"use ai or you'll get left behind" oh no that's okay you guys go on ahead i'll be back here with my reading comprehension & critical thinking skills
tw // sa
The Myth: âThe female judge that acquitted Carter Hart said EM was being sexually aggressive. That is a factâ
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: âWe all need to say the same thing if we get interviewedâ â If you are telling the truth, this does not need to be said.
Brett Howden: âIf anything we should put allegations on herâ â Quite frankly disgusting and should be treated as the seed of collusion.
Dillon Dube: âLetâs not make her sound like too crazyâ â Building on Howdenâs idea; trying to calibrate how far they should go with their new narrative.
McLeod: âWhat should I say if they ask why I took the videos though?â â 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, âSay itâ? That is evidence he gave her a script and pressured her to take part in another video.
Carter Hart: âWhat do I tell (Shawn Bullock, a Hockey Canada exec)â â Why not simply the truth? Why does Hart have to clarify this, unless they are concocting a new âtruthâ 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 âpretty much the same,â Steenbergen said. âDonât say what he did, that he would go in and explain it himself.â
Steenbergen testified he understood that meant he wasnât 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 defenceâs claim, stating âWhile 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 eventsâ. 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 menâs accusations of EMâs conduct âa factâ based on the opinion of a former defence attorney is simply irresponsible.
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.
âWe Believe E.Mâ 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 menâs story that she was saying âhave sex with meâ, she never said âteabag meâ. The judge actually agreed in her report there was no consent, instead she dismissed it saying it was non-sexual based on Carter Hartâs 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 wasnât 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 âharm was causedâ 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.
I understand the cup has been awarded to hundreds of rapists and one more isn't diluting the sanctity of a championship more than it already has but the publicity of the WJC trial into those men being welcomed back and going to the SCF less than 9 months later just sucks to watch
"accusations ruin lives" a rapist who lied on the stand is going to play in the stanley cup finals only two years after his trial and every piece of official media is just glazing him. fuck the league and fuck the knights.