Not quite that but likely at least 1/3. So she gets $2 million instead of $3 million.
Report: Five members of Canada’s 2018 WJC team told to surrender to London Police
- Thread starter bazokajoe
- Start date
It was a scummy thing for him to do if he didn't tell her ahead of time.
Hahaha…and yet another post where someone makes up their own law.
It’s not “reasonable standard “ it’s REASONABLE DOUBT…and when you consider that evidence has not been presented that she had anything to do with inviting the players back to the room for sex and there is evidence that McLeod lied to the Police about inviting them back despite the overwhelming evidence that he did, REASONABLE DOUBT doesn’t look like a tough hurdle for the Crown
Have you not followed the trial?
No evidence has been presented that she had anything to do with the invites to the players back to the room. You factor in that there is evidence that McLeod lied to the police about sending invites to the rest of the players despite the overwhelming evidence that he did. This shouldn’t even be an issue.
Oh FFS they didn't have to produce evidence to that effect, they were the defendants. Its plausible McLeod said to her hey you want to do a threesome I'll see who's down.
Hockey Canada settlement with her was close to $3 million.
No it’s not possible…the defence would have presented evidence to that and didn’t because there isn’t any…if there was McLeod would have told the Police she was agreeable to it but instead he lied about it
Last edited:
Haha...you're telling people they don't understand how the system works?
You've been wrong almost every time...you're the worse person to rely on.
Forgive me, i meant to say proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. I have corrected my transgression so that it sufficiently meets your exacting standards.
I guess we cannot be all as learned, knowledgeable and precise as you.
Yes, your keyboard warrior status is quite a standard to live up to, especially for those of of us who have other meaningful pursuits to pursue in this life.
Hahaha...I'm sure
If you people weren't so wrong all the time you wouldn't have to worry about me correcting the errors
I'm always curious why a person who drives drunk is completely responsible for their actions but a woman who has sex with a man isn't, while a man who has sex with a woman is.
It's misogynistic in its own way because it presumes a woman still isn't capable of making choices in her life, or being responsible for those choices.
It's misogynistic in its own way because it presumes a woman still isn't capable of making choices in her life, or being responsible for those choices.
That's a nice payday! I'm surprised she still wants to get married to the BF now that she's set for a while.
In this case, I think it is more about the lady providing consent under duress and threat as she felt intimated with all those dudes in the room and whether the players should have known she was not freely consenting to this.
This seems to the Crowns burden to prove.
Yeah, while I think McLeoad is most culpable of the group, she could have been agreeable to the threesome.
Personally think he set her up for the threesome but would not be comfortable saying it beyond a reasonable doubt.
The 3-way idea was all McLeod...if she had any knowledge about it the defence would have provided evidence...McLeod even lied to the Police about sending the 3-way message.
