Megan Thee Stallion's Lawyer Challenges Claims Of 'New' Evidence, Roc Nation Sabotage In Tory Lanez Case
During a conversation with VIBE, Megan Thee Stallion's legal rep, Mari Henderson, challenged the idea of 'new' evidence changing the established narrative, as Lanez supporter, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna's claims regarding DNA and Ring Camera footage were already presented in court. The attorney also addresses Unite The People's claim that a bodyguard confessed to hearing Kelsey Harris admit to shooting the 'Bigger In Texas' rapper during the trial.
Henderson also addresses longstanding claims from Lanez's team that he never received a fair trial due to Roc Nation's affiliations within the legal system, as he previously claimed even his ex-attorney, Shawn Holley, worked with Roc Nation to orchestrate his incarceration.
VIBE: At Tory's Unite The People press conference, the biggest revelation was that a bodyguard/driver by the name of Bradley James allegedly told them that he witnessed Kelsey Harris admit 'she had the gun, she fired it three times. Mr. Peterson grabbed her arm and knocked it down, and the gun fired two more times. In essence, Mr. Peterson never shot anybody.' What do you say to this specific claim?
Mari Henderson: This is just the latest in a long line of falsehoods that he has drummed up to try to claim he's innocent. This person that they claim was Kelsey's bodyguard during the trial has yet to come forward themselves. Pure hearsay. This is the same person who, just a few months ago, claimed that he would be exonerated but for the fact that the gun was missing and couldn't be tested, when the gun never went missing and all along has been sitting in an LAPD crime lab for testing.
On the DNA evidence point, how could it be that Kelsey Harris is the shooter when female DNA was excluded from the gun? So when you look at the hard facts and the evidence here, Tory's claims fall apart.
Speaking of DNA, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna claims there is 'new' DNA evidence that, 'they actually found four people's DNA on that firearm, none of which was Tory's. Not to mention there was zero fingerprints on the actual magazine.' She also cited, 'Ring footage that's been obtained that actually disproves the whole 'dance Megan' scenario described in court testimony.'
MH: First of all, let's consider the source. A republican congresswoman from Florida is suddenly jumping into the mix about a case that happened in Los Angeles and is somehow calling on the California governor to release Tory because of purported new evidence, when all I've seen from this representative is her rehashing things that were already revealed at trial, already seen at trial, and are in no way, shape or form new evidence.
It was already known at trial that the gun was not fingerprinted. It was already known at trial that Tory cannot be included or excluded on the DNA of the gun. He had his own DNA experts testify at trial. This is the same woman who is now trying to perpetuate the narrative of 'exclusive footage' that exonerates him that is simply Ring camera footage that was played for the jury, indeed in opening statements by the prosecutor.
We know that Tory has a long history of using paid mouthpieces to perpetuate false narratives as he continues to traumatize and re-victimize Meg now going on five years after shooting her.
We know that Tory previously wrote an Instagram comment denying Harris was the shooter, with his team now claiming she is. Meg admitted that she initially lied about stepping on glass to protect Tory. Is it possible Tory also lied to protect Kelsey before everyone decided to tell 'the truth?'
MH: It is not even a possibility if you look at the overwhelming evidence that was presented at trial. Meg explained exactly why she initially claimed that she stepped on broken glass, trying to protect Tory. Frankly, he was victimizing her so much and she was forced to come out and tell the truth because of his actions.
This is someone who's continued to terrorize her for years, violate protective orders, violate gag orders, and even two and a half years after being convicted is claiming for the first time that he was trying to protect Kelsey Harris, but somehow in a two-week-long trial, that idea never came out and is now coming out only now for the first time.
Something that has been brought up a quite a bit is the idea that Roc Nation and it's legal reps have connections that are able to sabotage cases. Lanez argues that he never had a fair trial, at one point accusing his own counsel of being in cahoots with Roc Nation. Can you address accusations that the case itself was compromised?
MH: There's absolutely no truth to that. There are so many protections and checks and balances at every step of the justice system. There was a full, two-week trial in this case, the judge presided over it, the judge presided over two years of pre-trial hearings and the multiple times he violated his conditions of pre-trial release. After he was convicted, now it's gone on to appeals, he's filed for two Habeas corpus', he's filed an appellate brief.
This case, at no point, was ever tried unfairly. Tory Lanez was convicted due to the overwhelming amount of evidence against him. To claim that this is was some injustice because of the D.A.'s office? Roc Nation was not a part of this. It was the the District Attorney's office prosecuting this case. These claims are just conspiracies that he's trying to use to drum up attention. And they're, frankly, just that, total and complete conspiracy.More from VIBE.com
GloRilla Clarifies Tory Lanez Repost After Social Media Assumes Rift With Megan Thee Stallion
SZA Defends Megan Thee Stallion Amid "Bullying" From Tory Lanez Supporters
Tory Lanez Receives Support From Congresswoman Calling For Him To Be Released From Prison
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
9 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Why the Hockey Canada sex assault verdicts hinge on the legal meaning of one word
The first two lines of the Crown's opening statement in April at the high-profile Hockey Canada sexual assault trial clearly articulated what would become the dominant issue in a trial that captivated the country's attention. 'This is a case about consent,' Crown attorney Heather Donkers said. 'And, equally as important, this is a case about what is not consent.' It's an issue that will be finely parsed by Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia when she delivers her verdicts Thursday in the case of five professional hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a young woman in a London, Ont. hotel room in 2018. Whether the judge finds the woman consented is yet to be decided; both sides have argued over what happened that night, and what it means with respect to Canadian law. If nothing else, the case has shone a spotlight on consent, as experts believe it has driven home some key messages about what consent looks like, while also raising questions about the steps required to confirm a person's consent. 'I think it goes to the broader importance of education on healthy sexual relationships,' said Kat Owens, interim legal director at LEAF, a prominent legal organization advocating for the equality of women. Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote, all members of the 2018 Canadian world junior championship team, have pleaded not guilty to sexually assaulting the then-20-year-old woman in a room at the Delta Armouries hotel in the early hours of June 19, 2018. McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to being a party to a sexual assault for allegedly encouraging his teammates to engage in sexual activity with the complainant when he knew she wasn't consenting. Group text messages between some members of the 2018 world junior hockey championship team after they learned about an internal Hockey Canada investigation. (The texts appear in a multi-page court exhibit and have been excerpted by the Star to fit in a single image.) The woman had met McLeod at Jack's Bar earlier that evening while the world juniors were in London to attend the Hockey Canada Foundation's annual Gala & Golf fundraising event and to receive their rings for winning the championship. Now widely known to the public as E.M., as her identity is covered by a standard publication ban, the woman returned to McLeod's room where they had a consensual sexual encounter, only for multiple men to come in afterward, some prompted by texts from McLeod. The Crown has alleged that McLeod had intercourse with the complainant a second time in the hotel room's bathroom; that Formenton separately had intercourse with the complainant in the bathroom; that McLeod, Hart and Dubé obtained oral sex from the woman; that Dubé slapped her naked buttocks, and that Foote did the splits over her head and his genitals 'grazed' her face — all without her consent. While some of the accused players told police that E.M. was repeatedly demanding to have sex with men in the room — similar evidence was given by some of the Crown's player witnesses at trial — E.M. herself said during nine days of testimony that she only went through the motions as a way of protecting herself in a room full of men she didn't know while she was drunk and naked. While she never said no nor resisted, she did not consent, she testified. The Crown's case for sexual assault 'does not look the way it often does in the movies or on television,' prosecutors said in written closing arguments. 'The reality of what happened to E.M. is more nuanced. But it is equally a sexual assault, because she did not voluntarily agree to the sexual activity that took place in that room.' Cal Foote does the splits at Jack's Bar in London on the night of June 18-19, 2018, while teammates Brett Howden (on the far side of Foote, in white with a lighter-coloured backwards ball cap) and Dillon Dubé (in white on the near side of Foote) clear space on the dance floor. Regardless of the findings made by the judge on the facts of this particular case, Owens said she believes the trial showed the public that the idea of 'implied consent' — that because a person didn't say no or resist, they must have consented — isn't recognized in law. Consent needs to be 'active, ongoing and communicated,' she said, voluntarily given by words or actions to each new sexual act at the time the person is engaging in it with each new sexual partner. 'I think that's come through from the trial, which is valuable in terms of what we learn about consent,' she said. 'We need to shift from that only 'no means no' framing to that 'yes means yes' framing.' A person needs to be consenting in their mind at the time of the sexual activity, what's known as subjective consent, said Lisa Dufraimont, a professor at York University's Osgoode Hall law school. And they can't give 'broad advance consent,' meaning giving consent to future, undefined sexual activity, she said. Nor can consent be given retroactively for past sexual activity, Dufraimont added — 'There's no such thing as post-event consent, period.' The trial spent some time on that point, given that McLeod recorded two videos of E.M. saying she was OK and that 'it was all consensual.' Michael McLeod films a selfie video with the complainant on the dance floor inside Jack's Bar. Was complainant's apparent consent cancelled out? The Crown has argued that E.M. either wasn't consenting or her consent was 'vitiated' — effectively cancelled — by the fear of being in a room full of men she didn't know. E.M. testified that her mind went on 'autopilot' and she went along with everything in the room as a way to keep herself safe, later telling police and prosecutors that she adopted the 'persona' of a 'porn star' as a coping mechanism . 'The complainant's fear need not be reasonable, nor must it be communicated to the accused in order for consent to be vitiated,' Donkers and co-counsel Meaghan Cunningham argued in written materials. The defence teams have maintained that E.M. was consenting throughout the night. They pointed to testimony that E.M. was repeatedly demanding to have sex with the men, calling them 'pussies' and becoming upset when many of them refused. And they suggested that her 'terror narrative,' that she was afraid to be in the room, was cooked up in 2022 as part of her $3.5-million sexual assault lawsuit against Hockey Canada, which the organization quickly settled for an undisclosed sum. When she first reported to London police in 2018, E.M. didn't mention being scared, but rather maintained she was too drunk to consent. As the Star first reported in May, police declined to lay charges , in part because of surveillance footage that raised doubts about her level of intoxication. (At trial, the Crown didn't argue that E.M. was too intoxicated to consent.) It was only after news broke of the Hockey Canada settlement that London police reopened their probe in 2022 , under intense public pressure. What does having a 'consent video' mean, when it comes to a trial? McLeod filmed two short videos of E.M. on his phone while in the hotel room that night, about an hour apart, with the second one being filmed shortly before she left. E.M. said she wasn't even aware she was being filmed in the first clip, in which McLeod asks her off-camera if she's 'OK with this' and she responds: 'I'm OK with this.' The second clip shows a smiling E.M. wrapping herself in a towel and saying: 'Are you recording me? OK, good, it was all consensual. 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.' E.M. conceded in her testimony that McLeod had been asking her at other times if she was fine , but that she just told him what she thought he wanted to hear. The Crown pointed out that recording someone after the fact saying they consented is not evidence that they actually consented at the time of the sexual activity. But experts say there can still be value in such 'consent videos' in a sexual assault trial. A video could support an inference that a complainant was, in fact, consenting, depending on other evidence in the case and the circumstances surrounding the making of the video, said Lisa Kerr, a law professor at Queen's University. 'It would be very strange to suggest that a video that purports to record an agreement may not serve as at least some evidence of that agreement, even if there may also be more to the story,' she said. And a video could be used to make determinations about the complainant's demeanour close in time to the alleged offence, Dufraimont said. 'That would be a good example of a permissible use of that evidence.' For instance, the defence has argued that E.M.'s demeanour in the videos — smiling, speaking coherently — casts doubt on her claims she was intoxicated and terrified, which would affect her credibility as a witness. 'What he captured is critical evidence that she was happy and was fine with what was happening,' David Humphrey, McLeod's lawyer, said in his closing arguments. 'Time has proven that Mr. McLeod was right in his instinct to get some recorded confirmation of her consent and of how she appeared at the time.' Consent videos can 'cut both ways,' Owens with LEAF said. 'People might say it can be helpful to the defence if the person says they were intoxicated or upset, but they don't appear intoxicated or upset,' she said. 'But on the other hand, a person could ask: If you engage in consensual sexual activity, why do you feel the need to film after the fact?' Hart offered up an answer to that question when he was being cross-examined by Cunningham during his testimony in May , an answer the Crown did not probe further: 'Lots of professional athletes have done those things before.' Should the judge find that E.M. wasn't consenting, an accused player could still be acquitted if Carroccia finds he had what's called an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent. For that defence to be available to an accused, the person must have taken reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's consent, something the Crown argues the players did not do. Prosecutors argued the 'reasonable steps requirement' was heightened in the 'highly unusual circumstances' of this case, given that everyone involved could be assumed to have consumed alcohol, E.M. was a complete stranger, and was naked surrounded by clothed men she didn't know in a small room. Hart, for example, testified that he asked the complainant for 'a blowie, meaning a blowjob,' that she said 'yeah' or 'sure,' and then moved toward him and helped pull down his pants before performing oral sex for about 30 seconds to a minute. Even if the judge accepts that version of events, the Crown argues Hart needed to do more to confirm E.M.'s consent. For example, taking her aside in the bathroom to ask her more questions privately, such as her name, what led up to this situation, whether this was something she truly wanted, or probe her desires. Hart's lawyer, Megan Savard, argued that the Crown was asking the judge to 'extend the law beyond what the leading cases permit' regarding reasonable steps — 'I'm not aware of any case saying you have to isolate a member of a group sexual encounter in order to get their consent.' The entrance to room 209 is seen at the Delta Armouries hotel in London, Ontario on April 25, 2025. There was also some evidence that, in response to the complainant's repeated demands for sex, Formenton said he would do it, but not in front of everyone else; he then followed E.M. into the bathroom. Again, the Crown says this was insufficient. 'Had any of the men had a one-on-one conversation with her at the time of the impugned sexual activity, and she said she truly wanted the specific sexual activity with that man, it may not have meant she was actually consenting or enjoying it, but it would have meant that the accused had taken reasonable steps to ascertain her consent and thus had an available defence to the charge,' the Crown says in its written materials. The Crown's arguments raise the question as to just how many steps a person is supposed to take to ascertain consent; experts say there's no exhaustive list of reasonable steps, nor a required number. 'It's a really challenging issue, because it's so context-specific,' Owens said. A couple in a long-term relationship may have developed specific ways of demonstrating their consent to sexual activity between them, she said, versus a woman in a room full of men she's just met that night. The law suggests that 'more care and caution is required' in terms of reasonable steps in a situation where the parties are largely unknown to each other, or where the accused knows the complainant has been drinking alcohol, Kerr said. 'Having said that, if the trial judge accepts in this case that Carter Hart asked for oral sex and the complainant agreed, or that the complainant asked for sex and Alex Formenton agreed to do it provided they could do so privately, I would think that these are the kinds of words and actions that could suggest reasonable steps were taken,' Kerr said. 'Verbal discussion of willingness to engage in sexual activity is typically a stronger indication of reasonable steps than, say, relying on mere body language or physical actions.' And a consent video may actually help to invoke this defence, Kerr said. 'It is obvious that discussing consent in a video or other recording may show that an accused was attempting to check on consent,' Kerr said. 'The key question in terms of the impact of the video will be whether it is sufficiently detailed and whether it appears to be a voluntary collaboration or, in contrast, if it appears to be something more like an attempt to cover up a wrong.' If the Crown is found to be right on the question of reasonable steps, criminal defence lawyer Monte MacGregor wonders just how far a person needs to go. 'The thing about this case that I find a little bit alarming is it appeared these accused men did everything you could do to obtain valid consent: they checked in multiple times, they listened to her, she made assertions, they videotaped a couple of comments,' said MacGregor, who is not involved in the case. 'What would be necessary if a standard like this leads to guilt? Does it mean you have to confirm with a written statement? That you have to videotape every interaction? Have a witness? 'It can't get to the point where it necessitates such a rigid set of rules to obtain consent.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
New York Post
a day ago
- New York Post
Couple hounded with calls after their number is listed on t-shirt decorated with missing cat poster
What a purr-fect cat-astrophe. A Canadian couple is being hounded with calls about their missing cat — and all because their number was splashed across a t-shirt decorated with a poster of a lost cat by a brand 3,000 miles away on Long Island. Jonathan McCurrach and Natasha Lavoie's phone has been on fire with strangers calling to tell them they've found their feline, Torbo. However, the British Columbian couple doesn't even have a cat named Torbo. Their furry friend is Mauser, and he's happily chilling at home. 'Sometimes, like six times a day, I'm getting these really random phone calls and people leaving me voicemails saying that they found my cat and they want money for my cat,' Lavoie told CBC News. The contemporary clothing company, Wisdumb, based in Smithtown, NY, made the missing cat t-shirt. CBC News 'I'm like, 'My cat's at home in the air conditioning.'' At first, the pair first thought the calls, which mainly came from the U.S., were scams. 'When we started actually picking up the calls or responding to the voicemails, I thought it was some attempt at a scam. You hear about scams all the time about missing pets,' McCurrach told the outlet. 'Half the time, they just cut you off and go like, 'No, I've got your cat. I want the money for the cat.' And I'm like, 'No, there's no money, there's no cat.' And they usually hang up.' After months of their phone ringing off the hook, McCurrach finally asked a caller how they got their number. The caller explained their digits were printed on the t-shirt, made by the contemporary clothing company Wisdumb, based in Smithtown, NY. CBC News reached out the business, which reported the shirt was no longer available for purchase online, and said in an email that 'the use of a real number within the art created was not intentional.' The couple also contacted the company, which offered them a similar answer, but no 'real apology.' Natasha Lavoie and Jonathan McCurrach didn't receive a 'real apology' from the company. CBC News Lavoie said she's not ready to change her number because it has a 604 area code, British Columbia's first, which is now difficult to get. 'I've had my number for 20 years,' she told the outlet firmly. 'I don't want to change it. I'll just keep not answering.' Lavoie thinks purr-haps she deserves compensation for the aggravation the clothing has caused. 'I feel like I deserve a T-shirt after this,' she added. 'I think we both do.'
Hamilton Spectator
2 days ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Family of Canadian woman detained by ICE says it's a ‘nightmare'
WASHINGTON, D. C. - Paula Callejas was trying to expand her swimsuit business in Florida after taking time off to take care of her ailing father in Canada before his death. Instead of celebrating the fashion line, the Canadian was taken into United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention. The 45-year-old's family said their finances are being stretched as they try to navigate the confusing and difficult legal and immigration systems in the United States. 'She was very strong, very strong,' said her mother Maria Estella Cano. 'Now every, every day she (cries), every day and (says) she can't take it anymore.' U.S. President Donald Trump has ramped up deportation efforts since his return to the White House in January after successfully campaigning on a promise to take drastic actions on illegal immigration. The immigration crackdown includes controversial actions like targeting students for protesting, as well as sending people to a notorious prison in El Salvador. There has been an increase in raids by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, called ICE, at restaurants and farms amid dramatic standoffs with protesters. While Trump's team have said they are targeting criminals first, they also said anyone in the country illegally will be deported. Callejas was born and raised in Montreal after her family immigrated from Colombia. She started her swimsuit line in Canada around 2012 and was gaining momentum but when her father became unwell she paused her dreams to help care for him. Following her father's 2020 death, Callejas restarted her efforts to build a swimsuit company. Family said she did a few runway shows in Florida over the years and saw that there was real opportunity for her fashion line to develop in the state. She even was invited to take part in Miami Swim Week last year. She bought property in Florida, her mother said, and lived a modest life while working to build the brand. Family said they believed she was in the United States on a non-immigrant visa for people with special skills that was set to expire in March. They said she applied for an extension in February, but it was denied for a technical reason around the colour of ink used to sign the document. Family said Callejas reapplied, thinking the issue was solved. On March 28, Callejas was arrested for battery after family said there was an altercation with her then-boyfriend. Family say Callejas maintains her innocence in the situation and said she was defending herself. After posting bail, her family said Callejas was taken into ICE custody. An ICE spokesperson said Callejas entered the United States on a non-immigrant visitor visa and violated the terms of her admission. ICE said she will 'remain in custody pending completion of her immigration proceedings.' Cano said her daughter's detainment has been a 'nightmare' for the family. 'Every time I open my eyes, it is not real life,' Cano said, holding back tears. Family said Callejas has been transferred to at least three different facilities. Finances are being exhausted as they try to get legal representation. They said it cost US$5,000 just for one lawyer to submit paperwork. As Callejas spends more time in detention, her mental health is also suffering, family said. Canos said she wants her daughter to be able to have a fair chance to defend herself in court. Her next appearance for the criminal charge is on Monday. Cano said when that is resolved they want Callejas to leave the United States on her own accord so that she can finish her visa application from Canada and continue her dreams of a swimwear line. Global Affairs Canada said it could not provide information about particular cases because of privacy concerns. The department said on June 27 it was aware of about 55 Canadians detained by ICE. The number of cases has remained relatively stable in recent months, it said, however it fluctuates as cases are resolved and new cases arise. Johnny Noviello, a 49-year-old Canadian citizen, died in ICE custody in South Florida in June. Noviello was being detained pending removal from the U.S., officials said. He entered the U.S. in 1988 on a legal visa and became a lawful permanent resident in 1991. He was convicted of drug trafficking and other charges in 2023 and sentenced to a year in prison, officials said. Noviello was picked up by ICE agents at his probation office last month and charged with removability because of his drug conviction, authorities said. Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand said on social media at the time that 'Canadian consular officials are urgently seeking more information from U.S. officials.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 19, 2025.
