Thomas Is Potential Witness At Hockey Canada Sexual Assault Trial

[STL fan in MN]

As someone who has been both a Public Defender and a Prosecutor I'd like to add some perspective.

In regard to the original jury pool makeup of mostly women, the only standard we go by in the States and I have to assume it is similar in Canada, is "jury of your peers." It's not "jury of men or women or blacks or whites or Asians or Mexicans" depending on the case type. I was a PD in STL County for a decade. A good majority of my clients were African American. Most of the potential jurors were not. And Prosecutors went out of their way to use their strikes (6) on African Americans. It got so bad that there is a US Supreme Court case that makes prosecutors give a legit reason to strike an AA, even for a preemptive strike. Still, you would be amazed at the typical jury for a Defendant from Pine Lawn or Jennings. The fact that there were 11 women on that first jury is just dumb luck of the makeup of the panel.

In regard to rape cases, sexual assault cases etc being prosecuted it is such a complicated discussion I'm not going to get into the weeds. The poster early in the thread that talked about making this (bleep) up, the one that got rightfully blasted, sure, like Duke Lacrosse that happens, but not nearly as often as people think. Most of the "made up" type cases almost always originated out of domestic proceedings. A nasty divorce where Mom convinces the kid to lie is a common example.

Otherwise these cases are a nightmare to prosecute. It's so, so, so tough and strong for a female to raise these issues. You can't possibly imagine what they go thru unless you have been thru it. The whole process is skewered to be skeptical of them, to slut shame them, "they asked for it' etc, It's nonsensical. I've seen some studies about the number of rapes that go unreported and it would boggle your minds.

More likely than not these videos are going to be damning. Dummy's filming this [shirt]. If they hadn't filmed we wouldn't be having this conversation. I have a sneaky suspicion that if we have gotten to this point that video is going to show a mostly blotto drunk female who is either way out of it or totally passed out.

Thank you for your perspective.

I try to not discuss rumors much but to what I bolded, there’s been speculation as to what’s on these videos for a few years now. Perhaps one day soon we’ll know for sure but what’s been going around is that these videos show she wasn’t passed out but was pretty clearly inebriated and crying a lot. She also tried to leave the room a few times and was stopped. They also talked her into saying she consented to what what’s happening but word is that when you watch it, it totally looks coerced. There’s also been rumors that some of the guys show up carrying golf clubs, likely as a part to intimidate her to stay. Again, all of that is what’s been going around. I’m not saying for certain that’s what the videos will show. But they sound bad…

The cops also have the texts between all the guys where they discuss getting their stories straight as to try to get the investigators off their tails. Sounds like a lot of damning evidence tbh.

[ZouMiz2424]

Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.

A word of advice - you should probably look into the details of this particular event before making such a flippant blanket statement. The prosecution apparently has videos of the incident. To automatically assume it was all just made up is quite honestly, pretty vile.

As I read the previous comment I immediately went to thinking how have people not learned this stuff needs to be taken seriously after the Chicago incident. If it’s proven wrong then it dies in court, but I would never assume it’s getting this far without evidence.

Yeah, I’m just going to keep an open mind on this one and see what comes out of the trial. Agree that prosecutors wouldn’t go to trial without evidence but also not going to declare the boys definitely guilty until it all comes out.

In any event, not a good look for the sport but we’ll see what happens.

Prosecutors go to trial without evidence all the time. Kyle Rittenhouse's self defense was on camera and they still tried to paint a picture that didn't exist.

I don't know any of the facts in this case, they very well could be guility, but a lot of prosecutors are scumbags

[George Zipp]

Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.

A word of advice - you should probably look into the details of this particular event before making such a flippant blanket statement. The prosecution apparently has videos of the incident. To automatically assume it was all just made up is quite honestly, pretty vile.

As I read the previous comment I immediately went to thinking how have people not learned this stuff needs to be taken seriously after the Chicago incident. If it’s proven wrong then it dies in court, but I would never assume it’s getting this far without evidence.

Yeah, I’m just going to keep an open mind on this one and see what comes out of the trial. Agree that prosecutors wouldn’t go to trial without evidence but also not going to declare the boys definitely guilty until it all comes out.

In any event, not a good look for the sport but we’ll see what happens.

Prosecutors go to trial without evidence all the time. Kyle Rittenhouse's self defense was on camera and they still tried to paint a picture that didn't exist.

I don't know any of the facts in this case, they very well could be guility, but a lot of prosecutors are scumbags

No they don’t. Stop using sensationalized media cases to broad brush something you clearly know nothing about. If a prosecutor went to trial all the time without evidence they would be disbarred. Quickly.

In fact prosecutors rarely even issue charges on law enforcement referrals without evidence and the police rarely send referrals to prosecute without evidence. There are plenty of guardrails in place to keep this from happening.

[Hockey Pete]

Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.

A word of advice - you should probably look into the details of this particular event before making such a flippant blanket statement. The prosecution apparently has videos of the incident. To automatically assume it was all just made up is quite honestly, pretty vile.

As I read the previous comment I immediately went to thinking how have people not learned this stuff needs to be taken seriously after the Chicago incident. If it’s proven wrong then it dies in court, but I would never assume it’s getting this far without evidence.

Yeah, I’m just going to keep an open mind on this one and see what comes out of the trial. Agree that prosecutors wouldn’t go to trial without evidence but also not going to declare the boys definitely guilty until it all comes out.

In any event, not a good look for the sport but we’ll see what happens.

Prosecutors go to trial without evidence all the time. Kyle Rittenhouse's self defense was on camera and they still tried to paint a picture that didn't exist.

I don't know any of the facts in this case, they very well could be guility, but a lot of prosecutors are scumbags

No they don’t. Stop using sensationalized media cases to broad brush something you clearly know nothing about. If a prosecutor went to trial all the time without evidence they would be disbarred. Quickly.

In fact prosecutors rarely even issue charges on law enforcement referrals without evidence and the police rarely send referrals to prosecute without evidence. There are plenty of guardrails in place to keep this from happening.

+1.

Yes there are prosecutor's who over-reach, but they are the exception and not the rule.

That said, in this case the prosecutor's chose NOT to proceed (on two separate occasions), and it was the Parliament (with pressure from the media after the civil settlement) that pressured the Crown to move forward with prosecuting.

Definitely an interesting story-line...

[seattleblue]

As someone who has been both a Public Defender and a Prosecutor I'd like to add some perspective.

In regard to the original jury pool makeup of mostly women, the only standard we go by in the States and I have to assume it is similar in Canada, is "jury of your peers." It's not "jury of men or women or blacks or whites or Asians or Mexicans" depending on the case type. I was a PD in STL County for a decade. A good majority of my clients were African American. Most of the potential jurors were not. And Prosecutors went out of their way to use their strikes (6) on African Americans. It got so bad that there is a US Supreme Court case that makes prosecutors give a legit reason to strike an AA, even for a preemptive strike. Still, you would be amazed at the typical jury for a Defendant from Pine Lawn or Jennings. The fact that there were 11 women on that first jury is just dumb luck of the makeup of the panel.

In regard to rape cases, sexual assault cases etc being prosecuted it is such a complicated discussion I'm not going to get into the weeds. The poster early in the thread that talked about making this (bleep) up, the one that got rightfully blasted, sure, like Duke Lacrosse that happens, but not nearly as often as people think. Most of the "made up" type cases almost always originated out of domestic proceedings. A nasty divorce where Mom convinces the kid to lie is a common example.

Otherwise these cases are a nightmare to prosecute. It's so, so, so tough and strong for a female to raise these issues. You can't possibly imagine what they go thru unless you have been thru it. The whole process is skewered to be skeptical of them, to slut shame them, "they asked for it' etc, It's nonsensical. I've seen some studies about the number of rapes that go unreported and it would boggle your minds.

More likely than not these videos are going to be damning. Dummy's filming this [shirt]. If they hadn't filmed we wouldn't be having this conversation. I have a sneaky suspicion that if we have gotten to this point that video is going to show a mostly blotto drunk female who is either way out of it or totally passed out.

This is an excellent perspective to offer and I also appreciate Army's Mom's perspective. Not his actual mom, the poster. Law practice wasn't for me but politics & journalism was (many lives, all in the past). I just wanted to say I appreciate the time you took to post this.

Separately I had heard the things MN had heard and that included Thomas not being in the room. If that continues to be what we know, do you think him being a witness points to some aspect of the aftermath of what guys in the room told him, or him being present when some of the guys tried to cover it up in the aftermath by squaring their stories?

[Blueston]

Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.

Hopefully you don't have a daughter

Or a son.

[George Zipp]

As someone who has been both a Public Defender and a Prosecutor I'd like to add some perspective.

In regard to the original jury pool makeup of mostly women, the only standard we go by in the States and I have to assume it is similar in Canada, is "jury of your peers." It's not "jury of men or women or blacks or whites or Asians or Mexicans" depending on the case type. I was a PD in STL County for a decade. A good majority of my clients were African American. Most of the potential jurors were not. And Prosecutors went out of their way to use their strikes (6) on African Americans. It got so bad that there is a US Supreme Court case that makes prosecutors give a legit reason to strike an AA, even for a preemptive strike. Still, you would be amazed at the typical jury for a Defendant from Pine Lawn or Jennings. The fact that there were 11 women on that first jury is just dumb luck of the makeup of the panel.

In regard to rape cases, sexual assault cases etc being prosecuted it is such a complicated discussion I'm not going to get into the weeds. The poster early in the thread that talked about making this (bleep) up, the one that got rightfully blasted, sure, like Duke Lacrosse that happens, but not nearly as often as people think. Most of the "made up" type cases almost always originated out of domestic proceedings. A nasty divorce where Mom convinces the kid to lie is a common example.

Otherwise these cases are a nightmare to prosecute. It's so, so, so tough and strong for a female to raise these issues. You can't possibly imagine what they go thru unless you have been thru it. The whole process is skewered to be skeptical of them, to slut shame them, "they asked for it' etc, It's nonsensical. I've seen some studies about the number of rapes that go unreported and it would boggle your minds.

More likely than not these videos are going to be damning. Dummy's filming this [shirt]. If they hadn't filmed we wouldn't be having this conversation. I have a sneaky suspicion that if we have gotten to this point that video is going to show a mostly blotto drunk female who is either way out of it or totally passed out.

This is an excellent perspective to offer and I also appreciate Army's Mom's perspective. Not his actual mom, the poster. Law practice wasn't for me but politics & journalism was (many lives, all in the past). I just wanted to say I appreciate the time you took to post this.

Separately I had heard the things MN had heard and that included Thomas not being in the room. If that continues to be what we know, do you think him being a witness points to some aspect of the aftermath of what guys in the room told him, or him being present when some of the guys tried to cover it up in the aftermath by squaring their stories?

It’s very tough to get hearsay admitted. I know you know what hearsay is but for those that don’t hearsay is essentially what you talk about in regards to what others told Thomas. Heard it from a friend who heard from a friend who heard it from another you’ve been messsing around = hearsay. I still have nightmares from law school about all of the exceptions that make hearsay admissible. I also can tell you during trial my most common objection was “objection hearsay”.

For the state to rely on “I heard this person say or this person told me…..” is a tricky and mainly unreliable proposition. At best it can help establish patterns or corroborate things. Guys told RT how drunk they were or she was etc. It’s difficult for me to comment bc I don’t know much about this other than reading about it here and on Twitter and I don’t know how Canadian courts treat hearsay.

Your question is great and I’m not sure I’m doing it justice. I also owe you an apology. I was a Dick to you when you started posting. I was wrong. Post more. You add plenty to this board.

[seattleblue]

As someone who has been both a Public Defender and a Prosecutor I'd like to add some perspective.

In regard to the original jury pool makeup of mostly women, the only standard we go by in the States and I have to assume it is similar in Canada, is "jury of your peers." It's not "jury of men or women or blacks or whites or Asians or Mexicans" depending on the case type. I was a PD in STL County for a decade. A good majority of my clients were African American. Most of the potential jurors were not. And Prosecutors went out of their way to use their strikes (6) on African Americans. It got so bad that there is a US Supreme Court case that makes prosecutors give a legit reason to strike an AA, even for a preemptive strike. Still, you would be amazed at the typical jury for a Defendant from Pine Lawn or Jennings. The fact that there were 11 women on that first jury is just dumb luck of the makeup of the panel.

In regard to rape cases, sexual assault cases etc being prosecuted it is such a complicated discussion I'm not going to get into the weeds. The poster early in the thread that talked about making this (bleep) up, the one that got rightfully blasted, sure, like Duke Lacrosse that happens, but not nearly as often as people think. Most of the "made up" type cases almost always originated out of domestic proceedings. A nasty divorce where Mom convinces the kid to lie is a common example.

Otherwise these cases are a nightmare to prosecute. It's so, so, so tough and strong for a female to raise these issues. You can't possibly imagine what they go thru unless you have been thru it. The whole process is skewered to be skeptical of them, to slut shame them, "they asked for it' etc, It's nonsensical. I've seen some studies about the number of rapes that go unreported and it would boggle your minds.

More likely than not these videos are going to be damning. Dummy's filming this [shirt]. If they hadn't filmed we wouldn't be having this conversation. I have a sneaky suspicion that if we have gotten to this point that video is going to show a mostly blotto drunk female who is either way out of it or totally passed out.

This is an excellent perspective to offer and I also appreciate Army's Mom's perspective. Not his actual mom, the poster. Law practice wasn't for me but politics & journalism was (many lives, all in the past). I just wanted to say I appreciate the time you took to post this.

Separately I had heard the things MN had heard and that included Thomas not being in the room. If that continues to be what we know, do you think him being a witness points to some aspect of the aftermath of what guys in the room told him, or him being present when some of the guys tried to cover it up in the aftermath by squaring their stories?

It’s very tough to get hearsay admitted. I know you know what hearsay is but for those that don’t hearsay is essentially what you talk about in regards to what others told Thomas. Heard it from a friend who heard from a friend who heard it from another you’ve been messsing around = hearsay. I still have nightmares from law school about all of the exceptions that make hearsay admissible. I also can tell you during trial my most common objection was “objection hearsay”.

For the state to rely on “I heard this person say or this person told me…..” is a tricky and mainly unreliable proposition. At best it can help establish patterns or corroborate things. Guys told RT how drunk they were or she was etc. It’s difficult for me to comment bc I don’t know much about this other than reading about it here and on Twitter and I don’t know how Canadian courts treat hearsay.

Your question is great and I’m not sure I’m doing it justice. I also owe you an apology. I was a Dick to you when you started posting. I was wrong. Post more. You add plenty to this board.

Hey I appreciate that! No worries, all good. I have been a dick to people who I've fought with over Blues opinions before and I generally think that people aren't their worst behavior. The world and life experience have provoked me into working on equanimity. So while I can absolutely BE a dick, it's no magic trick, everyone can. The magic trick is refusing to get sucked in spending attention in those easy ways to spend it. I'm trying my best.

[Wattage]

Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.

A word of advice - you should probably look into the details of this particular event before making such a flippant blanket statement. The prosecution apparently has videos of the incident. To automatically assume it was all just made up is quite honestly, pretty vile.

As I read the previous comment I immediately went to thinking how have people not learned this stuff needs to be taken seriously after the Chicago incident. If it’s proven wrong then it dies in court, but I would never assume it’s getting this far without evidence.

Yeah, I’m just going to keep an open mind on this one and see what comes out of the trial. Agree that prosecutors wouldn’t go to trial without evidence but also not going to declare the boys definitely guilty until it all comes out.

In any event, not a good look for the sport but we’ll see what happens.

Prosecutors go to trial without evidence all the time. Kyle Rittenhouse's self defense was on camera and they still tried to paint a picture that didn't exist.

I don't know any of the facts in this case, they very well could be guility, but a lot of prosecutors are scumbags

The facts are somewhat straightforward with this case but somewhat a gray area.

She was having sex with mccleud, consensually, when without her consent he texted his buddies to clme in and join him for a gangbang. Neither side disputes this.

They said then she consensually had group sex. She says they wouldnt let her leave the room and she was scared so she went along with what they asked her to do and say. She never tried to fight she says because they could have torn her apart physically of she did and she was intimidated and scared.

Mcleod took a video of her saying that she wanted this. He says it pr9ves consent She says she was coerced and said it so theyd let her leave.

We havent seen the video but i find it weird to whip out a phone and ask on camera did you want sex with all of us----- like who does that?

Oh also, there was at some point 3 to 5 other players who entered the room besides the 5 accused but they apparently never had sexual contact with her. They will be key witnesses.

She claims she originally consented to mcleod. She never consented to him inviting his friends to gangbang her and she went along out of fear of injury.

[MiamiLaw]

Jury was just dismissed yet again. I am certainly not a criminal lawyer (or Canadian at that) but this seems like a [censored].

[DawgDad]

Once again posters came forth with opinions that either stand unchallenged or get us all in moderator trouble. None of us KNOW what happened here, only what media or others have told us.

[BalotelliMassive]

Thomas's lawyers should give the following speech:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client is just a caveman. He fell on some ice and was later thawed by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses him! Sometimes when he flies to Europe on the Concorde, he wonders, am I inside some sort of giant bird? Am I gonna be digested? He doesn't know, because he's a caveman, and that’s the way he thinks! When he sees his image on the security camera at the country club, he wonders, are they stealing his soul? He gets so upset, he hops out of his Range Rover, and run across the fairway to to the clubhouse, where he gets Carlos to make one of those martinis he’s so famous for, to soothe his primitive caveman brain. But whatever world you're from you have to see that it's obvious my client is innocent as he couldn't have been involved in the group chat because English is not his first language and he is incapable of operating a cellular phone. Not Guilty!"

[skilles]

Is this the last breath from the #metoo movement? I don’t buy it. How many times in recent memory has these kind of things been completely made up to cover for an incident that never happen or one person’s regretful decision.

A word of advice - you should probably look into the details of this particular event before making such a flippant blanket statement. The prosecution apparently has videos of the incident. To automatically assume it was all just made up is quite honestly, pretty vile.

As I read the previous comment I immediately went to thinking how have people not learned this stuff needs to be taken seriously after the Chicago incident. If it’s proven wrong then it dies in court, but I would never assume it’s getting this far without evidence.

Yeah, I’m just going to keep an open mind on this one and see what comes out of the trial. Agree that prosecutors wouldn’t go to trial without evidence but also not going to declare the boys definitely guilty until it all comes out.

In any event, not a good look for the sport but we’ll see what happens.

Prosecutors go to trial without evidence all the time. Kyle Rittenhouse's self defense was on camera and they still tried to paint a picture that didn't exist.

I don't know any of the facts in this case, they very well could be guility, but a lot of prosecutors are scumbags

No they don’t. Stop using sensationalized media cases to broad brush something you clearly know nothing about. If a prosecutor went to trial all the time without evidence they would be disbarred. Quickly.

In fact prosecutors rarely even issue charges on law enforcement referrals without evidence and the police rarely send referrals to prosecute without evidence. There are plenty of guardrails in place to keep this from happening.

Well you could argue "sensationalized media cases" does apply here as the media is what pressured charges after prosecutors chose not to bring criminal charges I believe.

[Army's Mom]

Actually, we *don't* know that media pressure is what caused the prosecutors to bring charges.

We know they decided not to press charges initially.
We know there was media pressure after the civil suit.
And we know that prosecutors then decided to bring charges.

But, unless you were the prosecutor, you don't know that their decision was based on the media sensationalism, or the political pressure.

Did the alleged victim become more cooperative with prosecutors? That could explain the decision to press charges.
Did another witness come forward to provide some previously-missing element - like proof of a conspiracy to lie to the police? That could explain it.

Both of those seem equally plausible to me.

As for dismissing the jury for a second time and now going to a bench trial - yikes.

So, apparently the FIRST time the jury was dismissed, it was because one of the defense lawyers found himself in the lunch line next to a juror. The juror reported to the court that the defense lawyer made a comment to them about how much the jurors were seen nodding during the prosecution's opening statement (which is something they cover not doing during Day 1 of law school). The lawyer denies it, and claims all he said was something to observe how awkward it was that they were both in line... how to not talk to jurors is covered on Day 2.

This time, a juror claims that two defense lawyers were making a habit of pointing and laughing at her every day when she walked into the courtroom. I find that hard to believe, since that's covered on Day 2 of law school.

I mean, seriously, we're taught to wear white shirts because the wrong-colored shirt might offend a juror.

Laughing at jurors or talking to them in line - that's some Alina Habba level [shirt] right there... IYKYK.

[skilles]

Actually, we *don't* know that media pressure is what caused the prosecutors to bring charges.

We know they decided not to press charges initially.
We know there was media pressure after the civil suit.
And we know that prosecutors then decided to bring charges.

But, unless you were the prosecutor, you don't know that their decision was based on the media sensationalism, or the political pressure.

Did the alleged victim become more cooperative with prosecutors? That could explain the decision to press charges.
Did another witness come forward to provide some previously-missing element - like proof of a conspiracy to lie to the police? That could explain it.

Both of those seem equally plausible to me.

As for dismissing the jury for a second time and now going to a bench trial - yikes.

So, apparently the FIRST time the jury was dismissed, it was because one of the defense lawyers found himself in the lunch line next to a juror. The juror reported to the court that the defense lawyer made a comment to them about how much the jurors were seen nodding during the prosecution's opening statement (which is something they cover not doing during Day 1 of law school). The lawyer denies it, and claims all he said was something to observe how awkward it was that they were both in line... how to not talk to jurors is covered on Day 2.

This time, a juror claims that two defense lawyers were making a habit of pointing and laughing at her every day when she walked into the courtroom. I find that hard to believe, since that's covered on Day 2 of law school.

I mean, seriously, we're taught to wear white shirts because the wrong-colored shirt might offend a juror.

Well I didn't say "we know" I said "you could argue"

Laughing at jurors or talking to them in line - that's some Alina Habba level [shirt] right there... IYKYK.

[Wattage]

Thomas is listed on a witnessnlist but that doesnt actually mean he is going to testfiy in this trial.

Andnit looks like thomasnis far away from this as he was never listed as being in the room that night. 6 were in the room at the same time as the accused- batherson, steel, bean, steenbergen, comtois, and howden.

2 others were in the room earlier before the gangbang- raddysh and katchouk. Both raddysh and katchouk said mcleod tried to offer them [censored] from her(not her) but they declined and left the room quickly. One of thee wisest decisions they could have made cuz their reputations wont be tarnished by this while ones merely in the room at time could definitely be.

Thomas was never in the room and only saw them beforehand.