Transcript

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

From Rotten Mango · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 2 h 4 min · 25,457 words · 270 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Girl Filmed "Consent Video" After "Doing The Whole Hockey Team" Leads To SA Case Acquitted", an episode of Rotten Mango published November 1, 2025 (2 h 4 min, about 25,457 words). It mentions 140 people, works and ideas, including Michael McCloud, 2025 trial, The Victim in the Hockey Canada Case, M (victim, Hockey Canada case) or M (victim) with unique ID, 2018 Ice Hockey Canada Scandal.

What this episode is about

The 2018 Hockey Canada sexual assault scandal involves a victim's claims against five pro ice hockey players for gang assault after a gala event, alleging that her initial consensual encounter escalated into a traumatic experience. The recent trial acquitted the accused, sparking widespread discussion and testimonials from women who share similar experiences with athletes, highlighting a culture of disbelief and entitlement surrounding pro athletes that perpetuates silence about sexual assault.

Key takeaways

  • High testosterone and hero worship create a powder keg in sports' dark locker rooms.
  • Guilt by association: One athlete's scandal taints a whole sport community.
  • Courtroom chaos: When testimonies clash like hockey sticks, truth is elusive.
  • Victims feel trapped between silence and shame, highlighting justice system flaws.
  • Celebrity allure blinds common sense; not all star athletes wear white hats.

Who speaks in this episode?

  • Megan Sevard (Referenced earlier victim / commentator (mentioned briefly))

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 15:00: Hotel room, Ice hockey, Gummer, Jake Bean
  2. – 30:00: police, Prosecutor, verdict, consent
  3. – 45:00: Alex Foreman, Bathroom, Carter Hart, Dylan Dubet
  4. – 1:00:00: police, defense attorneys, Ecstasy, Hockey Canada
  5. – 1:15:00: High heels, Hockey Canada, consent, police
  6. – 1:30:00: Hotel room, police, Bathroom, Michael Mloud
  7. – 1:45:00: consent, police, defense attorneys, verdict
  8. – 2:00:00: police, Hockey Canada, consent, Michael Mloud
  9. – 2:04:28: verdict, Carter Hart, consent, Consent videos

Notable quotes from "Girl Filmed "Consent Video" After "Doing The Whole Hockey Team" Leads To SA Case Acquitted"

  • 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…
    about The Victim in the Hockey Canada Case · at
  • 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.
    about 2025 trial · at
  • Cal Foot is one of the five accused.
    about Cal Foot · at
  • 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 goalender. Alex…
    about Carter Hart · at
  • They're very close. Brett Hen has major credibility issues, memory issues. He was drunk that night. It was 7 years ago, but he also suffered a very serious concussion in 2022. That's when he was.
    about Brett Howen · at
  • Of like we were just shocked. She just kept begging us to have intimate relations so we complied with her. Dylan Dubet his role in all of this is also very interesting. He is…
    about Dylan Dubet · at
  • 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…
    about Hockey Canada investigation · at
  • 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.
    about Michael McCloud · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Michael McCloud — Person · Accused player / key participant in timeline · 4 mentions · first at
    Presented as the player M initially had consensual sex with and the person who allegedly texted teammates to come to room 209; his messages and police timeline are used to argue intent, coercion, and consent.
  • The Victim in the Hockey Canada Case — Person · Victim of the alleged crime · 2 mentions
    Central figure in the Hockey Canada scandal, her allegations have sparked significant public discourse.
  • M (victim, Hockey Canada case) or M (victim) with unique ID — Person · victim in Hockey Canada case; referenced as 'M' in transcripts · 1 mention
    High — used as a key claimant in the timeline; ambiguity undermines evidence linking to a specific individual
    Media platforms as of late because of the 2018 ice hockey Canada essay scandal where a victim M has accused five pro ice hockey players of gang essay at a Hockey Canada gala in…
  • Judge (specific name if mentioned in transcript; e.g., 'Judge John Doe') — Person · jurist presiding or referenced in trial; generic placeholder if unnamed · 1 mention
    Medium — could refer to a specific judge or to the role; requires disambiguation to avoid generic reference
  • Brett Howen — Person · Witness player (referenced; credibility contested) · 5 mentions · first at
    A witness whose memory/credibility is debated; his alleged text about leaving after someone 'hit her' and hearing M 'weeping' is treated as potentially corroborative of distress.
  • Carter Hart — Person · One of the five accused; testified · 11 mentions · first at
    Goalie among the five accused; he testified during the trial and his testimony (he engaged briefly and said he felt uncomfortable) is discussed; later contract activity (signed with NHL team) is mentioned.
  • Dylan Dubet — Person · One of the five accused; team captain (as referenced) · 10 mentions · first at
    Named among the accused; referenced as participating in the events (received oral sex per testimony and allegedly slapped M on the butt); his status (free agent/contract notes) is mentioned.
  • Alex Foreman — Person · One of the five accused; alleged bathroom intercourse · 8 mentions · first at
    Accused of intercourse with M in the bathroom; his defense questioning and the inconsistencies surrounding his and M's accounts are discussed; later career (Swiss team) referenced.
    There were already players there. Carter Hart was already there. This is the goalender. Alex Foreman, this is the one that's accused of our word in the bathroom. and Michael…
  • Cal Foot — Person · One of the five accused; alleged to have performed splits over M's face · 3 mentions · first at
    Accused specifically in relation to doing the 'splits' with his genitals over M's face; whether he was clothed/unclothed and M's delayed disclosure about that act are discussed and were pivotal to the case.
  • Michael Mloud (Mikey) — Person · Nickname for Michael McCloud (referred to in messages) · 4 mentions · first at
    Appears as the user referenced in group chat messages ('209 Mikey'); associated with Michael Mloud/McCloud who brought M to the room and exchanged DMs with her after the incident.
    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.
  • M’s mom — Person · Reporting party / support person · 1 mention · first at
    Reported the incident to police and went with M to hospital; her report and actions (reporting to police) are part of timeline and evidence discussed.
    With that and you should have like it she's like what was I supposed to say additionally records show that when M's mom reported the incident to the police both of them were…
  • Jake Bean — Person · Player witness (not accused) · 5 mentions · first at
    Not accused but present in group chat and testified/was referenced as participating in conversations and interactions; described as active in group chat pushing to 'tell the truth.'
    But, he, shows, up, with, Dylan, Dubet,, 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…
  • Taylor Radish — Person · Witness / player who briefly entered room · 4 mentions · first at
    Testified he briefly saw M under covers and left after a short time; his phone timestamps and messages are used to question timeline consistency.
    None of them are particularly important but we're going to start with Taylor Radish. Taylor gets back to the hotel at 1:00 in the morning. He belines it straight to his room. I…
  • Alex Boris — Person · Witness / player who entered room and testified · 21 mentions
    Named as one of the players who accompanied Michael and briefly interacted with M; testified he saw M under covers and described her demeanor as 'normal' or 'flirty.'
    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…
  • Ken Foot — Person · Player witness (associated with Boris) · 1 mention · first at
    Named as a companion of Boris when leaving bar; referenced in timeline establishing when Boris and others returned to the hotel.
    Anyway, he ends up leaving the bar going back to the hotel with Ken Foot.
  • Megan Sevard — Person · Referenced earlier victim / commentator (mentioned briefly) · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced as a previously represented client of a defense attorney or as another survivor whose experiences are compared in commentary; not central in episode but cited in passing.
    Of the five accused. He's the one with the attorney that a separate victim is just so traumatized by, Megan Sevard.
  • Dante (linked to a person in the timeline; ensure correct attribution) — Person · individual mentioned in the timeline; currently not elaborated with clear actions · 1 mention
    Low to Medium — appears as a timeline reference; needs linkage to exact evidence span to avoid misattribution
  • M (Em) — Person · 29 mentions
  • Michael McLeod — Person · 18 mentions
  • Michael Mloud — Person · 11 mentions · first at
    Goalender. Alex Foreman, this is the one that's accused of our word in the bathroom. and Michael Mloud. So they're saying all of them were in there already as well as Sam…
  • Jake Bean — Person · 5 mentions · first at
    But, he, shows, up, with, Dylan, Dubet,, 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…
  • Cal Foot — Person · 3 mentions · first at
    Cal Foot is one of the five accused.
  • Brett Hen — Person · 3 mentions · first at
    Situation and when there was a clear path to leave, that's when we decided to leave. Brett Hen is the next to testify. He is Taylor Radish's roommate.
  • Ken Foot — Person · 1 mention · first at
    Anyway, he ends up leaving the bar going back to the hotel with Ken Foot.
  • Tyler Steamberen — Person · 1 mention · first at
    Recall her going to the restroom while we were in there. Then another ice hockey player by the name of Tyler Steamberen, he responds and he's the one that did the winning shot…
  • Maxim Comtos — Person · 1 mention · first at
    Bathroom. and Michael Mloud. So they're saying all of them were in there already as well as Sam Steel, Maxim Comtos Drake Batheson. They're they're not important, okay? But…
  • Sam Steel — Person · 1 mention · first at
    Bathroom. and Michael Mloud. So they're saying all of them were in there already as well as Sam Steel, Maxim Comtos Drake Batheson. They're they're not important, okay? But…
  • Drake Batheson — Person · 1 mention · first at
    Saying all of them were in there already as well as Sam Steel, Maxim Comtos Drake Batheson. They're they're not important, okay? But Tyler sits down at the desk and then he…
  • Tenny Gargo — Person · 1 mention · first at
    Why, the, heels, supposed, to, imply something? Tenny Gargo just went on a whole rant about how Jane Doe would wear high heels like 5 inch high heels. Those are for when she was like going out. But then on normal days she would wear like.
  • Jane Doe — Person · 1 mention · first at
    Why, the, heels, supposed, to, imply something? Tenny Gargo just went on a whole rant about how Jane Doe would wear high heels like 5 inch high heels. Those are for when she…
  • Ayatollah of Iran — Person · 1 mention · first at
    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…
  • Megan Sevard — Person · 1 mention · first at
    Of the five accused. He's the one with the attorney that a separate victim is just so traumatized by, Megan Sevard.

Books & papers

  • Junior Hockey Bible — Book · Referenced cultural artifact / alleged locker-room manual · 2 mentions · first at
    Quoted excerpts (allegedly) are used in episode to illustrate troubling locker‑room norms and purported instructions that normalize humiliating sexual acts; used as cultural evidence by commentators.
    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…
  • Junior Hockey Bible — Book · 2 mentions · first at
    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…

Companies & orgs

  • Hockey Canada — Company · Business focus · 21 mentions · first at
    The organization at the center of the scandal and trial discussed in the podcast.
    Players have been very active on social media platforms as of late because of the 2018 ice hockey Canada essay scandal where a victim M has accused five pro ice hockey players…
  • London police — Company · Law enforcement agency that initially investigated · 2 mentions · first at
    Local police (London) investigated the 2018 complaint, closed the case in 2019 citing lack of evidence; criticized in episode for investigative shortcomings.
    Players, the accused, their interviews they're very brief interviews. Like they dropped the ball. The London police did not really even go in with a full investigation. They…
  • NHL — Company · Industry context / employer of some players · 4 mentions
    National Hockey League provides professional context for players' careers, contracts and public profile mentioned as a factor in fallout and perception.
  • Carolina Hurricanes — Company · Mentioned potential NHL signing team · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced regarding Michael Mloud alleged NHL signing interest prior to backlash; provides context on how career opportunities were impacted by public reaction.
    Contested M's allegations and they've won. There were brief conversations about Michael Mloud being signed with the Carolina Hurricanes for the NHL which means that he would stand to make on average like $3.5 to4 million a year.
  • Las Vegas Golden Knights — Company · Employer / team that signed Carter Hart · 1 mention · first at
    Referenced as Carter Hart's signing destination (2-year, $4M contract) mentioned as part of career outcome and public reaction.
    Ate with that one. he has recently signed, like a few days ago, recently signed a 2-year, $4 million contract with the Las Vegas Knights, Golden Knights.
  • NHL (National Hockey League) — Company · 6 mentions
  • London Police — Company · 2 mentions · first at
    Players, the accused, their interviews they're very brief interviews. Like they dropped the ball. The London police did not really even go in with a full investigation. They…
  • Vegas Golden Knights (Las Vegas Knights) — Company · 2 mentions
  • social media platforms — Company · 1 mention · first at
    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 Canada essay scandal where a victim M has accused five pro ice hockey players of gang.
  • audio platforms — Company · 1 mention · first at
    If you've listened to part one, 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…
  • Steel Heads — Company · 1 mention · first at
    Was a woman comes forward and states that years ago she was dating someone that was part of a team called the Steel Heads. This was her boyfriend. He had invited her to this…
  • Vegas Golden Knights — Company · 1 mention · first at
    Ago, but he also suffered a very serious concussion in 2022. That's when he was playing with the Vegas Golden Knights.
  • Mickey D — Company · 1 mention · first at
    So surprised that she will look like someone who just found a neat toy in a Mickey D surprise meal bag. Classic move. But regardless of any of this, the crux of the argument is…
  • Third-party firm — Company · 1 mention · first at
    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.
  • Carolina Hurricanes — Company · 1 mention · first at
    Won. There were brief conversations about Michael Mloud being signed with the Carolina Hurricanes for the NHL which means that he would stand to make on average like $3.5 to4 million a year.
  • Eastern European Vanguard team — Company · 1 mention · first at
    Petition. Karolina Hurricanes backed out and, now, he, is, recently, signed, with, an Eastern European Vanguard team. He's still making a lot of money. His contract is $2.7…
  • St. Joseph's Health Care — Company · 1 mention

Products & tech

  • Stiletto heels — Product · Evidence / item referenced during testimony · 2 mentions · first at
    M's shoes (described as stilettos) were repeatedly referenced by defense as indicative of intoxication level and demeanor; used to imply she could walk steadily and thus wasn't that intoxicated.
    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.
  • High heels — Product · 6 mentions · first at
    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…
  • golf club — Product · 3 mentions · first at
    Will, and do it with her. At one point he does recall that he was holding a golf club.
  • Ecstasy — Product · 3 mentions · first at
    Those things, but she might have not been ruied, but might have been slipped some sort of drug like ecstasy that makes someone hypersexual.
  • golf balls — Product · 2 mentions · first at
    And, remember,, Em, had, said, that, everyone was saying, How many golf balls do you think we can put inside or like if she can take the whole club? But all the guys are Nobody said anything like that. Dylan Dubet is like I was.
  • Stilettos — Product · 2 mentions · first at
    But they keep saying, Look at these stilettos. They don't look comfortable.
  • Protein bar — Product · 1 mention · first at
    She knows, it could have meant Do you want a piece of gum? Do you want a protein bar?
  • hoodie — Product · 1 mention · first at
    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…
  • chicken wings — Product · 1 mention · first at
    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 didn't, last, too, long.…
  • Birth control — Product · 1 mention · first at
    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…
  • shot glasses — Product · 1 mention · first at
    Her hand there. They also make a whole show. The defense attorneys bring in the shot glasses that were used in the Jack's bar to show that the Jagger bombs that she drank, the…
  • gum — Product · 1 mention
  • Jägerbombs — Product · 1 mention
  • Jeans — Product · 1 mention
  • stretcher — Product · 1 mention

Concepts & topics

  • Gum/sucker (oral context) — Concept · Slang / euphemism used in testimony and messages · 8 mentions · first at
    Term 'gummer' / 'gummer meaning' and related slang referenced in texts and testimony; used to interpret meaning of group chat invites.
    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…
  • Gummer — Concept · Slang / locker‑room jargon referenced · 6 mentions · first at
    Term appears in group chat messages and witness testimony (e.g., 'Come to my room if you want a gummer'). Used as context to explain subcultural language in hockey circles discussed in episode.
    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.
  • Junior Hockey Bible — Concept · Referenced work · 2 mentions · first at
    A concept or document mentioned in the context of hockey culture and behavior.
    They maybe might have read the Junior Hockey Bible, but there's another term that reads the teaag. Definition. First simply remove your pants and carefully survey the scene.…
  • Football (implied sports context) — Concept · Comparative sports culture reference · 4 mentions
    Used to draw analogies between hockey culture and other contact sports (like football) when discussing athlete behaviour and locker-room culture.
  • police — Concept · 37 mentions · first at
    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…
  • consent — Concept · 23 mentions · first at
    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…
  • defense attorneys — Concept · 22 mentions · first at
    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…
  • verdict — Concept · 14 mentions · first at
    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…
  • Prosecutor — Concept · 12 mentions · first at
    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…
  • Consent (sexual consent) — Concept · 10 mentions
  • Crown — Concept · 10 mentions
  • Ice hockey — Concept · 8 mentions · first at
    Players have been very active on social media platforms as of late because of the 2018 ice hockey Canada essay scandal where a victim M has accused five pro ice hockey players…
  • Acquittal / not guilty verdict — Concept · 8 mentions
  • fawn response — Concept · 8 mentions
  • CCTV footage — Concept · 7 mentions · first at
    She was laughing as well. I will say that previously at Jack's bar, there is CCTV footage of Caloot doing the splits on the dance floor and like all the guys are clearing the…
  • oral sex — Concept · 6 mentions · first at
    Tyler, testifies, that, he, watches, M, 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.
  • Netizens — Concept · 6 mentions · first at
    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…
  • DMs — Concept · 6 mentions
  • Group chats / group messages — Concept · 6 mentions
  • Consent videos — Concept · 5 mentions · first at
    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…
  • Junior league — Concept · 4 mentions · first at
    States that some of the people that allegedly abused her and essayed her they were underage cuz this is a junior league. So she felt uncomfortable saying that she engaged at…
  • Gummer — Concept · 3 mentions · first at
    Thread with just Michael. He's the one that gets the message, Come to my room if you want a gummer.
  • victim shaming — Concept · 3 mentions · first at
    The judge herself is victim shaming throughout her 91page verdict. All the defense attorneys are kind of asinine.
  • enthusiastic consent — Concept · 3 mentions · first 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…
  • Rape myth — Concept · 3 mentions · first at
    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…
  • Civil lawsuit — Concept · 3 mentions · first at
    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…
  • Hockey Canada gala — Concept · 2 mentions · first at
    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…
  • Pro level — Concept · 2 mentions · first at
    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…
  • implied consent — Concept · 2 mentions · first at
    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, you…
  • golf tournament — Concept · 2 mentions · first at
    Like that. Dylan Dubet 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…
  • Intoxication — Concept · 2 mentions · first at
    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 it she's like what was I supposed to say.
  • roofied — Concept · 2 mentions · first at
    Mom reported the incident to the police both of them were under the impression that she had been roofied mom, and, the, daughter yes, okay, this, is, a, huge, other, part, of the discourse is there, are, a, lot, of, netizens.
  • 2018 Hockey Canada scandal — Concept · 2 mentions
  • Cross-examination / impeachment — Concept · 2 mentions
  • Dissociation — Concept · 2 mentions
  • fight-flight-freeze-fawn — Concept · 2 mentions
  • Rape kit — Concept · 2 mentions
  • Slush fund — Concept · 2 mentions
  • code of silence — Concept · 1 mention · first at
    It's, starting, to, feel, there, is, some sort of code of silence. I'm not saying that these aren't true. 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.
  • blue wall of silence — Concept · 1 mention · first at
    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…

Places & events

  • 2025 trial — Event · Core topic · 2 mentions · first at
    The trial concerning the allegations against Hockey Canada players, central to the podcast's discussion.
  • 2018 Ice Hockey Canada Scandal — Event · Core topic · 2 mentions · first at
    The initial scandal involving allegations against Hockey Canada players, leading to the 2025 trial.
    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…
  • Hockey Canada investigation — Event · Organizational investigation / civil settlement · 1 mention · first at
    Hockey Canada's internal probe and the 2022 civil settlement with M leaked later shaped public perception, precipitated reopening of matters publicly, and is discussed at length.
  • COVID-19 pandemic — Event · Incidental · 3 mentions
    Mentioned in passing, providing context to the timeline of events discussed.
  • hotel — Place · 28 mentions
  • Hotel room — Place · 21 mentions · first at
    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…
  • Bathroom — Place · 15 mentions · first at
    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/washroom — Place · 10 mentions
  • hotel room 209 — Place · 8 mentions
  • Jack's bar — Place · 3 mentions · first at
    Minutes. So, he's getting drunk. He's being celebrated. I'm sure he's bragging to every single person at Jack's bar.
  • Room 209 — Place · 2 mentions · first at
    And another player named Boris. 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…
  • dance floor — Place · 2 mentions · first at
    That previously at Jack's bar, there is CCTV footage of Caloot doing the splits on the dance floor and like all the guys are clearing the way for him to be able to do the…
  • elevator bay — Place · 1 mention · first at
    Hockey players into the barriers, they would easily reach her before she reaches a stairwell or an elevator bay.
  • stairwell — Place · 1 mention · first at
    Hockey players into the barriers, they would easily reach her before she reaches a stairwell or an elevator bay.
  • lobby — Place · 1 mention

Full transcript with timestamps

Bada bing, bada boom. 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, she met 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 one, 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 prolevel 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 aletes, 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 alete. Everybody wants them." Like, who would say no at the chance of sleeping with this prolevel 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 Steel Heads. 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 allegations, they start essaying her as well. She says that her mind left her body very similar to what the victim M says in the Hockey Canada 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 cuz 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.

Mhm., Now,, what's, interesting, is, Michael McCloud, 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 were 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 1:00 in the morning. He belines it straight to his room. I don't know if it's 207 or 211, but he's right next door to 209. That's all we know. He's right next door. He goes home at 1:00 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. 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 knock on his door.

Yes. So, he, say, Michael, left, his, room,, but, the Michael story that we heard so far Michael didn't leave the room. Correct.

Mhm. 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 2 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, 2,, like, 2:12. H., So,, he's, saying, that, Mike, came, and got him, but the messages suggest that hey, come to my room to get a gummer at 2:00.

And, he's, saying, that, he, went, pretty early on, but the messages are from way later. He gets to the hotel at 1:00. These messages are coming in at 2. I mean, the timeline, I guess it could theoretically make sense. It 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 2 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 acknowledge her presence? Did she say anything to you? Like, 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 mean, 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 a 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 Ken Foot.

Cal Foot is one of the five accused. He's the one that does the splits. They get back at 2:23 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 is 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?"

Mhm., Then, Michael, leaves, for, 2, 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 Howen, 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 209 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 unclothed 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 Steamberen, he responds and he's the one that did the winning shot at the championship when it was down to the 2 minutes. So, 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

but, he, shows, up, with, Dylan, Dubet,, 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 goalender. Alex Foreman, this is the one that's accused of our word in the bathroom. and Michael Mloud. So they're saying all of them were in there already as well as Sam Steel, Maxim Comtos Drake Batheson. They're 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 20year-old ice hockey players. I mean, I just can't imagine if there is a girl unclothed in this tiny cramped hotel room. Also, I think 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? Cuz this is so crazy right now. What's happening?"

Tyler, testifies, that, he, watches, M, 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 5 minutes. No one can agree. Tyler testifies. She said, "Can one of you guys come over and 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 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-pleasuring. 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 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 7 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. 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-pleasuring and so like I didn't want to like step over her cuz 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 Hen is the next to testify. He is Taylor Radish's roommate. He's also the one that M 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 Hen has major credibility issues, memory issues. He was drunk that night. It was 7 years ago, but 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, winners? That's the very frustrating thing. Mhm.

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, 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 Bred Hen 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 7 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. 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 It's just loyalty. It's not even about the five accused. It's about how are your other teammates going to feel? How are your coaches going to feel? How's the NHL going to feel?

Mhm. 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.

Yeah. Like, you're, walking, into, someone unclothed and you don't know this person. You just saw them at a bar. It's it's a memory that you're probably going to have for the next 7 years. He testifies, "At some point, I did see her unclothed, but I don't know if she was unclothed 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 Hen 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 was just got out of there

though., That's, all, he, said, after, he, hit her." It's, very, vague,, but, it, seems, like, he, is referencing Dylan Dubet smacking M really hard and that's how she testified. He smacked my bottom really hard and it was very painful and I told him no.

So, why, do, you, think, he, left, after, uh what's his name? Smacked her. the prosecutors are arguing because you know that it's getting bad

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, right? 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 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 text 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 say like just

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.

Mhm., 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.

Yes. 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 with the whole team.

Mhm. 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.

Yep., Yep., At, some, point,, right? Yeah., But, there's, nothing. Mhm. Right. 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. H, okay. It's, not, like, all, their, phones, had, a forensic extraction.

Fascinating. Yeah., So,, it's, not So,, they're, selected. Yeah, seems, like, it.

That, means, these, are, the, best, text messages 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. Houdin's memory loss is a faint 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 7 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 and they were witnessing it in 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, aletes., 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 7 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 7 days of cross-examination. It feels like the most backward way of handling a trial. The judge herself is victim shaming throughout her 91page 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 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, 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, a, 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.

Wow. 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. But one thing that Brett Howen, 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. 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 so he can go downstairs to get the Uber Eats that he ordered, the food he ordered. And he when he comes back up, he sees M giving oral intimate relations to Carter Hart. 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 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.

It's 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 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. What? 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 ever a 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-pleasuring 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 So,, I, got, one., Carter, Hart, got one. Maybe Dylan Dubet got one. And then he says, "Yeah." And then afterwards she had intimate relations with Alex Foreman, 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 guys are Like none of you guys would want to have sex with me.

Do, you, get, the, sense, that, guys, are coming because they know there's a naked girl in the room who's doing sexual favors for people? I mean like I don't know how guys kept showing up.

Alex, Foreman, 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 Mloud. 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 Mloud picking up the takeout.

Mhm. 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, bags, was, it?, Or, how many? 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 Dylind Dubet, and Michael McCloud. 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 relations 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 and weird. So, um we both walked into the washroom and that's where we had uh intercourse.

And, what, happens, after, that?, After, that, um, after giving a little text to to Mikey, she was, uh, on all fours in the 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 to bang me? Like, this is 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 um a little iffy of doing anything in front of the guys cuz we found it pretty awkward of the situation.

And uh 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 uh so she was getting pretty frustrated about um how no one was doing anything. And I think she kind of took it personally as in like she's not hot enough that um 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. Um, is, it, possible, that, she, was, upset because um she feel 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

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 Henen sending that text message of like I left after someone hit her on the bottom really hard and then also the 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 Dubet 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 foreplay, light spanking or patting. Nothing abusive by any means. Dylan Dubet 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. 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 or like if she can take the whole club?" But all the guys are like, "Nobody said anything like that." Dylan Dubet 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 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 going to do me?" And he's like "I'm not going to do you. Smack. Smack.

M testifies that's not at all what happened. She testified it was while she was performing aura on the floor on these people. Like she 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 Dubet states to the authorities that he believed M 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 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 Foreman 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 Foreman's defense attorney does question her on the stand.

Um, 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 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. cuz she's like, I mean, I guess if you're telling me that could have happened, I guess, but I 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 Foreman from being intoxicated, Alex 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. M is asked about all of that, to which she 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, Alex Foreman'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 someone has to be a defense attorney. Everyone has the right to a fair trial. She gets it. She gets it.

When she says this specific attorney it's like she was getting joy from shaming her in any way possible. Like that was the vibe. Like just straight up cruy laughing at her.

The, crown, forced, a, distressing, and unnecessary trial to the detriment of Mr. Hart, his codefendants, the complainant, and the Canadian public.

And, this, is, Carter, Hart's, defense attorney. Carter Hart does testify during the trial. He's the only player. He's the goalender. And he states, "You know, I was pretty excited. I'm 19 years old. There's 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.

H., 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 uh 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 it. 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 3:27 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 nizens. They're going online and saying, "See, that's the problem. I don't believe a single one of these," they use other terms. I don't believe a single one of these, 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. Like there's no way you can tell me that this did not happen.

Right., Right., Right. Like, this, is, the, culture, of, ice, hockey. They do not respect women. They think every girl is a quote unquote puck bunny.

It's, basically, like, a, groupy, 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.

I, don't, believe, a, single, word, that you're saying. Like 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 you're questioned 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. M's version of 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-pleasuring 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 aura 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 Foreman. 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 attorneys suggest to M 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 minute 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 clarify 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 her 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? 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 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,, that's, a, tactic,, right?, That's, a professional tactic from these lawyers that

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 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.

Wow. 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. 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 wanted 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 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, M 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 it she's like what was I supposed to say additionally records show that when M's mom reported the incident to the police both of them were under the impression that she had been roofied

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 ruied, 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. I 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 Healthc Care about 4 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, M is 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 4 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. 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 goes down. 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 like

because, they, to, them, they, are, joking about it like they 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 haha. It sounds like a joke, but she's with 10 200 lb 6 foot dudes that she doesn't know. And there are golf clubs in the room. At one point, Dylan Dubet 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 4 years?" You were just like thinking about the joke and then suddenly you got scared of the joke within 4 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 do you how do you suddenly get scared 4 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 seem 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 essay survivors to come forward. Some people come forward decades later.

Mhm. 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. Mhm. And, then, if, you're, too, passive, about trying to protect their ego in 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 were

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 Caloot 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. M.

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 Foot's 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, well, 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 unserious 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 testify 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 Caloot was able to do. And we would be like, "Hey Footer, do the splits." Like it was just kind of a thing he did. He's 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 Caloot 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 live 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 teaag. 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 mouth, but if not, the forehead will suffice.

Like, the, split? Mhm., 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., They, wrote, the, victim. Wow. Some, people, are, saying, this, is, like, bro aet 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 Em'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 reached 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 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? Tenny Gargo just went on a whole rant about how Jane Doe would wear high heels like 5 inch high heels. Those are for when she was like going out. But then on normal days she would wear like 3-in high heels. It's just to paint someone as

it's, like, what, are, you, wearing?, Is, that is that what it is or 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 and 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 3 to 5 in 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 cuz I'm running around chasing after things and the kids and then I am 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 mm? No, I don't think so. I think they look like relatively comfortable heels. If they were closed 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." are they're like, "It must take a very long time to put these on and take them off." Like, this seems like you 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 trying to use this as a piece of evidence, but you also know what they are trying to imply by keep bringing up the pair of stilettos.

Yes., 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 Mloud 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.

Mhm. 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 clonking down with heels like clunk clunk clunk 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 had to focus really hard to get up those stairs. I mean, I know awkwardly. Outwardly it looks fine. I'm not denying that, but it 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 days or fumbling. A lot of people say that she is walking with a very confident gate. She's not walking out of there appearing shocked traumatized, or completely unwell emotionally. She seems like she's about to go run errands is 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 shortch 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 close 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 insurable incidences, any sort of opportunities things of that nature. That's what they say. But essentially, a good seven something million of that fund was just used to pay off essay victims or those

who have accused players in the league. That's, crazy., How, did, we, find, out, about that?

It, was, discovered, through, an investigation. The, bad, part, of, all, of, this, is, in, her 2022 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 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 2 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 Mloud, it seemed like she didn't pay for any of the other drinks that Michael Mloud 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 misremeers 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 Mloud 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 Jack's bar to show that the Jagger bombs that she drank, the shot glasses are not full 1 oz 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." But 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 FunM 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 that's not you.

It was fun. M. It's drunk. M. She's she likes to act out on her impulses. Basically saying, admit this. Like you did this cuz 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 aletes. 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 lb. But they're like, "But you went through the medical records from the hospital back in June of 2018 and you weighed 138 lbs.

So why are you telling me you weighed 120 lbs?" And they're insinuating like you went through the medical records recently cuz to prepare for the testifying like you go through all the records. So like you saw that it's 138 lb. Why are you telling me that you weighed 120 lb 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 lb. The truth is not I estimated at the time I weighed 120 lb. 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. Wow. The, defense, attorneys, aren't, outright saying like, "Well, you actually weighed 20 lbs 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 Howen 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, did, look, like, she, wanted, to leave at some point. Exactly.

That'sing, crazy. But, he's, saying, but, she, didn't, want, to. He says that 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 mph on ice and slamming into 200lb 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 Mloud 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's 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 Mloud 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 mention 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 mention 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.

Mhm. A, lot, of, victims, agree, saying, like really like this is such a 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 allege 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 of whatever Hockey Canada pays out. It is in their best interest to secure a settlement.

Mhm., 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 co-workers. 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 Mloud 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 gonna 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 fawn.

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 deescalate the situation without outright saying, "Hey, I'm literally going to punch you in the face if you keep doing this."

Mhm. 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 1:40ish today? I need to talk right now. Okay sorry. Give me like 10 minutes. All right, 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. Hello. I talked to my mom about it and she called, I think, but I 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. 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? 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 bajillion 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 discourse is 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, 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 non-stop. 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 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."

Yeah. 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." 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, 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?, 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 essay me. You guys essay me." Yeah

she's, not, going, to, 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, this, sentence, is crazy. This is a serious matter. Your mother is misrepresenting and could have significant implications for a lot of people, guilting her, including you. He says, including you.

That, was, crazy., Yeah. Is, Is, that, not, like, a, threat? That's, a, threat., Yeah.

Like,, what, would, 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

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 netisens are just saying, think about it like this. anyone who has ever fawned 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. Yeah., The, defense, also, pulls, up, other chat logs. When M is seen in the hotel CCTV footage leaving, she's on the phone. M 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 essay 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. Cuz 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 if she wanted to tell her friend everything. They hang up. M gets home the next afternoon. Her best friend texts 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 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. Do you feel embarrassed and you feel guilty for cheating on your boyfriend? M 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, M's coworker also texts her asking her if she got home okay and then writing, "You were having a blast with those guys." She responds, "Haha 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 co-orker. 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 ruied to be honest and my mom is taking it hella seriously. contacting the police and it

the group of guys are all high up hockey players. Go figure. Lmo. She says it's okay. I was just trying to downplay it and just forget it. But honestly, I'm pretty up from it right now. So I don't know.

Wow. So,, again,, it, people, are, saying, it's just very in line with how survivors are.

Yeah. 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 7 days straight. It's the way that they pulled out every single 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 law." 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 91page verdict, she pretty much says everything but that.

Even during her testimony, Em 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 McCloud, 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 Emoy. 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 taken aback 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. M 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 Hen. 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 Howen 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." You know, they're saying because he had sympathy. Like he reacted to with sympathy, right? Because he saw you as a victim, I guess. Yeah, which is true, but I think the the wording, the way that she's 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 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 believes 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. Mhm.

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 close 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 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 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 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 they're 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, "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 It's just the most bland thing ever. You, been, sending, any, of, those, messages?

No., Like, I, I, 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. 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.

And, what's, the, problem, with, that? They're saying it's highly prejuditial 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, to 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 Dubet under the bus, but he wanted to correct the record that he did see Dylan Dubet smack her 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, cuz 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 even uses quote gaps 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 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." M 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 clear-headed 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 me?" and by self-pleasuring. 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 Mloud sent to the group saying, "Anyone want a 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. Mloud reminded everyone to tell the truth and not to make anything up. Mr. Dubet 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. M's, attorney, has, come, out, to, say,, "We are very disappointed with her honors assessment of her honesty and reliability. M 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, shape, or form. It just is bad. On a personal note, it has been my honor to represent and assist Em.

She is a remarkable person and truly a hero. Despite her feeling like this was the hardest thing she's ever had to do, she chose to persevere and continue with the process of seeking justice. She knew there were no guarantees for guilty verdicts and that even if she decided not to testify, that decision would have been accepted. 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. Netzens are saying that doesn't mean that they're not guilty, but I guess that's a personal opinion. Michael Mloud's attorney states, "Public perception was shaped by a one-sided narrative from a civil lawsuit that went unchallenged in large part because Hockey Canada settled the claim without first informing or consulting the players." basically saying in 2022 had hockey Canada called

Michael Mloud 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 Mloud being signed with the Carolina Hurricanes for the NHL which means that he would stand to make on average like $3.5 to4 million a year. That's on average how much that team pays. But there was so much backlash, a petition. Karolina Hurricanes backed out

and, now, he, is, recently, signed, with, an Eastern European 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 Foreman, the other one that is accused of full-on essay and Rword, 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 Dubet, his previous contract was with a Bellarusbased team for $600,000 a year, but I think as of right now, he is a free agent and he is unsigned. There are reports of NHL interest, but we'll just have to see. Cal Foot, the one who did the splits, his attorney states at the start of this trial, Cal Foot 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 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 Sevard. But, uh, 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 2-year, $4 million contract with the Las Vegas Knights, Golden Knights.

Oh, people, are, upset. He's, in, America. Yes., He, is, the, only, one, that, has resigned with a team inside the NHL.

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 abhorrent 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 and their reputation later by falsely accusing the guys with the things that they wanted to do. Like come on, give me a break. 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 have 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 this. 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. M 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 women 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.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Girl Filmed "Consent Video" After "Doing The Whole Hockey Team" Leads To SA Case Acquitted"?

Megan Sevard (Referenced earlier victim / commentator (mentioned briefly)).

What is "Girl Filmed "Consent Video" After "Doing The Whole Hockey Team" Leads To SA Case Acquitted" about?

The 2018 Hockey Canada sexual assault scandal involves a victim's claims against five pro ice hockey players for gang assault after a gala event, alleging that her initial consensual encounter escalated into a traumatic experience. The recent trial acquitted the accused, sparking widespread discussion and testimonials from women who share similar experiences with athletes, highlighting a culture…

What is mentioned in this Rotten Mango episode?

140 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Michael McCloud, 2025 trial, The Victim in the Hockey Canada Case, M (victim, Hockey Canada case) or M (victim) with unique ID, 2018 Ice Hockey Canada Scandal, Judge (specific name if mentioned in transcript; e.g., 'Judge John Doe'). Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Girl Filmed "Consent Video" After "Doing The Whole Hockey Team" Leads To SA Case Acquitted"?

The episode runs 2 h 4 min; the transcript is about 25,457 words in 270 timestamped sections.

More from Rotten Mango

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated February 10, 2026.