Litchkin

Monster Hunter @monsterhunter

4 days ago

Carter Hart allows 3 goals in 39 seconds. He has not been this unreliable since he gave his testimony under oath

10K

962

165

228K

Litchkin retweeted

5 days ago

Introducing Monster Hunter Wilds: Ascendance, the massive expansion to #MHWilds. Soar into a land above, wield new abilities, and hunt legendary monsters in Master Rank! Prepare for Elder Dragons. The next era of Monster Hunter begins in 2027 on PS5, Xbox Series X|S, and PC.

581

33K

Litchkin retweeted

StellarBlade

@StellarBlade

5 days ago

It's our first mission in a while. Aren't you... a little excited? #StellarBladeBLOODRAIN #StellarBlade #SummerGameFest https://t.co/35pLRKTnmT

66K

13K

Who to follow

Litchkin retweeted

Canadian True Crime @CanadianTCpod

8 days ago

For the hockey bros (and hockey moms) defending Carter Hart: A reminder that REAL consent starts with genuine care for the other person’s comfort and agency — not just personal satisfaction. 👇 @GoldenKnights @NHL

CanadianTCpod's tweet photo. For the hockey bros (and hockey moms) defending Carter Hart:

A reminder that REAL consent starts with genuine care for the other person’s comfort and agency — not just personal satisfaction. 👇

@GoldenKnights @NHL https://t.co/Gh7qofAAaO

132

629

131

28K

7 days ago

@rukkirii That looks amazing, so cool!!

Litchkin retweeted

Philadelphia Flyers

@NHLFlyers

9 days ago

Hockey is for Everyone. 🫶 Happy Pride Month!

701

743

635K

Litchkin retweeted

10 days ago

tw // sa The Myth: “The female judge that acquitted Carter Hart said EM was being sexually aggressive. That is a fact” The Reality: Former defence attorney Justice Carroccia based her conclusion on the limited evidence she had, which was largely comprised of testimony from the accused and their teammates. These same teammates formed a group chat when they first heard of a possible investigation. These are some highlights, followed by my own brief observations: - - - Michael McLeod: “We all need to say the same thing if we get interviewed” – If you are telling the truth, this does not need to be said. Brett Howden: “If anything we should put allegations on her” – Quite frankly disgusting and should be treated as the seed of collusion. Dillon Dube: “Let’s not make her sound like too crazy” – Building on Howden’s idea; trying to calibrate how far they should go with their new narrative. McLeod: “What should I say if they ask why I took the videos though?” – Good question. What happened during the night that made McLeod think he needed to get consent videos? And what did he tell EM right before filming the 2nd video where you can hear him start by saying, “Say it”? That is evidence he gave her a script and pressured her to take part in another video. Carter Hart: “What do I tell (Shawn Bullock, a Hockey Canada exec)” – Why not simply the truth? Why does Hart have to clarify this, unless they are concocting a new “truth” and they need to iron out the details. - - - The collusion was not limited to the group chat. Tyler Steenbergen testified that while the men were in the group chats, he got two brief phone calls, from Dube and then Foote. In the first call, Dube told Steenbergen not to not mention what he saw Dube do, and that Dube would explain that himself. The phone call with Foote was “pretty much the same,” Steenbergen said. “Don’t say what he did, that he would go in and explain it himself.” Steenbergen testified he understood that meant he wasn’t to mention he saw Dube slapping EM or Foote doing the splits. Howden and Hart also testified to getting similar phone calls from Dube and Foote. These are not the actions of innocent people. - - - Carroccia ultimately agreed with the defence’s claim, stating “While the men who participated in the group chat were recounting their observations of what occurred in room 209, there is no basis upon which I can conclude that they did so for the purpose of concocting a false narrative of the events”. That is her opinion. In the legal context, the standard of proof must eliminate any logical or rational explanation of innocence, and the text exchanges simply did not reach that high a bar. However, the content of the texts paired with the fact the guiltiest parties felt it necessary to call all involved to specifically request they withhold information paints a very different picture. It is important to note that the justice made no mention of the clandestine phone calls in her analysis. A curious omission. People can draw their own conclusions. The actual truth realistically lies somewhere in the middle. But calling the men’s accusations of EM’s conduct “a fact” based on the opinion of a former defence attorney is simply irresponsible.

WeBelieveEM's tweet photo. tw // sa

The Myth: “The female judge that acquitted Carter Hart said EM was being sexually aggressive. That is a fact”

The Reality: Former defence attorney Justice Carroccia based her conclusion on the limited evidence she had, which was largely comprised of testimony from the accused and their teammates. These same teammates formed a group chat when they first heard of a possible investigation. These are some highlights, followed by my own brief observations:

- - -

Michael McLeod: “We all need to say the same thing if we get interviewed” – If you are telling the truth, this does not need to be said.

Brett Howden: “If anything we should put allegations on her” – Quite frankly disgusting and should be treated as the seed of collusion.

Dillon Dube: “Let’s not make her sound like too crazy” – Building on Howden’s idea; trying to calibrate how far they should go with their new narrative.

McLeod: “What should I say if they ask why I took the videos though?” – Good question. What happened during the night that made McLeod think he needed to get consent videos? And what did he tell EM right before filming the 2nd video where you can hear him start by saying, “Say it”? That is evidence he gave her a script and pressured her to take part in another video.

Carter Hart: “What do I tell (Shawn Bullock, a Hockey Canada exec)” – Why not simply the truth? Why does Hart have to clarify this, unless they are concocting a new “truth” and they need to iron out the details.

- - -

The collusion was not limited to the group chat.

Tyler Steenbergen testified that while the men were in the group chats, he got two brief phone calls, from Dube and then Foote.

In the first call, Dube told Steenbergen not to not mention what he saw Dube do, and that Dube would explain that himself.

The phone call with Foote was “pretty much the same,” Steenbergen said. “Don’t say what he did, that he would go in and explain it himself.”

Steenbergen testified he understood that meant he wasn’t to mention he saw Dube slapping EM or Foote doing the splits.

Howden and Hart also testified to getting similar phone calls from Dube and Foote. These are not the actions of innocent people.

- - -

Carroccia ultimately agreed with the defence’s claim, stating “While the men who participated in the group chat were recounting their observations of what occurred in room 209, there is no basis upon which I can conclude that they did so for the purpose of concocting a false narrative of the events”. That is her opinion. In the legal context, the standard of proof must eliminate any logical or rational explanation of innocence, and the text exchanges simply did not reach that high a bar.

However, the content of the texts paired with the fact the guiltiest parties felt it necessary to call all involved to specifically request they withhold information paints a very different picture. It is important to note that the justice made no mention of the clandestine phone calls in her analysis. A curious omission.

People can draw their own conclusions. The actual truth realistically lies somewhere in the middle. But calling the men’s accusations of EM’s conduct “a fact” based on the opinion of a former defence attorney is simply irresponsible.

285

269

211K

12 days ago

Was the Mandalorian and Grogu the best movie ever? Probably not. Could it have been a season of a show? Yeah, sure. But it was still a fun time! (And better than the last Star Wars movie in theatres…)

211

12 days ago

I feel like people who are hating on the new Star Wars movie are either going out of their way to dislike it or they hold Star Wars to an impossible standard. Grogu moments were cute and funny, and Mando looked cool. It met expectations!

118

Litchkin retweeted

Pill Squad Drummer @ScottBeadle777

13 days ago

tw // sa The Myth: “The judge saw all the evidence and acquitted Carter Hart and his teammates” The Reality: Statements made to Hockey Canada in 2022 by players involved contained critical information that would have lent credibility to EM, and ultimately proved she was sexually assaulted. - It proves Cal Foote was naked when he performed his “party trick”. - It proves she was crying in the hotel room. - It proves the men had golf clubs, and that Dube swung one at her. - It proves she tried to leave. - It proves she slipped and fell at the bar. All of these points were contested by the defence and used to discredit her. McLeod’s own lawyer David Humphrey went as far as to call the report a “virtual treasure trove” of evidence. However, this 2022 report was ruled during the pre-trial process to be coerced on the threat of barring the players from representing Canada again, and thus ruled inadmissible. The judge who acquitted the players NEVER saw the evidence. But it is naive to believe that the “threat” would make the men tell a MORE damning account of the night. Common sense suggests that even those confessions were a sugar-coated version of their conduct. There is no logical explanation for them to exaggerate their impropriety. Hockey Canada’s investigator Danielle Robitaille agrees; she referred to the statements as the most “truthful versions from the players”. But regardless of common sense, the way the information was obtained spoiled the “legality” of the evidence; but it does not change the “reality” of it. To illustrate this distinction, look no further than R. v. Collins; a landmark 1987 Supreme Court of Canada decision that shaped how Canadian courts handle unlawfully obtained evidence. In Vancouver, Ruby Collins was under surveillance as part of an investigation into a "heroin problem". An officer approached her in a local pub, told her that he was a police officer, and then grabbed her by the throat and in the process dragged her down to the floor in what is known as a "throat hold" used to prevent suspects from swallowing drug filled balloons. The officer then told her to let go of a heroin filled balloon she had in her hand, and she did so. The officer then arrested Collins for drug possession. The reality? Collins was in possession of an illegal drug. Plain as day. The legality? Grounds for the officer's belief that Collins possessed heroin was never established, and the trial judge concluded that the search was illegal. Because of the method the evidence was gathered, Collin’s walked free. Legally she was “innocent”. But the reality isn’t as black and white, it exists in a grey area. Legal scholars can debate the outcome, but regardless, it is clear that crucial evidence CAN be omitted from a trial regardless of how “real” it is. In the case of Carter Hart and his fellow accused, anyone who claims the “judge saw all the evidence” is telling a half-truth. The reality is the judge saw only the admissible evidence. Because no matter how obviously crucial to a case evidence can be, nothing is immune to the web of legal loopholes that complicate courtrooms. Unfortunately for EM, so many people will only see the headlines: “Players acquitted” or “Justice rules complainant unreliable”. But it is irresponsible to pretend that a “treasure trove” of evidence doesn’t exist because of a technicality. It will never have the impact it deserved in court, but it deserves to have its impact felt in the court of public opinion. And on the point of Foote’s party trick, the evidence proves that EM was sexually assaulted (the judge, in her own ruling, acquitted Foote solely on Carter Hart’s false testimony that he was clothed). Hart testimony was the epitome of his entitled privilege; lying under oath because he knew legally he could not be held accountable for those lies.

WeBelieveEM's tweet photo. tw // sa

The Myth: “The judge saw all the evidence and acquitted Carter Hart and his teammates”

The Reality: Statements made to Hockey Canada in 2022 by players involved contained critical information that would have lent credibility to EM, and ultimately proved she was sexually assaulted.

- It proves Cal Foote was naked when he performed his “party trick”.

- It proves she was crying in the hotel room.

- It proves the men had golf clubs, and that Dube swung one at her.

- It proves she tried to leave.

- It proves she slipped and fell at the bar.

All of these points were contested by the defence and used to discredit her. McLeod’s own lawyer David Humphrey went as far as to call the report a “virtual treasure trove” of evidence.

However, this 2022 report was ruled during the pre-trial process to be coerced on the threat of barring the players from representing Canada again, and thus ruled inadmissible. The judge who acquitted the players NEVER saw the evidence.

But it is naive to believe that the “threat” would make the men tell a MORE damning account of the night. Common sense suggests that even those confessions were a sugar-coated version of their conduct. There is no logical explanation for them to exaggerate their impropriety. Hockey Canada’s investigator Danielle Robitaille agrees; she referred to the statements as the most “truthful versions from the players”.

But regardless of common sense, the way the information was obtained spoiled the “legality” of the evidence; but it does not change the “reality” of it.

To illustrate this distinction, look no further than R. v. Collins; a landmark 1987 Supreme Court of Canada decision that shaped how Canadian courts handle unlawfully obtained evidence.

In Vancouver, Ruby Collins was under surveillance as part of an investigation into a "heroin problem". An officer approached her in a local pub, told her that he was a police officer, and then grabbed her by the throat and in the process dragged her down to the floor in what is known as a "throat hold" used to prevent suspects from swallowing drug filled balloons. The officer then told her to let go of a heroin filled balloon she had in her hand, and she did so. The officer then arrested Collins for drug possession.

The reality? Collins was in possession of an illegal drug. Plain as day.

The legality? Grounds for the officer's belief that Collins possessed heroin was never established, and the trial judge concluded that the search was illegal.

Because of the method the evidence was gathered, Collin’s walked free. Legally she was “innocent”. But the reality isn’t as black and white, it exists in a grey area.

Legal scholars can debate the outcome, but regardless, it is clear that crucial evidence CAN be omitted from a trial regardless of how “real” it is.

In the case of Carter Hart and his fellow accused, anyone who claims the “judge saw all the evidence” is telling a half-truth. The reality is the judge saw only the admissible evidence. Because no matter how obviously crucial to a case evidence can be, nothing is immune to the web of legal loopholes that complicate courtrooms.

Unfortunately for EM, so many people will only see the headlines: “Players acquitted” or “Justice rules complainant unreliable”. But it is irresponsible to pretend that a “treasure trove” of evidence doesn’t exist because of a technicality.

It will never have the impact it deserved in court, but it deserves to have its impact felt in the court of public opinion.

And on the point of Foote’s party trick, the evidence proves that EM was sexually assaulted (the judge, in her own ruling, acquitted Foote solely on Carter Hart’s false testimony that he was clothed). Hart testimony was the epitome of his entitled privilege; lying under oath because he knew legally he could not be held accountable for those lies.

678

171

133

46K

Litchkin retweeted

14 days ago

Kudos to this young man. This is the host of the Game Over Montreal podcast Adam Berkshire just before signing off on May 27. I took some screenshots of the transcription feed (so there are errors of course) 1/3 #carterhart #nhl #hockey #vegasgoldenknights #hockeyculture

ScottBeadle777's tweet photo. Kudos to this young man. This is the host of the Game Over Montreal podcast Adam Berkshire just before signing off on May 27. I took some screenshots of the transcription feed (so there are errors of course) 1/3

#carterhart #nhl #hockey #vegasgoldenknights #hockeyculture https://t.co/gZmiDOgYOQ

230

163

59K

Litchkin retweeted

14 days ago

Carter Hart is about to play in the Stanley Cup Final. He was acquitted of sexual assault charges this past summer, but there is a lot more to the story. With the brightest lights now shining on him, it is important to understand the nuance of the controversial case. “We Believe E.M” does not mean we believe every detail of her testimony. It does not mean we believe she did not make any mistakes that night. It simply means we believe she was sexually assaulted. And the evidence supports that belief. I will leave you with some facts. This is all available if you research (tw // sa): - There is ZERO evidence or testimony that EM ever asked Michael McLeod to invite additional men to that hotel room. McLeod never testified, and all we have is a video interview with police where he never made that claim, meanwhile LYING when he denied sending a text invite to ALL his teammates. On the otherhand, there is text evidence the following day of EM telling McLeod she did not expect more partners, and it was not disputed by McLeod. - There is ZERO evidence or testimony that EM ever asked (or was asked) for Cal Foote to do the splits over her. Even if you believe the men’s story that she was saying “have sex with me”, she never said “teabag me”. The judge actually agreed in her report there was no consent, instead she dismissed it saying it was non-sexual based on Carter Hart’s testimony that Foote was not naked. - In 2022, Alex Formenton & Dillon Dube BOTH CONFESSED to Hockey Canada that Cal Foote was naked during the splits. This was ruled inadmissible on a technicality. Other than Hart, no other witness dared to say Foote was clothed; they all pretended to not remember. With this information, at the very least, McLeod and Foote are guilty: - Foote performed a sexual act without consent. It does not make him a rapist, but it is a crime - McLeod is an accessory to that sexual assault If these two men were given the guilty verdict I strongly believe they deserved (even if it was a proverbial slap on the wrist; i.e. a 6-month house arrest), it would have been an amazing teaching moment for our nation while setting a modern standard for consent. The conduct of the others, including Hart, may not have been illegal. There was certainly not enough evidence to prove it was. But that does not mean what they did wasn’t morally reprehensible. The NHL and Hockey Canada both agreed. The NHL kept the players out of the league for months PAST the ruling, citing their own private investigation. Hockey Canada stood in the House of Commons and said “harm was caused” after paying out a civil settlement. But what Hart did was more than morally wrong. He lied under oath to protect his teammates. This is actually perjury. The judge by law is not privy to those 2022 confessions, but we as a public are. We are allowed to pass judgement in the court of public opinion. Hart is not a conquering hero who overcame adversity. He is a liar who abused his privilege and legal protection to obstruct justice. He is allowed to continue his career, and we are allowed to remind him of his abhorrent behaviour.

WeBelieveEM's tweet photo. Carter Hart is about to play in the Stanley Cup Final. He was acquitted of sexual assault charges this past summer, but there is a lot more to the story. With the brightest lights now shining on him, it is important to understand the nuance of the controversial case.

“We Believe E.M” does not mean we believe every detail of her testimony. It does not mean we believe she did not make any mistakes that night. It simply means we believe she was sexually assaulted. And the evidence supports that belief.

I will leave you with some facts. This is all available if you research (tw // sa):

- There is ZERO evidence or testimony that EM ever asked Michael McLeod to invite additional men to that hotel room. McLeod never testified, and all we have is a video interview with police where he never made that claim, meanwhile LYING when he denied sending a text invite to ALL his teammates. On the otherhand, there is text evidence the following day of EM telling McLeod she did not expect more partners, and it was not disputed by McLeod.

- There is ZERO evidence or testimony that EM ever asked (or was asked) for Cal Foote to do the splits over her. Even if you believe the men’s story that she was saying “have sex with me”, she never said “teabag me”. The judge actually agreed in her report there was no consent, instead she dismissed it saying it was non-sexual based on Carter Hart’s testimony that Foote was not naked.

- In 2022, Alex Formenton & Dillon Dube BOTH CONFESSED to Hockey Canada that Cal Foote was naked during the splits. This was ruled inadmissible on a technicality. Other than Hart, no other witness dared to say Foote was clothed; they all pretended to not remember.

With this information, at the very least, McLeod and Foote are guilty:

- Foote performed a sexual act without consent. It does not make him a rapist, but it is a crime

- McLeod is an accessory to that sexual assault

If these two men were given the guilty verdict I strongly believe they deserved (even if it was a proverbial slap on the wrist; i.e. a 6-month house arrest), it would have been an amazing teaching moment for our nation while setting a modern standard for consent.

The conduct of the others, including Hart, may not have been illegal. There was certainly not enough evidence to prove it was. But that does not mean what they did wasn’t morally reprehensible. The NHL and Hockey Canada both agreed.

The NHL kept the players out of the league for months PAST the ruling, citing their own private investigation. Hockey Canada stood in the House of Commons and said “harm was caused” after paying out a civil settlement.

But what Hart did was more than morally wrong. He lied under oath to protect his teammates. This is actually perjury. The judge by law is not privy to those 2022 confessions, but we as a public are. We are allowed to pass judgement in the court of public opinion.

Hart is not a conquering hero who overcame adversity. He is a liar who abused his privilege and legal protection to obstruct justice. He is allowed to continue his career, and we are allowed to remind him of his abhorrent behaviour.

121

831

Litchkin retweeted

SinBin.vegas

@SinBinVegas

6 months ago

I consulted two sexual assault survivors, who endured similar trials, asking for their perspective on Carter Hart and the case. What they shared is powerful and provides valuable context for anyone interested in understanding the situation better. https://t.co/PcawLeesGT

202

604

861

821K

Litchkin retweeted

sarah @punkwich

15 days ago

Thank you Steve Dangle for being the only hockey podcast I have listened to this week who has mentioned that Carter Hart should not be playing hockey rather than engaging in the discussion about his goaltending

346

13K

990

368

626K

Litchkin retweeted

jo @miffymack

15 days ago

383

612

267K

Litchkin retweeted

not nila @bonesaholic

15 days ago

tw: sa // sexual assault

480

192K

17 days ago

oh no colorado bb what is u doin