0:00 My name is Jack. I'm a content creator, or I used to be, until I had my life torn apart by a false accusation. Since this situation went public, I've received death threats. I've been banned from establishments. All of my YouTube channels have been taken down. I've lost friends. I've lost work opportunities. Pretty much everything. I'm innocent. That's all I got to say, really. Everybody knows I'm innocent. I did not want to have to make this video, but I've been silenced on this issue for as long as possible. And enough is enough. My appeal was this month and I'm waiting on the decision. So I still have to be extremely careful about what I say. My goal with this video is to share what happened in a non-biased way as I possibly can. I'm going to try my best not to be emotional and just be completely neutral here and share objective facts and evidence to show my innocence. The timelines of the encounter, inconsistencies in the evidence and testimony, and that there are enough
0:47 inconsistencies to make you go read the full testimony yourself. Legally, I'm not allowed to say as much as I would like to but I'm going to do my best to share what I can. Before anything else, I do want to say this. I believe survivors of sexual assault and false accusations of sexual assault deserve to be taken seriously and treated with compassion. I've been through both. Nothing I'm about to say is meant to minimize real harm. That being said, let's get into it. In February 2021, I was falsely accused and charged with assault from a consensual encounter between myself and a woman in August 2020. I'll refer to her as the accuser. My legal team and I spent several years going back and forth to get records and evidence to help my case. And we finally went to trial in 2024 and the judge
1:32 wrongfully convicted me. I say wrongfully as I have always maintained my innocence and I will explain why in a bit. Based on how things go with my appeal, there are two options. Either the appellant court will order me a new trial, or I'll have to spend three years in jail for something I didn't do, and my life is essentially over. And in the meantime, there's been newspaper articles, there's been documentaries, and all kinds of misinformation put out. So now I'm going to go over some information to help you get a better grip of what actually happened. At the time of the incident, I was a YouTuber, actor, filmmaker, and primarily known for pranks. I've been working full-time and earning a living as a content creator since approximately 2016. I met the accuser after matching with her on Tinder. Tinder is an app for people to go and hook up with. I recognized her from one of my party videos, McMaster Hoko 2019. On that day, this person managed to find me and my camera crew
2:20 in a crowd of 10,000 people in order to be interviewed. After matching on Tinder, we messaged on Instagram, texting and flirting before agreeing to meet up The accuser drove approximately 30 minutes from Oakville to my house in Hamilton, Ontario. I invited her in, I showed her around, and then she asked for a tour of my YouTube studio. I suggested we should go for a hike. We then left my house and drove to a hiking trail, but upon arriving, it was getting dark, so we agreed to return to my house and watch Netflix and chill. Upon returning to my house, we did just that. We watched Netflix and we had a consensual encounter. I'm not proud to admit this, but at the time, I was sleeping around with a bunch of different women. The accuser also had multiple different partners recently before me as per DNA evidence, as well as confirming sleeping with an alleged boyfriend just a few days prior
3:05 to meeting me. Now, to clarify, this is not a judgment on her character. Rather, it's to provide context on our generation's modern culture of frequent hookups. In retrospect, I definitely should not have been sleeping with these women. But I was a young guy, and I was famous on the internet. I would often film a quick consent video when having sexual encounters with strangers that knew I had a large following as a proactive way to ensure I had clear consent from whoever I was hooking up with, especially women who have been featured in a previous video of mine. This is not a normal way to live, but it is common in society and especially amongst athletes, celebrities, and public figures. So during our encounter, I attempted to film a consent video and she informed me that she didn't want to be recorded. So I stopped the recording and deleted whatever was briefly recorded right in front of her. We then continued what we were doing, having a consensual sexual encounter. I want to be very clear
3:54 here. The encounter was enthusiastic, ongoing. There was no confusion about it. She was consenting, as was I. She communicated consent in many different ways, particularly verbally, asking me to and telling me during sex, , amongst other things. I don't want to repeat them, but you can go and read the things that she said to me in the transcripts. After finishing our encounter, we chatted briefly before I politely told her I had to be up early in the morning and I asked her to leave. That was the conclusion of the date. Quoting from the court transcript, although the accuser originally told police that she was obviously fine with being asked to leave, her testimony at trial revealed otherwise. In cross-examination, she admitted that the dismissal did not feel good, and she agreed with trial counsel that she felt worthless because she was treated as a conquest or notch on Mr. Densmore's bedpost. So in hindsight, I can absolutely see why this
4:42 would make her feel bad. She had traveled to see me. She was texting her friends and family about me and our date ahead of time. In particular, some high expectations for me. Kicking her out was rude and dismissive. I didn't think that way at the time, but I regret how I handled that and if I could go back, I would do things differently. With that being said, all of the sexual activity that we did was consensual. And when I say consensual, I don't mean ambiguous or neutral. I mean it was enthusiastic, encouraging, and ongoing. And I testified to that under oath. To put it simply, the whole thing was a typical one-night stand. Just to be clear, my charge had nothing to do with filming a consent video. It was entirely based on an allegation that I non-consensually assaulted this person. This was shocking to me. It absolutely destroyed my mental health and for months I was so confused. What
5:28 the f*** am I being charged with? We do know what the reasons were now and we'll get into those later but I was charged in February 2021 and these charges were then made public in October 2022 after the accuser contacted my city's local newspaper to run a story about these allegations before that year's McMaster Hoko was to take place. During this time I felt absolute agony. I stopped making comedy and prank videos because I just... To put it simply, lost my sense of humor, and it's embarrassing to admit, but I felt helpless. Now I want to give you an overview on these things in society. Through legal counsel and many other stories that have been shared with me, I've learned that my case is not unique. False accusations are common and absolutely devastating to the victims. For those that don't know, in Canada, there is no actual evidence required to charge and convict somebody in this type of crime. In
6:16 most s**t assault cases, there isn't actually any concrete evidence. It ends up just being one person's word versus another. He said, she said situation. To put it simply, telling the truth is not enough. So as an accused person, the only strategy you have is to find lies, discrepancies, contradictions in the accuser's story. So imagine you or your loved one is being accused despite there being zero evidence. If you or your loved one's defense lawyer cannot question the credibility of the person making these accusations, it will most likely lead to a conviction. And there's nothing you can do about it. As much as this system and laws were put into place with good intentions to help real victims and real survivors, an unfortunate side effect is that they are highly abusable and exploitable. They often take years of time, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the
7:02 accused person loses their job, loses their reputation, and is publicly shamed, and potentially even ends up in jail for something they didn't do. But aside from that, from the defendant's standpoint, there are also laws that have been put into place to make it even more difficult to defend yourself. In a normal trial, you can get access to information such as records, messages, emails, etc. However, in sexual assault cases, the police and prosecutors can, and in my case, they did, actively redact any and all information or evidence to prevent you from using it in your defense. So in my case, it was brought to our attention that there were thousands of communication records that had been redacted by the police. We later found out that the police not only redacted all of this data, but they actually emailed the accuser and said, is there
7:47 anything specifically that you would like us to redact? And then she replied saying, yes, I would like you to redact all of the emails with my therapist and all of the communications with her alleged boyfriend. And in particular, specific emails that were very, very telling about what actually happened that night. And I will get into them later on. But anyways, back to the evidence. At one point, I replied, remember they gave us about 90 different pages and around 80 of them were completely blacked out. I'm not a lawyer. I'm actually kind of an idiot. But from what I've been explained by legal counsel, this makes it incredibly hard to defend yourself at trial. For example, if there is evidence that we're bringing that contradicts their version of events, they can change their version of events before trial. So why is it like this now? Well, first of all, obviously, it's intended to protect real survivors from privacy concerns, as
8:37 well as trials being delayed. But what it really is, is they essentially wanted to get more convictions after the 2016 acquittal of John which led to significant changes to Canadian law, frequently referred to as the Gomeshi rules. This was implemented via Bill C-51 and subsequent legislation, which are designed to make it easier to secure convictions by altering how evidence regarding a complainant's credibility is handled. These changes were meant to counteract how in the Gomeshi trial, the defense was able to use contradictory evidence like emails and photos to successfully challenge the credibility of witnesses and get an acquittal. In summary, because of Bill C-51 and the Gomeshi rules, if there is evidence that shows contradictions in the accuser's statement, it can be discarded. And even if it's not discarded
9:23 and it is allowed at trial, it has to be given to them and approved, and that gives them the opportunity to prepare for it and potentially alter a story. This is what has been put into effect to get more convictions. The problem is it is potentially at the cost of innocent people going to jail and having their life ruined. Again, I want to preface, I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of the law and I'm open to being corrected. Now, right off the bat from the statements of the accuser alone, we had many examples of inaccuracies, contradictions, and story changes. But once we found out that there was all of this actual evidence that had been intentionally redacted, we became very curious. After several years and over $100,000 just in pretrial application costs, we were able to get a
10:09 significant portion of the redacted evidence, including emails, text messages, etc. After reviewing them, it was quite clear that there were multiple strong motives to fabricate these allegations. Now, if we go back to the encounter, remember that the accuser only actually had an issue with my attempt to film a consent video. This is what was so confusing to me because I was there. She initiated sex with me afterwards and we continued having sex. All of this material is available in the official trial transcripts, which you can go over in the description. But even though I deleted whatever was recorded, she had a massive concern on whether or not this video still existed and was worried that it would be circulated online. And we know this because it was mentioned multiple different times. For example, from the April 18th transcript. And what
10:56 about if he actually took a video? If he did and that got out, that could ruin my entire life. That is from the email she sent her therapist the night of our dates. From April 18th. This is at 2.22pm on August the 7th. Two days after August the 5th. Also, I'm going to the police. Maybe not to press charges. But I want to tell them and report it. And see if they could do anything about him possibly taking a video or picture of me. End quote. My lawyer asked, you sent this, right? She responds, yes. My lawyer. Okay, so again, the primary purpose for going to the police that you are sure you want them to do something about is to see if he took pictures or videos of you. The accuser. Yes. Lawyer. And in your mind, you would agree that that would entail them having to at least go to his house, talk to him. Accuser. Yes. And
11:43 taking his phone. Accuser. Yes. Okay, and then making sure that there wasn't anything there that you had in a compromised picture or video, right? Accuser. Yes. If you want to double check this, this is all in the testimony on April 18th. So when she contacted the police, her concern was to know for sure that the video was truly deleted. However, the only way that the police can search a phone is by obtaining a warrant. And a warrant can only be obtained if there was a crime. From the appeal, although this factual conclusion was not mandatory, given the evidence reaching, it meant that when the accuser left Mr. Densmore's home, she believed he possessed a compromising video of her on his phone, which increased the probative value of evidence supporting a potential motive to fabricate. As Justice Krawchenko concluded, the accuser's most significant
12:30 concern was that Mr. Densmore had images or videos of her on his phone. It was essential to consider whether the accuser made the sexual assault allegation partly or fully to prompt police to access his device, especially since the police apparently would not take action unless she made a formal complaint. In regards to her email to the police, she said, I'm unsure if I want to press charges at this time, but I'm deeply concerned as to if he has any photos or videos of me. Following back and forth communication with the police, the accuser eventually went in and gave an official statement nearly two months later. She then described a non-consensual encounter that, to be frank, did not happen. I'm going to try and say this as politely as
13:16 possible. There are multiple points in the accuser's testimony which contradict her police statements and her testimony at trial. I want to share a few major discrepancies and then you can decide for yourself. Now, as a warning, some of the information I'm about to share is graphic and potentially triggering, but I must go into these details so that you can see just a couple of the major discrepancies and inconsistencies in this person's testimony. I am just comparing her version of events compared to her other versions of events and her own testimony. Let's proceed. The accuser testified that I aggressively removed her shirt and pulled down her dress. In testimony, she claimed, he started by removing my shirt and pulling down my dress so that my breasts were exposed. Then, in cross-examination, she further insisted, no, he didn't ask me to take it off. He
14:05 just started to take it off. My lawyer asked again, You're sure about that? To which the accuser confirmed, yes. She made this allegation in testimony and then doubled down on this in cross-examination with my lawyer. However, these new allegations she made in her testimony are totally different from her actual statement to police. To police, she said. So we went to his room and we were like just sitting on his bed and he put on a show on Netflix and then he put his arm around me and then after a few minutes kissed me, which I was okay with. And then he told me like, take off my shirt, which I was comfortable with because I was like wearing a dress underneath it. So in her original story, she claims that I politely requested her to take her shirt off and she did it herself voluntarily and comfortably. However, at trial, she said, he started
14:55 by removing my shirt and pulling down my dress so that my breasts were exposed. Then in cross-examination, she further insisted, again, as part of this aggressive encounter she's trying to paint, no, he didn't ask me to take it off. He just started to take it off. My lawyer confirmed. Are you sure? She confirmed. Yes, that is how it happened. However, my lawyer then confronted her with her own original statements of police, and he reminded her that this is what she said. And then he asked her again, what actually happened? She then confirmed her original story, which is that I asked her to take her shirt off, and she did so Voluntarily. My lawyer further confirmed asking, because you're the one that took your shirt off with his request and that was your way of showing interest or consenting, right? To which she responded, yes.
15:44 This is a clear example of willingness to intentionally remove and omit participation and change details to suit the false narrative of an aggressive, non-consensual encounter, which to put it simply, just never happened. Moving on. There were fabricated bruises. The accuser claimed that I aggressively bit her breasts, causing bruising, swelling, and red marks for days after. On August 6th, less than one day after our date, the nurse examined her breasts and found zero bruising, zero swelling, and zero red marks. This was totally fabricated. From the appeal, in her examination in chief, the accuser described an aggressive sex assault it began when
16:30 mr densmore removed her shirt and pulled down her dress exposing her breasts she testified that mr densmore kissed and bit her breasts which was quite painful and that the biting left bruises and red marks that lingered for two to three days after their encounter he then pushed her onto her back got on top of her and pended her digitally page 34. though the events described above qualify as a violent assault Justice Kralchenko flatly rejected the accuser's account noting how it conflicted with evidence from the nurse who examined the accuser's breasts and found no bite marks or bruising. He also noted a major inconsistency about digital penetration that was brought out in cross-examination.
17:17 This is another clear example of fabricating an aggressive, non-consensual encounter as the accusations of bruises, bite marks and red swelling for days after were entirely fabricated and confirmed by the nurse not days after but the next day August 6th next in her police statement she said that I got on top of her aggressively and in her description to the crown she shared detailed allegations about this without any mention of her participation in April 17th cross-examination however she admitted that after a few minutes of kissing She swung her legs over my body and straddled me before removing her shirt. Straddling as in mounting me, so sitting on top of my genital area and grinding
18:07 her groin area directly on mine while sitting upright on top of me. She also said now that she smiled and moaned and that I would remark, I liked it or moan. Again, this shows that she was an active participant contrary to all of her previous statements. This is from April 17th, 2024. Next, in a statement to police, she said that she didn't make a single noise or sound besides, ow. Then in cross-examination, she admitted to making noises, moaning and saying, I like it, during various stages of sexual activity to show her consent that she was an active participant. from the appeal. Another inconsistency was the accuser's avowal that the vast majority of
18:52 the encounter took place in near silence. In chief, she was a silent recipient of Mr. Densmore's advances. She testified that, other than providing her with specific directions, the only sound made by either party was Mr. Densmore calling her a slut. In closing submissions, trial counsel describes the accuser's initial depiction as an incomprehensible narrative of a silent movie. It also seemed to be incomprehensible to the accuser who admitted on cross-examination on multiple occasions that they were both moaning and that she was breathing heavy and that she uttered the words, I like that. Next, we're going to start talking about some of the therapist statements. Now, I understand that therapy is something that is very personal. It's very private. And a lot of people
19:40 watching this might be in therapy. So, I'm not using this in any way to try to minimize therapy or discredit therapists in general. Okay? Just want to start by saying that. There were many issues with the statements to the therapist, including inaccuracies given to the therapist by the accuser, which led to the therapist giving very strong opinions and recommendations, which ended up leading to reshaping what actually happened in the mind of the accuser, in addition to collusion. And if you don't know what collusion is, Google it because it's very bad. The accuser was asked about some of these statements throughout the trial in this particular one from April 18th. My lawyer, okay, so you're not very truthful with your therapist, are you? The accuser, no, I'm extremely truthful to her. My lawyer, extremely truthful, right? Accuser, yes. My lawyer, that's how you
20:29 characterize what you're saying to her. The accuser, yes. Here in particular, she made a statement to her therapist where she inaccurately depicted our date and implied very dangerously that I tricked her into coming into my house. I debated whether to send this or not because maybe I'm just being dramatic or stupid or overthinking or reading into something that didn't happen. Or maybe it just brought this whole thing onto myself. But I went on a date tonight. We were supposed to go for a hike and then drinks. But when I showed up to his house, he said it was too late to go for a walk. So we started watching a movie. My lawyer asked, have I read that accurately? The accuser confirms. Yes. My lawyer. And that's not what happened. Is it? Accuser. Not all of the details. No. My lawyer. But that's what you told her happened. Right? Accuser. Yes. Pause.
21:18 Inaccuracies like that are super important because they have a severe impact on the therapist's perception of events, which leads to responses from the therapist that as a therapist's responses would give massive influence over the accuser. So the therapist receives this, amongst other inaccurate statements, continuing from April 18th. So these are your records that she's made about sessions that she's had with you. And the session date is Friday, August the 7th. We spent the session going over her experience and looking at potential stuck points where she blamed herself. In reviewing the evening, it is clear the accuser attempted to make good decisions and that he, was clearly a predator skilled in having her make small changes to their plans until she was in his apartment
22:08 have i read that correctly the accuser confirms yes the accuser claims to be extremely truthful to her therapist giving a completely inaccurate statement about the date to her therapist with a very misleading implication as a result the therapist tells her with authority he was clearly a predator skilled in having her make small changes to their plans until she was in his apartment. She then takes these various responses she gets from her therapist and sends them to her friends and family. Also from April 18th. Yeah, doctor therapist said that he seemed very calculated in the way he acted like he had thought it out and that I'm not the first. So now, She's giving false information to the therapist. Therapist is responding and then she's taking what the therapist is responding
22:54 and sending it to her friends using the authority of the therapist. This is one of the many messages that the accuser sent to her friends and family. You can see more in the May 31st closing arguments. Now, during testimony at trial, her statement changed. April 12th, you said the tour was approximately 15 minutes, nothing unusual. What happens after that? She answers, then he suggests that we go for a hike. Oh. And how did you then end up going for a hike? What happens after that? He suggested that we drive to a trail that was close by to his house. So I agreed to that and we started driving there. So the accuser admitted that actually I suggested we go for a hike, which was the original plan. And then we left the house. Okay, so you described driving towards the escarpment. Accuser, mm-hmm. Do
23:41 you eventually stop somewhere? Accuser, no. He says that it's busy and that we shouldn't bother going on a hike because it's getting dark out. going a bit down. Then what happens? Accuser. So then he suggests going back to his house. Are you able to give us an estimate about how long you were trying to locate a hiking trail? Accuser. Again, not long, maybe 15, 20 minutes. And so did you agree with his suggestion to go back to his house? Accuser. I did. We then returned to the house after she agreed to return and watch Netflix and chill. But literally the same night as the date, August 5th, she then goes and tells a very different and inaccurate version the same night. So many implications, opinions, responses,
24:27 and collusion and influences were made from these inaccurate statements. And what's super concerning about all this, aside from that, she never corrected her therapist by saying, actually, he did suggest going for a hike. And then we actually did leave the house and go to the hiking trail. and we only returned after she agreed to because it was getting dark. Another thing she never acknowledged, the reason it was getting dark is why we came back was because she showed up over 30 minutes late to the date in the first place. So instead of being honest about this or clarifying it or correcting it at all, she then took the therapist responses amongst others and then sent them to her friends and family members. Objectively speaking, This can be considered very problematic because she essentially gave an inaccurate statement to the therapist, which then elicits responses
25:17 based on these false details. And then instead of correcting them, she uses them as authoritative proof that something happened to her that didn't actually happen. But all of this was under false pretenses from false information. And this was not cleared up and corrected until nearly four years later at trial in 2024. At that point, all these communications and the eventual false accusation had already happened. The damage had already been done because amongst all of the other inaccurate statements made to the therapist, this completely colored the therapist's perception of what actually happened, leading to her convincing the accuser, I was a skilled predator, I've done this to multiple people, amongst other things, such as she's not the first as somebody that's never
26:06 met me and knows absolutely nothing about me, to intentionally put out false information to someone and then take what they said in response and use that as an authoritative source to influence friends and family. And this is just a small taste. I highly recommend you go through the April 18th testimony. Everything's in there and it is shocking. Okay, moving on. Next, when giving her original statements to the police, she said that oral s**t lasted five to ten minutes, but also that the consent video incident happened about one minute into the oral sex, and then our brief conversation about it was approximately one minute long. So this timeline would imply that oral sex resumed afterwards to fill up the remaining three to eight minutes. At trial on April 12th,
26:53 she said that after the consent video, she immediately stood up and successfully put her clothes on and claimed that she tried to leave. But then, during cross-examination on April 17th, she acknowledged there could have been more time for oral sex, and it was possible that it continued. My lawyer. Okay, but then you'll also agree with me that even after he put his phone away that you continue to engage with him in oral sex. Accuser. I don't remember. Lawyer. Okay, well, let's talk about timing here because you said the oral sex lasts between five and ten minutes, right? Accuser. Yes. And the incident with the phone happened about a minute or two into the oral sex, right? Accuser. Yes. So therefore, there was more time for oral sex. Accuser. There could have been. Lawyer. Okay,
27:43 it's possible that it continued, right? Accuser, it's possible. I'm not even going to say my version of events, okay? This is her version versus her own version. This completely contradicts her other version of events about getting up, putting her clothes on, and then trying to leave from the appeal. In chief, April 12th, the accuser testified that once Mr. Densmore took out his phone, she stood up, starting to put her shirt on, looking for her purse. Remember the purse for later. On April 17th, when trial counsel asked the accuser whether she continued to engage with him in oral sex, after his phone was put away, she claimed that she did not remember, in addition to, there could have been time. Upon further questioning on April 18th, the accuser conceded that it was possible that she performed additional fellatio following
28:34 the phone incident. This is a massive contradiction because if oral sex continued, which is what actually happened, that would mean all of the things she said about getting up, putting her clothes on and trying to leave was completely fabricated. Look at the transcripts. Moving on. There was further conflicting evidence in regards to her retrieving and putting her shirt on. This is from April 18th after my lawyer has been asking her about when we had sex. And then I asked where the bathroom was and left the room. Why would you need to ask for the washroom? He's already showed you where it was before he got to his room. He did. I guess that was my way of telling him I needed to use the washroom. A little further down. So you'll agree with me that according to you, those are the first words spoken by you or him since you had that little exchange about the phone,
29:20 correct? I believe that he did say something when I was putting on my shirt. Remember that. I don't remember what it was, but I remember kind of awkwardly laughing. My lawyer. Okay. So now you remember that, right? but you didn't remember it before. Accuser, I don't remember what he said. I remember not responding to him talking though. Lawyer, well you did. You said you laughed. Accuser, yes. Lawyer, so that was a response, right? Accuser, okay, yes. So aside from the earlier statements about total silence, which we've gone over, the inaccuracy here is in her earlier version of events, she claimed to have stopped oral silence stood up and already had put her shirt on. From April 12th. Accuser, I'm still sitting down, but when he went to go put his phone down, he had kind of removed or stopped standing directly in
30:09 front of me with his feet on both my sides. So I kind of had a way to stand up and create distance between us. So I did that. And then I started putting my shirt back on looking for my purse. My lawyer, did you indeed put your clothes back on? Accuser, I did. But here on April 18th, aside from the different story about the oral s**t continuing, there was also a major discrepancy that actually shows even more credibility towards the oral s**t actually continuing, which is what actually happened. Because after penetrative s**t had completed, she claimed, I believe that he did say something when I was putting on my shirt. But why would you put your shirt back on if it's already on? If you got up after oral, like you said in your original statements on April 12th, then your shirt would have already
30:57 been on. Question, did you leave the bedroom? Accuser, no. He came up to me, started kissing me, put his fingers inside of me again, and then kind of quickly pushed me onto the bed so my stomach was on the bed, and then he lifted my dress up and put his p**** in me. In this version, she had already put her shirt and clothes fully back on. There was no shirt removal. But then I came over and forced her on the bed and p******ted her. So on April 12th, the shirt is already on for the penetration. After getting dressed and trying to leave on April 18th, in addition to the oral s****** continuing, the shirt was only put on after the penetrative s****** while awkwardly laughing about something I said. So if you were telling the truth about getting up and putting your shirt back on after oral, then the shirt would already be on. These are just
31:43 a few of the inconsistencies between her statement to the police, her testimony, and her cross-examination. There were many, many more. If I included them all in this video, it would be several hours long. These inconsistencies, inaccuracies, whatever you'd like to call them, are not in comparison to my statements or testimony. All of these things are her word versus her own word. These are not even taking into consideration my testimony where I disagree with basically everything she's claiming. Even being as polite as possible, there is a alarming pattern of changing stories, contradicting and even fabricating physical evidence to depict
32:29 an aggressive encounter that simply didn't happen. There are dozens of instances from this person that clearly lower their credibility or to be blunt, outright disqualify credibility and to put it simply that is what reasonable doubt is what started as a concern about a potential video needed a description of a non-consensual aggressive encounter in order to get a warrant to access my phone and the accuser herself conceded during cross-examination that many points in her initial statement were not true i stated this earlier but it needs to be said again The accuser was encouraged to go forward by her friends, family, and therapist.
33:15 The issue though, is that she told her therapist, as well as her friends and family, not what actually happened. Inaccurate information. And that became the narrative. That I was some kind of assailant. And amongst many other inaccurate statements, and downright... things that just didn't happen that were shared with the therapist is what led to the therapist encouraging her to go forward with charges. And there's a lot more on that that I'm not going to get into in this video because I don't want to get myself in trouble, but it's crazy. Bottom line is this encouragement was based on incomplete, inaccurate, and fabricated information. The pressure then accumulated substantially into several other motives from the appeal, In the months following their encounter, the accuser faced extensive pressure from her friends, family, and therapist to press charges against Mr. Densmore. According to her therapist, Mr. Densmore was
34:02 a predator who was skilled in making small changes to their plans until she was in his apartment and had likely done this before. The accuser received similar feedback from her friends, mother, and stepfather who, despite never meeting Mr. Densmore, their only idea about me, by the way, is my crazy YouTube videos. So you can imagine what that looked like. despite never meeting Mr. Densmore, told her that she needed to press charges against Jack because otherwise she was letting him do that to other girls. This pressure culminated in the accuser admitting to feeling guilty that if she didn't take any legal type of action, she would be responsible for him doing this to other girls.
34:49 Cross-examination of the accuser, trial transcripts, April 2024. Moving on, in addition to these factors, there was another major issue with this person's credibility. In multiple private emails with her therapist, this person admitted to making her entire story up. I legally cannot share the full emails, but it's in her testimony, and she confirmed multiple times that these emails were read correctly, accurately, and that she did say these things. This is all available in cross-examination from April 18th, as well as highlighted in closing arguments on May 31st. This was particularly devastating for me, my friends, and my family to have to sit through. And this is why I'm so shocked that I
35:35 even had to go to trial in the first place. Because from day one, there was reasonable doubt. And the person to have that reasonable doubt was her. Now, as somebody that has been a victim of assault myself, I know what it's like to feel like you're in denial about what happened to you. And you do have thoughts like, am I making this all up, right? But this is so much more than that. And remember, credibility is essentially the only available thing for the defense to question in a he said, she said trial with no evidence. So if changing your story numerous times, potential collusion from therapists and others influencing you, admissions of potentially making your story up concerns of a video, and other multiple motives to fabricate, as well as direct evidence of fabricating physical evidence, and for lack of better words, a continuous
36:25 inability to recall basic facts and testify credibly, isn't reasonable doubt. Then what even is reasonable doubt? Seriously, if this isn't reasonable doubt, then what is? What can anybody in this position do if they somehow can choose to ignore all of that? Think about if what was happening to me was happening to you or your partner or your brother, your sister, your dad, your friend, and then go over everything. Is there a lack of credibility? And if so, is this lack of credibility enough for reasonable doubt? As you will read in the transcripts, there were multiple motives to fabricate. We concluded that the main one was she
37:11 thought I still had a photo or video of her and for whatever reason thought that I was actually going to post it online. It goes without saying, I would never post, publish, or share a consent video online. That would not only be a gross violation of personal privacy, but it would literally be a crime and career suicide. And there's absolutely no reason for me to ever do that. With that being said, if I'm being very objective and very polite here, I can maybe kind of understand the potential worry that they had that I would. During the trial, this person acknowledged that she was familiar with my videos and she even described them on April 17th as the subject matter was about drinking, interviewing girls, hitting on girls. Despite most of
37:59 my videos being pranks that had nothing to do with these things. With that being said, the video she was in before, McMaster Hoko 2019, was essentially a 45-minute satire documentary about a massive street party where I'm wearing a crown and shotgunning beers with fans and in that video it's a bunch of interviews about drinking, partying, sex, day kills and that kind of thing. So anecdotally that was the only experience she had of being in a previous video of mine. Upon arriving at my house she texted her friends saying, I think it's a joke. I think he's gonna prank me. So it seems like even before meeting me there was an anxiety that there was somehow a possibility of being pranked. And of course I had no idea of this. Anyways, From 2017 until 2021, I was known for posting wild party content on my social
38:48 media that some considered very vulgar and controversial. I've even gone to events like Pride and done interviews with like dozens of naked people, and I always made sure to censor every potential inappropriate thing. With that being said though, I filmed hundreds of these videos where I would go and I would do pranks, interviews, especially interviews at nightclubs, and many people faced severe repercussions just from appearing in my videos. Multiple videos, guys and girls were exposed for cheating on their partners, and this is why I started filming these consent videos when I do pranks, because essentially, if you film a video, like a prank, you would go up to the person afterwards, be like, hey, my friend's over there, he's filming, this was all a prank, is it okay if we use this clip for YouTube and you ask them this because if they say yes then you're allowed to post it online right and if you don't they
39:36 could potentially decide later oh I don't want that clip online and then they can report the video and get it taken down and this can result in you losing your YouTube channel if you have a brand deal with the video you can lose thousands of dollars and also you're not trying to like humiliate this person online and ruin their lives so that's why as pranksters we go up and we get consent videos interview videos are a little different because when you speak into a microphone It's implied consent, so you don't need to get consent. This is why I would have so many videos of people saying ridiculous things. Then they would end up getting in a lot of trouble and they try to get the videos removed. But it's like, dude, you shouldn't have spoken into a microphone in a video at a nightclub, right? So this happened for years. And this is actually what gave me so much anxiety. And as my channel got bigger and bigger, I started butting heads with the city,
40:21 with the universities, with the newspapers. And when I would do my HOKO videos, multiple students were suspended from sports teams and even fined thousands of dollars by the government just for appearing in my videos. Literally, I know that this is not what this video is about, but I really want to hammer this point home, guys. On one occasion in particular, I filmed interviews and it went viral. And then it circulated around that town. And three people ended up getting fired from their jobs. Three people because they said vulgar things into the microphone, which I thought were just harmless, funny things to say. This was in 2019. So as much as I'm just like a young guy having fun, doing funny shit, making videos that were meant to be entertaining and fun on occasion. There were real consequences for people. And I never
41:08 wanted that. This is why I would make sure to get consent. Because not only do I not want to get things taken down or potentially sued, but also I don't want to ruin people's lives for the sake of content. And at a certain point, I started to feel this every time I was filming prank videos. And I moved away from pranks and interviews entirely. And I started making self-development content on a completely new channel. I wanted to focus on self-improvement and actually helping people and writing before I moved off of YouTube and into making movies. Because that's my long-term goal, acting and making movies. With all that being said, being featured in a prank or a hoko video or an interview is still a totally different thing than having an intimate consent video published online. It's never happened before, and it never will. On May 28th, we tried to introduce these as evidence at trial to show clear examples to
41:58 the judge of what a consent video is, because that's what we were concerned, that this judge would have no idea what we were talking about. My lawyer even showed one of these videos to the prosecutor, the Crown. After seeing it, he fought even harder to make sure that it was not allowed to be introduced as evidence. The judge then decided not to allow us to use any consent videos as evidence at trial. But then at the same time, in closing arguments and the eventual judgment, both the Crown and the judge dismissed the legitimacy of consent videos being a real thing. The judge even said, I reject the evidence of the accused that he was making a consent video, whatever that really is. And I'm going to be really, really careful with my words here. i want to say this in the most respectful way possible okay it's very important to consider if the person making these literally life-altering decisions
42:49 should be someone who understands these type of things and in particular this extremely recent cultural moment that we are all currently going through especially back in 2020 in a post me too era i'm not saying this to discredit judges okay most judges are legitimate brilliant, like super geniuses. That's why there's so few judges, because it's incredibly hard to do. So while being as respectful as possible, what I'm saying is that my generation, it's different now. We live in an era of mass surveillance, media, police body cams, consent videos, social media fame, cancel culture. In addition, to hookup culture. There's a lot going on and it is incredibly confusing to navigate this world as a young person, especially as a public figure, which is under increased scrutiny
43:38 with your reputation and protecting that reputation. Because we all know what happens if somebody gets any kind of accusation made about them. Your career in life is basically over. And even if this disconnect is very minor, it's still a strong enough disconnect to potentially influence situations like this where an innocent person can get wrongfully convicted. This is even more important if the person making those decisions is not actually required to explain in detail how they even came to these decisions and whose decision and judgment is then expected to be deferred to with absolute authority. So for me, despite having evidence of these consent videos, they were considered inadmissible at trial and then at the same time used as an argument to lower my
44:26 credibility. This was incredibly frustrating. And again, I'm getting a little emotional here. Let me try and dial it back. Filming a consent video is not a crime and is not what I was charged with. However, this person was concerned about a video of them potentially being put online. And then in the evidence, there's a strong motive. They fabricated an assault in order to prevent a video of them potentially in their mind being put online, despite the fact that I never have done that. And I never would do that. The accuser also texted her friend saying, I just realized my biggest dream in life is to intern at Saturday Night Live, even though that will never happen because I don't have the skills or connections. She said that right before coming to my house. That's from the April 16th document. But I'll
45:14 let you read the transcripts and come to your own conclusions. To put it simply, in a case that basically only comes down to credibility. There were multiple statements, changes in details, contradictions, proven fabrications of evidence that should have absolutely been taken into account in terms of credibility. And again, I'm talking about her testimony versus her statements of police versus messages to her friends versus emails to her therapist and all the things she admitted in them. This entire time is her word versus her own word and within her own word. There are major, major issues. This case is very unique in a sense because there is more evidence that this person is not a credible witness, made a false accusation, fabricated evidence
46:03 with motive and admission of some of these things, than there is evidence that I even assaulted this person. And there is no evidence because I didn't. There was no assault. It was a consensual encounter. Testifying is terrifying. You're being accused of such a heinous thing and then having to explain intimate details in front of your girlfriend, friends, your family, and reporters who are taking your words out of context and putting you in the front page of the newspaper, making claims about you in front of literally your entire city. In my case, in Hamilton, half a million people, plus Toronto newspapers. So we're talking like millions of people. So despite all this pressure, you also have to try and remain calm and not emotional. But at the same time, you literally feel like you're having a heart
46:50 attack and you have just immense anger about even being in this whole situation. So the whole thing was frustrating, gaslighting, anxiety inducing. It was just terrible. And I'm sure it was terrible for the accuser as well. Okay. But with that being said, that does not make it even remotely okay. What she did was wrong and has had massive consequences. for my life that I'm still dealing with years later. I literally felt like my life was taken from me. And even on that day, seeing my girlfriend, my friends, my family collapse to the floor, bawling their eyes out. This pain was and still is truly indescribable. So in the appeal, you can read my appeal lawyer's technical assessment, why the
47:38 judge was incorrect. As a layman, he basically allegedly took the date and then he divided it into several different boxes, okay? So he took the date and he's like, here's the whole thing. Box, box, box, box. And then he said, well, she's not credible in this box or this box or this box, but I believe you're in this box. Again, they're kind of allowed to just use their own discretion and decide whatever they want. But the reason that there was a technical error in this that allowed us to even appeal in the first place is that if somebody while testifying makes major inaccuracies, major contradictions, fabrications, discrepancies, in several areas. This should significantly affect their credibility overall. And this was not done. Any lack of credibility, especially a substantial, overwhelming lack of
48:27 credibility in the majority of areas is reasonable doubt. And if that isn't considered reasonable doubt, then what is reasonable doubt? It basically makes it impossible for you or your loved ones to defend yourself as an accused person. This is how the law works. This is just how it is. This is why people film consent videos in the first place. The only hope I have at getting my life back is that we can get a retrial to address these inconsistencies. But first, it needs to be approved by the appellant court. They don't give me notice really when they've decided and I actually have to turn myself into custody. And then once I'm already in custody, they email my lawyer and tell them the decision they've made. So
49:12 I have no idea what's gonna happen, when it's gonna happen. I'm just in this really up place right now. And it's terrifying. With that being said, an appeal is a lot different than a normal trial. I thought it was like, hey, like look at all this evidence, you know, what happened here? But it's not. An appeal is not to retry the case or review the evidence. The appeal process is for an appeal lawyer to find technical errors in the judge's decision. With that being said, the way that the laws work in Canada, in these types of trials anyways, trial judges essentially have complete power to make convictions like this. Therefore, overturning a wrongful conviction is a nearly impossible thing to do. I'm just going to be honest. Whether the appeal is good or not, the default position of the appellant court is to just defer to the original trial judge's decision, regardless of the evidence. Because again, they're not
50:02 supposed to retry the evidence. That's what the trial's for. This is what scares me the most. But as unlikely as it is, the possibility of having my life back has been the shred of hope I've been holding onto for years. If I had to go to prison for something I didn't do, it would literally ruin my life. And I think that's all that needs to be said. Put yourself in my shoes. Think about what is happening to me as if it was happening to you or a loved one. Really think about that. I love my country. I respect the legal system. I think it's right more often than not. But false convictions happen. And when they do, it's absolutely devastating. Since the false accusation and wrongful conviction, my life has changed completely. My mental health was destroyed. My
50:50 relationships destroyed. My finances destroyed. This cost an ungodly amount of money. We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars. And that's not even talking about lost revenue from my channels being terminated. They literally cut off my income. That is so f***ed up. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they try to take down my Instagram, which is another reason I avoided posting about this. Because if I talk about this, they're going to try and silence me again. I don't want to make this about me, but like, guys, this has been so f***ed. Seriously. Like, aside from everything else, In my own city, people hung up photos of me. I've been banned from gyms, co-working spaces, establishments, apps, buildings, restaurants. I've received thousands of death threats, hate comments. People have made multiple hour documentaries defaming me. And I guarantee
51:39 they don't have the actual transcripts. They never even considered the actual evidence. They're just running with what was posted in newspapers. And this entire time, I've had to remain silent about it. Just trust the system. The system. continuously lets me down. I've tried to remain patient, calm, stoic. I work out every day. I read books. I have an amazing girlfriend, family and support network, which I'm very grateful for. But aside from that, I have essentially become a recluse. And at times it's felt like I've been hanging on by a thread. And this is totally different than who I actually am. I used to be confident, happy, optimistic, and I was proud of working my ass off for years in construction to become an entrepreneur and have the opportunity to create content online. I was able to entertain millions of people with my comedy videos and
52:25 I helped millions of people with my self-improvement content as well. And I had dreams of becoming an actor and filmmaker. And all of that was taken away from me for something that I didn't do. And that's not fair. That's not right. I want to create. I want to provide value to the world. And I don't want sympathy. I don't want to be a victim. And that's the toughest part on my ego. I should be working right now. I should be creating. I should be chasing my dreams and pursuing my goals, my purpose. I should be posting things that provide you value, not talking about this absolute f***ing tragedy that I'm barely surviving right now. I should not be stuck on the sidelines waiting around. I want to live. And the only remote chance I have of ever having a normal life back again is if my appeal is successful. Whether you liked my content or not, whether you like
53:13 me or not, whether you know anything about me, what was done to me was wrong. It was unjust. And this process has been incredibly painful for me and my family. I imagine it has also been painful at times for the accuser as well. And I'm not trying to minimize her feelings here. But what was a consensual date turned into being concerned about a video being circulated online. And then that became something completely different. And at the end of that, I was wrongfully convicted. And I'm not asking you to take what I've said at face value. I'm asking that you review the evidence and transcripts in their entirety and make your own judgment. No one is perfect and I don't claim to be, but I'm an innocent person and I deserve to have my life back. I want to end by saying thank you to those
54:01 that do share your stories, whether you're a victim of assault or a victim of a false accusation. I understand it's a lot to go through, okay? And nothing in this video was meant to offend you or minimize what you've gone through. I also want to say thank you to those who still continue to support me because you're basically the only reason I'm even here right now. And I'm sorry to all my fans and everybody that it took me so long to make a statement. I hope I can share more with you soon. Thank you guys.
