Croc Monk
@crocmonk.bsky.social
Starting Radio & Broadcasting career @ 40 while learning how to manage late Dx ADHD.
Offering support and encouragement.
Living in the comments.
Offering support and encouragement.
Living in the comments.
In the center lies an 19th century band organ that's still in use today!
Best part - it is still (and will forever be) just 5 cents a ride!!
Photo by Draconichiaro - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?...
Best part - it is still (and will forever be) just 5 cents a ride!!
Photo by Draconichiaro - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?...
May 18, 2025 at 7:29 PM
In the center lies an 19th century band organ that's still in use today!
Best part - it is still (and will forever be) just 5 cents a ride!!
Photo by Draconichiaro - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?...
Best part - it is still (and will forever be) just 5 cents a ride!!
Photo by Draconichiaro - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?...
Ugh, was reading through that article and it's just awful. No care at all about whether there was actual consent - only about whether they can say there was.
May 16, 2025 at 7:04 PM
Ugh, was reading through that article and it's just awful. No care at all about whether there was actual consent - only about whether they can say there was.
Not wanting to further traumatize E.M. by having her to testify AGAIN, they choose to move forward with just the judge.
One more note:
The Star revealed the FIRST mistrial was declared after a juror said Dunning (one of the lawyers mentioned today in the note) spoke to her during a break.
(6/6)
One more note:
The Star revealed the FIRST mistrial was declared after a juror said Dunning (one of the lawyers mentioned today in the note) spoke to her during a break.
(6/6)
May 16, 2025 at 4:01 PM
Not wanting to further traumatize E.M. by having her to testify AGAIN, they choose to move forward with just the judge.
One more note:
The Star revealed the FIRST mistrial was declared after a juror said Dunning (one of the lawyers mentioned today in the note) spoke to her during a break.
(6/6)
One more note:
The Star revealed the FIRST mistrial was declared after a juror said Dunning (one of the lawyers mentioned today in the note) spoke to her during a break.
(6/6)
The Crown asked if the jury could questioned about still being impartial.
But the judge said no, saying it would be difficult without asking the jurors to reveal their opinion of the lawyers.
That left the Crown with 2 options:
1) Proceed with just the judge
2) Start over with a new jury
(5/6)
But the judge said no, saying it would be difficult without asking the jurors to reveal their opinion of the lawyers.
That left the Crown with 2 options:
1) Proceed with just the judge
2) Start over with a new jury
(5/6)
May 16, 2025 at 4:01 PM
The Crown asked if the jury could questioned about still being impartial.
But the judge said no, saying it would be difficult without asking the jurors to reveal their opinion of the lawyers.
That left the Crown with 2 options:
1) Proceed with just the judge
2) Start over with a new jury
(5/6)
But the judge said no, saying it would be difficult without asking the jurors to reveal their opinion of the lawyers.
That left the Crown with 2 options:
1) Proceed with just the judge
2) Start over with a new jury
(5/6)
The Crown asked to continue with the jury since their case was ending and was built to present in front of a jury, not a judge.
They also pointed out the defense would then get to present to the judge which, they said, "is a very different situation than presenting evidence to a jury."
(4/6)
They also pointed out the defense would then get to present to the judge which, they said, "is a very different situation than presenting evidence to a jury."
(4/6)
May 16, 2025 at 4:01 PM
The Crown asked to continue with the jury since their case was ending and was built to present in front of a jury, not a judge.
They also pointed out the defense would then get to present to the judge which, they said, "is a very different situation than presenting evidence to a jury."
(4/6)
They also pointed out the defense would then get to present to the judge which, they said, "is a very different situation than presenting evidence to a jury."
(4/6)
What this means for the trial:
It will continue on, decided by the judge alone.
The defense wasn't comfortable moving forward with the jury, saying the note "will attach to everyone on this side of the courtroom" and that it left a 'chilling effect' on the defense's ability to proceed.
(3/6)
It will continue on, decided by the judge alone.
The defense wasn't comfortable moving forward with the jury, saying the note "will attach to everyone on this side of the courtroom" and that it left a 'chilling effect' on the defense's ability to proceed.
(3/6)
May 16, 2025 at 4:01 PM
What this means for the trial:
It will continue on, decided by the judge alone.
The defense wasn't comfortable moving forward with the jury, saying the note "will attach to everyone on this side of the courtroom" and that it left a 'chilling effect' on the defense's ability to proceed.
(3/6)
It will continue on, decided by the judge alone.
The defense wasn't comfortable moving forward with the jury, saying the note "will attach to everyone on this side of the courtroom" and that it left a 'chilling effect' on the defense's ability to proceed.
(3/6)
The Star, as well as Rick Westhead from TSN, reports this stems from a note the judge had received from one juror, saying "multiple jury members feel we are being judged and made fun of" by two lawyers, Daniel Brown and Hilary Dudding, who were represnting Alex Formenton.
(2/6)
(2/6)
May 16, 2025 at 4:01 PM
The Star, as well as Rick Westhead from TSN, reports this stems from a note the judge had received from one juror, saying "multiple jury members feel we are being judged and made fun of" by two lawyers, Daniel Brown and Hilary Dudding, who were represnting Alex Formenton.
(2/6)
(2/6)
Heh, I actually wrote this last night initially - just learned now myself about the discharge.
TSN has stated the trial will proceed by judge alone!
TSN has stated the trial will proceed by judge alone!
May 16, 2025 at 2:48 PM
Heh, I actually wrote this last night initially - just learned now myself about the discharge.
TSN has stated the trial will proceed by judge alone!
TSN has stated the trial will proceed by judge alone!
But they didn't specifically ask about Dube and Foote, so he didn't say anything.
Then, something happened the lawyers needed to discuss and the jury was sent home so the judge could take time to clear things up with them.
So, hopefully things pick back up on schedule tomorrow morning.
(11/11)
Then, something happened the lawyers needed to discuss and the jury was sent home so the judge could take time to clear things up with them.
So, hopefully things pick back up on schedule tomorrow morning.
(11/11)
May 16, 2025 at 1:18 PM
But they didn't specifically ask about Dube and Foote, so he didn't say anything.
Then, something happened the lawyers needed to discuss and the jury was sent home so the judge could take time to clear things up with them.
So, hopefully things pick back up on schedule tomorrow morning.
(11/11)
Then, something happened the lawyers needed to discuss and the jury was sent home so the judge could take time to clear things up with them.
So, hopefully things pick back up on schedule tomorrow morning.
(11/11)
He said Dube and Foote phoned him, telling him 'just say what you saw', while leaving out what they both did - reassuring him that they'd 'go in and explain it themselves'.
Steenbergen testified that he had decided he WOULD tell investigators what he saw IF they specifically asked.
(10/11)
Steenbergen testified that he had decided he WOULD tell investigators what he saw IF they specifically asked.
(10/11)
May 16, 2025 at 1:18 PM
He said Dube and Foote phoned him, telling him 'just say what you saw', while leaving out what they both did - reassuring him that they'd 'go in and explain it themselves'.
Steenbergen testified that he had decided he WOULD tell investigators what he saw IF they specifically asked.
(10/11)
Steenbergen testified that he had decided he WOULD tell investigators what he saw IF they specifically asked.
(10/11)
3) Jake Bean's statement is just awful because the 'nothing bad would happen' part obviously refers to nothing bad happening TO THEM. To 'cover themself'.
There's no consideration for her at all.
It's all about how to make sure THEY don't get in trouble.
Anyways, back to Steenbergen:
(9/11)
There's no consideration for her at all.
It's all about how to make sure THEY don't get in trouble.
Anyways, back to Steenbergen:
(9/11)
May 16, 2025 at 1:18 PM
3) Jake Bean's statement is just awful because the 'nothing bad would happen' part obviously refers to nothing bad happening TO THEM. To 'cover themself'.
There's no consideration for her at all.
It's all about how to make sure THEY don't get in trouble.
Anyways, back to Steenbergen:
(9/11)
There's no consideration for her at all.
It's all about how to make sure THEY don't get in trouble.
Anyways, back to Steenbergen:
(9/11)
Why make the video if he didn't know why he was doing it?
If he really didn't know, it'll be good to for him to testify about what led him to do so. (I assume he'll be testifying).
Otherwise, seems like he wanted to come up with a reason that would *sound* good when asked about it.
(8/11)
If he really didn't know, it'll be good to for him to testify about what led him to do so. (I assume he'll be testifying).
Otherwise, seems like he wanted to come up with a reason that would *sound* good when asked about it.
(8/11)
May 16, 2025 at 1:18 PM
Why make the video if he didn't know why he was doing it?
If he really didn't know, it'll be good to for him to testify about what led him to do so. (I assume he'll be testifying).
Otherwise, seems like he wanted to come up with a reason that would *sound* good when asked about it.
(8/11)
If he really didn't know, it'll be good to for him to testify about what led him to do so. (I assume he'll be testifying).
Otherwise, seems like he wanted to come up with a reason that would *sound* good when asked about it.
(8/11)
Not to mention - if you're THAT uncertain about someone's consent that you need record it, you should just...not do what you were going to do! It's that simple!
2) The fact that McLeod had to ASK THE OTHER GUYS about what to say regarding his motive for recording the video?
(7/11)
2) The fact that McLeod had to ASK THE OTHER GUYS about what to say regarding his motive for recording the video?
(7/11)
May 16, 2025 at 1:18 PM
Not to mention - if you're THAT uncertain about someone's consent that you need record it, you should just...not do what you were going to do! It's that simple!
2) The fact that McLeod had to ASK THE OTHER GUYS about what to say regarding his motive for recording the video?
(7/11)
2) The fact that McLeod had to ASK THE OTHER GUYS about what to say regarding his motive for recording the video?
(7/11)
1) Consent videos seem pointless.
Consent isn't just about explicitly stating 'yes' or 'no' - it's about implicitly understanding you're free to make that choice.
A consent video only reveals an explicit statement - it says nothing about the surrounding circumstances.
(6/11)
Consent isn't just about explicitly stating 'yes' or 'no' - it's about implicitly understanding you're free to make that choice.
A consent video only reveals an explicit statement - it says nothing about the surrounding circumstances.
(6/11)
May 16, 2025 at 1:18 PM
1) Consent videos seem pointless.
Consent isn't just about explicitly stating 'yes' or 'no' - it's about implicitly understanding you're free to make that choice.
A consent video only reveals an explicit statement - it says nothing about the surrounding circumstances.
(6/11)
Consent isn't just about explicitly stating 'yes' or 'no' - it's about implicitly understanding you're free to make that choice.
A consent video only reveals an explicit statement - it says nothing about the surrounding circumstances.
(6/11)
At one point in the group chat, McLeod asked the group what to say if he was questioned by authorities about why he recorded the consent video.
Jake Bean told him "Because you wanted to make sure nothing bad would happen. And cover yourself.”
So 3 things here:
(5/11)
Jake Bean told him "Because you wanted to make sure nothing bad would happen. And cover yourself.”
So 3 things here:
(5/11)
May 16, 2025 at 1:18 PM
At one point in the group chat, McLeod asked the group what to say if he was questioned by authorities about why he recorded the consent video.
Jake Bean told him "Because you wanted to make sure nothing bad would happen. And cover yourself.”
So 3 things here:
(5/11)
Jake Bean told him "Because you wanted to make sure nothing bad would happen. And cover yourself.”
So 3 things here:
(5/11)
They also repeatedly brought up the consent video that Michael McLeod filmed with her after - stating they would just show it to investigators when asked about what happened, and that it would make things 'fine'.
(4/11)
(4/11)
May 16, 2025 at 1:18 PM
They also repeatedly brought up the consent video that Michael McLeod filmed with her after - stating they would just show it to investigators when asked about what happened, and that it would make things 'fine'.
(4/11)
(4/11)
There reassuranced each other repeatedly that they 'did nothing wrong'.
Dillon Dube started with “There are no criminal charges it’s hockey Canada code of conduct and they are investigating on what happened that night so it won’t happen again.”
(3/11)
Dillon Dube started with “There are no criminal charges it’s hockey Canada code of conduct and they are investigating on what happened that night so it won’t happen again.”
(3/11)
May 16, 2025 at 1:18 PM
There reassuranced each other repeatedly that they 'did nothing wrong'.
Dillon Dube started with “There are no criminal charges it’s hockey Canada code of conduct and they are investigating on what happened that night so it won’t happen again.”
(3/11)
Dillon Dube started with “There are no criminal charges it’s hockey Canada code of conduct and they are investigating on what happened that night so it won’t happen again.”
(3/11)
Keep in mind, there are 5 people on trial - but ELEVEN guys in the group chat.
ELEVEN guys who where there.
ELEVEN guys who saw what was going on.
ELEVEN guys who could have done something.
ELEVEN guys
ONE girl
In the chat, there were discussions about whether they'd get in trouble.
(2/11)
ELEVEN guys who where there.
ELEVEN guys who saw what was going on.
ELEVEN guys who could have done something.
ELEVEN guys
ONE girl
In the chat, there were discussions about whether they'd get in trouble.
(2/11)
May 16, 2025 at 1:18 PM
Keep in mind, there are 5 people on trial - but ELEVEN guys in the group chat.
ELEVEN guys who where there.
ELEVEN guys who saw what was going on.
ELEVEN guys who could have done something.
ELEVEN guys
ONE girl
In the chat, there were discussions about whether they'd get in trouble.
(2/11)
ELEVEN guys who where there.
ELEVEN guys who saw what was going on.
ELEVEN guys who could have done something.
ELEVEN guys
ONE girl
In the chat, there were discussions about whether they'd get in trouble.
(2/11)
Heads down. Going about our lives as if things are 'fine'. Ignoring the slow crush of fascism trying to gain a stranglehold on our lives.
I'm not judging anyone for doing so - but we'll never get anywhere that way either.
I'm not judging anyone for doing so - but we'll never get anywhere that way either.
May 15, 2025 at 7:40 PM
Heads down. Going about our lives as if things are 'fine'. Ignoring the slow crush of fascism trying to gain a stranglehold on our lives.
I'm not judging anyone for doing so - but we'll never get anywhere that way either.
I'm not judging anyone for doing so - but we'll never get anywhere that way either.