Surviving the Hockey Canada trial [1]

Canadian True Crime is a completely independent production, funded mainly through advertising. You can listen to Canadian True Crime ad-free and early on Amazon Music included with Prime, Apple podcasts, Patreon, and Supercast. The podcast often has disturbing content and course language. It's not for everyone. An additional content warning. While not the focus, there is brief mention of graphic details of sexual acts and mention of suicidal thoughts. Please take care when listening. Hi there. I hope you're well and that you're enjoying the summer. Today, we're bringing you a special two-part series about the recent hockey Canada trial, an explosive case involving allegations that multiple members of Canada's 2018 World Junior hockey team engage in a group sexual assault of one woman in a hotel room. The grueling trial sparked national debate about how the criminal justice system treats sexual assault survivors. And last week, when we learned that all five accused had been found not guilty by a judge, the public response has only intensified. I want to be clear, this case was not black and white. It's far from straightforward with ambiguities and inconsistencies on both sides. And the public reaction hasn't so much been about disagreeing with the verdicts, but how the judge got there, who she focused on, and the reasoning she gave. The verdicts have raised questions about the difference between a legal conclusion and a moral judgment. It showcased the limits of our justice system in handling uniquely intimate cases like sexual assault, especially when they involve power, privilege and intense public scrutiny. And that's where our two special guests come in, both as sexual assault survivors who know from personal experience what it means to not just survive the assault, but the trial itself, and they bring a powerful first hand perspective to this conversation. I also found out that they are both die-hard hockey fans as well, which adds another layer to this. There's a reason we so rarely hear from sexual assault survivors themselves. They're often silenced by shame, fear of retaliation, publication bans and more. But not today. Because we are Canadian, we do see hockey as our game. And this is kind of like shaking all of us to our core. Something deeply wrong happened in that room. And whether it not, it met the legal threshold for criminal conviction, it still reflects a culture that protects powerful men and punishes those who come forward. People are like going to bat for these men. It's like, they don't know you, they don't care about you. It's just, it's so strange to me to see strangers talk about other people's sexual assault. I read everything you wrote about me. Keep that in mind when you're a social media warrior defending a man that you've never met. When people say, well, she said it was consensual, it's like they're talking about consent, like it's a one and done checkbox. Like it's just a word that you say, but real consent isn't just about what someone says. It is about whether they were free to say no. I was constantly ridiculed. Why didn't you just leave if he ordered room service? Why didn't you scream? You don't know how you're going to act in a terrifying situation until you're in it. So he admits to hearing her weeping and upset. And then he's like, I thought she was upset because no one wanted to have sex with her. Like, are you kidding me? It reduces her to someone whose only motivation has to be male attention. And it's textbook rape myth thinking. The kind of this is women always wanted and if they cry, it's just because they're pissed off that they didn't get what they were asking for. And again, the court gives him a pass. Unfortunately for women, we never have the benefit of the doubt. We are always lying and then we have to prove that we're telling the truth. Nobody cares that we are a victim. We are a witness to our own crime. That's it. All of us need to stop asking why didn't she and start asking why did he? Who in the right mind would agree to take part in the legal process? When it comes to sexual assault, when this is the outcome and this is what you see it, we don't just survive the assault. We survive the justice system too. The trial was the worst part. Now I don't even think about the assault anymore. When I have nightmares, I see his defense lawyers face and how cruel she was to me. It's a tactic. I think it's something that they do. They want to break you down to the point where you will accept everything that they say. The message is loud and clear. If you speak up, we will take the worst of your life. We will put it on display. We will pick it apart. We will call you unreliable, emotional, mentally, unwell, and dramatic. If I knew what I was in for it, I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it over again. I got the outcome that everyone wants. I had people telling me like, "Oh wow, a five-year sentence is amazing." And I was going to court for longer than five years. So when people ask, "Well, why don't survivors come forward more often?" I'm just going to start gesturing broadly at the hockey can of the trial because this is your answer. All proceeds from this series will be used to support a survivor-led advocacy initiative called BeyondTheVerticT.ca. We'll be back in a moment. My first guest is still under publication Ben, but you might know her as the Ottawa woman from the first trial of disgraced musician Jacob Hogard of the Bened Headly. In our series covering that trial, we refer to her as Emma. But today, she is J.B. HerTheCourtDocuments. She testified that she matched with Hogard on Tinder during a wee day in Ottawa in 2016. An event she volunteered at and he performed at. Hogard paid for her to visit him in his hotel room two weeks later for consensual sex. Instead, she was subjected to what the trial judge would describe as a particularly degrading rape. Hogard was found guilty on J.B.'s charge, but not guilty in relation to the other younger complainant at that first trial, known as M.B. Today, J.B. is speaking out publicly for the first time about her experience at a high-profile sexual assault trial, and the many parallels to the Hockey Canada trial. She will share some behind-the-scenes details about her brutal cross-examination by Defence lawyer Megan Sevard, who also happens to be representing Carter Hart, one of the accused in the Hockey Canada case. So hello to the wonderful and brave J.B. joining us from Ottawa. How are you today? I'm alive. The other voice you can hear belongs to Kelly Favreau, with covered her story to on this podcast. After surviving a harrowing two-hour sexual assault and trial, Kelly became the first person in British Columbia to self-represent and have her own publication ban lifted. She then co-founded My Voice My Choice, a survival-ed advocacy group that successfully lobbied the government to change Canada's publication ban laws. Kelly is now a seasoned advocate and a force for change. Kelly Favreau, welcome back. Hey, Christy, good to see you again. Thank you so much for having me talk about this. This is really important. Thank you. Thanks for being here. How are you feeling? Not melting like you folks are in Ontario, so I'm doing pretty good right now. Yeah, it's been just one heat wave after another here. It's ridiculous. Yeah, I'm enjoying my 21 degrees here. I'm happy as a clam. And it is note the next day, Kelly lives on Vancouver Island, and is currently facing a tsunami warning. Hopefully, the threat has passed by the time you're listening to this episode. Today, J.B. and Kelly are here to give a survivor's perspective about the hockey Canada trial and what the public needs to understand about what victim complainant E.M. may be living through. They also share eye-opening details about shocking courtroom tactics they've endured, and they challenge us to rethink what justice really means. Later, in this two-part series, we'll explain how we connected and how what we saw unfolding in the hockey Canada trial motivated us to start our own advocacy group. The group is called BeyondTheVertic.ca, and we're aiming to push back on aggressive defense tactics and sexual assault trials and challenge the rate myths and stereotypes that continue to be a primary feature. As a kind of disclaimer, none of us are lawyers, we're just members of the public trying to make sense of a complicated case. And we're doing that through the lens of the open court principle, which holds that court proceeding should by default be open to the public. And that openness matters because it gives all of us a chance to ask questions, have conversations and hold the system to account. But first, let's lay out the background to this case. It all began in June 2018, when a 20-year-old woman known as EM met Michael McLeod, then a member of Canada's 2018 Junior Hockey Team at a bar in London. He was in town with his teammates for a hockey Canada Gala event to celebrate their recent World Championship win. There were drinks, dancing and flirting at the bar, and at about 1.30am, EM and McLeod left to have consensual sex back in his hotel room, the same hotel where his teammates were staying. What allegedly happened next set off one of the biggest scandals in Canadian sports history, although no one would know about it for several years. We now know that within days, EM reported to the London police with her mother, who'd found her crying in the shower, and her mother's boyfriend told someone he knew at Hockey Canada. EM says she had consensual sex with McLeod as they planned. That part of the night is not in question. The issue that would later turn into criminal charges is what happened after that consensual sex. There's a lot of nuance and context that will go over later, but he is a very, very high-level summary of the case. EM alleges that after consensual sex, she saw Michael McLeod on his phone, and shortly after that, his teammate started entering the hotel room without her knowledge or consent. Around 10 junior professional hockey players all aged around 19 and 20. EM alleges they were making suggestions of a sexual nature, and over the following two hours, she says she was pressured to perform sex acts on multiple players while others watched. She says she complied to get through it and keep herself safe. According to the hockey players, they only came to the hotel room because they thought there was food there. Instead, they say they found EM, offering them sexual favors, begging them for sex, and taunting them when they wouldn't. They say EM was the aggressor, and they basically shrugged, saying it was a weird situation, but some of them took her up on her alleged offers because why not? They say she was a willing participant. The London police conducted an initial investigation that has since been described as "floored", we'll get to that later. They closed the case without charges. Now the incident in question happened in 2018, but the public did not hear about any of it until 2022, when TSN reported that EM had filed a lawsuit against hockey Canada. In the sports organization had quickly settled it with an undisclosed amount without notifying any of the hockey players involved. It also came to light that hockey Canada had a secret fund that was used to pay the settlement, bancrolled with player registration fees. And since 1989, that secret hockey Canada fund had settled nine other cases related to sexual assault and abuse claims within the sport, paying out more than $7.5 million total. It appeared that hockey Canada had set up a process that prioritised their players staying on the ice over transparency, accountability or justice. And this new information ignited national uproar in public fallout. Major sponsors pulled out, executives resigned and the phrase "toxic hockey culture" made headlines across the country. Earlier this year, it was announced that the police had charged five former world junior hockey team players with sexual assault. Michael McLeod, by that point with the new Jersey Devils, Cal foot, also with the Devils. Carter Hart, with the Philadelphia Flyers, Dylan DuBay with the Calgary Flames, and Alex Formentan, who had played with the Ottawa Senators, but was playing professionally in Europe. Michael McLeod was also charged with being a party to sexual assault. All men took leaves of absences from their respective teams and pleaded not guilty when the trial began in April of this year. It's been one debacle after another. After a mistrial and a second jury discharged after jurors accused the defence lawyers of belittling the jury, Justice Maria Carassia announced the trial would be a judge alone one. It went for eight weeks, and what we saw take place in that courtroom looks like a cautionary tale, a warning to any sexual assault survivor who dares to speak out, especially when powerful institutions are involved. After testifying for two days, the country watched as EM faced seven days of invasive cross-examination from not just one lawyer, but five different defence teams. Their arguments shaped by harmful and outdated rate myths and stereotypes. EM mostly maintained her composure, but she broke down into tears on one occasion, as the defence portrayed her as someone seeking a wild night, that she was not only a willing participant, but the aggressor, and that she later fabricated a story because she was embarrassed and full of regret. After closing arguments in June, the judge took a month to decide on the verdicts. Remember, there was no jury. And Canadians were talking about it, around kitchen tables in hockey rings, locker rooms, in classrooms, coffee shops, and comments sections. Some discussed whether it was a criminal case or a case of morally reprehensible behaviour. Diehard hockey fans defended their idols and shamed the complainant. Other fans, including women, questioned if this is a culture they still want to support. National athletes are supposed to be our role models, and guilty or not, there was a clear absence of leadership and moral character in that hotel room that night. And what made the whole thing worse was the evidence that hockey Canada tried to cover it up without even telling the players, let alone giving them an opportunity to respond or take accountability. You know who else has been watching? Sexual assault survivors. According to multiple media reports, some rape crisis centres had reported spikes in call since the trial began. Survivors have once again witnessed a criminal justice system that demands everything from complainants and gives almost nothing in return. Because before the verdicts even came in, the message was clear, "If you speak up, you will be punished in the courtroom." Last week, Justice Maria Carosea found all five players not guilty on all charges. It's notable that she read out a 90-page decision, which is rare, taking more than four hours to deliver her verdicts. And what's also notable is that she opened by stating plainly that, quote, "I do not find the evidence of EM to be either credible or reliable." It was, as one legal analyst put it, the worst possible outcome for EM. The judge didn't just find that the crown failed to meet the burden of proof, which is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. She went to step further and explicitly said she believed the version of events put across by the accused men and their teammates, and her comments towards EM were scathing. So I want to say, "EM, if you're listening, on behalf of JB, Kelly and I, we commend your courage and resilience, your willingness to testify is an act of strength that deserves respect and support. We stand in solidarity with you and all survivors who choose to come forward. Because if you don't, we really can't blame you." The criminal justice system is failing complainants. These trials and the aggressive defense tactics designed to break a complainant down on the stand are eroding trust in the justice system, and ultimately, deterring others from reporting sexual assaults. And that's a big problem, because survivors don't need any more reasons to be deterred. When staying silent feels safer than seeking justice, we should all be asking, "Who is the system really protecting?" So today, JB and Kelly Favre are here to provide the perspective of a survivor. Okay, so I'm seeing a lot of comments that say that justice was served, and I saw one news outlet describe the verdict as a resounding vindication for the hockey players. And I know both of you have very strong feelings about these kind of comments. Kelly, we'll start with you. So I think it's important to recognize that the judge's verdict is a legal conclusion and not necessarily a moral one. And that's based on strict rules of criminal law, and that demands proof beyond a reason. noble doubt. But moral conclusions ask for something different. It'll ask us to take a look at the bigger picture, the power dynamics, the coordinated group chats afterwards, the very coordinated group chats afterwards, the contradictions in testimony across the board, and ultimately the way that the complainant was treated on the stand. So our moral conclusion will ask, what does it say about us? What does it say about our culture? And whether it not, it met the legal threshold for criminal conviction, it still reflects the culture that protects powerful men and punishes those who come forward. And if we stop questioning that simply because a court delivered a verdict, then we're complicit in this happening again. Yeah. JB. It's hard to follow Kelly on my going. I know a lot of people are celebrating the verdict, but for me, it just feels like we're we're being set back. It's so similar to the verdicts in my trial, how the threshold was met. For me, but not for the other complaint, and when our evidence was virtually the same, and we had to completely different outcomes. And I know everyone questioned why one was guilty, and one wasn't. In my trial, I was very open about the fact that I went there to have sex with him, and that's not, you know, it ended up being very different than that. But I feel like a part of this was slut-shaming. And they were trying to paint women as, okay, well, if you say yes to this, then you say yes to this, this, this, and this, where in my trial, they actually believed me, and I feel like this is a regression. Kelly, I'm sure you're filling the same way. Yeah. So, I mean, I lived through a trial too. Mine wasn't high profile, but it still sucked. Everything that EM is going through has reopened a lot of old wounds. It felt so familiar. If you're a survivor watching this unfold, you know what that feels like in your bones, and you recognize that the courtroom is built to test you until you crack, and then use that crack as proof that you were never credible to begin with. So, survivors, we don't just survive the assault. We then have to deal with those who blame us, those who don't believe us, and then I accept that we'll never get justice. It's just, it's crazy to me that like after all of these years, my trial was now three years ago, it's the exact same thing. And Kelly, your trial was how many years ago? 2016. So, yeah, we're rounding nine years. Nine years, yeah. And nothing has changed. It's the exact same. The words that they use. I mean, obviously, one of the defenseless was the same. Miss Savard used the exact same language, which is funny because I had no idea that she was the defense lawyer, and I'm reading like live tweeting, which is the same thing they did during my trial. And I was reading it and I was like, this is so similar. And then I realized it was her. And that's when it hit me that it was so similar and that nothing has changed in three years. It seems like things are actually getting worse. They're not headed in the right direction. That's for sure. It's a very emotional trial, I think, for a lot of people. And I think it's an emotional trial for a lot of really wrong reasons. And I think those reasons tie into because we are Canadian. We do see hockey as our as our game. And our boys can never do anything wrong. And our boys are on the top of the world. And this is kind of like shaking all of us to our to our core. When we found out about the rainy day rape fund, as I like to call it, that hockey Canada had, that set a lot of people off. It cost a federal money that was going towards hockey Canada was gone. Sponsorships were gone. I think they pissed off Tim Hortons enough to make them lose their sponsorship. You know, bad you got to be to piss off Tim Hortons, but because they ended up losing so much and they were in the public eye for so long, it's forced everybody to take a really hard look at this. So let's do that right now starting with why the London police initially closed the case without charges. The trial revealed that the detective assigned to investigate the case after EM came forward focused almost solely on whether she had the capacity to consent to what has been described as group sex. In other words, were she too intoxicated to consent that night? But Michael McLeod showed the police two short videos that he said were proof that EM consented more on those later. The detective used those videos to form a conclusion that not only was EM not intoxicated, but that she was displaying a quote "certain level of consent" simply by participating in the acts that were occurring in the room without resisting. The detective concluded the sexual acts were all consensual, despite legal definitions that require consent to be clear, specific, and present at the time of each act. There's no such thing as after the fact consent. In an interview months later, the detective did have one question for Michael McLeod. What was the reason all those professional hockey players suddenly flocked to his hotel room? Here's a clip from that interview released as part of the trial. I only went with the sense that the guys were quiet because they know there's a liquid girl in the room who's doing sexual theories for people. I mean, I don't know how guys kept showing up, does that remember? Well, I know everybody knows about them and they've always said that. She's probably come over like this. Is that girl on the bed? She honest. But in semi-moodles messages? No, I just told you guys that it's getting through in this girl, that's all I said to the few girls. It all seemed cut and dry to the London police, but later, messages would surface from a group chat between the hockey teammates from that night, revealing that McLeod was not telling the truth about why his teammates came to the hotel room. Just 40 minutes after E. M. and McLeod left the bar to go to his hotel room for casual sex, he messaged the team group chat saying, quote, "Who wants to be in a three-way, quick, 2009, Mikey?" A fellow player, Carter Hart, replied, "I'm in." E. M said that she only consented to sex with Michael McLeod. The fact that he invited his teammates for sexual activity afterwards was something she said she didn't know about and never consented to, and that would be the crux of the issue. McLeod's whole thing was, I don't know how people kept showing up, just people just kept showing up. He said he doesn't know how they showed up there, they just magically knew that he had pizza. You can smell it from seven floors away. I know that he has chicken wings in his room. It's laughable. I've never been so excited for Moths to stick to my whole life, like it doesn't make any sense. McLeod's playing it off, like, I have no idea why people are here. It's a complete mystery to me. I was asked, were you sending any of those messages, McLeod's, like, no, I just sent a message to a few people saying that there was food. I did mention that there was a girl, but that was all, come on, man. Then they showed the text that says, who's down for a three-some or something and then room 209. The truth was, he texted the whole group chat and asked them to come. So at trial, the Crown's case pivoted on this evidence that showed Michael McLeod invited his teammates to his hotel room, offering for them to engage in sexual activity with EM, quote, "Without any belief that she was interested in that and knowing that she had not asked for that." We also learned that five minutes after he messaged the team group chat, McLeod sent a direct message to one of his teammates, inviting him to quote, "Come to my room if you want to gomma," which apparently means oral sex. The defense argued it was all EM's idea, although there's no actual evidence of that. McLeod didn't testify in his own defense, but his lawyer had an answer for the group chat messages where he appeared to offer a three-some on EM's behalf. The response was that McLeod only sent that message because EM asked him to. So in her written decision, the Justice notes that Michael McLeod did not disclose that he sent the three-way text message, and she says that failing to mention it specifically does cause her concern about his evidence. However, quote, "it does not cause me to disbelieve his evidence in its entirety." So Michael McLeod was charged with two offences. Count two, which was party to the offense, the judge said that EM had almost no memory of what she might have said while she was in room 209. Then she turns to Michael McLeod and says, "I am not satisfied that Mr. McLeod invited men into room 209 without the knowledge of EM for the purpose of committing a sexual assault." Not guilty on that charge as well. It blows my mind. What did the judge miss? So many contradicting statements from these guys between 2018 and 2022 and EM was held to an impossible standard, man. She had to be perfect. These guys, they just had a show up to an entry and make it look pretty for hockey Canada. That's it. And the headlines and the media articles would have us believe that EM told McLeod that she was up for a wild night. But that did not come from her. It was only a suggestion made by a defense lawyer, and that's not evidence. For me, it was the vibe that the defense was pushing. They leaned so hard into the narrative that EM was the sexual aggressor and looking for a wild night. And they painted it like the players were just sort of going along with it. So the message was, "These poor hockey players were a bit drunk and little confused and swept up in the moment by a woman who was super duper into it that they didn't want to miss their chance." And it was very subtle, but it was very deliberate. It was an interesting defense tactic to watch all these defense lawyers come together and very much frame that narrative. And the framing is dangerous because it plays on rape myths and gender stereotypes, like the idea that men can't be responsible if a woman is perceived as willing or that a sexually a sort of woman can't be harmed. So it completely ignores the power and balance in that hotel room and the intimidation that comes along with being surrounded by large athletes. And when you look at the actual evidence, so the text, the so-called consent videos, EM's description of fear and pressure, that passive player narrative doesn't hold up. They weren't confused or reluctant. They were very much in control, but the courts for whatever reason kept falling for this script were meant are only accountable when it's convenient. So we need to stop letting defense strategies rely on turning survivors into the aggressors just to protect their reputations. I think for me, a big part of this is there was, there's five defense teams saying the exact same thing. And when enough people say the same thing, people believe it. And unfortunately for women, we never have the benefit of the doubt. Whereas when a man says he didn't do something, people just take the word for it. That is the world that we unfortunately live in. But I mean, that's funny when that comes up because we look at other trials where you have five women saying the same thing against one man. And they're still getting away with not guilty verdicts. I mean, we saw this with Go Mashi as well, where multiple women come forward. They all have the same experience or similar experiences, sorry. And then they're accused of colluding with each other to get their story straight. But these guys get to collude in 117 missing text messages. Like it just it blows my mind. Nothing really should surprise me anymore. But man, oh man, just always something seems to come up at some point. The most obvious thing for me is that she was on trial. The men were not on trial. She was on trial. The entire judge's verdict was talking about EM. There was nothing about any evidence that the crown brought forward. And that's what needs to change. Who in the right mind would agree to take part in the legal process when it comes to sexual assault, when this is the outcome and this is what you see? Yeah. It's not just like high profile trials as well. And it happens at every trial. JB, you had a high profile trial. I had a trial that nobody knew about until I got my publication van off. This is something that like it's a playbook. There's no other way for it. You are on that stand. You are dissected. You are not necessarily mocked. But man, you feel like you're being mocked. And you know, you're they try to shame you into thinking that, oh man, maybe you're maybe I was the wrong one here. And that's so seldom the case. But you know, with the survivors that I've interacted with since the verdict has come out that haven't either made it to trial or who have had cases that have gone to trial, they've all said the same thing. Never again. We're not doing this. Like this can't happen again. And what they're talking about there is reporting. And that's a really, really awful thing. I mean, sexual assault is on the rise in Canada. It's the only crime that is increasing year after year instead of decreasing. But I mean, if nobody's going to report it because they know what's going to happen, I don't blame them. But I mean, at the same time, reporting is also a very personal choice. And there's a lot that goes into thinking about reasons why one would or wouldn't report. Next, JB shares her experience testifying at the first trial of Jacob Hogard and her cross-examination by one of the same defence lawyers who was part of the Hockey Canada trial. So, in a second, we'll be going through some of the key moments from the Hockey Canada trial that really stood out to both of you. But first, I wanted to turn to you, JB, because you have faced the same defence lawyer now representing one of the hockey players. And you've described your cross-examination as one of the most traumatising experiences of your life, which includes the actual sexual assault that Jacob Hogard was facing. And I found guilty of which is a shocking thought. For me, I don't say his name, ever. I don't say his name out loud. I don't type his name. And it's the same for her, because I felt like I was assaulted in the courtroom in a different way. And it's difficult because I understand this is someone's job. But the way that she specifically attacked me as a person with a smile on her face was so horrible. And there's also something so insulting. I've got another woman defending a rapist and another woman not believing you. For me, it's still, I'm still dealing with it a lot. It's very, very, very difficult to think about the trial. The trial, for me, is all I think about now. I don't even think about the assault anymore. The trial was the worst part, which is crazy. When I have nightmares, I see his defence lawyer's face. And I hear her voice and how cruel she was to me. And then I see her saying the same things in this trial. And I see EM speaking up for herself, which is amazing. She's a badass. I understand that everyone deserves a defence. And the Crown tries to explain that to you before you start. Before you go to trial, they try to explain like, oh, this person isn't mean. They're not trying to hurt your feelings. But that is not the truth. I'm not trying to hurt my feelings. Just listening to what you were saying. It just took me right back. And I don't know if thankful is the right word. But I guess I'm lucky I didn't have a high profile trial. And I certainly hope that doesn't sound insensitive. But I don't think I wouldn't be able to handle that. I mean, nobody should go through sexual assault. But to have to go through somebody who is now on record in court record is being called a rock star while you're just nameless. What a fucking trip. Like that's, and I'm so sorry if you have to bleep me, Chrissy. But God damn it. No, I won. I won. I won. Sorry. But I mean, what the defence did to you and their tactics is cruel. The trial being the worst part, you're not wrong. And when you were saying that you have nightmares of the trial, like I had just like a physical reaction to that because I also remember having more nightmares about the trial than I did ever about being assaulted. And even just thinking about it now, the nightmares that I had, I never saw my perpetrators face. I remember just seeing the wood in the courtroom. And that's all I remember from my nightmares is just the wood in the courtroom. What the defence actually did in EM's trial, you know, because the headlines are so focused on like texts and timelines and group chats. But like what was happening in the courtroom is something that survivors know all too well. And like you, you just completely explained what we go through. But like the defence leans so heavily on rate myths and character assassination. And they didn't just challenge the facts with EM. They went after her credibility, her memory, her intentions and her everything. And then they focused on her shoes for like 20 minutes. And like it's just those little mind fox in there that really do mess with you when you're on the stand. And one of the most reported lines in court was, well, she's not a reliable witness. And the defence lawyers said, "I'm not going to be a lawyer." it over and over and over again. So she didn't remember certain details. She had inconsistencies in her stories and she supposedly had reasons to lie. And you know what? Like that standard practice in sexual assault trials. It's not new, it's not unique because it is the playbook. But what makes this case different is that it unfolded a national spotlight and millions of people were watching. And it was millions of hockey fans that were watching in hockey in Canada as huge. This trial was absolutely massive. And what they saw, whether they realized that her knot was a crash course in how the legal system systemically breaks us down. At trial, EM testified that when the men started showing up to Michael McLeod's hotel room, she was shocked to see them. She was still naked. She testified the men were making sexual suggestions, telling her what they wanted her to do. She says they told her to get down on the floor and touch herself. She said no, giving the excuse that it was dirty. So they put a bed sheet on the floor. The crown's case was that this was an example of the passive ways that EM used to try and resist. Ways that many women would easily recognize. EM would testify that she felt she had no choice but to lie naked on that sheet on the hotel room floor, surrounded by up to 10 elite athletes on a winning streak and she found herself over her head. She testified she did not know the men and did not know how they would react if she said no or tried to leave. Fearing for her safety, she says she complied and performed sexual acts she did not consent to. The crown's case was that three players obtained oral sex from EM without her consent. Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, and Dylan Dubay. The court also heard that Dubay slapped EM on the butt while she was engaged in a sexual act with someone else. Cal foot was accused of doing the splits over EM's face without her consent. The crown and defense did not agree about whether he had pants on. An Alex for Menton and Michael McLeod had vaginal sex with EM later in the bathroom, separately and allegedly without her consent. The players do not deny that the sexual acts took place. Their defense was that it was all consensual, in fact driven by EM. In his police statement, Michael McLeod said that EM was taunting them, saying, quote, "No one is going to have sex with me. You guys are pussies." He said he thought this was pretty weird, but went along with it. EM testified she couldn't remember much of what she said, and at some points conceded that she may have said things like that. She testified that it felt like the players were trying to recreate a porn scene, so she adopted the persona of a porn star to cope with being there. She said she was not in control of her body and did not make an affirmative choice to engage in that sexual activity. She felt she was doing what was expected of her, and she was scared for her safety. EM testified it felt like her mind separated from her body, and she did what she thought she needed to do to get through it. So Kelly and JB, I think one of the main things that the general public just can't seem to get their heads around is if we talk about fight, flight, or freeze, EM didn't fight or resist. She didn't try and leave the room when it appears there were multiple opportunities to do that. In fact, she appeared to do exactly the opposite of that. And obviously people failed to mention the power dynamics that play here as well. But I know that you have a lot of thoughts about this public discourse. And JB, I know you were in a similar situation in a hotel room, which is where your assault occurred. It's the same old song and dance for every sexual assault trial. I'm sure that Kelly heard the same thing. Why didn't you just leave? Why did you go there in the first place? Well, if you ordered room service, why didn't you scream? And I'm a freezing type of person. But there's so many different trauma responses. And it's very clear in EM's case that at some points, she was fawning, which is common when you just want to survive. All your survival instincts kick in and your logic goes out the window. When I was asked, why didn't you leave? I'm pretty sure my exact words were, I wish I did. Every day, I wish I did. But I didn't because I wasn't thinking, clearly. And you don't understand that until you go through something like that. When we talk about trauma responses, most people are familiar with fight or flight, instinctive reactions to danger. Some people are familiar with a third response to freeze up. But JB mentioned a fourth response that I didn't know about. Fawning is the instinct to appease, perform or comply in the face of a perceived threat. It's a survival strategy and it's rooted in fear. Unlike fighting back or running away, Fawning can look like consent on the surface and even cooperation. But it's not about desire or willingness. It's a nervous system response designed to avoid escalation, keep the peace, and do whatever it takes to make it out of the situation with the least harm. And importantly, Fawning is based on the survivor's perception of danger. Not where the others think the situation was threatening enough. And that's where that viral meme about the man versus bear hits a nerve. When women were asked who they'd rather be alone in the woods with, a bear or a man they don't know, most chose the bear. And it's not because they think a bear is safe, it's because they know what it means to navigate fear around men, especially men they don't know. So Fawning makes total sense in that context and especially in cases like this that involve an unbalanced power dynamic. This again ties into, you know, harmful rate myths. We are lying opportunists. We are, we were into it. You know, we were a short skirt or we shaved our legs that day or something ridiculous. JB, you said something. Why didn't you just leave and you were saying, well, I wanted to, and I wish I did. I wish I left. So EM consistently testified that she tried to leave the hotel room but was coaxed back in by players. So she described multiple attempts to leave and she said that she was crying. And another player placed an arm around her shoulder and physically guided her back to the room. And another reportedly said, oh, she's crying. Don't let her go. So while nobody physically restrained her, she felt intimidated and when she was walked back, she ultimately decided that like she had no real option of safety. So in short, the coercion wasn't violent, but it was definitely pressure. And she was told either explicitly or implicitly to stay. And that dynamic is critical for understanding how coercion can take shape without physical force. And why survivors might actually feel trapped when they're not physically restrained. Again, going back to funning, I think at some point we have all fond. If we were walking down the street and it's like, maybe if I smile at this guy, he won't talk to me, maybe he'll go away. Maybe if I just kind of wave, but I mean, a smile is not consent. A wave is not consent. And I think that until women are able to reclaim their own sexuality and have that confidence to walk down the street, wearing whatever they want or putting headphones in or wearing their hair, certain way or wearing high heels until we have that ability to walk down the street without being harassed. It's not a level playing field. Right? Never will. And it never will be. There was a phrase I learned today. And what is called is sexual terrorism. And Natalie Portman does this really cool speech. And I have no idea where she was, but I got flagged to me today before we recorded. And sexual terrorism is kind of what I just described where you can't walk down the street showing cleavage or you can't walk down the street with a face full of makeup because you are subject to being judged and you're subject to comments. And at some points, your life is actually like legitimately in danger. He's an edited clip of Natalie Portman's speech given at the Los Angeles leg of the Women's March in 2018. I turned 12 on the set of my first film, The Professional. I was so excited at 13 when the film was released and my work and my art would have a human response. I excitedly opened my first fan mail to read a rape fantasy that a man had written me. A countdown was started on my local radio show to my 18th birthday, euphemistically the date that I would be legal to sleep with. Movie reviewers talked about my my budding breasts and reviews. I understood very quickly, even as a 13-year-old, that if I were to express myself sexually, I would feel unsafe, and that men would feel entitled to discuss and objectify my body to my great discomfort. The response to my expression from small comments about my body to more threatening deliberate statements served to control my behavior through an environment of sexual terrorism. - Good, having Lord. We are not here for your entertainment, sir. (laughs) We need us to fuck alone. - So let's continue. The hockey Canada trial hinged almost entirely on the testimony of EM. There were other players in the room that night who weren't accused, and they testified for the crown. But only one of the five accused took to the witness box, Carter Hart, the first one who replied to Michael McLeod's offer of a three-way by saying, "I'm in." Hart testified that the first time he saw EM, she was naked and masturbating on a bed sheet on the hotel room floor, appearing to enjoy herself. He claimed that he said, "Can somebody come fuck me?" Which made him feel excited. According to Hart, most of the men had girlfriends, so no one wanted to. But because he was single, he asked EM, "Can I get a blowy?" He testified that she replied, "Yeah, or sure." And then performed oral sex on him for about 30 to 60 seconds. He said he didn't become fully erect, found it weird and stopped. Carter Hart testified that EM then sat against the bed and seemed annoyed, saying something like, "What's wrong with you guys? If no one is going to come fuck me, then I'm going to leave." He recalled seeing EM take Alex for Menton by the hand and lead him to the bathroom, where he later heard the shower running. At 3.27am, just after the first consent video was filmed, Hart texted another player to get to the room. He testified that he did that because EM seemed to want more men to have sex with her. And he knew the player he invited was single. Hart admitted his memory of the sequence of events was unclear, but he testified he recalled seeing Cal foot perform the splits over top of EM later in the night. He testified that she was laughing. The five separate defense teams accused EM of lying and manipulating the truth, that she was the one who initiated the group encounter. They questioned her clothing, drinking and sexual history, implying that she had asked for it. It should be noted that legal definitions of consent require it to be clear, specific and present at the time of each act. The defense claimed that EM statement that she was too drunk to consent did not match the security footage from the bar they were drinking at beforehand or the so-called consent videos, which they argued showed she was not visibly intoxicated. The defense also highlighted inconsistencies in EM's story, like the fact that her civil lawsuit mentioned feeling terror and fear, which wasn't reflected in her earlier police statements. EM said she was still processing at the time. They argued her testimony was rehearsed, speculative and filled in gaps with assumptions rather than facts. The defense also suggested that EM had motive to invent a story that explained why she chose to leave her friends at the bar to have group sex with a group of hockey players who were not her boyfriend. She was accused of lying to protect her relationship and to justify herself to her mother, framing herself as a victim instead of a willing participant. The defense also pointed to the fact that EM later said she was mostly upset because MacLeod treated her poorly afterwards, asking if she had STDs and telling her to leave the hotel room. One of the most talked about pieces of evidence in this case are these two so-called consent videos. Carter Hart had testified that it was common among professional athletes to record such videos. So the timeline is that EM and MacLeod left the bar at 130 and had consensual sex. At about 2.10am, MacLeod started messaging his teammates to come to his room. The first so-called consent video was filmed at 3.25am. It was only six seconds long, and these descriptions are from the judge's written decision. EM is asked by a male voice, "Hey, you're okay with this though, right?" She responds, "Yes, yeah." The male asks again, "You're okay with this?" She responds while wiping her eye with the back of her hand, "Yeah, I'm okay with this." Almost exactly an hour later, at 4.26am, MacLeod recorded another video. This one was 12 seconds. EM is standing while holding a white towel in front of her body, but otherwise appears to be unclothed. A male voice identified as Michael MacLeod can be heard saying, "Say it." EM, who was smiling and looking at the camera, says, "Okay, it was all consensual. Are you recording me?" Michael MacLeod said, "Yes." EM, "Okay, good. It was all consensual." MacLeod said, "What else?" EM, "Would you? You are so paranoid, holy, I enjoyed it. It was fine. It was all consensual. I am so sober. That's why I can't do this right now." Here's a slightly edited clip of Michael MacLeod telling the detective about the consent videos. - Kind of took a picture, I have a video. That's one of my first video. And I got made sure I didn't get, I mean, for naked or anything, I just tried to get her face and I just said, "Are you okay with this?" And she said, "Yes." And so I just kind of threw it the next, trying to make sure she was okay with this. 'Cause it was like an obi-ed situation. That, you know, like, I wasn't expecting what's gonna happen. That's all, you know, all the guys coming in, and it's kind of worried something like this will happen. So I took that first video, just made sure she was okay with it. - And she said yes. - E.M. testified that she didn't remember the videos being filmed, but explained that she would have only been saying what she thought the men would want to hear. She maintained she was intoxicated and frightened. The defense argued these videos were proof of consent. And much of the public conversation around these videos has been agreement that they must be proof that E.M. had gone along with it. The crown argued the videos were evidence that McLeod knew that E.M. was not consenting. That's why he made them. The judge did not accept this argument. Well, Justice Carassier didn't take the consent videos as proof of consent. She used E.M.'s appearance in those two short videos to assess her demeanor and level of intoxication. And found they did not show that E.M. was in a fearful state. - I don't know if you've seen online Kelly. There's someone asking how, if you've slept with a hockey player, have they asked you to take a consent video? And there's hundreds of girls, hundreds. So this is something they teach them. - Yeah, I was just gonna say like this has to be part of their like mandatory two hour. 'Cause it's not a consent training, it's not. - No, it's just how to cover your tracks. And it works, apparently. Right, like I wouldn't be jumping up and down, saying like yep, that was totally consensual. Woohoo, you should automatically know that something is consensual. If you have to record a consent video, you might have done fucked up. You might have done something wrong. Consent isn't proven by a video taken at 4 AM of a naked woman in a towel surrounded by a man who are significantly bigger and physically intimidating. So that's not considered enthusiastic or ongoing or voluntary participation. That's just the camera capturing a really big power imbalance. And a video like that doesn't prove anything other than she was there. And being there doesn't mean that she was safe or that she said yes, consent is not retroactive. Consent has to be in the moment. And anything less than that is not consent. It's coercion. And you can hear him coaching her. Go ahead, say it. Okay, what else? If somebody is consenting to eight guys in the room, you know, rock on. Do your thing. Definitely not judging. But you don't need a consent video after. You really don't. Yeah, it really just shows the manipulation and the calculation behind sexual assault. Like I keep talking about my case, but when I left the hotel, I got a text message saying, oh, I had a great day with you. Like this is trying to change the narrative and spin the narrative. And it's the same thing like the recorded phone call in my case. he was trying to get me to. to say what he wanted from me so that he could have it as a piece of evidence, which is just so strange to me. I don't think anyone's ever had a normal sexual encounter where someone wants to take a video or according to them afterwards, asking them if they consented. It's so calculating. It's a way to control the narrative. That's exactly it. You have that power imbalance, right? Yeah, and there already was a power imbalance in the room. And then again, it's like, well, we have a video of you saying that you consented, so you can't go to the police. Let me ask you, okay, it's probably going to be a pretty stupid question. But if you were in EM's position in a hotel room surrounded by professional athletes and they asked you to take a consent video, what would you do? Learn more code and blink SOS with your eyes. You know what I mean, though, right? I mean, like, what else are you supposed to say? Like, if you touch your right shoulder, like that, like, honest to God, imagine for a second, what would have happened if she had said the opposite? Like, no, it wasn't consensual. Would they have kept filming? Would they have stopped everything and taken her home? Or would that footage of conveniently disappeared? Because those videos weren't about confirming her autonomy. They were about covering their asses. And a force smile on camera after being surrounded and intoxicated and overwhelmed is not consent. That's called damage control. And the crown thankfully saw that for what it was, like a box checking exercise. Correct me if wrong. Did the judge not mention the fact that she was smiling in the video in her judgment? Yes, she did. According from the written decision, EM was speaking normally. She was smiling and did not appear to be upset or in distress. She did not appear to be intoxicated. You know what, I smile all the time. And I usually smile because I have no idea what's going on. And I smile because it's a natural reaction to me, you know? And like, even during this chat, we're, you know, we're having these serious conversations. We are having incredibly tough conversations about rape and rate myths and our legal system. And I'm still laughing through it because that's all I know how to do. Laughing is a funny reaction as well. Right? Laughing or brushing off something, brushing off her wrong comment. That's something that all women have instinctively learned to do as well as the whole walking around the street with keys through your fingers. Right? Real consent isn't just about what someone says. And in this case, you have a woman that's overwhelmed. She's alone in a hotel room with multiple men. All of them are large, trained elite athletes. And these guys are part of Team Canada. They're national level players. And these are guys who are used to taking up space. So she's not just outnumbered. She's out powered. And that matters because when you're in a room like that, you don't always say no, even if you want to. You assess the risk. You read the room. You try to survive and you do what you need to do to get out of there safely. So this is what coercion looks like. It's not always somebody screaming or threatening violence. Sometimes it is the pressure of all eyes on you. The size difference, the tone in their voice and the fear that if you resist, they won't stop or they're going to get angry or somehow things are going to get worse. And she may have said things like I enjoyed it later on. But like when you're surrounded by men like that, you're performing for safety. You say what you think they want to hear because maybe they'll leave you alone. And then you can leave. And this is why we need to stop treating yes as the end of the story. We need to ask was that yes given freely or was it shaped by fear, pressure and power? Because if we don't consider the imbalance in that room, we are not talking about real consent. And what we're talking about then is submission and submission is not consent. So until our justice system and our culture recognizes the role that power plays in these encounters, survivors will keep being blamed for the impossible choices they make just to stay alive. It's horrible. And like what you said Kelly, like these men, they want to call them boys. They like to call them boys because they like to downplay their threat level. They have been told their entire life that they are amazing. That everything they do is wonderful. So for them, like they've only ever been told yes, you are amazing, you are great. And that's what they think. And that's the hardest part of sexual assault is a lot of the times the perpetrator does not think that what they did was sexual assault. They are in their head, they did nothing wrong. And they genuinely believe that. It's difficult to to go up against that because this person genuinely believes that they did nothing wrong. So for me, like the videos were the hardest part because something so similar happened to me, where like after the fact the perpetrator is trying to gather evidence to make you look like you're crazy or you're lying, like the phone call that was played in my trial. I don't remember it happening. JB is about to bring up a point in her trial or should I say Jacob Hogard's trial in 2022 that I need to explain before she continues. His defense team chose not to follow the proper procedure set out by a rapeshield law and ambushed JB on the stand with the phone call that Hogard had secretly recorded without her knowledge. The defense argued that it didn't fall under the rapeshield law and the judge said she felt backed into a corner and allowed it. So JB was forced to listen to a distressing phone call she'd long since forgotten about with the jury watching as she trembled and sobbed. And lawyer Megan Sevard told the jury the reason JB reacted that way was because she'd been caught in a lie. We'll talk about the ambush on the stand thing later, but for now back to JB to talk about how Hogard's recording of that phone call appears to be similar to these consent videos that the man accused in the hockey Canada trial presented. Like the phone call that was played in my trial. I didn't know I don't remember it happening to be honest. I was a little drunk. But it was like two days later and I was devastated and I was with my friends and they were like calling him and telling them and I was like, you know what I'm going to. And and he was in a recording studio. So he recorded it and then played it later and it's so similar that the tactics are so similar. You know you did something wrong. Like wrong is even the right terms. You did something horrible to someone. But after the fact you're trying to do everything you can to cover it up and I'm sure she doesn't even remember those videos being taken. I don't remember the phone call that happened. You block out things like that and people that are gathering evidence are trying to defend themselves. And I'm sure they thought that these videos were going to prove that it was all consensual and that everything was fine. But I can't even imagine for her what it was like for them to play them in court just to once again publicly humiliate her. And that's what it is. It's about humiliation and it's about controlling her and making it so shitty for her that she doesn't want to continue on with this. And as though she has a choice because when you get subpoenaed you don't have a choice. And if you don't show up like they're going to arrest you in chances are you're going to get a worse sentence than the guys that actually hurt you because that's just how our system works. I'm trying to back out like in the middle of my trial. I was like I'm done like I can't do it anymore. I tried to back out multiple times and they just kept telling me like if you don't do this it's going to ruin the other complaint in case and like you're there to like back up what she's saying and putting it on me. But that's that's their tactic. They want you to break to the point where you are done and you want to quit and you're so humiliated. Yeah. And it's so infuriating to me that it's still happening to people. Next, J.B. recounts the most stressful moments from her cross examination at the Jacob Hogan trial back in a moment. Before we move forward, I want to stress that this isn't about one individual lawyer. J.B. can only speak to her experience with one lawyer at the Jacob Hogan trial. A lawyer who happens to be part of the hockey Canada trial now and was cross examining EM when she broke down on the stand. And we're not trying to take someone down even if it were possible and we had the power because it's more than just one lawyer. The behaviors and the tactics we often see by defense lawyers towards sexual assault complainants in particular is representative of a broader legal culture that actively rewards cruelty in the courtroom and we just want this behavior to change because it is possible to challenge testimony while respecting both the victim complainant's dignity and the rights of the accused. So J.B. how did it feel to be on the receiving end? Yeah. So in my opinion, it's a cruel torture. It seems like she's done the same things in this trial just based on what's been reported. They can't report everything obviously, but for me, there's multiple times she laughed at me after they played the phone call in court and I had, like, I've meltdown, like, I've never experienced before. I could hardly speak. I can't even breathe. And then the next day we were in court and she asked me a question about the phone call and I said, I don't remember what she was asking and she looked at me and she was like, do you want me to play it again with the biggest smile on her face? And I just like melted into the chair at that point. I couldn't even speak. I would have anything she would have said to me, I would have just agreed with at that point because I couldn't take it anymore. And I thought that I just kept apologizing to the whole court saying, I'm so sorry, I feel like I'm traumatizing everyone in this room. And the judge was, she asked me multiple times if I wanted to stop or leave or come back, but I didn't want to prolong it. It's a tactic. And it's also hard to know that everything that you say and everything that she says is going to be reported. That's where I understand where EM is coming from. The one thing that I really want to emphasize, when I testified the day that they brought the phone call out and then they played the video that this will be with me and it wasn't me. A quick explainer about the video. Before the trial, JB had given an interview to CBC's Judy Trin where her identity was disguised. That's the background. Then during cross examination, Megan Sevard confronted JB with two CBC media clips that both showed a person with their identity disguised, recounting details of an alleged incident of sexual misconduct by Jacob Hogard. But the details given in one of those clips did not match the details JB had given in her earlier testimony. Sevard repeatedly insisted that the person in that clip was JB, arguing it was proof that she had lied to the jury. JB protested that it wasn't her. She can't remember saying those things. But under intense pressure, she eventually broke down and conceded. The defense must be right. JB had no idea that the clip was of someone who wasn't even part of the trial. Until the defense's mistake was revealed by a CBC producer, JB was right all along. But the incident had left her extremely invisibly distressed. The defense did not apologize. Ms Sevard argued that the jury shouldn't even be told that the judge had apologized to JB because it could lead her client Jacob Hogard to be seen in a negative light. In this next part, JB tells us what happened after that incident in court. "And then they told you that they told me it was me and it wasn't me. I went upstairs because you're not allowed to speak to the crown. No one speaks to you. That's another thing. When you're in cross-examination, you're not allowed to speak to anyone. It's extremely lonely. It's devastating. The crown won't look at you. The detectives won't look at you. Your victim, support person can't speak to you about evidence. You are alone. In the longer it goes on, the longer you are by yourself. And we went upstairs. None of us had a word and I started crying. And they were like, "Okay, we'll see you tomorrow, one of my crowns." All I was thinking in the back of my head was, "You will not see me tomorrow. I'm going to find some way to commit suicide because I can't do this another day." And I was dead set on it. And I went back to my hotel room and all I was talking to my parents. I have a very great support system with my parents and my friends. And all I kept thinking was, "I will feel so much better if I'm no longer alive and I don't have to do this tomorrow." And I don't think people understand that that's the type of impact it has on you. I genuinely thought that I would not have to suffer anymore and that it would be better for me. And then people are talking about it online and all these lawyers are talking about this phone call that I had. And I'm sure it's so similar to EM with these videos where people are making a judgment about you because of some sort of recording that someone took of you under duress that you don't even remember. But yeah, that's one thing I really want to emphasize to people is that the mental toll on you is so severe. And I take antidepressants, I go to therapy and I couldn't handle it. So if I didn't have the support system that I have, I would not be alive. And I would have thought that I was better for it because of the way that I was treated in that courtroom. I'm so glad you're here. Absolutely. You're sweet. That was really heavy. And JB, thank you for sharing all of that. I know that it can't have been easy, but I think it's important to all of us that the public understands that this is the experience of a sexual assault survivor at trial, that it can destroy lives, you know. It's another trauma. Trauma will kill you and stress will kill you. I mean, I have all these health issues now too. And being a fight or flight for that many years is so painful. It's so hard on your body and you don't even realize it until it's too late. Like mentally, physically, it's just the whole thing is so, so horrible. And seeing it replay itself the exact same way is sad. It's sad that nothing has changed. Absolutely nothing has changed. Well, what did change is that because the legal community celebrates these tactics, this award was able to leverage her performance in your high profile trial to get more high profile male clients who've been accused of sexual assault. To the point where we're discussing her now representing one of the accused in the very high profile hockey Canada trial. And I understand she's also won several awards in relation to criminal defense. For the rewards for the defense side are numerous. I hate to single someone out, but you know, but I'm going to be honest, she was so horrible to me. I don't care. She destroyed me and I want and I would love for her to know that. I would love for her to see the other side of what she does because she only talks to her clients, but she doesn't see the other side. And I wish that more defense attorneys could understand that what you're doing to these people will ruin their entire lives. And that's the trial shaped everything for me. I'm 30. I'm 30. I'm 32. And like all of my friends are married, they are having kids. Now this is what I did. This is my baby was going to court and now trying to survive the trial. I think that using the term survive the trial is probably something that doesn't get talked about enough. We always talk about surviving the assault, but I mean, the stats are so pathetic and low that not all of us get to make it to trial. And you know, it's almost celebrated and they're like, whoa, you're going to trial. Like the bar is so low just to make it to trial. It's unreal. It's so low. And then this happens and you're like, no wonder people don't want to report. Like no wonder people don't want to come forward. What's the point? Right? This shit has to end. Yeah. Because survivors are being worn down by the system. It's as simple as that. And JB, you told me that you regret going to trial. In fact, you regret reporting your sexual assault all together. It's true. I wouldn't have went if I knew even now in hindsight, I wouldn't have done it. And then they tell you, oh, well, even if he's found guilty, sentencing will take six months. The appeal will take years. And then when they, even if they go to jail, like anytime he tries to apply for bail, I have to give a statement. So it's such a long process and they don't tell you that because you wouldn't do it. If I knew what I was in for and I'm sure Kelly thinks the exact same thing, I wouldn't do it. I had people telling me like, oh, wow, a five-year sentence is amazing. And I was going to court for longer than five years. I'm going a nine years since it happened. And I'm still in court with him. He just went to jail last summer after two years of being found guilty. The process isn't explained to people. And then it's almost worse when it's on a public platform because it's honestly, it's embarrassing. It's embarrassing to talk about regardless of who you are and regardless of who the defense is. But when it's on a public stage like that, it's so embarrassing. And you just dread the headlines that are going to come out the next day. People would rely tweeting my trial. And when I saw him testify, it's so infuriating. And but there's nothing you can do about it. You know someone's lying and you know they're saying the craziest thing. It's like an out-of-body experience. It's not normal. It's, and I don't like to deter people. That's what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid to deter people from actually reporting or going to court. But if I had a friend who came to me and said that they were going to their own sexual assault trial, I would try to tell them not to do it because that's what I'm saying. how painful it is and that's how horrible it is. And just on a normal day, if it's someone who's famous like these, I wouldn't even call that. I don't even want to give them that. It's high profile is the word. It's just like magnified times a thousand because people love to have an opinion. But it's so strange to have an opinion on sexual assault. That's what I thought anyway. Every time I saw it, I was like, "Oh, that's weird. There are certain things you shouldn't be a devil's advocate for. And sexual assault is one of them in my opinion. I see Kelly smiling." Yeah, no. I mean, you've touched on a couple of things. You know, I, when we're sexually assaulted, the thing that we have to keep in mind and keep telling ourselves nobody cares that we are a victim. And that's it. Like we have to disassociate ourselves from that, from that victim mentality, from the survivor mentality and say, "This is what I, as a witness, witnessed to my own crime. And this is what my arm felt. And this is what my leg felt. And it's dehumanizing because they want you to be as human as possible. They want you to be as raw as possible. And it's real as possible. But if you don't do it the right way, if you're not performing, you're, you're lying." The EM trial, like, see so many comments that are like, "Why did she wait all this time to press charges? We don't press charges." Yeah. The victim does not press charges. The crown attorney presses charges. And all you are is a witness. You are no different than the other witnesses. That's all you are. It's not up to you if charges are pressed. Yeah. It doesn't matter when you report, you're still doing it wrong. If you report right away, you're doing it wrong. If you wait a year, you've done it wrong. Doesn't matter. You've done it wrong the whole time. And so when people are like, "Well, charges weren't pressed until four years after. Why did it take her so long to come forward?" Like, there's a real good chance that she might have gone forward on day one. And that there's only just been now enough of an investigation enough evidence where there are grounds for charges x number of years later. But facts don't matter. Because everyone's already made up their mind before the trial starts. And you know what's exhausting about watching these kind of trials unfold? And especially this one, is the brutal double standard in how credibility is judged. So, EM and yourself, JB, you guys were held to impossible standards on the stand on social media. And EM did nine full days of testimony you did for under pressure, under surveillance, and under constant attack. And still every tiny slip or change in wording is treated as proof is how you're lying. So if you can't remember the exact sequence of events, you're lying and unreliable. If you didn't fight back, you were into it. If you felt triggered while recounting it, you're unstable. And if you're too calm, you're not traumatized enough. The bar for survivors is a perfect memory under pressure. But for guys on the other side, it's basically on the floor. That's where we'll leave it for part one. Thank you so much for listening and special thanks to JB and Kelly for joining us. In part two, we'll dig into the other key pieces of evidence, including a group chat that appeared to show the players coordinating their stories a week afterwards, and a disturbing text message that the judge ruled inadmissible. Will unpack Justice Karrissy's decision, why she didn't believe EM, and what was and wasn't scrutinized about the actions of the accused men. Will also touch on why so many survivors are now reluctant to seek justice through the criminal justice system. Plus, a look at why trauma- and formed training should be standard in every sexual assault case. JB will share what it's like to read online commentary about herself in the lead up to the Jacob Hogard trial and how those experiences mirror what she's seen in the hockey Canada case. She and Kelly open up about being lifelong hockey fans and will explain how watching this trial unfold became the catalyst for launching Beyond the Verdict.ca. We'll be returning with part two. Soonish. It has been a very busy summer so far, what with this hockey Canada stuff. So I'm going to take some leave to spend some time with my family, and we'll be back with part two in the next couple of weeks. Good thing you already know the spoilers. Thanks again for listening. [Music]