Latest news with #MichaelMcLeod
Globe and Mail
13 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Hockey Canada sex-assault trial spotlights roadblocks and missed opportunities in first London police probe
Eight months after receiving a complaint that a group of former world junior hockey players sexually assaulted a woman in a downtown hotel, London police detective Stephen Newton had reached the end of his investigation. In a phone call with E.M., as the complainant is known because of a publication ban on her name, he told her he didn't have enough evidence to continue his probe. 'I informed her I would be closing the case with no charges,' Mr. Newton, who has since retired, wrote in his notes in February, 2019. His conclusions in the case, and the investigative steps he took to reach them, have since come under intense scrutiny. After it emerged that Hockey Canada, which oversees the world junior team, had quietly settled a lawsuit the woman filed without the players' knowledge, police reopened the case in 2022. This time, a new lead detective reached a different conclusion, and in January, 2024, police laid sexual-assault charges against Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton and Cal Foote. Police Chief Thai Truong apologized publicly to E.M. and her family for 'the time that it has taken to reach this point.' Each of the players has pleaded not guilty. Closing arguments in their eight-week-long criminal trial concluded in a London courtroom last week. The judge is scheduled to deliver her verdict on July 24. Documents from the 2018 investigation that ended without charges were submitted as evidence in the trial, along with records from the second investigation years later. The Globe and Mail interviewed five experts in sexual violence, policing and law who are not connected with the case about the initial police investigation. Their review of police notes and interviews Mr. Newton conducted with E.M. and the accused players reveals that while he hit roadblocks, he also missed opportunities to dig deeper and left investigative avenues unexplored, raising fundamental questions about how police treat sexual-assault allegations. 'It's emblematic of bigger system failures,' said Melanie Randall, a law professor at Western University and legal expert on sexual assault who reviewed the materials. 'It's a perfect case study of where things go wrong in the criminal justice system with police interviews and investigations.' The London Police Service declined to comment for this story, saying the case is before the courts. Mr. Newton also declined to comment. When Mr. Newton testified at the trial, Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham pressed him repeatedly about apparent gaps in his investigation, and in written submissions asserted he lacked 'a genuine interest in getting at the truth.' 'Detective Newton had made up his mind that there would never be grounds for charges (based on his erroneous or incomplete understanding of consent),' Ms. Cunningham wrote in submissions filed with her closing arguments. Defence lawyers, meanwhile, praised him as a veteran detective whose decision to close the case without charges was correct. David Humphrey, who represents Mr. McLeod, said in court: 'You were familiar with and tried to follow best practices for the investigation of sexual-assault cases?' Mr. Newton replied, 'Yes, I did the best I could.' In Canada, the law requires that consent is voluntary, continuous and given for each sex act. Physically fighting back is not necessary to determine whether a sexual assault has occurred. Rather, the law examines whether an individual has freely indicated 'yes,' without coercion. Prof. Randall said Mr. Newton's interviews with E.M. and the observations he recorded in his notes raise questions about whether he investigated her allegations through this lens. Mr. Newton first learned of the allegations on June 19, 2018, hours after E.M. left the hotel. His records indicate that police had received a call from a Hockey Canada official, after E.M.'s stepfather lodged a complaint with the sports organization. In E.M.'s interviews with Mr. Newton, she described how she met Mr. McLeod in a local bar called Jack's and went with him to his hotel room at the Delta Armouries. She said they had consensual sex, but that she was then forced to engage in sex acts with a group of teammates he had invited in without her knowledge as several others in the room watched. He wrote in his notes that there was no evidence E.M. 'was physically coerced into performing these sex acts' and that 'I explained to [E.M.] that her level of consent is at issue here and that I do not have the evidence needed to demonstrate at court that there was no consent.' At trial, defence lawyers asserted that it was E.M. who asked Mr. McLeod to invite his teammates to the room and that she had demanded sex from the players. Kat Owens, a former Crown attorney who is now interim legal director at the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund in Toronto, said the interview transcripts suggest Mr. Newton failed to home in on what should have been a primary interest. 'What I think is most concerning is the lack of a focus on just the simple question of 'Did you consent?' ' she said. 'Colloquially, only yes means yes. It's not 'no means no,' ' she added. 'It's that you have to be giving an active ongoing consent to each sex act.' E.M. alleged to Mr. Newton that this did not occur, telling him 'they were all like slapping my butt … that was actually starting to hurt so I told them to stop.' Later, she said, 'One just did the splits on my face, just to put it in my face. … It just got really uncomfortable.' These allegations would underpin the Crown's prosecution against Mr. Dubé and Mr. Foote. But Mr. Newton did not pursue them as grounds for potential charges and conceded at trial that when he interviewed Mr. Dubé, he didn't ask the player whether he had touched E.M.'s buttocks. 'Maybe I missed that,' Mr. Newton testified. Intoxication is a factor police consider when investigating sexual-assault allegations, because the law looks not only at whether a complainant consented but also whether they had the capacity to do so. High courts have held that extreme inebriation or periods of unconsciousness can void consent. Profound intoxication does not typically meet the threshold. In many cases, courts have held that there must be evidence that a complainant was unconscious to find that they were unable to consent. When Mr. Newton began his investigation, he wrote in his notebook that he contacted a Hockey Canada official who was independently investigating. The official told him that the events may have involved a woman who 'was extremely drunk and may have blacked out.' However, the transcripts of Mr. Newton's interviews with E.M. suggest incapacity was never a likely path to charges in the case. In an interview on June 22, 2018, Mr. Newton asked E.M., 'Were you conscious the whole time?' 'I don't think I passed out at all,' she replied. Prof. Randall said Mr. Newton should have pivoted toward other aspects of the consent analysis. Instead, the investigative records suggest, E.M.'s level of intoxication continued to be a focal point in Mr. Newton's probe and led, largely, to his decision to shutter it. When Mr. Newton closed his case, he wrote in his notes: 'I would have needed to see outward signs that she was intoxicated such as staggering, severely slurred speech, unconsciousness and evidence that others around her could see that she was too intoxicated to consent.' That assessment suggests the officer had a 'rigid, narrow idea' of how to evaluate consent and the role intoxication plays in that analysis, Prof. Randall said. 'He failed to appreciate some of the dynamics at play,' she said, adding that his focus on whether E.M. was too drunk to consent 'is one of the things he kind of gets stuck on and misunderstands.' When Mr. Newton interviewed E.M., he asked her whether she could have left the hotel room during the alleged sexual assault. 'I don't think I was capable in that state,' she replied, later adding: 'I don't know why I couldn't speak up.' Lori Haskell, a clinical psychologist who studies sexual violence, said E.M.'s response should have prompted the officer to dig deeper and inquire about her state of mind. That did not happen, according to the interview transcripts and officer's notes. 'The right questions were not asked,' Dr. Haskell said. 'A trauma-informed detective, aware of how the brain responds to extreme threat and stress, would consider that her reactions may have been dissociative or that her executive functioning was impaired.' At the criminal trial, E.M. testified that during the alleged assault, she felt as if her mind 'kind of floated to the top corner of the ceiling' and that she watched herself over the ensuing hours. She said she switched into 'autopilot' and performed sex acts she didn't consent to as a way to get through the night. Defence lawyers challenged this, arguing that E.M. was an enthusiastic participant and made up this narrative later because she regretted her actions. A few weeks into the police investigation, E.M. left a voicemail message for Mr. Newton. 'She indicated that she would prefer a female investigator to investigate this matter,' he wrote in his notes. 'I am not sure why that is and she did not make that request to me when I spoke to her on the phone.' Mr. Newton wrote that he brought some female officers into the investigation, but stayed on as lead detective. Dr. Haskell said that wasn't sufficient and E.M.'s request for a female lead detective 'should have been accommodated.' 'Providing a female officer is not simply about comfort,' she said. 'It's a trauma-informed response that recognizes the psychological and emotional safety needs of the complainant.' When London police reopened the case in 2022, it was assigned to a female detective, Lyndsey Ryan, whose probe resulted in the charges that are now before the court. Mr. Newton remarked on several occasions in his notes that E.M. appeared to be wavering on whether she wanted to pursue charges. In July, 2018, he wrote that E.M. 'has repeatedly changed her mind on how she would like to see this investigation proceed. It raises a significant concern on my part that she is being coerced into participating in an investigation that she never wanted to occur in the first place.' Dave Perry, a former investigator with the Toronto police sexual-assault squad, said reticence of a complainant may deter police who don't want to lay charges they can't support in court. But retired criminal defence lawyer John Hill questioned whether Mr. Newton placed too much emphasis on E.M.'s willingness to proceed, noting that it's common for sex-assault complainants to waver. 'I would put no stock in the fact that she vacillated,' Mr. Hill said. Mr. Newton faced considerable barriers in his investigation. Hockey Canada refused to hand over its internal investigative file. And Mr. Newton's position that he was unable to form grounds that a crime had occurred meant that he couldn't seek judicial authorization to compel the sports organization or any other third party to produce evidence. Prosecutors in the case later said he also did not ask the players to voluntarily give him their text-message exchanges. When Det. Ryan reopened the case in 2022, she gained access to the text messages, as well as Hockey Canada's investigative file, which included notes from player interviews. A judge would later block three of the players' interviews from being used in their criminal trial, finding the sports organization obtained them through coercion. Mr. Newton obtained some evidence without court orders, such as the video surveillance from Jack's bar, where E.M. met some of the players. But he conceded at trial that he never watched the footage. If he had, Prof. Randall said, Mr. Newton 'would have seen the amount E.M. was drinking and people buying her drinks at the bar,' as well as men 'encircling her,' which he could have factored into his assessment of her vulnerability. Mr. Newton wrote that his investigation identified 11 players who were in the hotel room with E.M. and that he hoped to speak to all of them. But he only ever sat down with two of them face to face. Some other players gave phone interviews, but most of the rest gave only written statements or would not talk to him at all. The two in-person conversations were with Mr. McLeod and Mr. Formenton and took place in a Toronto lawyer's office. This would have allowed these players to present themselves in a positive light, according to defence lawyer Monte MacGregor, who is not involved in the case. 'It's a defence strategy to get ahead of the curve,' he said, adding that this would allow the subjects to say they were as helpful as possible in meeting with police. Mr. Newton also missed possible opportunities to press the players for information that might have advanced his investigation. During the voluntary interviews, Mr. Newton asked Mr. McLeod about what drew multiple players to his hotel room on the night of the alleged assault: 'Do you get the sense that guys are coming because they know there's a naked girl in the room who's doing sexual favours?' 'I don't know how guys kept showing up,' Mr. McLeod replied. 'Well, I know everyone has phones and devices. … Were you sending any of those messages?' the detective asked. Mr. McLeod said, 'Oh no, I just told the guys I was getting food and there's a girl over there, that's all I said to a few guys.' This was an invitation to follow up further, said Mr. Perry, the retired Toronto police detective. Mr. Newton did not continue his line of questioning. He testified that he did not become aware of a text sent from Mr. McLeod's phone to teammates on the night of the alleged assault that said, 'Who wants to be in a 3 way quick. 209 – mikey' – a key piece of evidence in the Crown's prosecution. 'I think in hindsight, yeah, he could have probed a little deeper,' Mr. Perry said. Farrah Khan: To really change the culture around sexual violence, consent can't be taught as a technicality Andrea Werhun: Porn isn't to blame for sexual assault Shannon Kari: 'Whacking the complainant' continues to be the norm in sexual-assault cases
Hamilton Spectator
7 days ago
- Sport
- Hamilton Spectator
Hockey Canada sex assault trial ends as Crown lays out why each player should be convicted
As the Crown wrapped up its closing arguments Friday at the high-profile trial of five professional hockey players accused of sexual assault, they ended with the complainant's own words from her marathon nine days on the stand. The jury has heard — in graphic detail — her allegations about what took place inside a London, Ont., hotel room in 2018. The jury has heard — in graphic detail — her allegations about what took place inside a London, Ont., hotel room in 2018. 'They were objectifying me, they were literally in there laughing at me,' the woman had testified. 'Literally any one of those men could have stood up and said, 'This isn't right.' And no one did ... They didn't want to think about if I was actually OK, or if I was actually consenting.' After hearing nearly six weeks of evidence and a full week of closing arguments from the five defence teams and the Crown, it's now up to Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia to decide the guilt or innocence of Alex Formenton, Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote, in a judgment set to be delivered July 24. The prosecutors and defence lawyers shook hands as the trial finally came to an end Friday afternoon at the London, Ont., courthouse, after having originally started in April as a jury trial, but is now a judge-alone case . Carroccia thanked the lawyers for the 'very professional manner' in which they handled the case, 'which we all know has garnered a lot of public attention.' A pair of stills from videos showing the dance floor inside Jack's Bar in London, Ont., on the night of June 18-19, 2018, show the complainant with world junior team members Dillon Dubé, circled left, and Michael McLeod, right. All members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team — and most of them playing in the NHL by the time of their arrests last year — the five men stand accused of sexually assaulting the then-20-year-old complainant in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel in London in the early hours of June 19, 2018, while the team was in town to attend the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event. The complainant had met McLeod at Jack's Bar and returned to his room where they had consensual sex, only for multiple men to come in afterward, some prompted by a group chat text from McLeod about a '3 way.' The Crown has alleged that McLeod had intercourse with the complainant a second time in the hotel room's bathroom; that Formenton separately had intercourse with the complainant in the bathroom; that McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex from the woman; that Dubé slapped her naked buttocks, and that Foote did the splits over her head and his genitals 'grazed' her face. Prosecutors have argued that the men failed to take reasonable steps to confirm the woman's consent to each act, and that she never made an 'affirmative, voluntary choice.' A screenshot of a group chat involving members of Canada's 2018 world junior championship team. The Crown contends the complainant either didn't voluntarily consent, or her consent was cancelled by the fact she was scared and intimidated to be in a hotel room full of men she didn't know while she was intoxicated as well as naked after having had sex with McLeod. The defence, meanwhile, has argued that the complainant was consenting throughout the night and fabricated her version of events as she tried to make stick her allegations from a $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit filed against Hockey Canada in 2022, which the sports organization quickly settled for an undisclosed sum. The prosecution further alleges that through the use of a group chat, the players created a false narrative that the complainant was the aggressor and repeatedly demanded to have sex with men in the room — a Crown argument that has faced resistance from the judge. The Crown has also asked the judge to reject some of the testimony of their own player witnesses, something Carroccia described as 'interesting' on Friday. 'Effectively, what you're saying is where it doesn't help the Crown, don't accept it, and where it does help the Crown, accept it,' the judge said. On Friday, the prosecution finished its closing arguments by outlining its case for a conviction against each accused man. 'This is a unique case where, in the Crown's submission, no matter which facts you accept amongst the sometimes challenging puzzle of evidence, there is a clear path to conviction for each of the five accused,' Crown attorney Heather Donkers told Carroccia. 'Mr. McLeod is the one who orchestrated this whole sordid night,' Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham said Friday. Michael McLeod arrives at court with his lawyers. 'Knowing that (the complainant) had expressed no interest in, or willingness to engage in, sexual activity with anyone other than him, he then begins a campaign to bring men into the room to do that very thing.' McLeod is the only accused man facing two charges — sexual assault and being a party to a sexual assault, for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage in sexual activity with the complainant when he knew she wasn't consenting. In a 2018 police interview, he told a detective he received oral sex from the complainant and engaged in intercourse with her again before she left the hotel room, but omitted the fact he texted a players' group chat to come to his room for a '3 way,' as well as messaging others directly. The Crown argued Friday that McLeod is one of three men the complainant testified she performed oral sex on while she was on a bedsheet on the ground, although she herself did not identify McLeod as one of the three. The Crown said there were no words spoken between McLeod and the complainant at that time to confirm her consent. The Crown also asked that Carroccia accept that another instance of oral sex happened while McLeod was on the bed. To this, the judge pointed out that court heard testimony about the complainant getting up on the bed and placing McLeod's penis in her mouth without him actually doing anything — evidence that Donkers described as ambiguous and not an indication of consent. 'You can't possibly be saying that a woman who puts a man's penis in her mouth is not communicating that she wishes to,' Carroccia said in response. This led to a back-and-forth between the judge and Crown attorney. 'That is what I'm saying,' Donkers replied. 'Otherwise, there would never be a sexual assault that involves oral sex.' 'That's not true,' Carroccia shot back, saying Donkers misunderstood the point. The judge then put it in the form of a question: 'If a man does nothing and a woman takes his penis and puts it in her mouth, he's committing a sexual assault without asking her if that's OK?' Donkers apologized. She explained the Crown position that doing the act doesn't communicate consent, but agreed that if the judge were to find it was 'one-directional entirely,' that may raise a doubt as to whether that particular allegation had been proven. Donkers did not address at all the allegation involving intercourse, deferring instead to the Crown's brief written arguments. McLeod had told police he had hopped in the shower and the complainant came in with him and they had sex. In court, the woman testified about being tired by that point and that she felt it was a 'continuation' of the other sexual acts in the room — 'I didn't look at it as something I really wanted to do, just felt like one last thing I needed to do to go.' The Crown argues in its written materials that there is no evidence McLeod took any steps to ascertain the complainant's consent. As for being a party to sexual assault, Cunningham argued that McLeod can still be found guilty as long the judge concludes that a sexual assault happened in the room, regardless of whether any specific person is convicted. For example, she referred to the complainant's testimony of multiple men slapping and spitting on her. The whole reason the men knew to come to the room was because of McLeod, Cunningham argued, and he ensured throughout the night that the sexual activity could continue by calming the complainant down when she became upset, or by telling other players in the room not to take out their phones to record anything. McLeod made two cellphone recordings of the complainant; in one, she says 'I'm OK with this,' while in another, she says 'It was all consensual.' Cunningham argued the videos cannot be used as evidence of consent. 'They are also not evidence of any reasonable steps taken to sincerely ascertain valid consent in law,' she said. 'At their highest, they're the kind of token, lip-service, box-checking that the Court of Appeal says is not a reasonable step.' The first video doesn't actually establish to what the complainant was consenting and with whom, Cunningham said, while the second video was taken after the sexual activity and, the Crown highlighted, consent can't be given after the fact. The complainant herself testified she was just saying what she thought the men wanted to hear. The only accused man to testify in his own defence, Hart told the judge that in response to the complainant's demands for intercourse while she was on the ground, he asked for a 'blowie, meaning blowjob,' she said 'yeah' or 'sure,' moved toward him, helped pull down his pants, and performed oral sex about 30 seconds to a minute. Carter Hart outside court with his lawyers. Should the judge accept his account, Donkers argued he should have taken more steps to confirm the complainant's consent, given her obvious vulnerability. He could have taken her aside, asked for her name, her desires, her limitations, or whether this was something she truly wanted. In response to that, Carroccia pointed out the testimony of the Crown's witnesses about the complainant demanding to have sex. 'You just said to me he could have talked to her to find out more about her wants,' Carroccia said, 'but if I accept the evidence from your own witnesses, she was saying what her wants were, correct?' Donkers said that the witnesses testified about the complainant demanding intercourse, not oral sex. While Hart could only recall that instance of oral sex, he later said it was possible it happened again , after the Crown pointed out in cross-examination that McLeod told police he saw Hart receive oral sex twice. The complainant herself testified about giving oral sex to about three men in quick succession, though she never identified Hart to the police, nor that she performed oral sex on him twice. Players Brett Howden and Tyler Steenbergen identified Hart and McLeod as two of the three, while Dubé identified himself to police as the third. Howden testified he believes he saw Hart receive oral sex twice while in the room. 'So I should accept their evidence that Carter Hart probably got oral sex twice, but then find they're mistaken about Dillon Dubé?' the judge asked. 'If they're watching Carter Hart getting oral sex twice, they blink and miss Dillon Dubé? I just don't follow that argument.' Donkers countered that they might not have noticed Dubé because it happened so quickly. Formenton told police in 2018 that he followed the complainant into the bathroom after she had been demanding to have sex with men. There's a lack of evidence as to whether there was any conversation in the bathroom between the two, but Donkers argued that again, no steps were taken to confirm the complainant's consent before they had vaginal intercourse. Alex Formenton and his lawyers. But Carroccia had a question: What to make of Howden's testimony that he recalled that in response to the complainant's demands, Formenton said something along the lines of not wanting to do it front of everybody, and then he followed the complainant into the bathroom. 'Not so ambiguous, is it, in those circumstances?' Carroccia said. 'It's consistent with what she's offering, what she said, if I find that that was the sequence of events.' The judge reminded Donkers that Formenton doesn't have to prove that scenario, but rather the onus is on the Crown 'to disprove that that's what happened.' Donkers said the Crown doesn't have to prove or disprove 'any particular fact and issue beyond a reasonable doubt, what we have to prove is he's guilty of sexual assault.' 'I know that, Ms. Donkers,' the judge replied. While the Crown has argued that the defence has engaged in myth-based reasoning when questioning the complainant's behaviour in the room, Formenton's lawyer Hilary Dudding countered that, in fact, the prosecution was doing that. The Crown's reasoning 'really implies that for a woman to be assertively asking for sex in a group scenario is so inherently bizarre and odd that it requires some explanation other than that woman is consenting,' Dudding said. 'It's stereotypical thinking about what types of sex people like and don't like, what a woman might choose or not choose.' Dubé acknowledged in his 2018 police interview that he briefly received oral sex from the complainant, but omitted the fact that he slapped her naked buttocks. He did admit to slapping the complainant once or twice to a Hockey Canada investigator in 2022, in a statement that was excluded from the trial due to the 'unfair and prejudicial' way it was obtained. The complainant testified that multiple men were slapping her buttocks and that it hurt. The Crown argued that Carroccia should find Dubé slapped her twice — while she was on the ground after giving him oral sex, as witnessed by Steenbergen and on the bed while she was performing oral sex on McLeod, as witnessed by Howden. Dillon Dubé outside court. Dubé told police the oral sex happened in quick succession as the complainant performed on him, Hart, and McLeod — 'No chance for subjective consent,' Donkers said, but even if there was, it was cancelled by the complainant's fear of being in the room. Donkers argued that Dubé only mentioned getting oral sex to police because he 'knew he could try and portray that as consensual, based on comments he says (the complainant) was making about sex,' while he didn't mention the slapping because he knew that went too far as there is 'absolutely zero evidence' that the woman consented to that. 'He could not have had any legitimate belief she had communicated a willingness to be touched on her buttocks, gentle or hard, it does not matter,' Donkers said. 'That belief would have had to come from the myth that just because she had agreed to other things or appeared to agree to other things, that she would be OK being slapped. That is not a defence in law.' It's undisputed that Foote did the splits over the woman, Donkers said, but what's disputed is whether he was naked from the waist down, over which part of her body he did the splits, and whether his genitals touched her face. Court heard that the spits was a 'party trick' Foote often did, including on the dance floor at Jack's earlier that evening in June 2018. Cal Foote, centre, with his lawyers. Steenbergen partially witnessed Foote doing the splits, but couldn't tell if he was clothed below the waist, while Hart was adamant that Foote was wearing clothes and he did not physically touch the complainant, whom Hart said was laughing. The complainant 'viscerally testified' about someone doing the splits 'and having a penis in my face,' Donkers pointed out, although the complainant wasn't able to identify Foote. Given that this was a hotel room full of men 'amped up from a night of drinking' and who knew sexual activity with the woman was the focus in the room, it is 'abundantly clear' that Foote was called to the room to engage with the woman sexually as well, and specifically by doing the naked splits over her body, Donkers argued. 'This extraordinary event of June 19 for them called for extraordinary measures, not just an ordinary party trick they had seen as early as the night before at Jack's,' Donkers said. Cal Foote does the splits at Jack's Bar in London on the night of June 18-19, 2018, while teammates Brett Howden (on the far side of Foote, in white with a lighter-coloured backwards ball cap) and Dillon Dubé (in white on the near side of Foote) clear space on the dance floor. But even if the judge were to accept Hart's version that Foote did the splits while clothed and didn't touch the complainant, the judge should still conclude it was a sexual assault, Donkers said — even though the complainant maintained she was touched. 'It's reasonable to assume that in (Hart's) version of events, she thinks the touching is about to happen and in vulnerable circumstances of a sexual nature,' Donkers said. In the excluded statements from the Hockey Canada 2022 investigation that cannot form part of Carroccia's decision, both Formenton and Dubé said they witnessed Foote doing the splits, with Formenton specifying he wasn't wearing pants. 'So she's laying on the ground parallel between the beds,' Formenton said. 'I remember he takes pants off, top clothes still on, does splits over her upper body.' The players were 'compelled' to sit for an interview with Hockey Canada. But they weren't told Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Toronto Star
7 days ago
- Sport
- Toronto Star
Hockey Canada sex assault trial ends as Crown lays out why each player should be convicted
As the Crown wrapped up its closing arguments Friday at the high-profile trial of five professional hockey players accused of sexual assault, they ended with the complainant's own words from her marathon nine days on the stand. News 'My truth': What we heard from the Hockey Canada sex assault complainant in nine days of testimony The jury has heard — in graphic detail — her allegations about what took place inside a London, Ont., hotel room in 2018. News 'My truth': What we heard from the Hockey Canada sex assault complainant in nine days of testimony The jury has heard — in graphic detail — her allegations about what took place inside a London, Ont., hotel room in 2018. 'They were objectifying me, they were literally in there laughing at me,' the woman had testified. 'Literally any one of those men could have stood up and said, 'This isn't right.' And no one did ... They didn't want to think about if I was actually OK, or if I was actually consenting.' After hearing nearly six weeks of evidence and a full week of closing arguments from the five defence teams and the Crown, it's now up to Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia to decide the guilt or innocence of Alex Formenton, Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote, in a judgment set to be delivered July 24. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW The prosecutors and defence lawyers shook hands as the trial finally came to an end Friday afternoon at the London, Ont., courthouse, after having originally started in April as a jury trial, but is now a judge-alone case. Carroccia thanked the lawyers for the 'very professional manner' in which they handled the case, 'which we all know has garnered a lot of public attention.' A pair of stills from videos showing the dance floor inside Jack's Bar in London, Ont., on the night of June 18-19, 2018, show the complainant with world junior team members Dillon Dubé, circled left, and Michael McLeod, right. Ontario Superior Court Exhibit All members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team — and most of them playing in the NHL by the time of their arrests last year — the five men stand accused of sexually assaulting the then-20-year-old complainant in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel in London in the early hours of June 19, 2018, while the team was in town to attend the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event. The complainant had met McLeod at Jack's Bar and returned to his room where they had consensual sex, only for multiple men to come in afterward, some prompted by a group chat text from McLeod about a '3 way.' The Crown has alleged that McLeod had intercourse with the complainant a second time in the hotel room's bathroom; that Formenton separately had intercourse with the complainant in the bathroom; that McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex from the woman; that Dubé slapped her naked buttocks, and that Foote did the splits over her head and his genitals 'grazed' her face. Prosecutors have argued that the men failed to take reasonable steps to confirm the woman's consent to each act, and that she never made an 'affirmative, voluntary choice.' A screenshot of a group chat involving members of Canada's 2018 world junior championship team. Ontario Superior Court Exhibit The Crown contends the complainant either didn't voluntarily consent, or her consent was cancelled by the fact she was scared and intimidated to be in a hotel room full of men she didn't know while she was intoxicated as well as naked after having had sex with McLeod. The defence, meanwhile, has argued that the complainant was consenting throughout the night and fabricated her version of events as she tried to make stick her allegations from a $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit filed against Hockey Canada in 2022, which the sports organization quickly settled for an undisclosed sum. The prosecution further alleges that through the use of a group chat, the players created a false narrative that the complainant was the aggressor and repeatedly demanded to have sex with men in the room — a Crown argument that has faced resistance from the judge. The Crown has also asked the judge to reject some of the testimony of their own player witnesses, something Carroccia described as 'interesting' on Friday. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'Effectively, what you're saying is where it doesn't help the Crown, don't accept it, and where it does help the Crown, accept it,' the judge said. On Friday, the prosecution finished its closing arguments by outlining its case for a conviction against each accused man. 'This is a unique case where, in the Crown's submission, no matter which facts you accept amongst the sometimes challenging puzzle of evidence, there is a clear path to conviction for each of the five accused,' Crown attorney Heather Donkers told Carroccia. Michael McLeod: 'The one who orchestrated this whole sordid night' 'Mr. McLeod is the one who orchestrated this whole sordid night,' Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham said Friday. Michael McLeod arrives at court with his lawyers. Nicole Osborne THE CANADIAN PRESS 'Knowing that (the complainant) had expressed no interest in, or willingness to engage in, sexual activity with anyone other than him, he then begins a campaign to bring men into the room to do that very thing.' McLeod is the only accused man facing two charges — sexual assault and being a party to a sexual assault, for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage in sexual activity with the complainant when he knew she wasn't consenting. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW In a 2018 police interview, he told a detective he received oral sex from the complainant and engaged in intercourse with her again before she left the hotel room, but omitted the fact he texted a players' group chat to come to his room for a '3 way,' as well as messaging others directly. The Crown argued Friday that McLeod is one of three men the complainant testified she performed oral sex on while she was on a bedsheet on the ground, although she herself did not identify McLeod as one of the three. The Crown said there were no words spoken between McLeod and the complainant at that time to confirm her consent. The Crown also asked that Carroccia accept that another instance of oral sex happened while McLeod was on the bed. To this, the judge pointed out that court heard testimony about the complainant getting up on the bed and placing McLeod's penis in her mouth without him actually doing anything — evidence that Donkers described as ambiguous and not an indication of consent. 'You can't possibly be saying that a woman who puts a man's penis in her mouth is not communicating that she wishes to,' Carroccia said in response. This led to a back-and-forth between the judge and Crown attorney. 'That is what I'm saying,' Donkers replied. 'Otherwise, there would never be a sexual assault that involves oral sex.' 'That's not true,' Carroccia shot back, saying Donkers misunderstood the point. The judge then put it in the form of a question: 'If a man does nothing and a woman takes his penis and puts it in her mouth, he's committing a sexual assault without asking her if that's OK?' ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Donkers apologized. She explained the Crown position that doing the act doesn't communicate consent, but agreed that if the judge were to find it was 'one-directional entirely,' that may raise a doubt as to whether that particular allegation had been proven. Donkers did not address at all the allegation involving intercourse, deferring instead to the Crown's brief written arguments. McLeod had told police he had hopped in the shower and the complainant came in with him and they had sex. In court, the woman testified about being tired by that point and that she felt it was a 'continuation' of the other sexual acts in the room — 'I didn't look at it as something I really wanted to do, just felt like one last thing I needed to do to go.' The Crown argues in its written materials that there is no evidence McLeod took any steps to ascertain the complainant's consent. As for being a party to sexual assault, Cunningham argued that McLeod can still be found guilty as long the judge concludes that a sexual assault happened in the room, regardless of whether any specific person is convicted. For example, she referred to the complainant's testimony of multiple men slapping and spitting on her. The whole reason the men knew to come to the room was because of McLeod, Cunningham argued, and he ensured throughout the night that the sexual activity could continue by calming the complainant down when she became upset, or by telling other players in the room not to take out their phones to record anything. McLeod made two cellphone recordings of the complainant; in one, she says 'I'm OK with this,' while in another, she says 'It was all consensual.' Cunningham argued the videos cannot be used as evidence of consent. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'They are also not evidence of any reasonable steps taken to sincerely ascertain valid consent in law,' she said. 'At their highest, they're the kind of token, lip-service, box-checking that the Court of Appeal says is not a reasonable step.' The first video doesn't actually establish to what the complainant was consenting and with whom, Cunningham said, while the second video was taken after the sexual activity and, the Crown highlighted, consent can't be given after the fact. The complainant herself testified she was just saying what she thought the men wanted to hear. Carter Hart: 'He could have talked to her' The only accused man to testify in his own defence, Hart told the judge that in response to the complainant's demands for intercourse while she was on the ground, he asked for a 'blowie, meaning blowjob,' she said 'yeah' or 'sure,' moved toward him, helped pull down his pants, and performed oral sex about 30 seconds to a minute. Carter Hart outside court with his lawyers. Geoff Robins THE CANADIAN PRESS Should the judge accept his account, Donkers argued he should have taken more steps to confirm the complainant's consent, given her obvious vulnerability. He could have taken her aside, asked for her name, her desires, her limitations, or whether this was something she truly wanted. In response to that, Carroccia pointed out the testimony of the Crown's witnesses about the complainant demanding to have sex. 'You just said to me he could have talked to her to find out more about her wants,' Carroccia said, 'but if I accept the evidence from your own witnesses, she was saying what her wants were, correct?' ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Donkers said that the witnesses testified about the complainant demanding intercourse, not oral sex. While Hart could only recall that instance of oral sex, he later said it was possible it happened again, after the Crown pointed out in cross-examination that McLeod told police he saw Hart receive oral sex twice. The complainant herself testified about giving oral sex to about three men in quick succession, though she never identified Hart to the police, nor that she performed oral sex on him twice. Players Brett Howden and Tyler Steenbergen identified Hart and McLeod as two of the three, while Dubé identified himself to police as the third. Howden testified he believes he saw Hart receive oral sex twice while in the room. 'So I should accept their evidence that Carter Hart probably got oral sex twice, but then find they're mistaken about Dillon Dubé?' the judge asked. 'If they're watching Carter Hart getting oral sex twice, they blink and miss Dillon Dubé? I just don't follow that argument.' Donkers countered that they might not have noticed Dubé because it happened so quickly. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Alex Formenton: 'Not so ambiguous, is it?' Formenton told police in 2018 that he followed the complainant into the bathroom after she had been demanding to have sex with men. There's a lack of evidence as to whether there was any conversation in the bathroom between the two, but Donkers argued that again, no steps were taken to confirm the complainant's consent before they had vaginal intercourse. Alex Formenton and his lawyers. Geoff Robins THE CANADIAN PRESS But Carroccia had a question: What to make of Howden's testimony that he recalled that in response to the complainant's demands, Formenton said something along the lines of not wanting to do it front of everybody, and then he followed the complainant into the bathroom. 'Not so ambiguous, is it, in those circumstances?' Carroccia said. 'It's consistent with what she's offering, what she said, if I find that that was the sequence of events.' The judge reminded Donkers that Formenton doesn't have to prove that scenario, but rather the onus is on the Crown 'to disprove that that's what happened.' Donkers said the Crown doesn't have to prove or disprove 'any particular fact and issue beyond a reasonable doubt, what we have to prove is he's guilty of sexual assault.' 'I know that, Ms. Donkers,' the judge replied. While the Crown has argued that the defence has engaged in myth-based reasoning when questioning the complainant's behaviour in the room, Formenton's lawyer Hilary Dudding countered that, in fact, the prosecution was doing that. The Crown's reasoning 'really implies that for a woman to be assertively asking for sex in a group scenario is so inherently bizarre and odd that it requires some explanation other than that woman is consenting,' Dudding said. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'It's stereotypical thinking about what types of sex people like and don't like, what a woman might choose or not choose.' Dillon Dubé: 'No chance for subjective consent' Dubé acknowledged in his 2018 police interview that he briefly received oral sex from the complainant, but omitted the fact that he slapped her naked buttocks. He did admit to slapping the complainant once or twice to a Hockey Canada investigator in 2022, in a statement that was excluded from the trial due to the 'unfair and prejudicial' way it was obtained. The complainant testified that multiple men were slapping her buttocks and that it hurt. The Crown argued that Carroccia should find Dubé slapped her twice — while she was on the ground after giving him oral sex, as witnessed by Steenbergen and on the bed while she was performing oral sex on McLeod, as witnessed by Howden. Dillon Dubé outside court. Geoff Robins THE CANADIAN PRESS Dubé told police the oral sex happened in quick succession as the complainant performed on him, Hart, and McLeod — 'No chance for subjective consent,' Donkers said, but even if there was, it was cancelled by the complainant's fear of being in the room. Donkers argued that Dubé only mentioned getting oral sex to police because he 'knew he could try and portray that as consensual, based on comments he says (the complainant) was making about sex,' while he didn't mention the slapping because he knew that went too far as there is 'absolutely zero evidence' that the woman consented to that. 'He could not have had any legitimate belief she had communicated a willingness to be touched on her buttocks, gentle or hard, it does not matter,' Donkers said. 'That belief would have had to come from the myth that just because she had agreed to other things or appeared to agree to other things, that she would be OK being slapped. That is not a defence in law.' ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Cal Foote: 'Amped up from a night of drinking' It's undisputed that Foote did the splits over the woman, Donkers said, but what's disputed is whether he was naked from the waist down, over which part of her body he did the splits, and whether his genitals touched her face. Court heard that the spits was a 'party trick' Foote often did, including on the dance floor at Jack's earlier that evening in June 2018. Cal Foote, centre, with his lawyers. Nicole Osborne THE CANADIAN PRES Steenbergen partially witnessed Foote doing the splits, but couldn't tell if he was clothed below the waist, while Hart was adamant that Foote was wearing clothes and he did not physically touch the complainant, whom Hart said was laughing. The complainant 'viscerally testified' about someone doing the splits 'and having a penis in my face,' Donkers pointed out, although the complainant wasn't able to identify Foote. Given that this was a hotel room full of men 'amped up from a night of drinking' and who knew sexual activity with the woman was the focus in the room, it is 'abundantly clear' that Foote was called to the room to engage with the woman sexually as well, and specifically by doing the naked splits over her body, Donkers argued. 'This extraordinary event of June 19 for them called for extraordinary measures, not just an ordinary party trick they had seen as early as the night before at Jack's,' Donkers said. Cal Foote does the splits at Jack's Bar in London on the night of June 18-19, 2018, while teammates Brett Howden (on the far side of Foote, in white with a lighter-coloured backwards ball cap) and Dillon Dubé (in white on the near side of Foote) clear space on the dance floor. Ontario Superior Court exhibit But even if the judge were to accept Hart's version that Foote did the splits while clothed and didn't touch the complainant, the judge should still conclude it was a sexual assault, Donkers said — even though the complainant maintained she was touched. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'It's reasonable to assume that in (Hart's) version of events, she thinks the touching is about to happen and in vulnerable circumstances of a sexual nature,' Donkers said. In the excluded statements from the Hockey Canada 2022 investigation that cannot form part of Carroccia's decision, both Formenton and Dubé said they witnessed Foote doing the splits, with Formenton specifying he wasn't wearing pants. 'So she's laying on the ground parallel between the beds,' Formenton said. 'I remember he takes pants off, top clothes still on, does splits over her upper body.' Canada 'I just didn't care': Why a Hockey Canada investigator's 'unfair' probe led to the exclusion of a 'virtual treasure trove' of evidence The players were 'compelled' to sit for an interview with Hockey Canada. But they weren't told
BBC News
7 days ago
- Sport
- BBC News
Judge hears closing arguments in hockey sexual assault trial
Closing arguments have concluded in the trial of five Canadian ice hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a woman, with both sides offering competing stories on what had unfolded on the evening of the alleged accused men, all former players for Canada's world junior hockey team, have pleaded not guilty to the charges. Their fate now rests with a judge. Their lawyers argued that the woman consented to engaging in sexual acts with the players at a hotel room in London, Ontario, in 2018, while attending a hockey woman testified that she had consensual sex with one player that night, but did not agree to sexual acts with the others who had entered the hotel room. The accused are Michael McLeod, Dillon Dubé, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton and Carter Hart. All were professional players with the National Hockey League (NHL) when the assault allegations woman is known as EM due to a publication ban on her name. She was 20 years old at the time of the testified that she had met Mr McLeod at a bar in June 2018, where he and other players were celebrating after the gala. In her testimony, she told the court that she had agreed to go to Mr McLeod's hotel room and they had consensual lawyer Meaghan Cunningham argued that the woman was later put in a "highly stressful and unpredictable" situation after Mr McLeod invited other players by text message to the room for a "three-way". She feared for her safety, the lawyer said, and felt pressured to perform sexual acts to protect herself, including having sex with one player and oral sex with three others. Over days of testimony, EM said that she went on "auto-pilot" mode as the men demanded sex acts from Cunningham referenced a video shot by Mr McLeod at the end of the night of the woman, where he can be heard asking her "You're OK with this, though, right?" and she responds: "I'm OK with this."She argued that the way the question is framed suggests EM had not agreed to what had just transpired. "I want to ask Your Honour to think carefully about those words and what they tell us about what was happening at that point in time," Ms Cunningham told Justice Maria lawyers told the court a different story, focusing on her credibility and reliability as a witness. They argued it was EM who was the instigator and demanded sex acts from the men in the room. Defence lawyers also argued her actions that night made them believe she was consenting and zeroed in on one part of her testimony, where she said she had adopted a "porn star persona" as a coping mechanism during the incident. They said that the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman did not consent."This alone warrants an acquittal against all of these defendants," said lawyer Lisa Carnelos, who represented Mr Dubé.The closing arguments mark the end of the month-and-a-half long trial, which featured a declaration of a mistrial early on and the dismissal of the jury mid-way verdict will be decided by Justice Carroccia alone. It is scheduled to be delivered on 24 July.
New York Times
7 days ago
- Sport
- New York Times
Legal decision for the ‘Hockey Canada 5' won't come for weeks, but judgment can be rendered
LONDON, Ont. — As the highly publicized Hockey Canada sexual assault trial neared its end, defense attorney Megan Savard sought to dismiss a stereotype that she said unfairly hindered the accused. 'It is this insidious idea that hockey players, by virtue of the fact that they play closely together on a team in professional sports, naturally protect their own,' Savard said during her closing statement. 'Circle the wagon — form a perjury phalanx, so to speak.' Advertisement Specifically, Savard was referring to the prosecution's allegation that her client, Carter Hart, had lied on the stand about what he could and could not recall about the night in London seven years ago that brought him and four of his former Canadian World Junior teammates back to this Southwestern Ontario city to face charges of sexual assault. Hart was the only one of the accused to testify. The former Philadelphia Flyers goalie was poised, succinct and confident, unabashedly admitting that he was excited by the idea of having group sex with teammates when he read a text from Michael McLeod to a team group chat inviting them to room 209 at the Delta Armouries hotel for a 'three-way.' That hotel — which rises from the castle-like remnants of a defunct military headquarters — is visible from the 14th floor windows of the Ontario Court of Justice, where the events of a June night in 2018 have played on repeat for the past two months. Few details about that hot, hazy evening are fully remembered by the World Junior champions who were in that hotel room, beyond a shared recollection: The players were shocked and embarrassed by the sexual aggressor — a woman hungry for group sex, begging for it even. They were taunted and mocked when they wouldn't take her up on the offer. They responded with discomfort and apprehension to the orgiastic advances of the naked 20-year-old woman they surrounded. That woman — known as E.M. because of a publication ban protecting her identity — is the only person who counters those claims, from the language described to her consent to the acts committed. Hart, McLeod, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote sat in that courtroom because of what she said happened in that hotel room: that she was coerced into nonconsensual sex, smacked, spat on, humiliated and degraded over several hours. Advertisement Despite the supposed embarrassment — 'shocked and stunned,' as McLeod told a police investigator — four of them admitted they willingly engaged in sexual activity with the woman. Three of them received oral sex with many of their teammates in the room looking on. One of them said he had vaginal intercourse with her in the bathroom because he was too bashful for a public display. Another did the splits over her as she laid on a sheet between the two hotel beds. Now that the trial is over, a decision from Justice Maria Carroccia as to whether guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt is expected late next month. Regardless of that outcome, the highly publicized trial has become a touchstone for perspectives on sexual assault, misogyny and consent. The 'she said, they said' nature of evidence has also dragged the insular and protective culture of hockey into an uncomfortable spotlight. 'People tend to remember memorable moments,' Savard said this week, as she defended her client's testimony — which directly conflicted with E.M.'s claims of what happened. Hart recalled only the details that he said stayed with him through seven long years. Those memories, inarguably, worked to his benefit and that of his former teammates. During her testimony and in seven withering days of cross-examination, E.M. recalled memorable things — like being goaded into sexual acts while surrounded by men she didn't know, being spit on and slapped painfully on the buttocks, and being encouraged to insert golf balls and golf clubs into her vagina. But Hart's account of receiving oral sex from E.M. was an act of consensual negotiation, Savard later said, after turning down the vaginal sex he said she asked for. (Though, the Crown countered, he made no mention of any negotiations on E.M.'s end, or any discussion of her boundaries.) Advertisement He did not see team captain Dubé slap E.M.'s buttocks, as Dubé is accused of doing. But he was right next to Foote as he straddled E.M. — jokingly and fully clothed, he said — as he did a half splits above her. Similarly, the Crown's own witness, Tyler Steenbergen could recall only vague details about what occurred, though he sat feet away from the sexual acts that took place in that room. Steenbergen is not accused of wrongdoing, but did face scrutiny over his hazy recollection from skeptical Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham. Likewise, Brett Howden, another Crown witness not accused of wrongdoing, was hazy about what he recalled. But in a text message that was deemed inadmissible as evidence by Carroccia, Howden described Dubé slapping E.M.: 'Dude, I'm so happy I left when all that s— went down. Ha, ha,' Howden wrote to Taylor Raddysh. 'Man, when I was leaving, Duber was smacking this girl's ass so hard. It looked like it hurt so bad.' And in a statement to Hockey Canada in 2022, Formenton described watching Foote enter the room, take off his pants and straddle E.M. in the splits, naked from the waist down. Formenton described E.M.'s hand touching Foote's genitals, but didn't see anything beyond that. The whole incident lasted less than a minute, he told Hockey Canada's investigator Danielle Robitaille. That statement was not heard in court because it is not admissible as evidence. It was excluded in a pre-trial motion — along with statements by McLeod and Dubé — when a judge found that Hockey Canada had coerced the players to give the statements by threatening lifetime bans from the organization if they did not cooperate with Robitaille. As the defense attorneys laid out their arguments for reasonable doubt, the players were effectively portrayed as victims unfairly dragged back to London because of something that happened when they were mere 'boys.' Several times through the trial the defense complained about protestors taunting the players as they entered the courthouse. Advertisement E.M. refused to take responsibility for her own actions, they said — though she repeatedly expressed regret for having gone home with McLeod and cheating on her boyfriend. What she refused to accept was that any other action that night was consensual. And so, it was E.M.'s memory of that act alone against the 'boys.' While she was cross-examined by attorneys for each of the accused, E.M. allowed that it was possible that the gaps in her memory could be colored in with unexpected behavior, including, as the defense repeatedly suggested, that E.M. said what the men claimed she said. But she consistently stressed that it didn't sound like something she'd say or do. E.M.'s recollection of the incidents, the defense argued, was simply not credible, regardless of how memorable those acts would have been. Legal liability requires the high bar of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But in the measure of moral culpability there is less room for absolution. Consider, from the players' perspective, the most generous explanation for that night is one in which the entirety of E.M's testimony is rejected. In that version, the players went to a room where a lone woman laid naked after consensual sex with one of their teammates. That woman, surrounded by nearly a dozen players, by varying accounts, goaded them into sexual acts — despite their shock and apprehension. A sheet was laid on the ground. They received oral sex from her, in front of their teammates. One had vaginal sex with her in the bathroom. At least one tapped her buttocks. One stood over her and lowered his crotch toward her torso in the splits. It was an embarrassing, but exciting situation. Her sexually charged taunts made them feel awkward, as they shared chicken wings and mozzarella sticks they had ordered. Even in that interpretation, it is difficult to imagine that a single player in that room made a decision they are proud to explain. Advertisement Within the players' own varied accounts of what happened that night — within the embarrassment and discomfort — there is a hint of understanding that something wasn't quite right. At least one heard her weeping and a slap so hard it made him decide to leave the room. And when they were done with her they sent her wandering alone, into the near-dawn in tears. They had to golf in a few hours. That's the best version of this story, told through their own recollections. The key detail, from their view, was that she asked for it. Many choices were made in London that night. Many choices brought the champions back, seven years later — and will linger long after. Maybe it was all bad luck. Maybe they met the wrong woman, who sought a 'wild night' but then regretted it. It's possible. In a gap of memory, as the defense continually noted, pretty much anything is. It's also possible that a different person might have returned to that old fortress instead. Earlier that evening, back at Jack's — as The Athletic previously reported — one of the five accused met a different girl. It was clear they were a hockey team, but it wasn't clear which. The players were buying drinks and handing them out to girls, she said. They kissed several times, before he tried to 'pawn' her off to his friends, repeatedly trying to get her to kiss them as well. Later, he pressed her to come back to 'their' hotel. She declined, feeling uncomfortable and saying she had to work in the morning. She felt the man was 'really odd.' Later, through Snapchat, he again pressed for her to visit their hotel. Again, she declined. 'I didn't see anything happen to other women,' the woman said. 'But I can only imagine with the way they were being with me.' Perhaps the familiar blueprint was just a coincidence. It's another detail, of many — seven years and counting — that remain lost in the fog of that one night in London. (Illustration by Dan Goldfarb / The Athletic. Courtroom sketch of the five defendants from earlier in the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial by Alexandra Newbould / The Canadian Press via AP)
