Rotten Mango - Girl Filmed "Consent Video" After "Doing The Whole Hockey Team" Leads To SA Case Acquitted

Episode Date: October 26, 2025

In 2018, a victim by the alias, ‘EM’ meets a Junior hockey player at a bar who invites her to spend the night with him. She consents to having intimate relations with this singular player. By the next morning, EM survives a gang assault at the hands of 10 to 16 other players that the original player had invited back to the hotel room without EM knowing. She would go onto testify about these events seven years later in 2025. Only five of the men get charged and go to trial.All five of the men are found not guilty. The case divides basically all of North America and women begin coming forward with their own stories including one that seemingly involves the original player who invited his teammates to the hotel room. Could it all be connected? One thing is for sure: all of these cases of alleged gang assault involve players from the Junior hockey league, aka the ones with the ‘Bible’ on how to assault women. This is part two of Canada’s continuous gang assault scandals.   Full show notes available at RottenMangoPodcast.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A lot of people who have dated hockey players have been very active on social media platforms as of late because of the 2018 ice hockey hockey Canada essay scandal where a victim M has accused five pro ice hockey players of gang essay at a hockey Canada gala in a hotel room. She says that after these players went to this massive gala hosted by the organization Hockey Canada, them at a bar, went back to one of their hotel rooms, consensually had intimate relations with one player, and then all of a sudden, there's like 10 to 16 players inside of this cramped hotel room, and they are gang essaying her. This recently went to trial in 2025, and if you've listened to Part 1, which was the previous episode uploaded on audio platforms right before this, you know that the verdict was not in favor of the victim. But what's interesting is, a lot of

people have come out to say even if the verdict is not in her favor, we think it's true because here are all of our experiences dating someone that plays ice hockey, that dated an ice hockey pro level player. And that's not to say all ice hockey players or all athletes or all men by any means, but they are just saying that there is a very strange environment that is created by these high testosterone, high achieving, high entitled pro level athletes that do get treated with a certain celebrity status in the towns that they grow up in because they are the star players of their community. They say it's very interesting. And along with those stories, a lot of other women have been coming forward with their own stories of being essayed by pro athletes, saying that

no one really believes them. And in fact, people are saying, well, there's no way that you didn't want it because they're a pro athlete. Everybody wants them. Like who would say no at the chance of sleeping with this pro level athlete because they're rich, they're loaded, they're attractive, they're very competent in their abilities. They have legions of fans who would foam at the mouth to have an hour with them alone. Of course you would say yes. It doesn't even make any sense. These are the arguments out there. But perhaps the biggest story that has been intertwined with this case was a woman comes forward and states that years ago, she was dating someone that was part of a team called the Steelheads. This was her boyfriend. He had invited her to this movie night.

She went thinking that it was just going to be them too. But when she gets there, all of his teammates are there. And she thought, okay, it's a little uncomfortable, but whatever, it's not a big deal. In the middle of the movie, they decide that they're going to sneak away into the bathroom to have consensual intimate relations. She did not know that he had left the bathroom door open, a creek. And all of the other players, whether they heard, whether they knew beforehand, they start watching and peeping through the crack. But it starts escalating because they start coming in and one by one, according to her,

her allegations, they start essaying her as well. She says that her mind left her body. It's very similar to what the victim M says in the hockey candidate case. She felt like she just had to power through and just get through this so that she could leave as safely and as quickly as possible. She does not file an immediate police report because she states that some of the people that allegedly abused her and essayed her, they were underage because this is a junior league.

So she felt uncomfortable saying that she. engaged at its core in this type of action, not that she was engaging, but with someone who is underage, when she is an adult, she's saying that this was forced upon her. Now, what's interesting is Michael McLeod, the one that M goes to the hotel room with, the one that she initially has consensual relations with, the one that sends that message asking all of his other teammates if they want to engage in a threesome, quick 209 Mikey, giving them the hotel room that they are inside of, he was on that very team and he was 16 years old when this incident allegedly takes place. But he has not been named, but everyone thinks, is there some sort of

connection here? The trial itself feels like a fraternity reunion. That's how a lot of people describe it. You have a bunch of ice hockey players that are five accused. And then you've got a bunch of other ice hockey players that were either in the room, that we're either in the hotel or at the bar that are now being called to the stand to testify. And I feel like nobody has any idea what happened that night. Everybody's got a different variation of the story.

They can't even get the core facts in line. Everyone has a different variation of events. And even the prosecutors, the defense attorneys alike, they don't like a lot of the same witnesses. So with that, I'm just going to run you through everyone's different timelines. And there's a lot of names. None of them are particularly important. But we're going to start with Taylor Radish.

Taylor gets back to the hotel at one in the morning. He beelines it straight to his room. I don't know if it's 207 or 211, but he's right now. next door to 209. That's all we know. He's right next door. He goes home at 1 a.m. from the bar and he's facetiming his girlfriend.

There's a knock on the door. He opens it up and it's Michael and another player named Boris. Knock it on his door. I guess they invite him to come into Michael's room next door. So he goes to room 209 and now it's Michael, Taylor Radish, and Boris. And Taylor says, I just remember seeing a woman inside the bed. She had the covers pulled up. I mean, she had it pulled up all the way to the point where I couldn't

see if she was unclothed or not. I didn't even talk to her. Wait, he said that Michael knocked on his door? Yes. So he said Michael left his room. Yeah. But the Michael's story that we heard so far, Michael didn't leave the room, correct? Mm-hmm.

Okay, I see. So he's like, he came and got me. And then I see this girl. I'm not talking to this girl. I don't know this girl. I have a girlfriend. She's not talking to me. She's just under the covers up to her neck.

But she seemed completely normal. She wasn't like, oh, my gosh, what are you guys doing in here? It just seemed normal. he's talking to Michael and Boris and he says that he and Boris decide to leave after maybe like a full two minutes inside the room they didn't see any other players in there they just leave

that's really it from that night which is convenient but Taylor's phone will tell you that he gets at least two very weird messages that night one at 2.10 a.m. into the team group chat that says who wants to be in a three way quick 209 Mikey then one to his private text message thread with just Michael

he's the one that gets the message come to my room if you want a gummer at what time around two like two 12 hmm so he's saying that mike came and got him but the message just suggests that hey come to my room to get a gummer yeah two o'clock and he's saying that he went pretty early on but the messages are from way later he gets to the hotel one these messages are coming in at two i mean the timeline i guess it could theoretically make sense it's just a very weird situation taylor doesn't remember when he even saw these text messages. He just knows that he was in the room

FaceTiming his girlfriend when Michael and Boris come to get him. He goes to Michael's room, stays all but two minutes, sees nothing weird, goes back, and then he does see these weird messages, but he doesn't recall seeing when he saw these messages. Ultimately, he's kind of useless.

He just says, I don't really have any recollection of what I saw in that room. They try to ask him, I mean, was she wearing clothes? Did you say anything to her? Did you say anything to her? Did she say anything to you? hi Taylor responds sitting here today I don't remember even when he's asked about what he felt when he realized there was an investigation into this matter he states I don't remember how I felt to be exact it's starting to feel like there is some sort of code of silence I'm not saying that these aren't true I don't recall yeah this could be very well the accurate set of facts of what happened that night but it's just a very weird evasive way of answering questions. Then Boris, the guy that allegedly came to get Taylor with Michael, testifies. He says that he was wasted because it was the championship celebration, but it was also his

birthday. So it was like double the opportunity to just get blackout drunk. Anyway, he ends up leaving the bar, going back to the hotel with Callin Foot. Cal Foot is one of the five accused. He's the one that does the splits. They get back at 223 a.m. So now we can assume that Taylor was on the phone with his girlfriend for about an hour and 30 minutes, at the very least, before someone knocks on his door. So this is confirmed on CCTV. He gets to the hotel at 2.23 a.m. Boris says that as he's walking back to his own room, he runs into Michael, who's outside the room, like outside of his own room, Michael's own room. And he gets invited in. Boris walks in. He sees a girl in the bed with the covers pulled all the way up, and Michael is just asking Boris, do you want a gummer? Boris says he just laughed,

but he doesn't respond because he also has a girlfriend at the time. But he didn't see M reacting in any sort of strange way. She just seemed normal, which we went over. It's because she doesn't know what a gummer is. So why would she have a big reaction? For all she knows, it could have meant, like, do you want a piece of gum? Do you want a protein bar? Then Michael leaves for two seconds to presumably go next door and grab Taylor to bring him over.

Boris stays, which is not what Taylor testifies. But nevertheless, Boris is alone with this girl, and she's being very flirty and playful with him. the crown the prosecutors are asking what do you mean playful and flirty like describe that what's that demeanor like and he said well i had bought my own pizza and i brought the pizza in the room and i was eating pizza and she was like can i have a pizza and he said no and he's like oh she's flirting with me he cannot recall any other conversation he cannot recall anything else other than the fact that he recalls it being playful and flirty but all he knows is that she asked for a slice of pizza which is the epitome of romance.

And like, you might as well be offering a threesome at that point. Like, it's just so strange. He's just like, yeah, no, it was flirty. So now Michael and Taylor get back, and they talk for a few minutes, before Taylor and Boris leave, and they both claim that they stay in their rooms for the entirety of the night. At one point, Taylor does complain that his roommate is Brett Howden,

who is one of Michael's close buddies. And Brett just keeps going in and out of the room, in and out of 209, back to their room, back to their room. and he was just screaming at him, like, can you stop slamming the door? And that's it. M, however, states that she was fully exposed on the bed when the first two players walked in, which now we can put together are Taylor and Boris.

Like, they walk in and she's saying that she's fully unclosed on the bed. She's not covered with the blanket. She said that she was feeling very shocked to the point where she retreats to the bathroom. But the guys are arguing, no, she was under the covers. We didn't even know if she was unclothed. We don't even recall her going to the restroom while we were in there. Then another ice hockey player by the name of Tyler Steenbergen, he responds. And he's the one that did the winning shot at the championship when it was down to the two minutes.

So he's like, he's getting drunk. He's being celebrated. I'm sure he's bragging to every single person at Jack's bar. But he testifies that someone on the team had gotten a text message about there being food in Michael's room, which is the only reason that he went. However, no one can really place this text message because the only text message they can find is, hey, do you want a threesome? Quick 209 Mikey. I don't know if you're just calling people food now. Yeah.

But he shows up with Dylan DuBay, the team captain, one of the five accused, and Jake Bean. Jake Bean is not accused, but he's the one that was very active in the group chat. That was like, no, just tell them the truth, which is we ordered food and then she came and then like, that's not the truth. So he walks in. And Tyler says, once we walked in, there were already players there. Carter Hart was already there. This is the goaltender. Alex Foreminton.

This is the one that's accused of our word in the bathroom. and Michael McLeod. So they're saying all of them were in there already as well as Sam Steele, Maxime Comtois, Drake Bathersson. They're not important, okay? But Tyler sits down at the desk

and then he hears someone say, quote, guys, there's a naked girl in the bathroom. He says, I was kind of shocked and then shortly after she just came out. She seemed completely normal. He just watches as she goes over to the bed sheet on the floor and then he's like,

she just started pleasuring herself. That is crazy. Tyler testifies that he doesn't, remember anyone instructing her to do that she just started doing it he says he wasn't really paying any attention to what anyone was saying he says i was just trying to have a conversation with jake bean which is it's believable but unbelievable at the same time you're talking about 19 to 20 year old ice hockey players i mean i just can't imagine if there is a girl unclothed in this tiny cramped hotel room yeah yeah with nine guys nine dudes surrounding her like that's crazy

Also, I think that the fact that you're saying, I'm just trying to have a conversation with my friend is already alarming. Like, I can't imagine a world in which you would just be like, oh, naked girl. Anyway, so what I was saying about, like, you would be like, I got to go or something is happening. Like, you would at least ask questions, you know, like, hello? Is anyone seeing what I'm seeing? Because this is so crazy right now. What's happening? Tyler testifies that he watches and give oral sex to Carter Hart for about 30 seconds.

This timeline of how long that she is. allegedly forced, legally I guess not, but allegedly forced to perform oral sex on Carter Hart has been heavily debated. Some players are saying it was like 30 seconds. Carter Hart is like, it was like 15 to 30 seconds, max a minute. Another player is like, I saw it for like five minutes. No one can agree. Tyler testifies. She said, can one of you guys come over and fuck me? I feel like she asked for guys to come over to have sex with her. I feel like when she asked for guys to come over to have sex with her, I feel like everyone was just, kind of in shock that she had just said that.

So he's saying, I'm sitting at the desk. A naked girl comes out of the bathroom and she's just self-pleasureing. I don't ask questions. I'm talking to my buddy, Jake Bean. And then all of a sudden, she's like performing oral on another teammate of mine. Again, I'm still talking to Jake Bean. That happens for like 30 seconds. And then she's like, can one of you guys come over and fuck me?

And that's when we were all just kind of in shock that she was saying that. Tyler testifies that his main purpose was just to find the time to leave. He had a girlfriend who is his now wife, because it's been seven years. So he just wanted to get out of there. He says that he was in there for about 15 minutes before he leaves with Jake Bean, which happened to be his roommate. Now, he says that it took 15 minutes because, quote, I just didn't want to step over a naked girl.

So he's saying, like, she's on all fours, on the bed sheet, self-pleasureing. And so, like, I didn't want to, like, step over her because it's that cramped of a hotel room and there's already a bunch of hockey players in there. So I was just waiting for the moment that the pathway opened up. quote, I was trying to avoid the situation and when there was a clear path to leave, that's when we decided to leave. Brett Howden is the next to testify. He is Taylor Radish's roommate.

He's also the one that Em remembers him from the bar. Like he was hanging out with Michael a lot and they have like a thing, right? Not like a thing, not him and Michael, but they're like friends. They're very close. Brett Howden has major credibility issues, memory issues. He was drunk that night. It was seven years ago. He also suffered a very serious concussion in 2022.

That's when he was playing with the Vegas Golden Knights. He slammed head first into the boards. He had to be stretchered off the ice. It was pretty bad. He doesn't recall really anything. So who's calling them as witness? That's the very frustrating thing. The prosecutors.

And the prosecutors are calling them as witnesses because whatever they had said in their police statements initially were probably advantageous to the crown. But now that they're up on the stand seven years, years later, they don't remember. They don't remember anything. They don't recall. And like at one point, the prosecutors even more or less alleged that Brett Houghton is straight up lying. I see. And a lot of people are saying, well, what would be the purpose of them lying? These are players that are not even on the same team as the rest of the accused. They used to play on the same team seven years ago,

but now they all have their own careers. They're scattered throughout the NHL. None of them are even really close buddies anymore. Like sometimes a lot of them, the last time that they even spoke to the accused was like back in 2018 when they were still on the same team. So it doesn't make sense that they would be willingly perjuring themselves on the stand in an effort to cover for the five accused. It wouldn't make any sense. However, the flip side of that is people are saying it's kind of like, I mean, any association you have it, any other major sports leagues you probably have it, the police, the blue

wall of silence, it's just loyalty. It's not even about the five accused. It's about how are your other teammates going to feel, how your coaches going to feel, how is the NHL going to feel? Brett says that he was shocked in the hotel room because he walks in and he sees M there. He had seen her at the bar. He recognizes her.

He's surprised. But he can't remember for the life of him if she was clothed or not. Which is weird because it's one thing to not remember what type of clothing she's wearing, but it's another thing to remember. If someone is unclothed, it's shocking. Like you're walking into someone unclothed

and you don't know this person, you just saw them at a bar. It's a memory that you're probably going to have for the next seven years. He testifies, at some point, I did see her unclothed, but I don't know if she was unclosed when I walked in. He says at some points, she was clothed. M testifies otherwise.

She says that at times she would try to put on her clothes, but they would guide her away, but she wasn't like fully clothed. He says that she was just chirping, quote, chirping and trying to egg them on to have intimate relations with her. He says, everyone was shocked at how aggressive she was being. Brett Howden, there is a text message that he sends later to a friend of his that is also on the team, but this is not in the group chat. He was talking about how it was a wild night and he says, oh yeah, after he hit her, like it looked like a pretty hard hit, I just got out of there.

Oh, that's all he said. Yeah. After he hit her. It's very vague, but it seems like he is referencing Dylan DuBay, smacking M really hard. And that's how she testified. Like he smacked my bottom really hard and it was very painful and I told him no. so why do you think he left after this uh what's his name smacked her okay that's the prosecutors are arguing because you know that it's getting back right like whatever had been happening up until that

point you probably already have a feeling it's not good and then you see that and you're like okay maybe i don't want anything to do with this yeah yeah that's what what it means yes and the text message is very it's not like bro she was asking for us to smack her she was asking for us to do her it was so insane like this girl is insane. She said it was a fan. It's not like that. It's like when he started smacking her like that, I left. Yeah. Why would you leave? Yep. Now in the stand, he says, I don't even remember sending that next message. He goes on to testify that he could feel that M was getting embarrassed and upset, but not because of the lack of consent, but because a lot of the guys weren't even paying attention to her. He says it was just kind of

awkward seeing this stuff like her asking and begging us to have intimate relations with her and then yeah it was just uncomfortable some crazy stuff to like yeah come say like just yeah wow and it's really difficult because i'm sure there are certain instances and very rare occurrences where this happens but a lot of netizens and a lot of female netizens are saying like are we watching some like really bizarre porn video because no one really behaves like that outside of the context of maybe explicit video creations like no one is like I can't even think of my girlfriends the drunkest they've ever been behave in such a certain way it doesn't make any sense and there's no evidence to back it up if there was some evidence maybe we could say you know what maybe

that is exactly what happened and we don't know but there's no evidence yeah there's no text messages from that time between the players saying oh my gosh she was so crazy wasn't that crazy I've never had a girl asking to bang the whole team there's no evidence of her begging there's there's two videos of her consenting how come they don't take a video of her begging to have the whole team do stuff with her

yeah exactly I think text messages are way better proofs from that time than whatever they're saying today on the stand and all their text messages is very incriminating even the come quick for the three-bay like anyone want a threesome quick it's giving quick because there's a girl in here we can try to convince her versus there's a girl in my room you're never going to believe it boys like she wants to do the whole team it's a very weird message what do you mean quick like why are you giving

the room number why are you telling people to hurry up and if a girl is genuinely begging for the teammates to come so that they can have intimate relations collectively would you not include that in the text because it's like guys this is the most insane thing that's happening yeah yeah Yeah, at some point, right? Yeah, but there's nothing. So they, I'm so sorry. So they pull text message from every single one of these guys. Yeah.

Wow, okay. Well, a lot of these text messages were given up by their attorneys to Hockey Canada. I see. Ah. Yes. Hmm, okay. It's not like all their phones had a forensic extraction. Fascinating.

Yeah. So they're selected. Yeah. Seems like it. that means these are the best text message they can find yeah well they're saying like these are the only messages relating to the incident so right but yeah okay brett had a girlfriend at the time who is now his wife as well and the prosecutors just think this whole thing is ridiculous they basically call their own witness a liar it's the crown submission that mr howden's memory loss

is a feigned memory loss not a sincere one his memory loss in my submission is directly related to details that will be particularly damning for the defendants who are his former teammates and friends. Defense attorneys, they argue differently. They say, first of all, that is such a reach. It's a stretch to believe, quote, a man would perjure himself. As far as I can tell, a group of men he hasn't even really talked to in the past seven years. Like, why would he lie on the stand to protect these guys who aren't even his friends? The defense also starts taking shots at the guy. One defense attorney states, the witness is plainly unsophisticated. He didn't even come to court dressed for court.

He's the one that was in a hoodie. He is inarticulate, a poor communicator, careless with words. If anything, we may all say at the end of the day, this witness is generally useless. But he's certainly not helpful to the defense. You know, these, okay, so all these extra guys, it is also in their best interest to lie because if they saw something not consensual, like, and they were witnessing it at the time, that put them at, right? I don't think the crown would press charges, but they would be socially not viable to be pro athletes. I mean, well, I don't know these days, but there would be a scandal.

Exactly. That's why they're saying, oh, no, she's totally asking for it. Yeah. That makes sense for them to lie. But then their details don't add up because they're lying. And I do just want to put a quick disclaimer out there. I don't even think that most netizens disagree with the final verdict. I think people wish it was different.

I don't think anyone is saying we need to appeal. Even the Crown, the prosecutors have come out saying that we're not going to appeal. In fact, the prosecutors came out to say, we told M before this, it's going to be tough to get a conviction. It's not impossible, but it's been seven years. And it's not even M's fault. The police dropped the ball in 2018. They closed the case in 2019. They didn't do a thorough investigation.

A lot of the potential evidence that could have been there is no longer there. There's just not enough statements from any of the accused. like there's really not much that people can go off of everybody was drunk at the time it's been so many years that have passed to get a conviction is going to be really difficult m said i just want to do it because i want to stand up for myself like even if i don't get a conviction but the problem that people have is regardless of the end result of the verdict this trial was the most infuriating thing ever all the defense attorneys are asking m why are you such a skank like that's basically what they're asking her for seven days of cross-examination

And it feels like the most backward way of handling a trial. The judge herself is victim shaming throughout her 91 page verdict. All the defense attorneys are kind of asinine. Like, it's just a very shitty situation. And I think people are more upset about that. I think if the judge had come out in her verdict and stated, hey, I think that society, and this is not the law. The law is hard.

It's hard to get someone for essay in the letter of the law. Should we change the law? That's a conversation for another time. However, we as humans, we as the society, could probably do a lot better at informing people what consent is. Because the thing is, it's supposed to be enthusiastic consent. Consent is not implied. Consent is like very enthusiastic. If you ever have to wonder if someone is consenting, then they're probably, like you should probably confirm. Like you should probably ask for consent. And so like that would have been a moment for her to say they're not guilty. because this is the way the law works. However, these are things that we could probably work on. Like, it could have been a powerful moment. But instead, all she said was, I found the witness unreliable. So you're just saying that this is a very, very shitty situation, very poor investigation, very poor evidence, very poor witness. There's just no way in the court of law to make a case.

Yeah, I will say there is, I don't know if there's reasonable doubt. I think that it almost becomes an opinion. There's no way to say factually there's no reasonable doubt. I think it's an opinion. Like if you have to have someone film consent videos, I don't think there's reasonable doubt, but that's my opinion. So I don't think opinions really work in the court of law. But by the letter of the law,

I don't think a lot of legal experts who are actually on the side of the victim, they say it would have been very difficult to secure a conviction. It actually would have been feasible with a jury. but not with the judge because the judge has to follow the law and the judge has to give reasons why the jury they don't have to as long as it's unanimous

they don't really have to say hey this is why we found you guilty or not guilty but the judge she has to back it up so they're saying yes with the letter of the law it would have been very difficult to secure a conviction to change the letter of the law that's a different conversation

but they're just saying the way it was handled on all fronts even before the verdict came out with these defense attorneys everyone it was just bad. The way that the defense attorneys were going in on her was the most intense thing ever. They're going to accuse her of all sorts of rape myths. They're going to say that she liked the attention.

They're going to say that she was asking for it. They're going to say that drunk M likes to have fun. Drunk M likes to do things that sober M would never do. Yeah. But one thing that Brett Howden, the reason that his testimony was important for a lot of people was he does state that near the end, As he's leaving, he states that he heard M, quote, weeping.

That's the word he uses. Wow. Michael also has a timeline that he gave to the police. He doesn't testify, only one of the five testifies, which was actually shocking that any of them would testify. But Carter Hart takes the stand later. Michael had told the police back in 2018. He says, after he and M had these intimate relations, some of the guys come into the room. So we think that he's talking about Taylor and Boris.

He leaves her with them. he can go downstairs to get the Uber Eats that he ordered, the food he ordered, and when he comes back up, he sees M giving oral intimate relations to Carter Heart. He says she seemed completely fine with it, and other guys were just kind of hanging out on the bed. It was kind of a little different, but we ate the food, we hung out, we had chicken wings, and after that it didn't last too long. The blowjob didn't last too long. And then we just kind of hung out for a little bit.

We were really drunk, but we weren't blackout drunk by any means. Like we all had our heads on straight for the most part. Michael says, it was just weird that she kept begging everyone to have intimate relations with her, calling them pussies for not doing it. He says that they were all just looking at each other like, this is so weird. No, you do it. No, I don't want to do it in front of everyone. You do it.

Michael claims M started getting upset. Nobody wanted to have intimate relations with her. And he says, I had to like kind of calm her down and kind of say, are you okay? Like I told her, we're not going to have sex with you because no one wants to have sex in front of nine other guys. It's not because you're not hot. he keeps insinuating that she felt like she was not hot enough for them to want to have intimate relations with her. Is this crazy to hear as a woman?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Wow. Yeah. And like just I think as a woman, I mean, she was young, 20, right? I've been 20. I don't recall every time being in a room full of guys that I've never met before.

And for the first time, no matter how drunk I've been, I don't think there would be a situation where even a shirt comes off because I would just feel very vulnerable. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So for her to just like be on all fours, they keep describing like she's on all fours, self-pleasureing on the ground, just like begging us and we're just like, we don't want to. That's the vibe that they're giving. He says later we're hanging out again and she's feeling better and she was then now like

offering to give everyone blow drops. So I got one, Carter Hart got one. Maybe Dylan DuBay got one. And then he says, yeah. And then afterwards she had intimate relations with Alex Foreminton. my roommate, in the bathroom, and then after all the guys leave, they have intimate relations once more, and then she ends up leaving. She got on the bed naked and said, okay, who's going to have sex with me?

Like, you guys are pussies, like, none of you guys who don't have sex with me? Alex Foreminton also testifies. Well, he doesn't testify, but he states in his first police interview. He says that he had walked into the room. This is his room that he shares with Michael McLeod. And he sees a woman just sitting on the bed, and there's like, a bunch of takeout boxes around her, which is inaccurate. There's no takeout boxes around her.

They were showing the judge, the CCTV video of Michael McLeod picking up the takeout. It's hardly enough to have takeout boxes all over her or takeout boxes filling the, it was a very limited amount of food, which also begs the question, why are all the teammates coming to his room for this so-called food party when there's barely any food? Right. How many bag was it? It seems like one little takeout bag. I see. He says he walks in.

There's food all over the place, like takeout boxes, and she's fully clothed at the time, talking to the other players. And then eventually she's, like, begging everyone to have intimate relations. She's performing oral sex on Carter Hart, Dylan DuBay, and Michael McLeod. And then ultimately, he was like, you know what? If no one's going to do it, I'll do it. Like, I guess whatever. Why not?

I don't have a girlfriend at the time. So he's like, but I don't want to do it in front of everyone. He claims that M guides him to the bathroom where they have intimate relationship. and then he takes a shower and she walks back out into the room. I volunteer, but I obviously didn't want to do it in front of guys. I found that very awkward and weird, so we both walked into the washroom. And that's where we had intercourse. And what sexual acts happened in the washroom?

At the start, I just put on the condom and just had intercourse. with her, and near the end of the intercourse, I took up the condom, and she gave oral sex for her to finish her. And what happens after that? After that, after giving her all sex to Mikey, she was on all floors on the floor of the hotel room saying, like, is anyone going to do anything to me? And that's, at that point, she was playing with herself and saying, like, is anyone going going to bang me?

embarrassing that you have a naked girl in front of you and a bunch of guys in the room and no one's going to do anything. And that's when pretty much everyone was still a little effie of doing anything in front of the guys because we found it pretty awkward of the situation. And at that point she started to get like a little bit frustrated saying like, well, I'm going to leave and put my clothes on if no one's going to do anything and stuff like that. And so she was getting pretty frustrated about how no one was doing anything. And I think she kind of took it personally as in, like, she's not hot enough that none of the guys were doing anything when really it was just the guys that had girlfriends and obviously didn't want to do it in front

of each other. Okay. So she's kind of getting a bit upset there. Yeah. Is it possible that She was upset because she's feeling embarrassed about what was going on? I think she was embarrassed that no one did anything to her. Like, I think she was maybe embarrassed that she thinks she wasn't hot enough and that no one gave her the attention while she was sitting there naked. But really, it was just because everyone had girlfriends and no one found it, like, not awkward to do that in front of people. So the way that these witnesses are coming in, they're saying,

She never seemed like she was non-consenting. She didn't seem like she was having a bad time other than Brett Howden sending that text message of like, I left after someone hit her on the bottom really hard. And then also the, I, when I was leaving, she was weeping. Other than those, everyone is painting this picture of like, we were just shocked. She just kept begging us to have intimate relations. So we complied with her. Dylan Dubay, his role in all of this is also very interesting.

He is accused of not only receiving the oral sex, but also for smacking her on the butt, which is that say, because she's not consenting, or allegedly, right? But Dylan had told the police previously, I mean, she was coming at us almost. I don't want to say it like that,

but I feel like she was like chirping at us for not doing anything with her, which I thought was weird. I hadn't seen that before. Dylan says that after Carter Hart received oral, Dylan's thinking, why not? He says, quote, I might as well. He says he pulls his pants down and, quote,

She came up to me. She gave me oral, I guess you could say for probably, I'd say like 10 seconds maybe. Then I kind of knew it was a bad idea, which, what do you mean? You kind of knew it was a bad idea. What does that mean? Right? And he says, I didn't want to be a part of it. So I just kind of stumbled back.

A part of what? Exactly. So he steps backwards. The oral sex, according to him, stops at that point. And Tyler testifies that he did look up to see Dylan around that point smack M on the butt. He says it wasn't hard, but it didn't seem soft either. Whatever that means. He says the overall mood was playful, like for play?

Light spanking or patting, nothing abusive by any means. Dylan Dubay also gives a statement to the Hockey Canada investigation, and he says that he was very drunk. He does recall some parts of it like the performance of the oral sex. But it was very brief. He wasn't into it. She just kept begging more people to man up, if you will, and do it with her.

At one point, he does recall that he was holding a golf club. And remember, Em had said that everyone was saying, how many golf balls do you think we can put inside her? Like, if she can take the whole club. But all the guys are like, nobody said anything like that. Dylan Dubay is like, I was holding a golf club because they had a golf tournament the very next day. So a lot of the guys brought their golf clubs.

And he said, he was holding a golf club, just messing around. And she at one point says, are you going to fuck me or play golf? he didn't want to have intimate relations with her quote I was off put I didn't want to have sex with her in front of people so I slapped her on the bum once or twice after she said that he's arguing that him smacking her on the butt was a playful flirtatious like she's like are you gonna do me and he's like I'm not gonna do you smack smack

and testifies that's not at all what happened she testified it was while she was performing oral on the floor on these people like she It was not, there was no entertaining factor. Like, it was not funny. Like, it was not a joke. It was not flirtatious. It was not playful. Dylan DuBay states to the authorities that he believed

and wanted to be there more than any of the other guys wanted to be there. She was allegedly saying things like, this is embarrassing that you guys have a naked girl in front of you and a bunch of guys in the room and nobody's going to do anything. Like, what's happening? They said that she was getting a little frustrated saying like, well, then I'm going to leave. I'm going to put my clothes on if nobody's going to do anything.

things like that. A lot of the guys testified that it appeared that she was taking it personally, as in she's not hot enough, so none of the guys are doing anything with her. And after he smacks her, he says that he doesn't really have any other interactions with her. He does see Alex Formington go to the bathroom with her, but he claims, like a lot of the other players, she was the one guiding him in there. Alex Formanton's defense attorney does question her on the stand, and I think this is one of the frustrating things when anybody else doesn't really remember or recall the exact sequence of events in the same order from 2018 during the initial investigation. Later in 2022, there's an opened, reopened

investigation, and then now in 2025 on the stand, if they don't recall the exact sequence of events in the same exact order across seven years, they're not really questioned. However, when M does, it seems like she's just trying to be very honest. I will say that she has a very passive tone in a lot of the ways that she testifies. I mean, I would say that it's not dissimilar to myself. She would respond in ways like, I don't recall it happening like that, but I guess it could be possible. Because she's like, I mean, I guess if you're telling me that could have happened, I guess, but I don't remember it happening like that. But also, like, I was so drunk and I'm telling you, that's why I couldn't consent because I was so drunk. And because M states that she can't recall

much of anything from that bathroom with Alex Formanton from being intoxicated, Alex's defense attorneys are like, well, if you don't remember, let me tell you what happened. Alex's attorney suggests during the cross that inside the bathroom, she was touching Alex everywhere, saying that she would help him get excited, pulling his pants down, saying that he doesn't have to wear protection because she's on birth control, and apologizing that she has sunburns on her chest from sunbathing nude. Em is asked about all of that, to which he responds on the stand, that yes, she was on birth control at the time. And she did sunbathe in her backyard. But again, she doesn't recall

saying any of that. But quote, I have no memory of any conversation with him. But because she doesn't recall and because the defense attorney presents it in such a way, a lot of people are led to believe, okay, maybe this is true. I don't know. What I will say is not Alex, Alex Foremanton's attorneys are the ones that, I don't want to say are the reason, but are, directly related to why both the jurors were dismissed. So they seem very aggressive. They seem like very, very aggressive defense attorneys. And then Carter Hart's defense attorney,

she actually represents a lot of high profile accused of essay. She represented a musician previously. And the victim for that musician, there was a guilty verdict there. She said, Megan, this is the attorney's name, is on the same level as her abuser. She said, in fact, when she has nightmares now about being essayed in that hotel room by this musician, she has more nightmares about the trial. Wow.

And she says that defense attorney to her is on the same level as the abuser. She doesn't write her abuser's name. She doesn't speak the abuser's name out loud because it brings so much trauma. She can't say the defense attorney's name. She said, it's one thing to do your job. And she's saying, it's crazy because, like, I also don't want to bring down a female attorney of all people, right? And I think it's, this is, someone has to be a defense attorney. Everyone has the right to a fair trial.

She gets it. She gets it. But she says, this specific attorney, it's like she was getting joy from slut shaming her in any way possible. Like, that was the vibe. Like, just straight up, cruelly laughing at her. And this is Carter Hart's defense attorney. Carter Hart does testify during the trial. He's the only player.

He's the goaltender. And he states, you know, I was pretty excited. I'm 19 years old. a naked girl in the room that was doing things willingly. I mean, it was something that I had never seen before. In fact, out of everyone in the group chat, he's the one that responded very quickly, I'm in to the threesome message.

So he gets to the hotel room and he sees a girl naked on the bed sheet on the floor and she seemed to be enjoying herself. He says that he took off his pants and she was helping him, he claims. And he had engaged in oral for 30, 60 seconds. He said that he wasn't able to fully maintain the state down there because he was feeling very uncomfortable.

I mean, like all of his teammates are there. They're watching. The whole situation was just weird. So he stopped it by backing away. And then that's when she starts complaining like, what's wrong with you guys? There's like a naked girl in the room with you guys. Carter ends up texting another player at 327 a.m.

His name is Dante. He says, get to 209. So he's telling another player come to this room. And he's asked during the trial, why did you text another player who's not in the room? get to 209. He says, well, at that point, she's like begging for intimate relations. And Carter knew that Dante didn't have a girlfriend. So maybe he thought he was interested. I'm just trying to help her fulfill her wish, you know, basically. Carter says, there's no way anything strange was going

in in that room. If he even got the inkling that it was non-consensual or something weird was happening, I can't see why I would have stayed in that room is what he says. I would have said, don't do that or stop or I would have just left you have to remember a lot of ice hockey fans are really upset with this case and it's not just because this case lives in a vacuum

I think especially a lot of Canadian netizens they're going online and saying see that's a problem I don't believe a single one of these they use other terms I don't believe a single one of these fuckers the accused because if you've ever been to an ice hockey game

that is anywhere on the junior league or like the pro level you know how these players are acting right there's no way you can tell me that this did not happen right right right like this is the culture of ice hockey like they do not respect women they think every girl is a quote unquote puck bunny it's basically like a groupie that's willing to do anything for an ice hockey player that makes sense yeah so they're just saying like I don't believe you like even if there's no evidence I don't believe you right I don't believe a single word that you're saying like you and also it's very non-committal if there was non-consensual gang essay happening i would have said don't do that or stop it's giving no you wouldn't have

i don't think you've ever said those words right right that's just my personal opinion he's asked about the group chat because the crown is saying that group chat is weird you guys are trying to make up the story you guys are trying to get on the same page about the narrative before your question by anybody. He says, no, everyone was just trying to get on the same page about what they were going to say about what happened in that room. Does that not mean that you're trying to, but then he's like, no, we were just telling the truth. We were all just saying everyone should tell the truth, basically. And the truth is, they claim she wanted it. She was asking for it. events is that the players kept egging each other on saying things like someone have sex with

this girl. So she's saying that she's, she gets out of the bathroom, they put a bed sheet down, they're telling her to self-pleasure herself, and she is very fearful. She's also very drunk, so that's exactly what she does. She starts doing what they tell her to do. She's self-pleasureing, and then she states there's now just a bunch of private parts in her face, and there are commands that she hears such as suck it, spit on it. And so at that point, she performs oral on three different guys and then she hears them saying things like someone do this girl like someone have sex with this girl and she's testifying like it just felt like that was the next step of what i needed to do in order to get out of this hotel room safely that's exactly why she goes into the bathroom with

alex forminton she's like okay maybe once i do this everything will be over and the defense attorneys just use any sort of memory gap from m to prove their point during the cross examination, the defense attorney suggests to end that she was probably alone with Michael for about 10 to 15 minutes after they had intimate relations prior to any of the other players coming into the room, which means they're asking her, why did you stay? Which is a crazy thing to ask, but they're like, why didn't you leave? Why didn't you go put your clothes on? Why did you stay unless you were perhaps waiting for the other players to come into the room? It's kind of a wild conclusion to make. A lot of people don't really jump out the bed right after intimate relations when they're super drunk and get an Uber.

Usually they're trying to calm down and relax a little bit before they get an Uber. It's just very strange. M disagrees with all of this. And she's saying, no, her recollection is clear on that. First of all, she doesn't even recall there being like a 10, 15 minutes span that she was alone with Michael after the intimate relations. She said she's unclosed on the bed. Two guys walk in. She feels uncomfortable.

She goes to the bathroom. and more guys are walking in. And then the defense attorneys clarified with her, well, why did you go to the bathroom where your clothes are and not put your clothes back on? No one told you to come out of the bathroom naked and sit on the bed, right? No one told you to keep your clothes off. No one forced you to undress.

No one moved your clothes out of the bathroom and hid them, pointing out like, why didn't you put your clothes on? Again, a very, I guess maybe it's a logical question to ask, but it just feels like another rape myth is what a lot of survivors are saying like why are we asking all of these accusatory questions for the victim when there are so many different nuances in each specific scenario that these types of incidents can occur that you just like you wouldn't be able to comprehend it. M testifies that after the two guys had walked into the room already so we're assuming Taylor and Boris she was unclosed on the bed and she started separating from her body

that's how she describes it. She did a lot of things that she doesn't even quite understand because it felt like her mind was floating to the top corner of the ceiling, like a CCTV camera view, and she's just watching these things play out. She feels like she has no control, no choice. It feels like she's just going through all of the motions that she thinks that they want in order to get out of there as quickly as possible. It's not her doing what she wants to do. It's her doing what she thinks they want her to do.

She says, quote, I didn't know these men at all. I don't know how they would react if I did try to say no or try to leave. my mind just kind of shut down and left my body to do what it thought it needed to do to keep me safe. That's it. She says it was really confusing to feel herself disassociating like that. She says, quote, I could feel like I was watching my body doing this and acting like I'm liking it and doing what they're wanting to see from me. And it was confusing to know if I was liking the attention or not, which is the next huge point of contention. It actually is almost a thing where it feels like if you are accusing anyone of especially an essay crime,

maybe it's better to lie on the stand. Like that is how survivors feel because essay is so nuanced, even though at the end of the day you did not consent and most normal people would agree that you did not consent, if there is anything where you try to be too open, too honest about the experience of like exactly how you felt, it's going to be used against you. So this one phrase blows up in M's face. M admits that, okay, maybe it was possible that she was flirting with the guys in the room.

I mean, she doesn't really recall. And this is like a huge thing. The whole question is, this is how it goes down. Did you flirt with them? No. But you just said you don't remember anything that happened during that time period. Yeah, I don't remember, but I don't think that's something I would do. But how would you know because you don't remember?

I guess it's possible that I could have flirted with them? So you think that it is feasible that maybe you were giving them certain. signals i mean yeah i guess it's feasible so it's just like this rabbit hole of like you're saying you don't remember but like because you don't remember now i can say is this hypothetically a situation that could occur but if you can't remember you can't rule it out yeah it must be like a very that's a tactic right that's a professional tactic from these lawyers yeah and you have to remember because i mean you must a lot of victims stated that they hate being on the stand because it just feels like these defense attorneys are there to break you the whole whole

whole point is to exhaust you until you start agreeing with them because you feel like that's the only way out of the courtroom. And you just want this to be over with. I will say that in her initial police statement, she did say that in the beginning she was liking the attention for a little bit. But it does appear that that is, it's vague, it's nuanced. It's not particularly time sensitive. Like we don't know when she felt that way. If that was, and even if she felt that way in the beginning does not mean that she consents to everything else that happened that night. So I don't even really know why this is a huge point of discourse in the courtroom. But the judge, she thought it was.

She's saying, well, if you like the attention, I mean, what does that say about you? That's basically how she's insinuating it. This was like a huge point in the verdict as well. M testifies that if she was being assertive, it was just because she adopted this personality that it seemed like the players wanted. She just wanted to do what they wanted so that she could get out of there safely. She didn't feel like she had a choice. She just wanted to get the hell out of the hotel room. And so at one point, the defense attorney gets her to admit that perhaps she had taken on a porn star persona.

I think what they're trying to do here, and I don't know, maybe this is the truth, but it feels like what they're trying to do is you are saying that you felt traumatized. But you are adopting this very sexually aggressive persona to perhaps protect yourself. but these guys who the defense attorneys love calling boys, but these boys, they don't know that. They just see this sexually aggressive persona that you're putting on. You might be protecting yourself, but to them, that looks like consent. And as long as to them, it looks like consent, it feels like consent, it is consent, you know, because that's the signal that you're giving them.

Like, that's the vibe it seems like that they're trying to aim for. And they keep throwing everything to drunk M, this whole persona that she has when she's drunk. and the attorney says, you know, in your head, you want it to be the focus of the room. Yeah, they start harping more on that, the attention part. But what I'm telling you is that these boys were just having fun amongst themselves. So a lot of the guys testify that during the time, they did see her, they did see her begging to have intimate relations with the teammates, but they're saying, we were just doing our own thing. Like, I was talking to Jake Bean, I was talking to Boris. Like, I'm just talking to the guys.

I'm not even paying attention to the naked girl in the room. Was she naked? I don't even remember. Like, that's the vibe that they're giving. And so the attorneys, they're going with it. They're saying, these boys were having fun amongst themselves, separate and apart from your existence. Do you agree or disagree?

Emma's like, no, the whole night I was being objectified. Like, they were telling me what to do. They wanted to see me do things. Like, she's fighting back. She's like, no, I'm telling you right now. That's not what was happening. Like, it was very loud. It was a very chaotic atmosphere, but it was still centered around her.

It's not like they're all doing their own things. thing and she's just in the corner like someone come someone come to me like i want to do things she says if they wanted to have their own conversations i'm sure they all had other hotel rooms that they could have gone to that's true yeah so she's like i don't know what you guys are talking about in the cross-examination em does agree that michael asked her near the end of the night if she was okay and she responded that she was okay because quote what else was i supposed to say at that point like now like after all that fear and intoxication now she's going to say you know what? I'm suddenly going to do a 180 and I'm going to say no, I'm not happy with that.

And you should have, like, she's like, what was I supposed to say? Additionally, records show that when Em's mom reported the incident to the police, both of them were under the impression that she had been roofied. Both who, mom and the daughter? Yes. Okay. This is a huge other part of the discourse is there are a lot of netizens that believe perhaps M did say all of those things. but she might have not been roofied, but might have been slipped some sort of drug like ecstasy that makes someone hypersexual. So some people are just saying like the whole thing is weird. So like maybe the person if, okay, let's just talk in a hypothetical world.

I'm not even going to use the players names because I'm not saying that this is what happened. This isn't even a conversation during the trial. But if someone, maybe not even one of the players, maybe someone at the bar had slipped an ecstasy into her, like had drugged her somehow in some way, shape, or form, she might have had a lot of heightened sexual feelings, and then those acted out in a way where maybe only one or two of the accused or people at the bar knows that she's under this drug. And everybody else thinks, like, it was just crazy. She was just begging for things. That's what some netizens feel. I don't know. Some netizens also argue back to them saying, like, that's not how it works when you're on

ecstasy but then others are saying it really depends on the person it's just weird but they did believe initially that she had been drugged the two of them go to st joseph's health care about four days after the incident and m tells her mom like she thinks it makes the most sense that she had been roofied or something of that sort during the cross-examination em has asked whether or not she took a drug test since she's already at the hospital and m testifies that the nurse did suggest a urine toxicology test but she says that she was under the impression that the test wouldn't even really the test wouldn't really do anything she's saying like she was under the impression that the test there would be no point because I mean she could have taken drugs afterwards would have been an

argument like there's no way to tie it to that specific event because four days had already passed so there was a lot of like conversation about that and she's saying that she ends up not taking the test and I'm pretty sure why that is not even really touched upon during the trial because if this is just a crazy almost a conspiracy they wouldn't be able to bring this up yeah but the fact that they went to the hospital that also showed a lot right and speaking of the hospital there's a lot of victim shaming in this incident as well she does go to the hospital and the nurse tells her that they can do a head-to-toe full physical examination of logging anything that could have occurred from this incident m says that she declined because

it's not like she had any bruises. It wasn't essay in the way that you might think it is, like someone is being held down, forced, and tied up with a rope. So she's saying there was no physical injuries like that. So there's no point in that. But a lot of the defense attorneys are like, that's weird that you didn't take the test. And even for rape kits, they're incredibly invasive. Rape kits are not like, here, spit in a tube. Like they're invasive. After a very traumatic experience. You have to go through a second traumatic experience. And at that point, most victims are not even thinking about pressing charges. Their brain is like, how do I stay alive and how do I make sure that I don't break apart during this entire trauma? Like, they're not sitting

there like, I need to log the evidence. I need to collect and gather the data. They're like, I just need to stay alive. Like, that's pretty much it. A lot of the words that she uses are, again, used against her when this is, I think the reason that people are, upset about this entire trial is not even because they think the accused are guilty. Some people are like, yeah, I think they're guilty, but I think the reason that people are the most heated is the way everything, the way that they're like dogging on everything. The defense attorneys keep pulling up her initial statement to the police. This is days after the alleged incident. And she's talking about how these guys were allegedly making comments about sticking golf balls and golf clubs inside of her.

and she to some degree describes it as they were joking about it which she uses the word joking about it and I'm like I can totally see how that happens because she's still not processing and she admits at that point when she is going to the police to talk about it it's more so because her mom reported it and she still hasn't processed it

I'm sure to some degree her brain is trying to downplay everything she said that she felt so much guilt that she even ended up in the hotel room she was like it was a lot of inner shame that she felt so as she's talking to the police I imagine it could have been any situation where the detective is like so did they put a golf club near you do they have golf clubs and she's like no I think they were like joking about it but I was feeling scared like or like they were joking about it but and then she doesn't necessarily because they to them they are joking about it like they sound like they're making a joke

hey guys can we try this like that's what they sound like right but there are golf clubs in the room like you have to remember he he ha ha it sounds like a joke but she's with 10 200 pounds six foot dudes that she doesn't know and there are golf clubs in the room at one point dylan dubay does tell the police that he pretended to hit her on the butt with a golf club like you know how you like pretend to swing and stop right before you smack someone right right wow so i'm sure to her this is genuine fear but she tells the police i think they were like joking about it. And then later in 2022, she does sue hockey Canada. So four years after the incident, she sues hockey Canada. And in that lawsuit, she states that she was terrified after these

comments were made about the golf clubs. And now the defense are like, wait, so how did the joke become scary after four years? You were just like thinking about the joke. And then suddenly you got scared of the joke within four years. Because when you were reporting it to the police in 2018, you said that they were joking about it. And then in 2022, you said that you were terrified. You said that those comments made you feel intense fear. Like, how? How do you suddenly get scared four years after the event? M says that by the time she filed the lawsuit against Hockey Canada, she had time to process that fear.

The defense and the judge seemed to think that that is an unbelievable concept, even though that is a very well-known thing that happens to SA survivors. I mean, actually, coming forward within this amount of time frame is pretty early for SA survivors to come forward. Some people come forward decades later. So what do you mean? Yeah, she needed time. to process the trauma.

Like, that's how it works. But Michael's defense attorney straight up states, it is inconceivable that it would take years for you to process fear. So, M testifies that nobody necessarily forced her, held her down. But the way they would joke about things and joke about the things that they wanted her to do, she felt as if they were half jokes. Like, they're not really jokes. She doesn't really have a choice.

That's the underlying message that she's receiving from these jokes. she said that at the time she might have laughed it off because she thought that was the safest reaction so this is where again I think people are getting very heated because people are saying this is things girls talk about all the time you can't outright

reject a guy because there have been instances where you firmly say no I don't want to go out with you and then you get killed and then if you're too passive about trying to protect their ego and their rejection then they think that you're saying yes I do want to date you and I do want you to do things to me even if I say no.

Like that, it's like there are so many nuanced ways that everyone feels like they have to wander this path. And she said, yes, I might have laughed at some of these comments because I felt like that was the safest thing to do. But they're saying there's no way. The defense attorneys are like, how can you laugh if it's not funny? M testifies that while she was allegedly being forced into performing oral on a few of the players, she sees another player with his pants off doing the splits, quote, right over my face.

She claims that he placed his private. part right on top of her face. She said that it felt really gross, very degrading, and it felt like all the players are making fun of her, like this is all some sort of joke to them. She does admit that there could have been a chance that in that moment, in that hotel room, she laughed it off because she felt like this was her way of, quote, coping with the situation. The biggest part of this whole split contention, because Calfoot is only accused of essay

in the sense that he did the splits on her face, which is essay, but his whole conviction relies on this. And so she's saying he had his pants off and his private parts were on my face. I did not consent to it. Cal Fitts attorneys are saying, well, you didn't tell the police this in 2018. You didn't tell them about the splits. She explains, I was really embarrassed. Like I didn't really even know how to describe the situation. Like the whole thing felt gross and degrading and very difficult to talk about. The defense attorneys, they hit back and they say, but you did tell the police that all the other guys were shoving their private parts in your face saying suck it and spit on it but you don't talk about the splits and she's saying her whole argument is no it's not

even just that she saw his private parts or that they were on her face she's saying like it's such a weird situation of someone doing the splits on your face and everyone's laughing I could see how it feels embarrassing in the sense of like, it sounds un-serious, even though it's very serious. Yeah, yeah, no. But the defense attorneys and later even the judge are basically asking her, like, what do you mean? You talked about penises in your face earlier. Why are you embarrassed about the splits? M testifies that he was fully naked when this happened.

All of the guys testified that he was fully clothed. Some of the other guys say that because of the way that she was wedged in between the beds at one point, they didn't see if he had his pants on they could see that he had his shirt on Calfoot the guy doing the splits but they say that in no way was any of this sexual Carter Hart testifies it's just like a pretty cool thing that Calfoot was able to do and we would be like

hey footer do the splits like it was just kind of a thing he did his big tall dude super flexible and everyone was just laughing I looked and I saw M and she was laughing as well I will say that previously at Jack's bar there is CCTV footage of Calfoot doing the splits on the dance floor and like all the guys are clearing the way for him to be able to do the splits. The defense is using that as, see, this is not a sexual thing for him. Like, who is he seducing at the bar?

Like, this is just a party trick. This is him being a goofy, silly, funny 19, 20-year-old. This is not him trying to essay someone. Others are bringing up the junior hockey Bible. And I'm not saying any of these guys read the junior hockey Bible that they lived by these terms, but they did use Gummer. Maybe that could have been a consequence of, other people in the hockey world using that term and they just adopted it or they maybe might

have read the junior hockey bible but there's another term that reads the tea bag definition first simply remove your pants and carefully survey the scene once this is established make sure a camera is in place to catch you dropping your doggy nuts onto the victim's forehead if possible deposit them into the slut's mouth but if not the forehead will suffice like the split well i don't know if it's splits, but you're just placing your privates on. And they literally write the victim's forehead. The victim. Yes.

They wrote the victim. Yes. Some people are saying this is like bro athlete culture. They're probably talking about other guys in the locker room, which would still constitute as essay if they don't consent. But they're just saying like this is not what it's talking about in the junior hockey Bible. I don't really think that's a great argument to make.

even the alleged spitting on M's back which she testified to there is this in the junior hockey Bible that states the McDonald's surprise meal this is when you are doing a creative move while you are doing doggy you say I'm going to reach the destination you tell the girl

I'm going to reach the destination but you can't you don't you just spit on her back she will be tricked into thinking that you reach the destination on her back and she will look back at you and when she does have your fire hose ready and put out that fire.

on her face. She will be so surprised that she will look like someone who just found a neat toy in a Mickey D's surprise meal bag. Classic move. But regardless of any of this, the crux of the argument is M and the prosecutors are arguing that she was too drunk to consent and the five accused they knew that. They knew she was too drunk to consent. So it didn't really matter if she didn't say no and fought back and tried to run away. She was too intoxicated. M states that even if you look at the bar footage from the CCTV, she's like, my eyes are closed. I'm smiling. It's like a very drunk smile. The trial spends a good while focusing on M's shoes. One of the defense attorneys even brings in her shoes to show the judge and to show the courtroom

is like holding up the pair of high heels. I don't know if maybe I have a tolerance for high heels. This happened in the Diddy trial as well, where they're just talking about the heels. Why? The heels supposed to imply something? Teni Garagos just went on a whole rant about how Jane Doe would wear high heels, like five-inch high heels. Those were for when she was like going out. But then on normal days, she would wear like three-inch high heels. It's just to paint someone as... Yeah, yeah, it's like, what are you wearing?

Is that what it is? Yeah, it's what are you wearing? And I think there is almost like an insinuation because a lot of the jury, there are people with normal jobs. nobody that has a lot of high working conditions can probably wear high heels on a regular basis. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah, sure. Like if you're wearing three to five inch heels on a daily basis, it could insinuate to the jury. We're not in the same tax bracket or you're living life a little bit differently, maybe a little more luxurious than I am because I got to wear sneakers because I'm running around chasing after things and the kids and then

I'm running around at work in the stock room. Like there's a lot of subtle insinuations of high heels. And during this trial, they keep using the word stiletto. Do I think this is like the so Kate Red bottoms, 120 millimeters? No, I don't think so. I think they look like relatively comfortable heels. If they were close-toed shoes, I'd probably wear them to the courthouse. They're strappy, but the heel itself is not particularly skinny or pointed or super high. I would definitely feel comfortable wearing that level of heel to the courthouse, not even as an attorney, just like a member of the press, or even to brunch. Like, this is a very normal. heel. It's nothing crazy. But they keep saying, look at these stilettos. They don't look

comfortable. Look at how strappy they are. They're like, it must take a very long time to put these on and take them off. This seems like you've got to be coordinated to take these shoes off. So they're insinuating like when she gets back to the hotel room and she eventually takes these shoes off. She's not so intoxicated that she can't take them off. I see. So you're saying that they're trying to use this as a piece of evidence. But you also know what they are trying to imply. But I keep bringing up the pair of stilettos. Yes. I see.

And they're also saying, look at the CCTV footage. You're walking pretty steady. And not only are you just walking steady, you're walking pretty steady in high heels. Like, that must mean something. And they're just, like, throwing it up in the air dramatically. I mean, if you squint really hard, they could potentially look like stripper heels.

But that's besides the point. Like, these are very regular shoes. if you watch the video of them leaving the bar, there is a video. She goes down the stairs fairly quickly. So Michael McLeod is holding her hand and he's walking directly in front of her. He is not slowing down for her. Like he is, I don't know. He looks like he's walking pretty fast down the stairs outside the club.

And she is almost touching the wall with her left hand very briefly. But otherwise, she's not tripping and falling. She's not getting dragged. But I also think that's very normal because I was thinking about it back to like maybe when I did drink a little more socially, but even when I was drunk, I recall going downstairs is not the most difficult thing, especially if you have momentum. It's not the most graceful. You're kind of like clonk, clonk, clon with heels, like clonk, clonk, down the steps. But it's not impossible. It doesn't really indicate how intoxicated somebody is. She says, I mean, I feel like I still have to focus really

hard to get up those stairs. I mean, I know awkwardly, outwardly, it looks fine. I'm not denying that. but I was focusing really hard. There is another point of contention where it's CCTV video of her leaving the hotel after the incident. It's lobby footage. She's wearing jeans, her high heels. She doesn't need support as she walks out. She doesn't appear to be walking in a daze or fumbling.

A lot of people say that she is walking with a very confident gait. She's not walking out of there appearing shocked, traumatized, or completely unwell emotionally. She seems like she's about to go run errands. what people have been saying about this footage. Others are saying, how can you tell? Others are saying it doesn't even make any sense. Like, first of all, her face is blurred. You can't see her facial reaction. You can't see if there's tears streaming down her face. And yes, she is walking steady and she is walking normally. But a lot of victims have come forward to say after an incident like that,

you're kind of some victims say that you're in a state where you are either trying to deny what just happened or make sense of what happened. And the last thing you want to do is, make yourself feel even more vulnerable. So you're at least trying to walk with a confident gate or walk out of there as normally as possible so people don't stop. People don't look at you because you don't want attention on you. You just want to get home so that you can completely unravel in the privacy of your own room. They're saying like, what do you mean? Okay, she's not crawling on the floor, sobbing, banging her fist on the lobby of the hotel. Like, what do you want from her? What do you want from her is what a lot of victims are saying? Then they bring up the bar

footage where she tells the bartender that she was short-changed and they're just bringing up all of this. Now, I will say the bigger points of contention during this trial that a lot of people who support M or support the way that this was a grossly mishandled case, they will admit that these are pretty bad. I will say that. Okay. One of them being, in 2018, the incident takes place. She goes to the police about it. They closed their investigation in 2019. They say, We couldn't find any evidence. Also, we saw the consent videos. We saw the footage of you.

You didn't look that drunk. And here's two videos of you saying that you consented. Hockey Canada does their own brief investigation. They also close it because there's no criminal charges and nobody was really cooperating with Hockey Canada. Everyone just kept saying, like, we're not going to talk to you until we talk to the police. There's no way to really compel them. This is an important point later.

Hockey Canada closes it. 2022, she files a civil lawsuit against Hockey Canada for $3.5 million. They quickly settle for an undisclosed amount, probably way less than what she was demanding in that lawsuit, but it becomes public. And this is when things start blowing up. Everyone is like, we knew things were happening. In fact, they discovered that hockey Canada has a sludge fund where they take a portion of all the registration fees of all the junior league hockey players and they put it into this fund to cover all in insurable incidences, any sort of opportunities, things of that name. nature. That's what they say. But essentially a good seven something million dollars of that fund was just used to pay off essay victims or those who have accused players in the league. That's crazy. How do we

find out about that? It was discovered through an investigation. The bad part of all of this is in her 22 lawsuit to hockey Canada, there are a lot of mistakes in the lawsuit. M claims it's her civil attorneys who had filed that lawsuit, she didn't really think that there would be any criminal charges. She didn't think that anyone would even hear word of it. In fact, nobody even knew who the players were in 2022. They were not alerted. Hockey Canada settled with her so that this would go away. And then eventually it got leaked by investigative reporters. She's saying like, I didn't think it was that serious. I mean, she's not saying it in that sense, but she's saying this was just to sue them. I wasn't going to the police with this document. The police already told me,

two years ago that they closed the case. So I'm telling Hockey Canada because I'm sure there was a lot of anger and resentment of like you have this massive organization that oversees all of these players. They're at a Hockey Canada gala, an event in a hotel room that Hockey Canada is paying for. So I'm sure there was a lot of resentment and anger perhaps towards the organization. She sues them. And in that lawsuit, she does falsely name someone that was not there, that was not partaking in these activities.

She said that she thought that he was there, but even by naming him, she didn't really think that this was, this wasn't supposed to go public. She's not naming him publicly. She's not going to the police with his name. And she does regret it. It was erroneous. She does wish that she had spent more time going over it. She wishes that her civil attorneys had spent more time going over her police transcripts to understand that maybe they shouldn't have named him. But she did not think that this would be public.

She was not trying to falsely accuse that player of anything. She's just saying, like, that really didn't have anything. to do with me. I didn't even think that this would come out. But this becomes a huge point of contention because naturally people are saying, well, you did falsely kind of accuse someone, maybe indirectly, of something, maybe you're falsely accusing a lot of other people. It just made her seem less credible to a lot of netizens. There are other discrepancies in that lawsuit. She states to Hockey Canada that after she started talking to Michael McLeod, it seemed like she didn't pay for any of the other drinks that Michael McLeod and all the other hockey players were supplying

her with alcohol at the bar and she was just getting more and more intoxicated to the point where they should have known that she was too drunk to consent. They go through the CCTV footage at the bar and at no point do the guys buy her any drinks other than one beer. She had multiple shots, but those shots she paid for herself. So there is that that a lot of people are saying that's a huge discrepancy to have. And even though it doesn't necessarily matter in the grand scheme of consent, because it doesn't really matter who bought the shots as long as she was too drunk to consent. But I guess the question being then, if she misremembers that, what else is she misremembering? As well as she was saying that a lot of the guys were putting her hand on their private areas.

CCTV footage from the bar shows her only touching the private areas with her hand of Michael McLeod, and he did not guide her hand there. They also make a whole show. The defense attorneys bring in the shot glasses that were used in the Jacks bar to show that the Jaeger bombs that she drink, the shot glasses are not full one ounce pores of liquor. They're actually about half of that. So instead of drinking, let's say, 12 shots, she's only drinking like half of it. And so they're saying, so maybe you didn't drink as much alcohol as you thought. And she's saying, I still drink the amount that I thought in terms of numbers of drinks. Like I still drink a lot, in my opinion. What the defense attorneys say, your truth changes from 2018 to 2022 and now to 2025. And they keep using patronizing

language such as, you know, Fun M needs more alcohol, right? So that's why you're paying for more alcohol for yourself. Fun M likes to dance. Look at you dancing on the dance floor. Fun M is outgoing. She's not shy. And they are saying this because at a lot of points M would say, I don't remember, but that doesn't sound like something I would say. And they're saying, well, that's not you. It was fun, M, it's drunk, M. She likes to act out on her impulses, basically saying, admit this.

Like, you did this because you were drunk and trying to have fun. Then there is the size potential fear. She is stating that she was in a room with 10, 200 pound pro athletes. M testifies, again, I don't know these guys. I don't know how they're going to react if I try to leave or if I say no. And I will say that judging from the video of them at the bar, she looks pretty small, but the defense attorney states that she keeps trying to make herself appear smaller so that she can exaggerate the size difference. For example, they asked her,

how much did you weigh at the time? And she says that she estimates about 120 pounds. But they're like, but you went through the medical records from the hospital back in June of 2018 and you weighed 138 pounds. So why are you telling me you weighed 120 pounds? And they're insinuating like you went through the medical records recently because to prepare for the testifying like you go through all the records so like you saw that it's 138 pounds why are you telling me that you weighed 120 pounds when you clearly didn't bro what are we arguing here that's crazy what's even crazier though is that the judge uses this part in her verdict saying what like she is not the most reliable or credible witness that she is answering in a way that seems

evasive or roundabout and not necessarily straightforward the truth because the truth would be at the time, she weighed 138 pounds. The truth is not, I estimated at the time, I weighed 120 pounds. So with that, there's this whole argument of like, was she really intimidated by their size? You know, which is kind of crazy. Because she's. Yeah. Then there is the why did you not leave argument.

And they don't, like the defense attorneys aren't outright saying like, well, you actually weighed 20 pounds more than you said. So maybe you're not scared Like they're not saying it like that But that's the message that they're sending out That's exactly what they spend days doing Why not leave That is the next one

Brett Howden testifies I mean you could tell she didn't want to leave She made it look like she wanted to But she didn't want to She made it look like she wanted to leave Yeah Oh so she didn't look like she wanted to leave at some point Exactly

That's fucking crazy But he's saying But she didn't want want to. He says that she would. Oh, that's crazy that he admitted to that. Yeah. He says she pretended to want to leave. And then some of the guys would say things like, baby don't leave. And then she would allegedly say, so you guys want to have sex? And then nobody did. So then she would pretend to leave again. And then they'd be like, baby don't leave. Wow. He alleges that she wouldn't even try to leave. She would just threaten to leave and then not

leave. The defense also points out that at no point did the guys physically stop her from leaving and also the bathroom door, which she was alone in the bathroom multiple times, the bathroom door is closer to the hotel room door. So she could have just like ran out of there, but she didn't. M says she did not think of that. Another thing to note though, I will say is a lot of the times victims have come forward to say you are very scared of making a big scene out of it because you're already not understanding what is happening. Like your brain is still processing the trauma. And now once you make a scene and you run like you've been kidnapped by a serial killer,

that is at odds with how the brain is processing the event. So like this is a very normal way that people respond. Another thing to note, these guys are skating 30 miles per hour on the ice. I could hardly think that anyone in that position, if her allegations are true, again, for legal purposes, if they're true, then one would easily assume. that these guys who spend the majority of their time going 30 miles per hour on ice and slamming into 200-pound hockey players into the barriers,

they would easily reach her before she reaches a stairwell or an elevator bay. M testifies that it just, even at the bar, she was already feeling uncomfortable. Like it was kind of that energy, but only getting intensified as she got to the hotel room. She says at one point she tried to evade Michael by going to the bathroom and trying to lose him, but he insisted on walking her to the bathroom. There is this huge argument about she states that she tripped at one point in front of Michael and he saw her trip. So I guess the insinuation with the prosecutors are, see, he knew she was so intoxicated. He knew she was super drunk.

But then CCTV footage shows that she never tripped in front of Michael and she's saying, oh, maybe I misremembered. I do remember tripping. Maybe it was like inside the bathroom though. So she's saying at the bar, she just already kind of felt a little, like it was hard to think straight. so she did go to the hotel and again she's saying at this point I'm still consenting she's saying when I got to the hotel the first time that she has intimate relations with Michael McLeod that's not an argument she's saying she did consent to that she is now telling her truth of how she felt and she kept saying like my truth and the attorneys hated that too so they keep trying to point that out as like

oh because it's not the truth so then she's like well that's how I remember it right and they're like but that's not what happened it was the whole thing so then she's saying well I mean I felt pressured and I don't think that I was thinking straight. I just felt really drunk. Like that is not something that I would normally do, but we decided to go back to his hotel room and so I did. So she's not saying that I didn't want to. This is non-consensual.

She's just saying it was just weird. She's just describing how she felt in that moment. Then they have consensual activities and then the incident starts. So Michael McLeod is only charged with the essay of the oral sex and then also the incident of in the bathroom at the very end. but not the initial time. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So she's saying, like, all of that was consensual.

Like, no one is debating that. But the defense submits into evidence that there is footage of M talking to a bouncer at the bar. At one point, she's talking to this bouncer for like seven minutes, which is a very long time. Turns out the bouncer was someone that M knew from high school, so they're catching up. Okay, first of all, the defense is arguing. It's strange and suspicious that you never mentioned this bouncer. You never mention this bouncer until you are seeing this CCTV footage, and people are like, why are you talking to this bouncer?

And that is the first time in 2022 that you mentioned, oh yeah, that's a guy that I went to high school with. The defense argues you left out the bouncer because it doesn't fit your narrative. For one, the bouncer could have been called to testify about your intoxication levels. The bouncer would know how drunk you are. They would remember you because if you call the bartender, they're not going to remember you from that many years ago. The bouncer, he was your friend.

He's going to remember, oh, yeah, we ran into each other at the bar. And like, I could tell that she was this drunk or not this drunk. the defense argues that's weird secondly it shows that she could have easily escaped michael at the bar if she wanted she did not feel that uncomfortable because she could have easily gone to the bouncer who has authority in this club and said hey these guys are making me uncomfortable and he keeps inviting me to his hotel room but i don't want to go m argues the reason she didn't mention him after the fact is because it was embarrassing and she didn't want to get him involved in such a private matter so it seems like they're really not that close and also she's saying i don't know what he would have provided because I still chose to go to the hotel. Like, I'm not saying that I was dragged to the hotel.

I'm not saying that he made me go to the hotel. I consented to go to the hotel. So I just didn't think that this was important. A lot of victims agree saying, like, really? Like, this is such an intense experience. And, like, all you want to do is, like, call up all your old high school buddies and tell them exactly what happened. Like, this is very strange.

The civil attorneys, I think that they should be the ones under fire for some of these discrepancies. M's civil attorneys, when they filed that lawsuit against Hockey Canada, it is also in their best interest, the attorneys, to make it the most strongly worded lawsuit possible. That does not become a lie, but it becomes part of the lawsuit. and they alleged that the guys, the hockey guys were trying to separate her from her co-workers and they're insinuating like this was kind of a coordinated thing that they were doing. Like there was a lot of effort and work that was putting into singling her out, getting her away from her co-workers, supplying her with alcohol,

which we later found out was not the case, and then getting her to the hotel room where they all do these things to her. That's the way that it's worded in the civil lawsuit. These civil attorneys, they will take a cut, whatever Hockey Canada pays out. It is in their best interest to secure a settlement. So maybe it's a little too strongly worded because at no point does it seem like she was forcibly separated

or manipulated into being isolated from her coworkers. The defense brings up that her coworker that she Ubered to the bar with kept texting her and calling her, being like, hey, are you okay? Even texting her, hey, if you ever need, like, I can get you from the guys. And she was like, no, no, it's fine. But again, a lot of netizens are arguing, what does that have to do with consent? Because again, she consented to go to the hotel with Michael McLeod

and have intimate relations. It just doesn't make sense. June 20th, 2018. So this is like the day after, really, of the incident. This is a huge conversation of fight, freeze, flight, or fawn. So people know the first three, which is when you're in a shocking situation, some people have the impulse to immediately start fighting. They're like, I'm going to fight to the death.

Like, I got to fight back. Some people, they're all about flight. Like, I just have to get out of here. I don't care if I look silly, goofy. I'm going to run away. Like, there is no way. Or some people just freeze. But then a lot of people don't really know the fourth one that a lot of advocates and a lot

of survivors are trying to tell people, which is fun. And I feel like this is one that a lot of girls resonate with, even myself, which is you do the best to keep the peace, to not escalate the situation, and to get out of there with everyone being happy except yourself because in your mind that is the safest route fighting maybe in your mind subconsciously you just know you don't stand a chance fleeing you feel like that would cause a bigger ordeal where they would try to retaliate or harm you even more freezing is maybe not what's happening it's just fawning you're trying your best to calm people down you're trying your best to de-escalate the situation without outright saying hey i'm literally going to punch you in the

face if you keep doing this She is fawning a lot, and people say that these messages are evidence of that. Michael finds out that she has gone to the police with her mom and that Hockey Canada has been contacted by her mom's boyfriend. He looks for her Instagram and DMs her. Hi, can we talk? She responds, hey, yeah, sure, what's up? Can you call me? Text me first.

Please? Yeah, I just texted. Busy right now, though. I can't talk on the phone yet. How long? Can I call you around 140-ish today? I need to talk right now Okay, sorry, give me like 10 minutes

Alright, good now Can I call? One sec And then she changes her mind Never mind, I really can't talk right now I'm sorry Did you go to the police after Sunday? Question mark? Question mark? Hello? I talked to my mom about it

And she called, I think, but I told her not to I don't want anything bad to come of it So I told her to stop I'm sorry, didn't mean for this to happen You said you were having fun Question mark, question mark, question mark, question mark question mark. I was really drunk, didn't feel good about it at all after, but I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble. I know I was in the wrong too. 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. He responds, I understand that you're embarrassed about what happened, but you need to talk to your mom right now and straighten things out with the police before this goes too far. This is a serious matter that she is misrepresenting and could have significant implications for a lot of people, including you. She doesn't respond, and he texts again. What can you do to make this go away? Yeah, I understand that I'm not trying to push this any further.

I'm sorry for any trouble it might have already caused. He responds, okay, so can you please figure out how to make this go away and contact the police? Okay. Can you call me once you've done that, please, and let me know what's happening? This needs to be done now before this goes any further. Please, have you done this? Question mark? Question mark.

I'm at work. I'll deal with it as soon as I can. Okay, so you're putting an end to this, right? Yes. I appreciate that you're going to put an end to this. I know this must not be easy for you to have to call the police and say this was a mistake. Have you thought about what you're going to say to them? She doesn't respond.

So Michael sends, hey, just wondering, what's happening? I told them I'm not going to pursue it any further and that it was a mistake. You should be good now, so hopefully nothing more comes of it. Sorry again for the misunderstanding. I appreciate you for telling the truth. Thank you. All the best. okay so this has been dissected five bazillion times on the internet and by people and by survivors

by advocates and also people who just hate m this is another thing a lot of discourses around the fact of why okay if anyone hates false accusers it's essay victims victims hate false accusers probably more than anybody else but i don't know why a lot of men, specifically sportsmen, a hater with a passion. They act like they are about to get accused tomorrow. And a lot of victims and a lot of advocates and a lot of people are fighting back of, well, that's not the case because, I mean, statistically, it's just not something that happens as frequently as a lot of these guys are saying it happens.

And additionally, I mean, when you follow the rules of enthusiastic consent, it's just not something that happens. So this is, you know, this is not a cut and dry situation. And if you read these messages, you can see that. So first of all, a lot of people are pointing out that Michael's messages are incredibly assertive. It comes off as someone where they know what they want and they're very aggressive at getting it. And I'm not saying aggressive in the sense of like that is how he must have been sexually, but he is very firm. He is texting her nonstop. He's telling her exactly what he wants her to do. He is not being shy about it. And she, On the other hand, seems like she's nervous.

In fact, the police, the detective testifies that she was going back and forth like eight times about whether she wanted to pursue charges or not. Like she kept changing her mind. Wow. She kept saying things like, I want them to know what they did and like I don't want this to happen to another girl, but also at the same time, like I don't want them to get in so much trouble. Like she was just dealing with a lot.

And then at some points, she does testify later that she felt like part of it was her fault. Like she brought it upon herself that she even went to that. hotel. But here's what's interesting about this. Why not in the DMs? Did he not just say, hey, so you're actually crazy because you're the one that begged everyone to have sex with you and then you went to the police? No one would have been mad. I feel like that's anybody's reaction if that's what happened. That would be my reaction. That would be anybody's reaction. Yeah. Like, are you insane? Like you literally were begging people and then now you go to the police and accuse us like that's crazy you are crazy yeah but no he says you said you were having fun question

mark question mark question mark she also states okay a lot of people were saying i didn't feel good about it at all after a lot of people who support the accused are using this statement and they're saying see just because you consent but then feel shitty and ashamed for what you did afterwards does not mean that it was non-consensual i don't know if we can like nitpick every single word that everybody uses it's just weird and she also does state i'm not trying to get anyone in trouble i know i was in the wrong too so a lot of people are saying see she knows that it was consensual she knows she shouldn't have done this like she feels gross about it afterwards but a lot of people are saying it's just her processing the shame yeah and again she texts him i was okay with going home with you

it was everyone else afterwards that i wasn't expecting he does not refute this in the dm he does not say what do you mean. I texted them to come in the group chat because you told me to, which is what he tells the police. Why would he not say that in the DM? It's like really clear what happened. I don't, yeah. She says, I wasn't expecting. And then she says, I just felt like I was being made fun of and taken advantage of. Now, a lot of people who support the accused say being made fun of while you're having intimate relations and being degraded does not mean that it was non-consensual. yeah because she's not processing she's not processing and she's clearly not the person that will go to him and say hey you essayed me you guys essayed me yeah she's not gonna say that look at the way that she's like avoiding yeah the topic she's avoiding calling him she's avoiding like everything at this point and the fact that he is almost like this sentence is crazy this is a serious matter your mother is misrepresenting and could have significant and could have significant implications for a lot of people,

guilting her, including you. He says, including you. Yeah, that was crazy. Yeah. Is that not like a threat? That's a threat, yeah.

Like, what would these serious implications be if she's telling the truth? He says, what can you do to make this go away? She's apologizing for the trouble that she's caused. Like, it just, again, feels like textbook someone who is fawning.

Like someone who's just trying to avoid and not be confrontational and just try to make everyone happy because they believe that is the safest exit out of this situation. And you might not agree with that just on a personal level. Like I know there are a lot of people like, I'm very non-confrontational and there has been friction in my life of people being like, well, you should just voice it when you're not comfortable.

I think it's just like a personality difference. And whether you agree with that's how someone should live their life does not refute the fact that this is something that happens. Yeah. Yeah. And the fact that, you know, most of these people, they know exactly what they're doing. You know, they're not, you know, anyways. M says with all these messages, she testifies,

she just wanted to avoid the confrontation as much as possible. Her ultimate goal was to keep everybody happy, which is exactly what happened in the hotel room because she was very scared. She was very fearful. She didn't feel like she could say no. And so she just did everything to get out of there. And the safest way she thought that was was to do what they told her to do.

Like once they're satisfied or happy or content, like she could just leave because they won't want anything more. from her versus like running away or fighting other netizens are just saying think about it like this anyone who has ever fond before or that is their typical response in these types of situations this is how pushy michael is on dms and this is just michael imagine how that dynamic played out with 10 of them in one room in person drunk yeah and celebrating and in this very boisterous mood with all their teammates like Yes

This is just one person in the DMs The defense also pulls up other chat logs When Em is seen in the hotel CCTV footage leaving She's on the phone Em testified that she had called her best friend And she was crying for just emotional support She says in that moment she was feeling overwhelming feelings of shame mainly

Like embarrassment She wasn't calling her saying like I was essayed Because in that moment She just felt shame like that was the overwhelming feeling, which again, not dissimilar to like every other victim's experience. They're saying like, this is not unique. This is a normal thing. She cries all the way home in the Uber. And she does acknowledge that as she's crying, she is telling her friend, like, I thought this guy was nice. Turns out he's a douchebag. So she's saying these things

of why she's crying. Because her friend is like, you need to tell me what happened. Instead of saying, I was essayed, all these guys came in here and they all essayed me in a group. She says, I went home with this guy. I thought he was nice at the bar. He turned out to be a really big jerk. She mentions feeling intensely guilty for cheating on her boyfriend. She has a boyfriend at the time. This will be a whole thing. She does not mention gang essay or essay. M testifies at that moment it was because she didn't realize it was essay. I mean, she knew it was something not normal happened, but she couldn't put the word to the experience. And also, like, I don't know she wanted to tell her friend everything they hang up em gets home the next afternoon her best friend

text her and m is just reassuring her like i'm okay girl i think i was just being a little dramatic earlier but i'm good i'm still processing it doing my best to try to be fine her best friend responds you scared me i'm sorry i was just feeling really really guilty and mad at myself for letting that shit happen i just felt dirty and used after the guy was such a jerk and he had all his friends in the room and it was just like a really bad situation i shouldn't have put myself in that situation The defense is just saying, you keep telling your friend it's because you feel ashamed, you feel embarrassed, and you feel guilty for cheating on your boyfriend. Em testifies, yes, I said that because, quote, I didn't want to admit it was sexual assault. I didn't want to say those words because then it would be true.

I didn't want to admit it was as bad as it was. I didn't want to think about it. The next day, Em's co-worker also texts her asking her if she got home okay. And then writing, you were having a blast with those guys. She responds, ha ha, yeah, they were funny, crying, laughing emoji. The defense is like, see, you loved it. She's testifying, I was ashamed, I was embarrassed. I just, this is my coworker.

This is not even a friend. She's like a new friend. I just started hanging out with her. I'm not going to tell her my life story and the worst night of my life over text message the next day. She said that I was just trying my best to make her seem like I was okay and that I was normal. A few days later, M tells her best friend that her mom has gone to the police and she

says, pretty sure I was Roofied, to be honest. and my mom is taking it hella seriously contacting the police and shit the group of guys are all high up hockey players go figure LMAO she says

it's okay I was just trying to downplay it and just forget it but honestly I'm pretty fucked up from it right now so I don't know so again people are saying

it's just very in line with how survivors are and again even survivors are saying do they wish the verdict was different? Yes. But do they understand why the verdict is the way it is? Yes. They're saying it's notoriously difficult to get essay convictions. They're not saying they don't think that she's lying. They think that she's telling the truth. It's not the verdict. That's the main

problem. A lot of survivors feel with this. It's the way that she was allowed to be eviscerated on the stand by the defense attorneys for seven days straight. It's the way that they pulled out every single slut shaming, victim shaming, rape myth out of the textbook that we thought we left in like 1999, they brought it back out in the good year of 2025 and whipped them all out back to back repeatedly when this is a very normal standard way that victims process the incident and then eventually heal. Like this is insane. And again, even survivors were stating online had the judge just read the verdict and then said, for these reasons, these are the reasons why I am legally finding the accused not guilty. She could have even said they're not guilty in the court of

but I think this is a bigger conversation for implied consent. It's a bigger conversation for what really is enthusiastic consent. It could have been a big learning moment for everyone. But no, she was just like, she is a liar. I don't believe her. The judge is like, I think she wanted this basically in her 91 page verdict. She pretty much says everything but that. Even during her testimony, M is constantly apologizing when a question is confusing,

when it's literally not her fault. That is the attorney's fault that's asking her the confusing questions. Defense attorneys are literally paid to ask questions in a way that is clear so that the witnesses can understand. So it's actually their fault, but she's apologizing.

And then finally, she stands up for herself. At one point, Alex's attorney is grilling her. She starts feeling frustrated. And she says, I feel like this is also my time to stand up for myself when I couldn't do it that night. So I'd like to respond to how I'd like to respond if that's all right with you.

I get it. Legally speaking, that's not how it works when you're testifying on the stand. And with Father Iran, I think that he is a very fair judge when the victims would get flustered on the stand and would try to explain certain decisions or ramble about why they felt the way they felt. He was very kind in the way that he would let them at least finish talking. And if it happened too repeatedly, he would say, you know, like, we have to.

You have to answer the question. Yeah, we have to just answer the question. Like, I know it's difficult. But, I mean, have some sympathy, right? The attorney could have easily told her the same thing. Like, yes, I understand that. But this is not the time and place to do it because this is how it works. You have to answer the questions that I ask.

So she says, this is my time to stand up for myself. Like, I would like to respond how I would like to respond if that's all right. And the attorney straight up tells the alleged victim, well, in fact, it's not all right. You're here to respond to my questions. Man, just like I'm just thinking about the amount of trauma she's going to have after this. Yeah. And this is, again, people are saying another reason that victims are not going to come forward. Like, why do you think it takes people so long to come forward?

And then they get slapped in the face when they take so long to come forward when this is all they see on the news. The defense tries to convince her during the cross-examination that, let's be real, she wanted this. However, she was feeling dirty and used because the guys were not very nice to her afterwards. and she was expecting thank yous and hugs and attention, but instead they kick her out after all of this. After she is in the shower with Michael McLeod, the defense argues Michael just wanted to get her out so that he could sleep because he's got a golf tournament tomorrow,

and he keeps asking her when she's going to leave. The defense argues that that makes M feel really annoyed. He's being very disrespectful and rude, and she does, in fact, call him a jerk to the police. He won't walk her to the door. He won't call her an Uber. In fact, he asks her, You're sure you don't have STDs?

Are you leaving anytime soon? Which she states that she was taken aback by those comments. She says she was taken aback, but the defense attorneys latch on to that. And they're saying, you were taking it back because you were expecting something else. Tell us what you were expecting. You were expecting love and adoration and praise. Alex's attorney asks her, you felt a bit scorned that neither Michael nor Alex were really paying too much attention when you left. you were expecting them to give you a hug and to thank you for the night and walk you to the lobby

and when that didn't happen you felt hurt and disagrees she says i remember feeling that it was odd i'd never had an encounter that kind of ends in that type of way but i wasn't scorned about it i definitely felt disrespected but i felt disrespected the whole night so i'm not sure why i thought the end would be any different another part of the defense that they fixate on is brett howden the notoriously unreliable witness testifies that he recalls near the end that she was quote weeping and that at one point she kept saying like i'm too sober for this i'm too sober for this and then accidentally she calls michael the wrong name and i guess michael gets offended by that and he asks her straight up like that's not even my name why are you even here by the way which set her off is the insinuation like that hurt her feelings she is now a scorned woman who wants payback and revenge and now she regrets everything that happened is the insinuation because she's been disrespected so like the insinuation is she consented to all of it and then the guys were rude to her so now she's like you know what i take back my consent but here's what's weird he's saying that she kept saying i'm too sober for this but then she's like calling michael the wrong name

so i'm like i don't know that doesn't seem too sober then and also she's weeping it just sounds like so much is happening like that is not normal for you to be saying i'm too sober calling people the wrong name and then to be crying all in the span of the time that Brett Howden is like leaving this room. Yeah. That seems very emotionally tumultuous. And at which point, someone should have been like, maybe she is very emotional, very drunk, not in a position to consent. The defense argues that she had strong motive to lie because she has a boyfriend who is now her fiance in 2025. The defense points to M statements from 2022 in the lawsuit against Hockey Canada. that she says it caused a strain to my relationship with my boyfriend.

And the defense asked her, but your boyfriend wasn't mad at you for cheating on him. They're saying because he had sympathy. Like he reacted with sympathy, right? Because he saw you as a victim. I guess, yeah. Which is true. But I think the wording,

the way that she is forced to admit it, I think it insinuates that the motive is there then. then the consent videos the judge focused a lot on the consent videos and people from both sides people who support m and then people who support the accused are arguing separately people who support m and what the prosecutors are saying is it's just weird if you have to get a video of someone consenting you should really question if they consented because that's just not a normal thing to do the people who support the accused are saying well these days with all these false allegations. Okay. With all these false allegations, I mean, I would get a video too if I were a famous hockey player. The defense argues that M testified that she doesn't even remember the first video being recorded. She doesn't know if someone was recording her, so that means that she couldn't have been acting for the camera. And allegedly in this video, she is seen smiling. M argues, well, actually, like, near the end of the video, you can see me wipe my eye with

the back of my hand. I think that was when I was crying in the night, which would make sense, like, if she's crying and then they're like, wait, we got to get a video to make sure that she, because she's already crying, so like maybe tomorrow morning she's going to realize, like, I would imagine that that logically kind of makes sense. And she's saying, I think it was near that time that I was crying, so I'm wiping my eyes, but I don't know. She looks at the video and says, I don't really look like myself.

the judge does not believe that the judge believes it looks like you're smiling so you're smiling you didn't know the camera was recording so you're not acting for the camera so that means that you're smiling when this is happening basically if m tries to bring up the fact that she believed she was wiping tears from her eyes the judge is like that is all speculation but also smiling equating to consent is also speculation then the second video where she is talking about like, God, you're so paranoid. Like, yes, I'm okay with everything. Like, I'm too sober for this. She says at this point, like, I think my mind was disconnected from my body. And again, people are saying, what do you expect her to do? Because up until this,

she told us straight up, she was in fear and she was fawning and she was doing whatever it took to get out of there. And at this point, it sounds like, holy, you're so paranoid. It almost sounds like, again, theoretically speaking, in some logical situation, it would make sense if someone in the room is like, wait, are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure you're consenting? Which again, if you have to ask, that's very strange already. I'm not saying it's illegal, but it's strange. And then to get the video and then she's saying, holy, you're so paranoid, like I'm okay. Why would he be paranoid? I mean, unless he has videos of every other person that he's ever had intimate relations with consenting, then it's just weird. And at this point,

these guys are not in the NHL. They're definitely not as established in their career and I'm sure they're heavily career oriented players. They're very successful in what they did, but it just doesn't make sense. I think people are saying even if this is a thing

that a lot of pro athletes do, which a lot of people on Reddit were saying they have had experiences, it might apply more to someone in the NBA, in the NFL, in the NHL, an A-list actor, insert the most famous singer you know, they might do that because they have PR training, media training,

they have a whole team of attorneys who have already informed them of all the necessary ways to protect themselves. And they have this level of fame that most people cannot fathom. But these are 19 to 20 year old junior league players. I don't know if they've gone through all this process of like, okay, now that you're making millions of dollars, you just want to protect yourself from any sort of accusations or lawsuits. It just is weird.

It's very weird. Now, the detective testifies that even when they reopen this case, a lot of people online were saying, why is she just now coming forward, which is already a crazy thing of like, why does it matter when she comes forward with it? But this is not even her coming forward. She actually came to the police very early on, like days after it happened. They closed the investigation in 2019. In 2022, she sues hockey Canada, and this is supposed to be anonymous, but it gets leaked.

They don't know who the plaintiff is. They don't know who M is. but they know that something has happened. The police decide that they're going to reopen the case. And the detective testifies on the stand. I mean, I felt pretty bad because it felt like I got the sense that I was opening up some wounds that she was trying to close.

I think it was a bit overwhelming for her. Like she wasn't expecting this. So it just... Yeah, it's frustrating. And another frustrating part is there are a lot of statements that are being used against M. So when she was talking to the police in 20,

2018 and then later in 2019, her lawsuit against hockey Canada in 2022, what she said to the police in 2022, all of those are being brought up. Now, the players, the accused, their interviews, their very brief interviews, like they dropped the ball. The London police did not really even go in with a full investigation. They were just like, well, we saw the consent videos and you didn't look that drunk. So we think you consented. They didn't ask hard questions for any of the accused, just nothing. They were just like asking a few questions of like, oh, so she was inviting people like you guys had food. It's just the most bland thing ever. At the same time in 2018, Hockey Canada has opened up their investigation. But they are talking to the players,

but they compel them to talk. The investigator that's working on this in Hockey Canada, she's an attorney, she was hired by them. She's a third party firm. And she basically tells them, hey, Hockey Canada is not going to work with you guys unless you guys take this interview. So they come in and now they're almost being forced to take this interview, whereas the police cannot force them to take any interview. You can just say, I'm going to lawyer up, I'm not going to talk to you. Whereas in this situation, she's almost forcing them to talk. They come in with the assumption and the agreement that, hey, you cannot record,

you cannot audio record this, you can only take notes. So she does take a ton of notes. And this is not allowed into evidence. Because at that point, she already knew that the London police were going to subpoena her records, that they were going to get a warrant for all of her notes. then what's the problem with that they're saying it's highly prejudicial and it could be considered coercion because at this point the players were cornered into talking to the investigator which the police could not make them do that the investigator knew that there would be a potential

warrant out for all of her notes and so it just seems like they were being compelled to do something that could infringe on their rights so whereas m she's got the police statements the hockey Canada lawsuit, the hockey Canada conversations, more police statements, all being compared to her timeline, two bar footage, to everything, and then her testimony, there's going to be a lot more opportunity to find inconsistencies because that's just what happens. The guys, however, have less material that's allowed into evidence. They've got the group chats, yeah, they've got the initial police brief interviews, but all the hockey Canada stuff is not allowed. So there's not even that much cross comparison because that's how they get you. They impeach you on like, well, two

years ago you said this and now you're saying this. They're catching you in a lie. But even with the limited information, the guys are still caught lying. For example, Alex says he never saw anyone smack M on the butt. Then later he says, you know what? I did see Dylan Dubet smack her on the butt. Alex is confronted about that discrepancy and he just states he was nervous, overwhelmed and didn't want to throw Dylan Dube under the bus, but he wanted to correct the record that he did see Dylan Dubet smacker on the butt. So there's just like lots of discrepancies and inconsistencies even with the guys and all of their statements, but it doesn't matter. And again, even if we're not disputing the verdict, legally speaking, because a lot of people are saying it's just how difficult it is

to convict people of essay. The judge did not have to say like half the stuff that she said in that verdict. She says, quote, on several occasions, the complainant referred to her evidence as her truth rather than the truth, which seemingly blurs the lines between what she believes to be true and is objectively true. The judge, she even uses, quote, gap. in quotation marks to talk about M's gaps in her memory. The judge says another way that the complainant apparently filled in gaps in her memory with assumptions is the manner in which she answered questions. For example, she would say, I feel that I, as opposed, as she would speculate, as opposed to

remembering or knowing the answer to the question. This reflects an uncertainty of her memory. The judge writes, quote, it was suggested to M that she remained in the room because she was expecting the other men to enter and wanted to participate in sexual activity with the other men. She denied this suggestion. But it was not a denial because she didn't say it or did not recall saying it and testified that it doesn't sound like something I would say. Okay. And that the judge is like, that's not a denial. That's not a no. Yeah. How a person behaves when they are clearheaded and sober may not be the way a person behaves when they are disinhibited after

consuming alcohol. On the basis of all the evidence, I find as a fact that the complainant did express that she wanted to engage in sexual activity with the men by saying things like, is someone going to fuck me and by self-pleasureing. The judge is basically saying, based on the evidence, I agree this to be true. What evidence? The only evidence we actually have is that text message that Michael McLeod sent to the group saying, anyone want to threesome? Quick, 209, Mikey. There is no evidence other than these guys testifying or telling the police that said that she was asking for this, literally. Yeah, and all of their stories don't even add up.

Yes, his DMs don't add up. Their group messages don't add up. Like, there is no evidence. Yeah. The judge also touches on the group chats, and she says, in his text messages, Mr. McLeod reminded everyone to tell the truth and not to make anything up. Mr. Dubay told the group, let's not make her sound too crazy because if she gets wind of

this and then she can get even more angry and we don't need that, so just be good with it and be the truth with it. which again people are saying those are weird group chats the judge says in my view the group chat reflects that the participants were expressing their honest recollections about what happened in room 209 and not concocting a false narrative this judge wow i mean yeah oh m's attorney has come out to say we're very disappointed with her honors assessment of her honesty and reliability em has never really experienced not being believed like this before and it's it was just basically saying it was tough the prosecutors say a successful prosecution is not measured solely by whether there are guilty verdicts at the end. But people are saying this was just not successful in any way or form. It just is bad. But the five guys, the five accused, have walked out of the courtroom probably more smug than they were walking in because they have just been acquitted of all the charges and they were found

not guilty. Netizens are saying that doesn't mean that they're not guilty, but I guess that's a personal opinion. Michael McLeod's attorney states, public perception was shaped by a one narrative from a civil lawsuit that went unchallenged in large part because Hockey Canada settled the claim without first informing or consulting the players, basically saying in 2022 had Hockey Canada called Michael McLeod and all the other players, they would have fought this. They would not have let hockey Canada settle. But because they settled, the public believed that these guys were in the wrong. He says that they have vigorously contested M's allegations and they've won.

There were brief conversations about Michael McLeod being signed with the Carolina Hurricanes for the NHL, which means that he would stand to make, on average, like, $3.5 to $4 million a year. That's on average how much that team pays. But there was so much backlash, a petition, the Carolina Hurricanes backed out. And now he has recently signed with an Eastern European, like, Vanguard team. He's still making a lot of money. His contract is $2.7 million in total, rounding out to be about, like, $900,000 a year. One comment reads, not guilty is not innocent.

What kind of person treats a woman that way anyway? As for Alex Formanton, the other one that is accused of full-on essay and R-word, he is now with the Swiss team. We don't know how much he makes, but a lot of insiders say that it's a very comfortable position. Alex's attorney states, now the public knows that he's innocent of this false allegation, but only after this case has erupted into a massively publicized social cause. Alex's face has appeared on millions of screens and newspaper pages. There can be little doubt that an untold number of people believed he was guilty simply because he had been accused of a crime. long before any evidence was presented in court.

As for Dylan Dubay, his previous contract was with a Belarus-based team for $600,000 a year. But I think as of right now, he's a free agent and he is unsigned. There are reports of NHL interests, but we'll just have to see. Cal Foot, the one who did the splits, his attorney states, at the start of this trial, Calfoot walked into the 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 court. courthouse doors. Carter Hart, probably the more popular of the five accused, he's the one with

the attorney that a separate victim is just so traumatized by Megan Savard. But Carter Hart's attorney says, almost every single feature of the evidence that the judge identified today as fatal flaws for the crown has been known to the prosecutors and to the police from 2018. Today's outcome was not just predictable it was predicted a lot of comments say she thought she ate with that one um he has recently signed like a few days ago recently signed a two year four million dollar contract with the las vegas nights golden nights oh people are upset he's in america yes he is the only one that is re-signed with a team inside the n hl and people are rightfully pissed off he says it's been a long road to get back to this point to get back to playing the game

of hockey, a game that I love, and I've been out of the game for a year and a half now. I've learned a lot. I've grown a lot. I'm just excited to move forward. A lot of people have been saying positive things about Carter Hart, primarily because he was the only defendant to testify. So some people think it could be possible that maybe some of the accused in their minds are guilty, some of them are not.

But I will say it also depends on who's their favorite player seems to be a huge part of the reasoning. and a lot of people are against any of them getting signed with the NHL saying things like they shouldn't even be walking the streets as free men let alone taking a spot from another player others are commenting or just like hear me out I don't know just don't sign rapists like this is absolutely important and everything that is wrong with sports

and other people are commenting what's even worse about this is they're not even the greatest hockey players like you really don't have to sign them like your team is not losing out by not having this one talented player like there's so many talented players like you get nothing it's almost like it doesn't even make sense at this point it's almost like you're doing this to spit in people's faces but others firmly disagree saying they are acquitted why are we treating them like criminals why should their whole lives be ruined when that is exactly how the justice system works they were proven innocent in the

court of law and people still want to treat them like they were guilty like people are saying it doesn't make sense so there's a lot of debates others are commenting like what's the issue you guys believe that there aren't girls who are actually down for all this stuff they try to save themselves in their reputation later by falsely accusing the guys with the things that they wanted to do like come on give me a break i will say netizens have said that people who i think there's a fine line i think the ones that say that they should be able to live on with their lives and their careers and have an NHL contract those are people that are definitely in support of the five accused but their argument lies on the fact of they were found innocent in the court of law Once we start making up our own rules outside of that, that's where we get into very slippery slope territory, where now it's just getting bad. Like, they had been acquitted. You don't have to like them, but they should be able to live their lives because they were not found guilty. But then you have the other side of supporters that are like, no, that girl is a liar. She wanted that.

She was asking for it. This was her dream. And a lot of people are just saying, like, dude, because a lot of them are guys, just say you want to bang some ice hockey bros. Like, you don't have to put it on women. Like, you can just say that. A lot of people are also saying, like, what is it about sports that brings out guys to defend other guys to the death? These guys don't know you, and they'll probably make fun of you if they met you at a bar. Others are just commenting, that consent video is more like a hostage video.

Others are also commenting that even the judge allowing those consent videos into the evidence is just like a dangerous precedent that she's setting. And ultimately, M's attorney states, when a person summons the courage to disclose their story, The worst possible outcome is to feel disbelieved. It's a gutting experience that no one deserves. That's why today's verdict is so devastating. Em did everything in her power to recount her experience honestly and to the best of her ability. She agreed to do everything asked by her by the criminal justice system, and yet it was not enough. And that is where I leave you with today's case.

What are your thoughts? I think there's four groups of people, people who support M to the very end, and they say that verdict should have been different. and that these men deserve to rot in prison and preferably in hell, then you have a second group that say, legally speaking, they can understand why the verdict happened the way it did. That is not a reflection of M. That is not a reflection of her credibility, but rather the police, the prosecutors, the court system, the law. And then you have some people that are saying, at the end of the day, what happened was

the guys have been acquitted, so we all need to move on. And then you've got the other end of the spectrum that are like, we need to just like burn woman at the stake just in case they're going to falsely accuse me random joe from Nebraska of doing something what are your thoughts let me know in the comments and be safe i will see you in the next one