Report: Five members of Canada’s 2018 WJC team told to surrender to London Police
- Thread starter bazokajoe
- Start date
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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:
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.
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:
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 McLeod was freelancing with the three-way text, I could not say that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Last edited:
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.
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...
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.
No, the defense doesn't have to provide evidence...but...when the Crown provides overwhelming evidence the defense better do something.
No, I'm not saying if you don't agree with me you're stupid what I'm saying is read the testimony. Look at the law don't make stuff up.
