What a stupid thing to say...sounds like you're getting frustrated of being outsmartedYeah, and it better be on an email witnessed by an agent of the court. You're definitely a chick with a chip on her shoulder.
What a stupid thing to say...sounds like you're getting frustrated of being outsmartedYeah, and it better be on an email witnessed by an agent of the court. You're definitely a chick with a chip on her shoulder.
For Christ's sake, the girl was nude. She already agreed to sleep with a few, gave blowjob to others. Do you think an idiot needs to go to jail because he put his bags on her face?? That's stupid, I agree. But that is not an assault.Was Cal Foote given permission or consent to do the splits over her face and rub his dick and bag in her face or did he just come in and do it on his own? I believe the evidence shows that he just walked in and did it...that should be an easy guilty verdict for Foote.
Even if she did say "Come over and fuck me" that doesn't mean the door is open for everybody to do anything they want
She did not agree to sleep with anybody except the original guy...it is sexual assault, absolutely, you can't rub your dick and bag in another person's face because you want too...and, I'm not sure if convicted if any of them are going to jail.For Christ's sake, the girl was nude. She already agreed to sleep with a few, gave blowjob to others. Do you think an idiot needs to go to jail because he put his bags on her face?? That's stupid, I agree. But that is not an assault.
You don't know that, her contradictions and behavior would suggest otherwise.She did not agree to sleep with anybody except the original guy...
Sounds like you're a chick.What a stupid thing to say...sounds like you're getting frustrated of being outsmarted
Pretty sure...evidence show's McLeod calling the players in the room for a 3-way without her knowledge.You don't know that, her contradictions and behavior would suggest otherwise.
So the manly thing is too support sexual assault?Sounds like you're a chick.
Doesn't mean she didn't consent.Pretty sure...evidence show's McLeod calling the players in the room for a 3-way without her knowledge.
Read this again...
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
If you're gonna bring contradictions and behavior into this the players don't exactly come out looking great.You don't know that, her contradictions and behavior would suggest otherwise.
No, it's to consider the evidence equally the same.So the manly thing is too support sexual assault?
Not as bad as her, that's why you're so worried the players are going to walk.If you're gonna bring contradictions and behavior into this the players don't exactly come out looking great.
Wrong on every point...Doesn't mean she didn't consent.
Did she say NO?
Did she say she was forced to stay or that they convinced her to stay.
Odd behaviour for someone not up for it.
If she was crying it was likely after the deed was done and she had sobered up. Realizing what she had done. Including cheating on her then fiance.If they can get a player to testify at this trial that at some point she was crying and wanted to leave but wasn't allowed then that would turn things. I don't think that is going to happen though.
Pretty sure...evidence show's McLeod calling the players in the room for a 3-way without her knowledge.
Read this again...
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
The defense doesn't need to prove she consented, the Crown has to prove that she didn't consent to the acts. Her testimony isn't enough.Wrong on every point...
-no evidence she consented for every guy to do everything
-She doesn't have to say NO, the players had to ensure she said YES
-Yes, she did say she was convinced to stay, a couple times
-Odd behaviour for players...getting a blowjob with 10 people in the room, and 3 of them did it!
Thank you.-Yes, she did say she was convinced to stay, a couple times
You're assuming things that aren't facts.If she was crying it was likely after the deed was done and she had sobered up. Realizing what she had done. Including cheating on her then fiance.
LOL, You can't make this stuff up.You're assuming things that aren't facts.
You made your mind up about this case even before she testified. You're a #metoo disciple.I believe her testimony
Her testimony is that she didn't consent and the Crown has presented that as evidence...the evidence against the players is overwhelmingThe defense doesn't need to prove she consented, the Crown has to prove that she didn't consent to the acts. Her testimony isn't enough.
The Crown should have never pursued this case given the evidence that they had.






