Every country gets the circus it deserves. Spain gets bullfights. Italy gets the Catholic Church. America gets Hollywood.
Erica Jong
Every country gets the circus it deserves. Spain gets bullfights. Italy gets the Catholic Church. America gets Hollywood The White House. Canada gets a Hockey Canada sexual assault trial.
Phil M. Stockmen update
Phil has a question:
Why isn’t the judicial system in Canada selling tickets to this circus to help defray the costs of this and other trials.
Clowns are the pegs on which the circus is hung.
P. T. Barnum
Phil has a question:
Would we be having this trial if the players were all Hounds of Notre Dame.
Legal liability requires the high bar of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But in the measure of moral culpability there is less room for absolution.
Consider, from the players’ perspective, the most generous explanation for that night is one in which the entirety of E.M’s testimony is rejected.
In that version, the players went to a room where a lone woman laid naked after consensual sex with one of their teammates. That woman, surrounded by nearly a dozen players, by varying accounts, goaded them into sexual acts — despite their shock and apprehension. A sheet was laid on the ground. They received oral sex from her, in front of their teammates. One had vaginal sex with her in the bathroom. At least one tapped her buttocks. One stood over her and lowered his crotch toward her torso in the splits. It was an embarrassing, but exciting situation. Her sexually charged taunts made them feel awkward, as they shared chicken wings and mozzarella sticks they had ordered.
Even in that interpretation, it is difficult to imagine that a single player in that room made a decision they are proud to explain.
Phil has a question:
If the London 5 are found not criminally guilty, will the NHL apply the same stiff penalties that Logan Mailloux faced.
SportsNet – Paul D. Grant – Judge hears final arguments at hockey sexual assault trial
CBC – Karen Pauls – For some, it’s #MeToo vs. #HimToo at the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial
If you’re upset by something I said, you have bigger problems than you think.
RuPaul
WHAT’S NEXT
June 9: All five primary lawyers for the accused will start presenting their closing submissions in the case. When they are done, the Crown will follow with its closing arguments. After that, Carroccia will tell the court when she expects to present her findings and her ruling. That exact date is not expected to be soon, although expectations are that the defence will push for sooner than later.
SportsNet – Paul D. Grant – Hockey sexual assault trial: How we got here and what’s next
On Monday, Ryan was called to testify by Formenton’s lawyer, Daniel Brown.
Ryan testified that in the summer of 2022, when Hockey Canada’s decision to settle a civil lawsuit filed by E.M. became public, she was working for the London Police Service’s sexual assault and child abuse unit and was initially given three weeks to review the department’s first investigation of E.M.’s allegations.
Earlier, retired LPS sergeant Stephen Newton testified that he interviewed four of the members of Canada’s 2018 world junior hockey team in November and December 2018 before deciding to close the case without laying charges in February 2019. Videos of McLeod and Formenton’s interviews were played in court, as was an audio recording of Dube’s interview.
…
Hart’s lawyer, Riaz Sayani, asked Ryan about a July 28, 2022, phone call in which she spoke to E.M. about her statement to Hockey Canada. The statement, Sayani suggested, contained “significant differences” with her initial 2018 police interview.
In her 2018 statement, E.M. was “self-blaming and not sure if what happened was wrong,” Ryan testified.
Four years later, in her statement to Hockey Canada, “[E.M.] seems to understand how she felt and that what happened in that room was wrong,” Ryan said, reading from her investigative notes.
In the notes, Ryan wrote that she attributed the change to having four years to process what had happened and understand that “acquiescence was not consent.”
TSN – Rick Westhead – Testimony concludes at London hockey trial
The Athletic – Katie Strang and Dan Robson
When you find yourself in a whole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.
Cowboy Wisdom
Phil has a theory:
Closing arguments begin Monday June 9, 2025 and will drag on for a week or two. The judge starts her review of evidence and making her decision in late June or early July. Judge will take about 4 months before decision is rendered, effectively keeping the London 5 out of professional hockey for the 2025 – 2026 season. Then judge will find there was reasonable doubt and render a not guilty decision.
Then the NHL is faced with how to handle the re-entry of the players after it took such a hard ass stance with Logan Mailloux.
Then the NHL will be tasked on how it handles their contracts which have now run out.
Phil has a question:
Were can you place a wager on the verdict.
Will Don the Con, the robotic clown, want the London 5 in Washington since they emulate behaviour he condones.
With the London Knights winning the 2025 Memorial Cup will they be celebrating at Jacks.
Hart’s testimony came after Michael McLeod declined the opportunity to testify in the case.
TDN – Rick Westhead – Crown rests case, Hart takes the stand at London hockey trial
SportsNet – Paul D. Grant – Court shown Dube, Formenton police interviews at London trial
Phil has a question:
Are Dube and Formenton and the lawyers who let them be interviewed getting dumb and dumber T-shirts printed.
Were Det. Stephen Newton, who is now retired, and the London police as negligent as they appear or were they just looking for a rug to sweep this mess under.
Have any of these guys heard of Miranda or Omerta.
SportsNet – Paul D Grant – McLeod’s interview with police shown in London court
Phil has a question:
Are McLeod and the lawyer who let him be interviewed getting dumb and dumber T-shirts printed.
It does not require many words to speak the truth.
Chief Joseph
Phil has a question:
How much deeper of a hole will Mcleod’s lawyer dig his client into with his cross-examination.
Will ineffective counsel be McLeod’s No. 1 ground of appeal.
When you find yourself in a whole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.
Cowboy Wisdom:
Phil has a question:
Have any of these guys heard of Miranda or Omerta.
Phil has a question:
Would Matlock ever alienate a juror.
If the London courthouse is so old and decrepit what is eastern Canada doing with all of the Alberta oil money transfer payments.
Did Formenton’s lawyers cause the mistrial deliberately because of their perception that they had alienated the jury with their cross-examination of EM.
Did Formenton’s lawyers cause the mistrial deliberately because of their perception that the jury was leaning towards conviction.
Did Formenton’s lawyers cause the mistrial deliberately because of their perception that they were losing in the pick the jury chairman pool.
Will Formenton’s first ground of appeal be ineffective counsel.
Have they run out of tinfoil in London.
Our Lawyer Made Us Change The Name Of This Song So We Wouldn’t Get Sued
The development came a day after Carroccia was handed a note from a juror after the morning recess. In the absence of the jury, the judge read the note aloud.
“Multiple jury members feel we are being judged and made fun of by lawyers [Daniel] Brown and Hilary Dudding,” the note said. “Every day when we enter the courtroom they observe us, whisper to each other and turn to each other and laugh as if they are discussing our appearance. This is unprofessional and unacceptable.”
TSN – Rick Westhead – Judge discharges jury at London hockey trial
Phil has a question:
If the London V are found not guilty would you want any of them on your city’s hockey team.
Jurors were dismissed after one submitted a note to the judge on Thursday saying some members felt lawyers for the defence of one of the accused were making fun of them when they were walking in.
SportsNet – Paul D. Grant – Judge dismisses jury in hockey sexual assault trial
If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.
Lawyers Wisdom
Phil has a question:
Do you think the lawyers’ conduct was deliberate.
Wasn’t it a comment from Dudding to a juror that caused the first mistrial.
Did their conduct backfire for their clients.
Will their clients make bail while going through the appeal process.
Were the lawyers discussing their side bet about who the jury would select as chairman.
Will EM start calling the accused geezers when the court finally hears a new trail after the numerous appeals.
The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
TSN – Rick Westhead – Judge declares mistrial in London hockey case
SportsNet – Paul D. Grant – Mistrial in hockey sexual assault case, new jury to be selected
Phil has a question:
Is Marcia Clark the lead prosecutor.
Did their hockey gloves not fit.
Hockey Canada’s Issues Go Beyond A Few Bad Apples – The Entire System Needs To Be Re-engineered
Phil M. Stockmen
Why is deviant consensual group sex the reason to deny these young men the opportunities given to other team mates?