She had 12 drinks at the bar. But in my opinion they are not guilty of sexual assault.
Click to expand...
Kirk, if she is so drunk that she cannot consent, it has to be an assault finding.
 
onomatopoeia

onomatopoeia

Bzzzzz.......Doink
Jul 3, 2020
22,855
18,376
113
Cabbagetown
boobtoucher said:
...And we've established she was drunk and/or dissociating due to the assault....
Click to expand...
You've assumed this to be true, based on your belief that everything the complainant has said is true.

Maybe she has been 100% truthful, or perhaps she's chosen to forget the details that she doesn't want to remember.

We see only written transcripts of what was said in court. A large part of determining truth is based on how things are said, as opposed to the words themselves.

I've seen no mention that EM had any additional drinks at the hotel. How she presented herself in the cell phone videos from the hotel room, (where she said 'It was all consensual'), may be a better indication of her level of intoxication than could be determined from her statements to the police and her court testimony.
 
K

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
28,437
9,534
113
Room 112
boobtoucher said:
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 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".
Click to expand...
You can still consent if you are intoxicated. That happens all the time. Its whether she was intoxicated enough that she couldn't understand what she was doing. That doesn't seem to be the case based on the video/audio. As for her explaining the consent by saying she was pressured into saying that the Crown needs to prove that. So how do you do that? One way is to have an expert analyze her voice/actions on video to determine whether it was under duress. As far as I know the Crown hasn't provided as such.
 
F

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
11,833
6,018
113
K Douglas said:
You can still consent if you are intoxicated. That happens all the time. Its whether she was intoxicated enough that she couldn't understand what she was doing. That doesn't seem to be the case based on the video/audio. As for her explaining the consent by saying she was pressured into saying that the Crown needs to prove that. So how do you do that? One way is to have an expert analyze her voice/actions on video to determine whether it was under duress. As far as I know the Crown hasn't provided as such.
Click to expand...
I believe what she has said, she has been very believable...it wasn't her idea to call the other guys in the room...it wasn't her idea to lie on a sheet that the players directed her to do...it wasn't her idea to have the players surround her with three dicks out when she exited the washroom...it wasn't her idea to have Formenton follow her into the washroom and fuck her over the sink...it wasn't her idea to make a "consent" video that had her being told what to say.

The defence has not showed that this wasn't all the players idea...
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill and boobtoucher
K

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
28,437
9,534
113
Room 112
Fun For All said:
I believe what she has said, she has been very believable...it wasn't her idea to call the other guys in the room...it wasn't her idea to lie on a sheet that the players directed her to do...it wasn't her idea to have the players surround her with three dicks out when she exited the washroom...it wasn't her idea to have Formenton follow her into the washroom and fuck her over the sink...it wasn't her idea to make a "consent" video that had her being told what to say.

The defence has not showed that this wasn't all the players idea...
Click to expand...
The 3:25 am video was before she had sex with the other players. In that video she claims "I'm ok with this". So you're asserting that she was told to say that by the players? Simply because that's her story and you find her believable. No corroboration. That's not enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion.
 
B

boobtoucher

Well-known member
May 25, 2021
576
818
93
K Douglas said:
The 3:25 am video was before she had sex with the other players. In that video she claims "I'm ok with this". So you're asserting that she was told to say that by the players? Simply because that's her story and you find her believable. No corroboration. That's not enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Did she say: "I am o.k. with multiple guys from the team engaging in sexual relations with me"?

So: What is "this"? Maybe she's o.k. with someone ordering her food, or donating to charity.

The law is clear on "ongoing, enthusiastic consent"

The defense really doesn't have anything. She could have said to the 5 at the bar "I would like to go back to your hotel and have sex with all of you", then changed her mind when she got there (or after the first guy), and it would still be assault.

The fact that they're trying to link her to the bouncer at the bar shows that they've got nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom