Allure Massage

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

Previous Thread Next Thread
F

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
12,080
6,192
113
onomatopoeia said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
M

mellowjello

Well-known member
Jan 11, 2017
3,091
1,540
113
Fun For All said:
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.
Click to expand...
You need to crawl out of your own head for two minutes....take a breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roadhog
K

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
28,880
10,020
113
Room 112
Fun For All said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dude you were the one hurling insults left, right and centre. If you can't take it then don't give it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mellowjello
K

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
28,880
10,020
113
Room 112
Fun For All said:
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.
Click to expand...
So the Crown said it, it must be true.

Yes I realized it was a statement of more than just omission. That's the difference between you and I. I'll admit when I'm wrong. You're just a tunnel visioned know-it-all type.
 
F

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
12,080
6,192
113
K Douglas said:
So the Crown said it, it must be true.

Yes I realized it was a statement of more than just omission. That's the difference between you and I. I'll admit when I'm wrong. You're just a tunnel visioned know-it-all type.
Click to expand...
I’m not wrong. I’ve actually been following the testimony you’re just making stuff up.

You don’t admit when you’re wrong you should go back and take a look at what else you’ve said You’re wrong almost every time..

The Crown said it, and it is true because they actually proved it with evidence
 
Last edited:
E

ez$$$

Well-known member
Apr 15, 2022
1,134
1,249
113
Fun For All said:
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...
Click to expand...
Yes, I think the crown did a pretty good job with the closing and pointing out the issues with McLeod text messages, the need to obtain a consent video and made a pretty compelling case that that the threesome was never the complainants idea.

Personally, think it is 70/30 in case in favour of the complainant but that does not get you a conviction.

McLeod has the most culpability of all the defendants but I think everyone walks when it is all said and done.
 
Last edited:
F

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
12,080
6,192
113
ez$$$ said:
Yes, I think the crown did a pretty good job with the closing and pointing out the issues with McLeod text messages, the need to obtain a consent video and made a pretty compelling case that that the threesome was never the complainants idea.

Personally, think it is 70/30 in case in favour of the complainant but that does not get you a conviction.

McLeoad has the moat culpabilitybof al the defendants but think everyone walks when it is all said and done.
Click to expand...
Well, agree with you there they all might just walk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom