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

JimmyG

Active member
Mar 14, 2009
412
70
28
A different young woman, only two years older, arrived at Jack’s with a group of friends at approximately 11 p.m, according to a statement of claim filed in April 2022 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Shortly after arriving at the bar, she met a member of the World Juniors team who introduced her to a player identified in the lawsuit as John Doe 1. John Doe 1 and some of his teammates bought the plaintiff a number of alcoholic beverages.

According to the statement of claim, the plaintiff got separated from her friends and became increasingly intoxicated throughout the night, exhibiting telltale signs — glassy eyes, slurred speech, stumbling and loss of balance.

Sometime in the early morning, the woman left the bar with John Doe 1. Cabs wait outside the bar regularly, especially on the busiest nights, and it would’ve been about a five-minute ride back to the hotel. If they had walked, they might have traveled south down Richmond and then east onto a cobblestoned stretch of Dundas, a roughly 20-minute walk. It is likely they would’ve had to sidestep other young bar patrons spilling out into the street in the early hours after last call.

Entering the hotel, they would have passed at least one security camera affixed high on the northeast corner of the roof that covers arriving guests. When they entered the lobby, it was about a 17-step walk to the elevator bank. Another security camera on the ceiling just before the elevators would likely have captured their entrance.

As the glassed elevator climbed the tower, the woman could have viewed London. In the distance was Budweiser Gardens arena, situated right next to the stark Ontario courthouse, where the events to come would be detailed in a statement of claim four years later.

Security footage would not have captured the two entering a hotel room — multiple employees told The Athletic security cameras are not present on each floor — but a walk down the hallway would’ve been lit by wall sconces and guided by an art-deco floor pattern in the carpet.

According to the young woman’s statement of claim, at some point in the early-morning hours, she and John Doe 1 “engaged in sex acts” in his hotel room. Then, John Doe 1 invited his teammates to the room without her knowledge or consent.

According to the young woman’s statement of claim, they made her touch herself and perform oral sex on them. They straddled her and placed their genitals in her face. They slapped her buttocks, spit on her, ejaculated onto her, and engaged in vaginal intercourse while she was incapable of consent.

At one point, she started crying and tried to leave the room, she said. She was then “directed, manipulated and intimidated into remaining,” according to her statement of claim.

Throughout the alleged assaults, the young woman said she feared imminent physical harm. Some players brought their golf clubs into the room. The sheer number of them and the presence of the clubs made her feel intimidated and threatened. As a result, she said she acquiesced to the sexual acts.











“Any reasonable person … would have concluded the Plaintiff was not freely consenting in those circumstances and would have ceased the confinement of the plaintiff and the sexual behaviors toward her,” the claim states.

After it was over, the players told her to shower.

According to reports, two videos were made — the first was six seconds long and filmed at 3:30 a.m. and the second was 12 seconds and was filmed at 4:30 a.m. In the videos, the woman, following hours of drinking and what she says were several forced sexual acts, states that all that happened in the room was consensual.

The Athletic reached out to the young woman’s lawyer, Robert Talach, on multiple occasions but he declined comment and repeatedly stressed that his client does not wish to speak publicly. It is not clear from the statement of claim what the woman did next, how she got home, but at some point that morning, likely around the time the sun was coming up, she finally exited the hotel.
 

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
12,075
6,190
113
This article was written in July 2022
Now the evening got out of hand when they hit the hotel. I don’t support the players at all, but this article is written like a cheap novel and is extremely biased.

The way they describe the players at the bar is no surprise. It happens all the time at Jack’s. What people do at that bar people around the age of 20 drinking lots dancing lots trying to meet other people, trying to hook up, I am sure Michael McLeod that night wasn’t the only guy to leave with a girl. It will happen tonight there, it’s a university bar where university aged people like to party and go for it, you shouldn’t read into that the players were out of control at the bar.

That’s the way people act at that bar. I’ve been there myself I live in London. Crimes were not committed at the bar. They are allowed to do what they did at the bar..
 
Last edited:

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
28,870
9,999
113
Room 112
Just to remind you what you made up
I didn't make up anything wtf are you rambling on about. I made an estimate of what I think she received in the settlement. A settlement which is documented.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
28,870
9,999
113
Room 112
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.
And how do you know that? What kind of evidence would the defense present. Dude you have a very warped vision of how criminal law works. The onus is on the prosecution to provide evidence that he sent the text out without her knowing about it. And no he didn't lie to the police, he just withheld information. All he had to say as a plausible explanation was that he was a quick shot and she was still horny and wanted more. Perhaps an ego issue.
 

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
12,075
6,190
113
And how do you know that? What kind of evidence would the defense present. Dude you have a very warped vision of how criminal law works. The onus is on the prosecution to provide evidence that he sent the text out without her knowing about it. And no he didn't lie to the police, he just withheld information. All he had to say as a plausible explanation was that he was a quick shot and she was still horny and wanted more. Perhaps an ego issue.
Here’s your problem…you haven’t followed the testimony at all.

The crown did put it out there that she wasn’t behind the three-way and had nothing to do with it and provided evidence to that and the defence didn’t push back at all.

You’re another one that’s wrong almost every time you post here, follow the testimony and you won’t look stupid.

McLeod did lie he wasn’t withholding information. He said he did not send any other messages except for food and that was a lie, he sent nothing out about food…he lied in his police interview five times that was easily proven.

Your statement of " All he had to say as a plausible explanation was that he was a quick shot and she was still horny and wanted more. Perhaps an ego issue" did not happen at trial. nothing even close to that...you 100% made that up.

C’mon man it’s old news
 
Last edited:

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
12,075
6,190
113
I didn't make up anything wtf are you rambling on about. I made an estimate of what I think she received in the settlement. A settlement which is documented.
Your estimate was totally made up by you with no knowledge to what she actually got.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
28,870
9,999
113
Room 112
Your estimate was totally made up by you with no knowledge to what she actually got.
Having settled a civil claim myself I know what the standard lawyer cut is and what is left over for the plaintiff. Regardless has nothing to do with the criminal proceeding.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
28,870
9,999
113
Room 112
Here’s your problem…you haven’t followed the testimony at all.

The crown did put it out there that she wasn’t behind the three-way and had nothing to do with it and provided evidence to that and the defence didn’t push back at all.

You’re another one that’s wrong almost every time you post here, follow the testimony and you won’t look stupid.

McLeod did lie he wasn’t withholding information. He said he did not send any other messages except for food and that was a lie, he sent nothing out about food…he lied in his police interview five times that was easily proven.

Your statement of " All he had to say as a plausible explanation was that he was a quick shot and she was still horny and wanted more. Perhaps an ego issue" did not happen at trial. nothing even close to that...you 100% made that up.

C’mon man it’s old news
Here's your problem you think with emotion instead of fact.
OK so McLeod lied about the reason the players were there in the room. I don't see 5 lies in that police interview.
As far as the statement I never said it happened at trial. But it could have been a plausible explanation for her agreeing to the group sex.
Regardless it doesn't prove that they assaulted her, she was a willing participant, even if she was 'faking' it.
 

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
12,075
6,190
113
Here's your problem you think with emotion instead of fact.
OK so McLeod lied about the reason the players were there in the room. I don't see 5 lies in that police interview.
As far as the statement I never said it happened at trial. But it could have been a plausible explanation for her agreeing to the group sex.
Regardless it doesn't prove that they assaulted her, she was a willing participant, even if she was 'faking' it.
Actually I am thinking with facts, you’re the one making stuff up.

So now you’re saying, McLeod lied before you said he was just withholding information. You’ve completely flip-flopped on that issue.

The crown said he lied five times in the police interview. They’ve probably followed it a lot closer than you have.

If your “plausible explanation “ had any merit to it one of the five law firms would have brought it up and tried to prove it at trial.

You need to go review some of the things that happened to her in that room. Do you think she would’ve agreed to all that… three guys lining up for back to back to back blowjobs, Formenton taking the condom off his cock and coming in her mouth, Cal Foote doing the splits on her face, Dube smacking her ass from behind… there was no talking between the girl and the guys they just went ahead and did it.

10 guys in the room and five with their dicks out what was she supposed to do to prove she wasn’t willing participant break a bottle over their head? The girl that Mike Tyson raped didn’t say no and didn’t put up a fight, she just submitted…the girl that Kobe Bryant sexually assaulted didn’t say no and didn’t fight back, she just submitted…this girl at this Hockey Canada trial was just doing what she thought was the safest thing to do just submit to them.
 
Last edited:

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
12,075
6,190
113
Having settled a civil claim myself I know what the standard lawyer cut is and what is left over for the plaintiff. Regardless has nothing to do with the criminal proceeding.
There is NO such thing as a "standard lawyer cut", you're making that up! Law firms set their own fees and their are many many factors that go in it.

Big fucking deal if you settle a civil claim that doesn’t mean you know anything what happened here and how much she’s got And you’re right it has nothing to do with a criminal proceeding. You just brought it up about how much she got and you totally made it up.
 
Last edited:

mellowjello

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2017
3,089
1,535
113
Big fucking deal if you settle a civil claim that doesn’t mean you know anything what happened here and how much she’s got And you’re right it has nothing to do with a criminal proceeding. You just brought it up about how much she got and you totally made it up.
What is the matter with you?
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
28,870
9,999
113
Room 112
There is NO such thing as a "standard lawyer cut", you're making that up! Law firms set their own fees and their are many many factors that go in it.

Big fucking deal if you settle a civil claim that doesn’t mean you know anything what happened here and how much she’s got And you’re right it has nothing to do with a criminal proceeding. You just brought it up about how much she got and you totally made it up.
They work on contingency and the standard percentage is 30%-35%. Fuck you would argue black is white. But who cares Hockey Canada are morons for doing this they deserve to go bankrupt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Oracle

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
28,870
9,999
113
Room 112
What is the matter with you?
He's bitter because he's been thoroughly embarrassed on this thread. I just hope he doesn't lose his marbles when the players are acquitted of all charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mellowjello

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
12,075
6,190
113
They work on contingency and the standard percentage is 30%-35%. Fuck you would argue black is white. But who cares Hockey Canada are morons for doing this they deserve to go bankrupt.
No they don’t and No it’s not.

Wrong again…you just continue to make stuff up.
 

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
12,075
6,190
113
He's bitter because he's been thoroughly embarrassed on this thread. I just hope he doesn't lose his marbles when the players are acquitted of all charges.
My credibility on this is a lot higher than yours which is at zero.

Hardly…nice try...you should be embarrassed for being wrong every time and now you're insulting me because of your low character in that I proved to you how much you made up...pathetic you are.

If they get acquited it won't be for anything you said.
 
Last edited:

ez$$$

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2022
1,134
1,249
113
The crown did put it out there that she wasn’t behind the three-way and had nothing to do with it and provided evidence to that and the defence didn’t push back at all.
Just because the defense did not push back or provide evidence to the contrary, would that be sufficient for the crown to get a conviction on the party to an offense charge?

I think it still favours the defense as it is pretty much a "he said, she said" type scenerio and while I tend to believe that Mcleoad was freelancing with the three-way text, I could not say that beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:

mellowjello

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2017
3,089
1,535
113
He's bitter because he's been thoroughly embarrassed on this thread. I just hope he doesn't lose his marbles when the players are acquitted of all charges.
I suspect he's E.M.'s boyfriend trying to make the pieces fit because he's in denial...
.....that or FFA is a chick.
 

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
12,075
6,190
113
Just because the defense did not push back or provide evidence to the contrary, would that be sufficient for the crown to get a conviction on the party to an offense charge?

I think it still favours the defense as it is pretty much a "he said, she said" type scenerio and while I tend to believe that Mcleoad was freelancing with the three-way text, I could not say that beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, McLeod lying doesn't slam dunk a conviction...if one other player gets a conviction than his 'party to an offense' should draw a conviction.

A conviction was always going to be tough...but the Judge has a lot to go over and think about and I thought the Crown did a great job in their closing arguments...they layed the case out, they took each player as to why they should be convicted, they attacked and ripped apart the defence reasoning, I don't think it is a "he said she said" thing", the defence provided no evidence that she wanted a group thing to happen...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ez$$$

onomatopoeia

Bzzzzz.......Doink
Jul 3, 2020
23,190
18,484
113
Cabbagetown
Just because the defense did not push back or provide evidence to the contrary, would that be sufficient for the crown to get a conviction on the party to an offense charge?...
The defense doesn't have to provide any evidence. They only need to provide reasonable doubt that prosecution evidence is not conclusive. That's often done in cross examinations of prosecution witnesses.

Oh, and everyone who doesn't agree with Fun For All is stupid, because he says so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ez$$$
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts