Canadian True Crime - Analyzing the Hockey Canada trial [5]

Episode Date: October 5, 2025

[Part 5 of 5] This final instalment wraps up our coverage and analysis of the Hockey Canada scandal and trial. At the end, Kristi shares her personal opinion about what likely happened in Room 209 that night — and why the verdicts would have remained the same anyway. The difference is in how the judge got there. Please note: this series does not dispute the judge’s not guilty verdicts.Our position is that the framing of the evidence in the written decision was unnecessary and damaging, with impact that extends far beyond the trial.Do you have a “fawning” story you’d like to share?Write it or record it and contact us through the website,  Facebook or Instagram. Confidentially assured.Beyond The Verdict: www.beyondtheverdict.caMore information and resources:Young men need to be taught what consent looks like by Elizabeth Renzetti, Toronto StarHockey Canada trial outcome a 'crushing day' for sexual assault survivors featuring Daphne Gilbert, by Sheena Goodyear, CBC Radio Megan Savard for the Defence by Kathrine Laidlaw, Toronto lifeHockey Canada trial should put spotlight on morality of society by Catherine FordLISTEN: The Trial of Jacob Hoggard (JB’s story) and Kelly Favro’s StoryIf you or anyone you know is experiencing sexual violence and abuse, help is available at REES Community or Ending Violence Canada - Sexual Assault Centres, Crisis Lines and Support ServicesFull list of resources, information sources, and more: www.canadiantruecrime.ca/episode Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Canadian true crime is a completely independent production, funded mainly through advertising. The podcast often has disturbing content and coarse language. It's not for everyone. Please take care when listening. So now we've gone over what happened inside Room 209. But if you were following the trial, you'd know that a decent chunk of it focused on scrutinizing the sequence of events at Jack's Bar, where EM met Michael McLeod and some of his teammates that night. and it's not because there was any evidence to suggest EM communicated a desire for a wild night, a threesome or group sex, at the bar.

It was examined in minute detail to show that EM's evidence about the entire evening was not credible or reliable. So let's start with what the hockey players said about Jack's bar. The only accused player who testified at trial is Carter Hart, who said. said that alcohol flowed through the team's various championship celebration events that day. He testified that on the way to Jack's bar, he texted the bar manager to let them know that the team was coming so they could skip the line, a small moment that shows the entitlement that can come with being a rising hockey star. Hart also testified that at the time he was 19, and he only drank alcohol three other times before that day. He says he was very drunk. Other teammates like

Dylan Dubey and witnesses Tylis Dienbergen and Brett Howden offered only scraps of memory, saying they were also drunk, that E.M. was hanging off McLeod and Callan Foote did the splits on the dance floor, presumably with pants on. As for McLeod, the judge noted these details from his police statement. He said he and some of his teammates arrived at Jack's bar between 11.30 p.m. and midnight. He met EM. They had a drink. He bought one and she bought one. McLeod said he didn't see what EM was drinking, but he had a few more. They decided to go back to the hotel where they had sex. That's it.

Carter Hart testified he went to another bar to meet Alex Foreminton, while there, Hart received MacLeod's three-way invitation to the group chat and replied, I'm in. Foreminton also received that message but told the police he thought it was only sent to him. Despite this, Hart and Formenton left the bar together, apparently to hightail it to McLeod's hotel room. There was far less evidence from the accused than from E.M. And what they did provide was far less detailed.

That's a feature of the criminal justice. system. The accused has the right to silence. They don't have to speak to police or testify at trial. And as we've seen, when they did give police statements, they set the terms. EM did not have that option. As a witness, she had to give multiple sworn statements over the years. Then, her testimony at trial is expected to line up with everything she'd ever said before, or it's a mark against her. E.M. was asked to testify in detail about her time at Jack's bar, her alcohol consumption well there, her interactions with various people, and surveillance footage and messages that challenged her account. The defense

pointed to a number of inconsistencies and EM's version of events. We're not going to go through them all because the judge's written decision lays them out in minute detail. That's kind of the point of this whole series. But for balance, here's the main example cited in the written decision. EM testified that at the bar, some of the hockey players moved her hand on their crotches. The defense pointed to surveillance video showing she touched McLeod's crotch unprompted. EM said she didn't remember doing that, and she also didn't remember dancing with McLeod and witness Howden until she was shown a video of it. EM testified that McLeod and his teammates were trying to get her drunk. The defense

pointed to surveillance video which apparently showed she purchased a lot of drinks herself. EM pushed back, saying not all of the night was captured on video. Another inconsistency was EM's account of slipping outside the bathroom at Jack's bar. She first told the police she was alone when it happened, but the later statement her civil lawyers provided to Hockey Canada indicated that McLeod was with her when she fell. When the defense pointed out this inconsistency, EM effectively testified she'd confused two separate bathroom trips, and that's one of the errors her civil lawyers had made in the statement that she signed. In McLeod's police interview, he denied that he saw EM fall,

but two years after that, he told Hockey Canada investigator Robatai he did see EM fall after going to the bathroom, and he blamed it on the wet floor rather than alcohol. So both of their stories had inconsistencies, but because the Robitai evidence was inadmissible, only one of them was branded a liar. The defence accused EM of lying under oath and argued that if she couldn't be trusted about events at the bar, she couldn't be trusted about what happened later in the hotel room.

Of note was Alex Formanton's lawyer, Daniel Brown, he was one of the two lawyers at the heart of those incidents with the two juries that resulted in the trial being judge alone. Brown suggested that EM has an alter ego that only emerged when she drank. He patronizingly called it Fun E.M., except he used her real name in the courtroom and taunted her with it. Fun E.M. Needs more alcohol. Fun E.M. dances freely. Fun E.M. is outgoing. Fun E.M. acts on her impulses. Sober E.M. wouldn't have chosen to cheat on her boyfriend, right? Brown suggested E.M. exaggerated how much she drank as an excuse for her behavior. He also confronted her with texts she sent to a friend and a conversation with a

bouncer, arguing she could have left the bar if she wanted to. And besides, the text she sent that night and the following morning, made it seem like she was having a blast with those hockey players. E.M. pushed back, saying she downplayed the night in texts as a way of coping. When Brown suggested she was embarrassed by her own choices, she cut in, saying she made the choice to dance with McLeod and drink at the bar, quote, I did not make the choice to have them do what they did back at the hotel. Callan Foots lawyer Juliana Greenspan suggested to EM that she was maintaining the narrative she was drunk because, quote, You know that your behaviour would not be accepted by others, meaning EM's mother and EM's new boyfriend at the time.

E.M. responded, I think that my behaviour was that way because I was drunk and I think the behaviour of others, that should be questioned. She testified the situation was difficult for her and her boyfriend since they'd only been together about three months at the time. She said they are still together seven years later and engaged to be married. And this brings us to the scrutiny of EM's consumption of alcohol, how much she drank, what it would have taken her to get drunk, and how intoxicated she appeared to be on various videos from both Jack's bar

and the Delta Hotel. The judge noted, E.M. went to great lengths to point out that she was really drunk most of the night. Justice Carousia stressed that this wasn't relevant to E.M.'s legal capacity to consent. Since she didn't drink any more alcohol after leaving the bar, the judge reasoned that she was sobering up as the night went on. So if she was able to consent to McLeod in the hotel room, she couldn't suddenly be too drunk to consent once his teammates arrived,

so intoxication wasn't under the microscope because of that. Instead, the judge explained, alcohol consumption clearly plays a role in the assessment of the reliability of the evidence of the complainant, as well as the other witnesses. In other words, if EM was as drunk as she claimed, then that could be a reason for her various memory gaps and inconsistency. But if she wasn't found to be that drunk, then that would have repercussions for how all her evidence was considered. And this is where the imbalance comes in. The hockey players acknowledged

they'd been drinking heavily, and the judge readily accepted their evidence that intoxication was a factor that affected their memory of events. Quoting from the written decision, I note that the evidence of each of the witnesses has been impacted to varying degrees by the passage of time and the consumption of alcohol. EM was a witness too, but it's clear the judge did not include her in that same understanding or extend her the same benefit of the doubt. So here we go with a micro-examination of what EM drank and how drunk she appeared to be. E.M testified she was in university at the time and typically went to bars about once a week. She described her drinking that night as excessive, estimating she had about eight full shots at one point. Justice Carousia noted evidence showing the shots were only half shots, inferring that E.M. did not drink as much as she thought she did.

And when reviewing bar surveillance footage, the judge also pointed out that E.M. said she leaned on the bar because she was drunk, yet the footage also showed her correcting a bartender who short-changed her and carefully putting the money in her wallet. The judge said this was inconsistent with being impaired. Eam was also apparently able to walk and dance in high heels at Jack's bar without difficulty, more evidence to the judge that being drunk was not the reason for her memory gaps. and that bathroom trip and fall, the judge noted,

Although I recognised that she testified she fell near the bathroom at Jack's bar, she did not attribute that to the consumption of alcohol. According to her evidence, she slipped or lost her balance. Justice Carousier also pointed out surveillance footage that showed E.M. and McLeod leaving the bar, with her walking quickly in heels to keep up with him. She wasn't stumbling there, nor did she seem to be stumbling as they entered his hotel lobby and walked up a short flight of stairs. Not intoxicated. And inside the hotel room, the judge pointed to those two short consent videos as evidence that EM had no difficulty standing.

She was not slurring her words and she spoke clearly and coherently. Of course, those same surveillance videos also showed Michael Mollinger. McLeod and some of his teammates walking out of Jack's bar and into the hotel lobby, navigating the same stairs without issue, just like E.M. did. McLeod's voice can also be heard on the consent video as he prompts E.M. on what to say. The judge made no note about whether he seemed intoxicated or not. There's also no evidence that any of them continued drinking after they arrived back at the hotel. So the hockey players would have been sobering up as the night went on just like EM was.

We're not done yet. The written decision has a bulleted list detailing EM's various memory gaps. This is the part where the judge sarcastically put gaps in quotation marks. EM could not recall any conversation with Michael McLeod during their consensual sexual encounter, including whether they discussed the use of a condom. In fact, she couldn't remember much of what she said when she was in that hotel room at all, including if she had any conversations with the men she performed oral sex on. But those men couldn't recall any conversations with her either.

McLeod's police statement mentions nothing about a conversation or a condom. Carter Hart testified he said to EM, Can I get a blowy? And she replied by saying, Yeah, or sure, or something along those lines, he said. said, but, you know, he was drunk. The judge also pointed out that EM couldn't remember the defense's speculative 15-minute window theory or what happened during that time. Em couldn't remember the consent videos being filmed, yet testified that McLeod was hounding her to say certain

things on those videos, yet another contradiction, according to the judge. But the court played the consent videos. EM saw the consent videos. The judge also saw the consent videos and included transcripts in the written decision that clearly show McLeod was pressuring EM to say it, and what else? And Justice Carousier herself concluded from those videos that EM was acting sexually forward and not intoxicated. Yet when EM described what seems to be plainly visible on the videos shown at trial, it's considered inconsistent with her testimony that she had no direct memory of the filming, a mark against her reliability. Justice Carousia ultimately concluded, quote, In my view, E.M. exaggerated her intoxication, when confronted with inconsistencies or when she was

unable to explain why she acted in a certain manner, she defaulted to say it was because she was drunk. Alcohol may have been the only explanation E.M. could reach for, particularly at Jack's bar. But the judge extended that into the hotel room. E.M. wasn't as drunk as she said she was at the bar. And if she didn't drink any more alcohol after she left the bar, then she certainly wasn't that drunk when she got to the hotel room. Therefore, E.M. can't claim intoxication as the reason for her inconsistencies and memory gaps when recalling what took place there. For the hockey players, the judge accepted their evidence of intoxication as a perfectly reasonable excuse for why their memories were patchy and inconsistent.

But when EM claims to be intoxicated, it's an aha moment that quickly turns into a crisis of reliability. Although the incident she perceived as threatening didn't begin until after they left, left Jack's bar, we've explained the research that the brain's defense circuitry kicks in automatically changes the way memories are made and stored, and there's no neat before and after chapters. EM had testified that as soon as she emerged from the bathroom naked and saw other hockey players had entered the room and they told her to get down on the floor, her mind separated from her body. She felt like she was floating above the room, watching everything

happening and feeling like she had no control or choice in it. That's a textbook description of dissociation, a survival response that protects the brain from overwhelming stress by detaching parts of the experience from consciousness. Quoting from the research published on the Justice Canada government website, Dissociated people often have the perception of things as unreal and report being unable to make sense of what is going on. They described their experience as feeling like being on autopilot. Others report trans states, feeling in a fog or in a dream, and that they don't feel their bodies. In other words, EM's testimony about her survival responses is consistent with trauma science and therefore

a plausible explanation for her memory gaps and inconsistencies that night. But we all know what happened with that. And wait, there's been. more. Another section in the written decision where the judge listed issues of credibility related to EM's evidence as a witness. The first issue was a part of the cross-examination where Alex Formenton's defense lawyer Brown asked EM about her weight. Why did she testify that she weighed 120 pounds at the time when she knew a nurse had weighed her a few days after the incident and found she weighed 18 pounds more than she testified. The inferences that E.M. was trying to say that she was much smaller than the group of elite

hockey players. Therefore, it didn't take as much alcohol for her to get drunk or be intimidated by them. In response, E.M. testified that she gave her original estimation of her weight at the time, but the judge noted she showed a reluctance to correct herself when confronted. with the evidence of her real weight. Justice Carousier described the discrepancy itself as a relatively minor point, but specifically referred to it as troubling that E.M. chose to repeat an incorrect estimation of her weight, rather than answering the question truthfully with her actual weight. This suggestion that E.M. deliberately lied about her weight was criticized by some as unnecessary

shaming by the defense, a peasant. Keti argument designed to embarrass EM, and we do expect this from the defense, but it was surprising to see a judge bring up that argument. Survivor J.B. has some thoughts to share about her cross-examination. They tried to do the same thing to me, like Savard asked me how much I weighed back then, trying to say, like, oh, he wouldn't be able to drag you off of a bed type comment. Like, she asked me how much I weighed then, and she let it go after that. but I was so offended.

Like, that's, like, one comment I took away because that's rude. And women have so many body image issues as it is. I can't even imagine being body shamed, being slut shamed in front of the entire country. It's crazy to me that everything she said was dissected and everything the men said was just believed. Justice Carasier also noted that E.M. A.M. acknowledged filling gaps in her memory with assumptions, that she started sentences with I feel and described her evidence sometimes as my truth. For example, when confronted with surveillance footage that didn't line up with her testimony,

she said that her testimony reflected her recollection. The judge treated this as blurring the line between what EM believed and what was objectively true and flagged it as a credibility problem. But human memory doesn't work like a hub. drive. It's always subjective. A camera can capture an image, but it can't capture how an individual experience something or what they felt in the moment. Humans do unconsciously fill in blanks. That's literally how memory works. And really, if EM were hell-bent on lying and deception, wouldn't it have been far easier to just do that and give a cleaner, more consistent story? Instead,

she's uncertain and hesitant throughout. She admitted her memories were fuzzy and did her best to explain them. And as Justice Carousiea pointed out multiple times in relation to Carter Hart and the other hockey players who testified as witnesses, their memories were impacted by the consumption of alcohol and the passage of time since seven years had gone by. But when it came to EM, there was no such grace. But what motive would you?

she have to fabricate evidence or lie about all of this according to the defence. That's coming up in a moment. Once Justice Karasea dismissed the science of trauma and EM's explanation that she was intoxicated, there's nothing left to conclude other than EM being simply unreliable and a liar. And that brings us to the suggested motive for EM to fabricate evidence or lie. Quoting from the written decision. The defense submits that EM created a narrative to explain to her mother who found her crying in the shower how she spent a night drinking, left her friends behind, and left the bar to engage in sexual activity with a man who was not her boyfriend. Furthermore, she had to find an explanation to provide to her boyfriend that she was a victim and not an active participant

in this group sexual activity. The defense also argued that the defense also argued that the judge. that EM was upset with Michael McLeod for being a disrespectful and rude jerk. So according to the defense, EM apparently maintained a lie for seven years through countless court appearances, lost wages and lost time, leading up to a very high-profile trial where she faced a grilling by five well-paid defense teams, all because she was trying to save face and wanted revenge on a guy for being a jerk. Defense lawyer Greenspan also noted that EM referred to the hockey players as boys in her police statements, yet she referred to them as men at trial.

The reason why you have so carefully changed your language is because you have come into this trial with a clear agenda, Greenspan said. According to multiple press reports, all five defense teams themselves constantly referred to the accused as boys throughout the trial. Justice Carasier pointed out the defense's suggestion that EM made deliberate choices in the hotel room and it was easier for her to deny those choices than to acknowledge the shame, guilt and embarrassment about them. The judge noted that EM did not deny the defense's suggestion. Quote,

E.M said, I don't know. I'm kind of struggling to understand that. And went on to explain that she blames herself and that other people should be held accountable. but it was a combination of things. Sounds entirely in line with a trauma response, but this was not a trauma-informed trial. Injustice Carra's eyes, these were all red flags that ultimately led her to conclude that E.M. had consented to all of the sexual acts that took place in that hotel room.

Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dylan Dubay and Callan Foote were found not guilty of, sexual assault, and McLeod was also found not guilty on his second separate charge of being a party to the offence. Juries do not give an explanation for how they arrived at their verdict, but when it's a judge-alone trial, the verdict must come with an explanation. That's the 90-page written decision we've been going through this series. In finding the play as not guilty, Justice Maria Carasier could have explained that based on the evidence at trial, the Crown failed to meet its burden of proof that a crime had been committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instead, she went several steps further. She accepted the version of events presented by the accused men and their teammates while delivering a scathing assessment of EM's evidence, declaring it to be not credible or reliable. There was no scrutiny of the accused players' actions in that hotel room that night whatsoever. No analysis of whether they took any reasonable steps to ensure consent was clear, ongoing and specific, consistent with Canadian law. There was no acknowledgement of any harm done in that hotel room at all.

When faced with multiple inconsistencies, memory gaps, contradictions and evidence of dissatisfactions, and evidence of deception from the hockey players, the judge excused it, glossed over it, didn't acknowledge it, or left it out of the written decision altogether. But when faced with the same from EM, the judge amplified everything as proof she was not credible or reliable, and in some cases even distorted EM's own words or removed the context to make her look unreliable

when there was no reason to. Many commentators, including legal experts and advocates, noted that Justice Carousier also scoffed at the concept of the phrase believed the victim. In the written decision, she emphasizes that the phrase has no place in a criminal trial and cited case law that frames it as if it means reversing the burden of proof or handing out automatic convictions. But that's a strawman argument. believed the victim was never about erasing due process. It's about correcting the historic imbalance where sexual assault complainants were always treated as inherently unreliable. It's about starting from a place of listening, taking allegations seriously, and not filtering them through centuries

of rape myths and stereotypes that paint women as liars, hysterics or vengeful manipulators, something the Supreme Court of Canada repeatedly affirmed should have no place in sexual assault trials. Yet this case showed the opposite. After dismissing the science of trauma that offered a plausible explanation for EM's memory gaps and why she reacted the way she did, just as Carasier dissected her evidence through the lens of how a real or perfect victim would react, those same very stereotypes. E.M's appearance on the consent video was interpreted as circumstantial evidence of her willingness to engage in sexual activity,

that she was asking for it by seeming sexually forward, that E.M. consented to everything in that hotel room, and it wasn't because she was intoxicated, intimidated or fearful, that she could have left at any time, that no one was preventing her from leaving, and that she was waiting for more men to enter the room to have sex with. instead of outright lying, which you might expect someone who was lying to do, EM expressed hesitation and uncertainty throughout, which was also used against her as evidence she wanted it bad in the moment, regretted it afterwards, then lied to save face. The reason, believe the victim exists as a slogan,

is to counter the statistics of super low report rates because victims are scared they won't be believed, that their complaint won't be taken seriously or investigated properly. So when a judge dismisses this slogan outright as part of her written judgment, it doesn't sound like a defense of fair trials. It sounds like a warning to survivors. Your story will always be treated with suspicion first. And in this case, that suspicion was weaponized against EM from start to finish.

It took seven hours for judgment. Justice Carasier to read her written and oral decision allowed in the courtroom, followed by a media scrum outside. EM's lawyer Karen Bellamer gave a statement describing EM as a hero who chose to testify at great personal cost. And despite it being the hardest thing she's ever had to do, she did it to stand up for herself and others who have had similar experiences. All clips edited for brevity. Nine days of testifying was more than she ever expected.

Her treatment during cross-examination at times was insulting, unfair, mocking, and disrespectful. None of which was necessary. Yet she maintained her composure and kept her emotions in check, only to be criticized for not acting enough like a victim. The worst possible outcome is to feel disbelieved. That's why today's verdict is so devastating. E.M. did everything in her power to be. to recount her experience honestly and to the best of her ability.

She agreed to do everything asked of her by the criminal justice system, yet it was not enough. EM's lawyer went on to say that while the system worked to aggressively protect the rights of the accused, as it's supposed to, those protections should not come at the expense of the victim complainant's well-being. There's also a message from EM about the future, which will get to later. The five accused hockey players did not personally comment on the verdicts, but statements from each of their defense teams touched on similar points. This is Michael McLeod's lawyer, David Humphrey.

Justice Carascia's carefully reasoned decision represents a resounding vindication for Mr. McLeod and for his co-defendants. Justice Carousia found that the complainant's testimony was incredible and was unreliable. For years, public perception was shaped by a one-sided narrative from a civil lawsuit that went unchallenged, in large part because Hockey Canada settled the claim without first informing or consulting the players. That version of events dominated headlines and created a lasting and a false impression of guilt. Humphrey said that had the players being consulted, they would have refused to settle. and would have vigorously contested EM's allegations. This was one of the clear messages coming through in these statements, that the first London police investigation arrived at the right result

despite the trial bringing to light just how botched that investigation was, and that the trial was not the natural outcome of a serious criminal investigation, but instead the result of EM's civil lawsuit, public pressure, media narratives, political agendas, or just an overzealous crown. Here's Callan Foote's lawyer, Juliana Greenspan. At the start of this trial, Cal Foote walked into this courthouse, an innocent man, and he walks out today, exactly that. Cal never lost faith that justice would be done, despite the clamor of external pressures

and agendas outside the courthouse doors. Criminal investigations and the trial process must always be free from these influences. Alex Foreminton's lawyer Daniel Brown's statement was of a more personal nature. In Alex's case, he was condemned and felt banished from society. This experience for him has been crushing. Nonetheless, the impact of this case has changed Alex as a person, and he's matured well beyond his years. And while no police investigation is perfect, the lunger. police got it right seven years ago when they decided it would be a mistake to charge Alex.

However, political and media pressure brought this allegation back into the spotlight in 2022, and the Crown attorney knowingly forged ahead with a hopeless prosecution. And Alex sincerely hopes that this prosecution doesn't stop the quest to combat sexual violence and to bring genuine offenders to justice. However, an accusation is just that. This case stands to the fact that we must never lose sight of the fundamental right to be presumed innocent. A fair response to sexual assault claims requires a balanced perspective and public trust and the decision-making of the courts. Anything less only harms the justice system and the cause of eliminating sexual violence. It's important to understand that these statements weren't

only about responding to the verdict. They were also about managing reputations for the future. The players may have been found not guilty in a criminal trial, but the stain on their reputations will be harder to lift, because now we're talking about the Court of Public Opinion, where ethics, morality, and basic human decency do matter. Even taking their own accounts at face value, what those players described was morally reprehensible, an elite hockey team, supposedly sporting role models, celebrating a championship win in a hotel, room by having multiple members engaging in sexual acts with one young woman while other teammates watched and laughed, and afterwards, acting like they never wanted to have sex with her

in the first place and only participated reluctantly because she was the aggressor. Best case scenario for the hockey players would be for the public to believe they were the victims of a process gone off the rails, that the real problem isn't what happened in that hotel room, but that anyone dared to put it on trial. And then we have Carter Hart's lawyer, Megan Savard. This is the first time I've heard her speak. She both sounds and looks very angry. It is both gratifying and unsurprising

to hear an impartial and fully informed decision-maker except Mr. Hertz's testimony about what happened as unshaken, credible, and true. The public narrative of this event was until this trial, one-sided and untested. Now the criminal process has shown it to be false. To anyone who is surprised or angered by today's outcome, it is the direct result of the media's ongoing failure to publicize the weaknesses in the prosecution's case as it unfolded. The office of the Crown Attorney knew what today is verdict. was likely to be.

And the evidence at trial came as no surprise to them or anyone with full knowledge of the investigation. Today's outcome was not just predictable, it was predicted. Here's what Crown prosecutor Megan Cunningham had to say about all this. A successful prosecution is not measured solely

by whether there are guilty verdicts at the end. The Crown's goal throughout this proceeding has been to see a fair trial, a trial that is fair to the men charged and one that is also fair to EM. We want to thank EM for coming forward and for her strength in participating in this process. We will carefully review Justice Carraea's decision

and as this case is still within the appeal period we have no further comments to make about the decision at this time. The wider legal community was divided. In the criminal defense world, the judge's blunt dismissal. of E.M.'s testimony was praised as a principled defense of the presumption of innocence. But other legal experts saw it differently. They were shocked by the tenor and intensity of the

judges written and oral reasons and her unnecessarily harsh and disparaging comments about E.M. And the fact that she went so far as to find that E.M. consented to everything, while leaving the behavior of the accused players unchecked. The focus of the criticism, was not on the verdicts themselves, but the way the judge arrived at them. It was described as a failed understanding of affirmative consent and a missed opportunity to advance public knowledge of the realities of sexual assault. Daphne Gilbert, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who researches sexual violence and abuse in sports,

made the exact point I've been trying to make all along. In this interview with CBC's As It Happens, podcast with guest host Megan Williams. I'm not surprised that there were acquittals, and this is an excellent judge who has an excellent reputation, and, you know, I could see a pathway to acquittal. It was just not the pathway that she chose that I would have agreed with. I think, to me, the evidence was clear that EM did not consent to what was happening in that room, and so what I was hoping is that the judge would take that and say,

but did the men have an honest but mistaken belief that she was consenting? And that would have allowed her to dig deeper into what the men were doing. And that was just not the way that she chose to come to her conclusions. And that's the crux of the issue. If the accused hockey players honestly believed there was consent, even if they were wrong about that,

they cannot be convicted of sexual assault. I have some things to say about that later and how it all ties in to the believe the victim thing. The day the verdict was being read out, I was frantically trying to finish off the first episode of this series, unsuccessfully. And I was in an email conversation with J.B. and Kelly and saw their crushing reactions to the judge's comments in real time. We all took a couple of days to process and I asked them both for their thoughts. It was just, I was disappointed in the comments that she wrote. And I know, J.B, that you feel similar. I can see that this conversation has definitely upset you.

It's hard for me because I have a really bad case of survivors guilt. Because during cross-examination, I was treated horribly. But in the rest of the process, I was treated very. well in comparison to how EM was treated. The crowns acknowledged how hard the court process is. For me and the other complainant who didn't get the guilty verdict, they still acknowledged the pain and how hard it is. And they thanked both of us for coming forward outside of the courthouse with the media. And the judge, even on her decision, she mentioned the other complainant, even though he wasn't found guilty of that particular crime. She acknowledged something. And I just,

it's hard for me because I feel like I feel guilty almost that I had a judge who was so empathetic and so kind to me. And so it's hard for me to see the other side of things so publicly. As much as I say, I can relate to her and I can understand because our cases are similar. I can't because I can't imagine the pain of the entire country talking about you like that and being humiliated on a public stage like that. I think that the judge should be ashamed of herself for the words that she used. And I hope that she listens to the criticism from multiple survivors in her judgments going forward. It's almost as though the justice in this case had her own vision of what the perfect victim was and could not let go of what a perfect victim would look like in a room full of 10 hockey players that are.

200 pounds each. This is where trauma-informed training would be really, really beneficial. The words that she shows, those weren't trauma-informed words. The words that she used were a slap in the face to anybody who has ever come forward. The thing for me that stands out is she could have at least acknowledged the fact that being in a room, like you said, with all of those professional athletes alone, naked, lying on the floor, would be terrifying. It's so disheartening. I feel for every single person that has been affected by this. Christy, you asked if the legal system is equipped to handle sexual assault trials fairly. The short answer is no.

The legal system is built to weigh facts, but it doesn't understand trauma. And sexual assault trials asked survivors to relive the worst part of their lives in microscopic detail and under cross-examination designed to pick them apart. like that's retramatization. And we saw this with the trial that we just all watched. You know, EM gave her testimony about a coercive experience. And she was calm and clear, but because she didn't cry, scream, or run,

or any of those other brave myths that we have, the system decided that she wasn't credible enough. And that's not a fair standard. And it just shows that this is a system that doesn't understand how trauma really works. So the accused have lawyers and coaches and public relations advisors. EM has herself. That's it. She's got no one else, herself and her truth. And that is not enough. So until the courts truly become trauma-informed, it's going to keep failing everybody. The public has been asking why the Crown chose to bring this case to trial in the first place

if it had no reasonable prospect of conviction. Online comment sections have been filled with people talking about how the decision must have been political or the Crown must have caved to public outrage after EM's civil lawsuit first came to light. The police closed the investigation without charges. The trial must have all been smoke and mirrors. What a waste of taxpayer money, they've been saying. The statements made by the accused player's lawyers only stoked that fire. But that's not how things work.

Of course, public pressure can influence decisions, but in Canada, the police investigate and the Crown prosecutors decide whether to lay charges and take a case to trial. And even without any convictions, there were still many positive consequences from the scandal being brought to light and going to trial. It prompted Hockey Canada to introduce consent training for players, although the quality of that training remains an open question.

It exposed the existence of the National Equity Fund, that secret fund that the organisation used to pay off their sexual assault lawsuits, and led to significant institutions. changes, and it brought national attention to broader issues in hockey culture and youth sports, including misogyny, entitlement and how institutions handle sexual assault allegations. And that brings us to why EM went through with it. Some have speculated that her mother must have forced her, dragging her daughter all the way to a high-profile trial against her will,

just to save face. Others have suggested EM was forced into it by the Crown because of the public attention. But by all accounts, E.M. made her own choice to move forward with the trial. According to reporting by Dan Robson and Katie Strang for the Athletic, Crown prosecutors warned E.M. that testifying would be brutal, that her life would be dissected, and that public reaction would be cruel. Even knowing that, E.M. agreed to proceed without hesitation. Her lawyer Karen Bellamer spoke to this during the media scrum. I am hopeful that the verdict today is not the end,

and I know that EM very much wants some good to come from this case. So to those other brave souls who are willing to do whatever it takes to pursue justice, we hope you do not give up. In a country where only 6% of sexual assaults are reported to the police, courageous people like you are important. Without youth, there is no criminal accountability at all, but the justice system must do better for you. For today, despite the verdict, we can marvel at EM's courage. She shed light on issues that need our attention.

She has fostered a nationwide conversation about sexual violence, entitlement culture, bystander responsibility, valid consent, coercion, and responses to threatening unpredictable situations. We look to this case as a turning point, to do more to prevent sexual violence, and to make reforms to afford survivors better treatment by the justice system. J.B., Kelly and I want to thank EM as well. She performed a valuable public service. We're not in contact with her at all, but without her bravery and courage,

I wouldn't have spent more than two months analyzing this case and trying to educate myself so I could pass it on to you. Because when J.B. and Kelly first told me about how the Hockey Canada trial was developing, I was really only aware of the fight-flight freeze responses from the research I did on our Jacob Hogarth series. I really didn't know about fawning or appeasing as a trauma response. And at first, like many, I struggled to understand EM's reactions, why she would act like she's consenting to sex she didn't want, and why she seems so confused about it.

I was dreadfully naive about that, but Kelly and J.B. were patient with me, and the more I read E.M.'s testimony about what happened in that hotel room, the more it hit home. I thought about all the moments in my own life where I've done the same, tried to appease a perceived threat, gone along to stay safe, or froze when I wish I'd been brave. I understand the mindset EM must have been in.

I've been there before. All women have. We've been told all our lives to be mindful of upsetting men, and we know all too well what can happen when we refuse unwanted romantic or sexual advances. Men typically don't take it very well, with reactions that can range from guilt trips and tantrums to rage, insults and physical aggression. So we smile, we laugh,

we appease, not because we want to, but because deep down, we know that saying no will likely come at a cost. E.M put words to something so many of us know but don't always recognize. She's brought that into the public consciousness at great personal expense, and that in itself is an extraordinary act of courage. J.B. and Kelly have a message for E.M. which we'll get to in a moment. But first, why did the Crown decide not to appeal the judge's verdict? That's coming up next, along with my personal thoughts on what went on in that hotel room and the possible consequences of this trial for society at large. Back in a moment. So what about that appeal? When the Crown announced it would not be appealing the verdicts, there was another wave of polarising public sentiment.

For the Hockey Bros, it was a new. justification for them to continue crowing that EM was a vengeful manipulator as well as a slut who already received her payoff. But for sexual assault survivors and those who support them, including the group of advocates who showed up at the courthouse each day holding signs of support for EM, the disappointment was palpable. They described it as a profoundly sad day because an appeal could have signalled that the system was finally willing to stand up for survivors of sexual violence and misconduct. Instead, it was just another painful reminder of how the system works exactly as intended to harm, silence and re-victimise them. So why didn't the Crown appeal?

Law professor Daphne Gilbert explained it well in another CBC news interview. She said, quote, Justice Carasier appeal-proofed her judgment when she based it entirely on her assessment of the credibility of the complainant. A court of appeal cannot disturb credibility findings unless they are patently biased or unfair. Once she said she disbelieved the complainant, it was game over. Gilbert went on to say that EM will leave a profound legacy because calls are growing louder for reform of the process. quote, never mind alternative processes like restorative justice, people want reform to the criminal justice system, and I believe it can happen. I think that ultimately EM will be seen as the

catalyst for change. Speaking of restorative justice, Carter Hart's lawyer, Megan Savard, said something about that in her statement that got people talking. The Crown Attorney did not have to take this case to trial. Mr. Hart in particular, was willing to engage in a restorative justice process. He was willing to be publicly named and prepared to use his public platform to teach other athletes about how to ensure that their sexual encounters are responsible and thoughtful.

Mr. Hart regrets that it took a criminal trial for the truth to come out, but he has learned from the experience, and he is committing to sharing what he has learned with others in his personal circle and in his professional life. A few things about this. The first is that sexual assault cases in Ontario aren't even eligible for formal restorative justice programs yet.

It's literally a moot point. And Savard's comment on restorative justice reminded me of a recent profile on her by Catherine Laidlaw, published in Toronto Life. It begins, Megan Savard for the defence. When famous men accused of sexual assault need a lawyer, they turn to Savard. She's fierce, shrewd and relentless. She doesn't just want to win. She wants to dismantle the prison system altogether.

Savard claimed her courtroom approach is guided by her belief in the prison abolition movement, and quote, putting a person's humanity before their punishment. But abolition, like restorative justice, is about reducing harm, promoting accountability, and building systems rooted in care and community. And if that's truly the goal, it can't only extend to wealthy men accused of sexual assault. Putting humanity first must also include the people they've harmed. And the tactics used by Savard and other criminal defense lawyers in sexual assault trials often do the very opposite. treating victim complainants as adversaries that must be crushed

and relying on strategies that replicate the very harms abolitionists are trying to dismantle. It's something J.B. knows only too well. So it rings hollow and performative to hear Megan Savard invoke restorative justice as a realistic alternative in this case for Carter Hart when it was never an option on the table anyway. And it also overlooks the elephant in the room. Restorative justice is built on accountability. The person who caused harm has to take responsibility before any healing can begin, and there's no evidence that Carter Hart or any of the other accused hockey players have done this.

Savard told the media that Hart has learned something about ensuring sexual encounters are responsible and thoughtful, and that he was bravely going to step up. and use his public platform to share what he's learned. That is, until the Crown pushed ahead with this trial, so now he's not going to. But he's missing an opportunity. If he actually learned something meaningful that could help others and could prevent more harm,

why not still use his platform for good? Imagine the actual impact if even one of these players found the courage to stand up and say publicly, I was found not criminally guilty, but that night wasn't right. We all should have done better, and here's what I've learned about it. Imagine if they actually apologised to EM in public for the way they treated her that night. That would be a form of restorative justice. They could begin to repair the damage with EM and with the public.

They could begin to undo the stain on their reputations, and maybe even become role models for change in professional hockey. Instead, what we get is silence. Protect the brand. Pretend nothing happened. Pretend she lied about everything. And that's a reason we're seeing the Ottawa senators announced publicly they won't be signing Alex Foreminton to a deal

or why the Calgary Flames don't want Dylan Dubay back on the team. And that's why when recent rumours surfaced that the... Carolina Hurricanes were looking to sign Michael McLeod, the organization received pushback from fans who threatened to cancel their season tickets. More than 1,700 people signed a petition to reject that said, quote, By choosing not to sign these players, the Hurricanes can reaffirm their commitment to all their fans and send a powerful statement that they prioritize a safe, respective and inclusive environment over winning games at any cost. As we release this episode, it's just been announced that the hurricanes have declined to sign McLeod or Carter Hart.

Apparently, the Vegas Golden Knights are thinking about signing Hart, where he'd be playing alongside our olive hoodie wearing friend Brett Howden, and fans have started a petition there too, currently up to 1,300 signatures in just 20. hours. One signatory says, Being a fan of sports as a woman is hard enough without being slapped in the face with your team's implicit acceptance of sexual violence every time a player steps on the ice. This will harm and ostracize a large portion of fans. We must do better by women in sports.

All these players have to do is stand up, take public accountability and finally act like the role models people thought they were. seven years ago. But here we are. So here's my personal opinion about what went on in that hotel room. I'm going to defer to EM's own words in her Instagram exchange with Michael McLeod the next day, the one he didn't push back on. I was okay with going home with you. It was everyone else afterwards that I wasn't expecting. I just felt like I was being made fun of and taken advantage of. I believe E.M. when she says she complied out of fear and felt intimidated and scared, that she did what she needed to do to get out of there safely. I believe her when she says that's how she felt,

that's what she did and that's what was done to her. That's what believe the victim means, even if our justice system is completely unequipped to deal with the nuance. I also believe on the balance of probabilities that those hockey players thought they had EM's consent. Don't get it twisted, though. The evidence indicates they had cavemen brains and didn't know a thing about what active, enthusiastic consent really is, or how to care for a woman. There was no indication whatsoever that any of them cared about EM's well-being, let alone pleasure, or asked her what she wanted. It was all me, me, me, take, take, take. Without even taking any of EM's evidence into consideration,

the evidence of the hockey players tells us that McLeod shopped EM around to his entire team, and they acted like a pack of animals, taking turns to see what they could get out of her, giddy about it, going out of their way to make sure no one missed out on the opportunity. Their idea of consent was made up of rape miss and stereotypes, and it suited them to stick by it. EM wasn't saying no, she wasn't fighting or running away. She seemed to be egging them on and she was naked. She clearly wants to bang the whole team.

There were multiple red flags that she wasn't consenting. They couldn't have cared less. When they saw she was frustrated, they called her crazy and ignored her. When they noticed she was crying, they whipped out the phone to record her consent. They laughed at her, treated the entire encounter like entertainment, discarded her when they were done and went into damage control. Again, this is just their version of events. I haven't mentioned anything about EM's claims about them spitting, smacking and threatening violence.

Those hockey players might be able to plead ignorance on the consent thing, but they knew they acted like assholes that night. They knew their actions could get them in trouble. They took no accountability and allowed EM to. to be eviscerated in the public and on the stand, and a learned judge gave them a total pass for it. And the end result is the most public one. The judge's legal conclusion that E.M was the aggressor, and those poor hockey players were too drunk, concussed, tired or stupid to know what they were doing. Even if the judge had found that the players held an honest

but mistaken belief in consent, the verdict still would have been not guilty. It's the reasoning that would have been different. The written decision would have instead acknowledged that EM did not truly consent. It would have highlighted the real problem, which was how those hockey players misread her behavior. It would have shown the dangers of assuming consent from silence or passivity rather than seeking clear, active, ongoing agreement. It would have pushed back against harmful stereotypes and reflected the scientific reality of trauma. A written decision could have found those hockey players not guilty while still believing the victim and respecting EM's dignity and humanity as both the victim complainant

and a key witness. When the judge began her written decision stating, In this case, I have found actual consent not vitiated by fear. I do not find the evidence of EM to be either credible or reliable. E.M. was effectively discarded again, like an object who wasted everyone's time in the courtroom for no apparent reason. The outcome of this trial serves a chilling message to other survivors and those who support them. Its damaging impact will ripple through communities, erasing public trust and the fairness of our justice system, telling survivors it's not worth it to come forward to report because it'll make things much worse.

To quote J.B. from her Globe and Mail op-ed, When staying silent feels safer than seeking justice, who is the system really protecting? And unless we continue to push back, it'll be the next generation that will pay the price for that. In a piece for the Toronto Star, journalist Elizabeth Rensetti asks an important question, what if the real consequence of the Hockey Canada trial is not just that women are more afraid to come forward, but that young men now feel emboldened to treat women worse. An acquittal like this doesn't just happen in a vacuum. It sends a signal. It tells men that they can push boundaries, humiliate, degrade, and still walk away relatively untouched. We already live in a world

where too many men believe they're entitled to women's bodies. That sense of entitlement is taught, reinforced and celebrated. And every time the focus turns to how women should keep themselves safe, instead of how men should stop harming in the first place, their entitlement grows even stronger. Women already know how to protect themselves. We walk with our keys ready. We share our location with friends.

We run endless mental calculations about risk before saying yes to a drink or a ride. The true crime audience is two-thirds women. for a reason. We are already experts at survival as much as we can be. The work that needs to be done is on men and everyone has a role to play, from institutions to parents, coaches and teachers. Boys and young men need to be taught what real consent looks like, that it's not a checkbox, not a smile, not silence, not something you capture on video, it's active and enthusiastic and it can be withdrawn at

any time, and the key is to actually care. They need to learn that joining in on degrading behavior is not harmless, that women are not props for their fun, and when they see this behavior, they need to be brave enough to step up and call things out instead of standing by and allowing it to happen. As columnist, Catherine Ford wrote for the Calgary Herald, Every Revolution has its heroes and its cowards. Ask the men, and boys in your life whether they see themselves or want to be remembered as heroes or zeros. Kelly and J.B. still have a few things to say before we explain how this trial led us to start our survivor-led advocacy group, beyondtheverdict.ca. But first, here's what they want to say to

E.M. Survivor to Survivor. She should know that every survivor that was listening cried with her that day. We were all with her. If we get victories from our trials or we don't get victories from our trials, we all felt that verdict. Even if we never went to court, even if we never reported, we all felt that verdict and we all felt for EM. The only thing that's in my mind is I'm so sorry. And I'm so sorry that you didn't get the verdict that you deserve. And we see you and we believe you. I think I can speak for both of you now. the rebuttals to the lawyer's questions, not giving into any of the questions. And I know what it's like to go,

Toto Tau, Megan Savard. And you handled it a lot better than I did. You know, EM, you did everything right. You told your truth. You stood in a courtroom full of strangers who scrutinized your word and your body language and your memory and your choices. And you didn't flinch. And I think that that takes more courage. and anyone will ever understand. The biggest thing I want you to know is that the verdict is not a reflection of what happened that night. It is a reflection of a system

that still doesn't know how to hold powerful men accountable. It is a system that demands impossible standards from survivors and excuses contradictions when they come from the accused. You are not alone. You are believed. And you are not the reason that this case ended the way that it did.

The system is. What you did mattered and it's moving the conversation forward. It's exposing the cracks in how justice is delivered, and no matter what the court said, your voice reached people who needed to hear it. And that can't be undone. I stand with you, and I am in your corner.

And if you do want to reach out, please do. I am happy to lend an ear. You're a badass. EM, if you ever listen and want to reach out to us, we would love to hear from you and would love to support you confidentiality assured. Hell, I've been keeping J.B.'s identity secret for nearly three years now. Survivors are not defined by the outcome of a trial.

And what they endured or how they survived, a courtroom verdict is a legal conclusion and not necessarily a moral one. And it's widely known that few instances of sexual assault are reported to police in the first place. So of those reported, if we take 100 reported cases, only about 10% of those will end. a conviction or a guilty verdict according to stats Canada. So that doesn't mean that the other 90% of allegations are false. It's because the system is stacked against us almost at every level, from who gets believed to what counts as evidence to even who makes it to trial and well beyond that. So even when a case makes it all the way to a trial in Canada, only about 48% of those will end

in a guilty verdict. And that's not because half the claims are false. It's because the legal standard for conviction is extremely high. And the system often struggles to handle the complexity of trauma, memory, and power dynamics in sexual assault cases. Each case is uniquely intimate. So when someone is found not guilty, it doesn't necessarily mean the assault didn't happen. It doesn't mean that the survivor led either. And it certainly doesn't mean that there was no harm. In many cases, it's a reflection of a justice system that's not equipped here and assess the truth in a way that will actually deliver justice. And this could be because of legal limitations or rape myths

or the way that trauma affects memory and testimony. But the key takeaway here is that specific to sexual assault trials, a not guilty verdict is often a reflection of the system's limitations and not the survivor's credibility. J.B., I know you've got thoughts about reforms needed with victim complainants, not being able to speak to anyone. People are like they're talking about hiring your own lawyer. That's such a privileged thing to think and to say.

Like for me right now, my real costs are going to cost me a quarter of a million dollars in taxes. And then I have my ongoing medication therapy, things like that. And I'm very privileged that I'm even that I'm able to do that. But most people aren't. And I don't think that women who live in poverty or are homeless deserve any less than someone who can afford their own lawyer. I think it's up to the justice system to provide victims with someone with legal knowledge. You're allowed for me, it was three hours with a lawyer. And my case went on for six years. So what is three hours going to do?

I think that it's provided to be provided to the defendant. It's provided to them for free. So why is the same not provided to victims? And that brings us to beyondtheverdict.ca. The little advocacy group we've started to push back on abusive defense tactics at Canadian sexual assault trials. I've known Kelly and J.B. individually for a few years now. But the first time they met each other was early

this year when we were filmed for a documentary. It's now finished. We're all very excited and I'll be making an announcement about it in the coming weeks. But it just so happened that the Hockey Canada trial started at around the same time that the documentary was filming. And as I mentioned earlier, J.B. and Kelly were sharing their thoughts with me along the way and we started to realize this isn't ever going to change. Kelly, over to you. Yeah. Um, So J.B. and I, we texted a lot during the trial. The three of us emailed a lot during the trial. And it started out as just sort of like, we need to bitch to somebody. This is who we're picking. And, you know, Christy, I mean, like, you talk about crime. You talk about, you know, the beginning of the crime, the victim's story. You tell the victim's story because they can't speak. And then you talk about like what happens in court using real court documents. So your listeners are already, aware of what goes on in the court, but what happens on the stand is something else. And so, you know, our conversations that we've had over the last, what, two months now,

two, three months. Yeah, I've taken so long with this series that it's actually been five months now. My apologies to all. It's just been basically us going back and forth saying, yep, this is normal. Yep, this is Playbook. And it's horrible. And, you know, it shouldn't be this. way. And I'm not too sure. I'm not too sure how we change it, but man, let's keep the conversation

going. J.B., I can see that you have something to say about that. I was just going to mention, like, for me, like, when you and me talked, Kelly, I've never talked to anyone else who has been in a sexual assault trial. You're the first person I ever talked to. And I've talked to you for like 10 minutes on the phone. And I was like, this is so nice to have someone who, no, like, it's awful that we can relate, but it's also so nice to be able to talk to someone and they completely understand what you're saying and how you're feeling. I don't even have to say the words, and I think you understand. Like, I'm just hoping that other survivors are empowered by that or that we see them and they're not alone. I would love to talk to anyone. I'm not a counselor. I have my own mental health issues,

but I will still talk to you. What does this whole thing mean to you as someone who is new to the advocacy scene and speaking out from behind a publication ban. Yeah, I mean, even if it wasn't for the documentary, I was looking at removing my publication ban anyway. And I reached out to you, Christy, and you were the person that said, you should consider doing some sort of advocacy. And I always wanted to, but I didn't know, I don't know how to start. I didn't have a platform.

I'm not allowed to use my name. I'm not allowed to tell anyone who I am. So that makes it even more difficult. So I'm so lucky that I have Kelly who fought for us to have our publication bans removed. And then I also am so lucky, Christy, that you are letting us use your platform to discuss these issues. Otherwise, I wouldn't even know where to beat in. I think, yeah, we can offer a very unique perspective on the trial itself and the entire court process, not just when you're testifying, but leading up to it after waiting for.

for the appeal, waiting for the sentencing. We know how it worked in our cases. And unfortunately, it seems to work the same way in other cases. I mean, I guess you're offering a perspective that isn't offered anywhere else, to the best of, to the best of my knowledge, at least, we are offering a survivor-led perspective of what it is like to survive being in court and to survive being on the And I think that for anybody who's been listening to this broadcast, we've explained that it is 100% about survival. We're not just attending court. We are surviving court. And my hope is that Beyond the Verdict will be able to raise awareness about the realities that we face when navigating our legal system before, during and after the trial.

We welcome survivors to contact us at BeyondtheVerdict.com. or via Facebook and Instagram. We'd love to hear from you. Well, that's it for now. Thank you so much for listening and please stay tuned for any updates to come. And if you have any stories of fawning or appeasement, please send them over confidentiality assured. Canadiantruecrime.ca or look for Canadian Truecrime on Facebook or Instagram and stay tuned for more updates in the coming months. If you found this series compelling, we'd love for you to tell a friend, post on social media,

leave a comment or a review wherever you listen to podcasts. Audio editing was by Crosby Audio and Eric Crosby voiced the disclaimer. Thanks to J.B. Kelly Favro and Nicole Chittal for research assistance. Our senior producer is Lindsay Eldridge. Research, writing, narration and sound design was by me, and the theme songs were composed by We Talk of Dreams. I'll be back soon with part four, the final part. See you then.

I'll be back soon with a new Canadian true crime story. See you then.