Lawyers are done with alleged victim in 2018 World Juniors case, a 'Not Guilty' verdict looks likely

The trial for five players on Team Canada’s 2018 World Junior hockey continued today with a fourth and final day where lawyers held a cross-examination of E.M., the complainant in the sexual assault trial of five ex-members of Canada’s world junior hockey team. 

E.M.'s testimony during the case has been scrutinized heavily by hockey fans following the trial online. She has seemingly contradicted her own testimony at points and has even mis-identified individuals who weren't involved in the alleged offenses. 

Today, during cross-examination, defense lawyer Julianna Greenspan accused E.M. of having an "agenda" against the accused players and has purposefully using the term "men" instead of "boys" when referring to the accused in an effort to sway the jury.

“You have specifically refused to use the term ‘boy’ at this trial, isn’t that right? Greenspan said. "You refer to these individuals as ‘man’ and ‘men’ over and over and do not once, not one single time, refer to them as ‘boy’ or ‘boys.’ Do you accept that?"

"Yes I accept that...Don't know if that's a conscious decision I've been making,” E.M. answered. “They were at least 18, 19. They were men...that's why I've been referring to them as that." 

Greenspan read E.M. clips of the statement she made to London police on June 22, 2018, three days after the alleged sexual assault. In all of those clips, E.M. called the accused players “boys.”

“I’m going to put this suggestion to you…. The reason why you have so carefully changed your language is because you have come into this trial with a clear agenda,” Greenspan said.

“No, absolutely not. I am older, I understand more. They were men.” E.M. responded. 

All five lawyers for the defendants have constantly referred to them as “boys” throughout the trial.

Yesterda during cross-examination, defence lawyers accused E.M. of "taunting" and "threatening" the accused players and calling out their man-hood when they weren't interested in having sex with her. Dillon Dube's lawyer Lisa Carnelos suggested that E.M. was “taunting and threatening” the “boys” and called them “pussies” when they would not have sex with her.

“You became upset when the boys would not take you up on your offers,” Carnelos said.

“No, I explained that the anger and the frustration I was feeling was because when they weren't doing anything, I would try to leave and they still wouldn’t let me leave [the hotel room],” E.M. responded. “That's where I was becoming angry.”

Earlier on Monday, Formenton’s lawyer Daniel Brown suggested to E.M. that a man slapped her after she asked whether he was going to have sex with her or play golf.

“And in response to the young man that you said it to, he slapped your butt on one occasion in response," Carnelos said. “It was playful, and in response to the slap you immediately said, ‘Are you going to f--k me or just play?’ or words to that effect. Agree with that?”

“No, I don’t agree with that,” E.M. responded.

To this writer, someone with very little knowledge of the criminal justice system admittedly, it's looking more and more likely that this case ends without a conviction. The nature of 'he said, she said' allegations are that they're difficult to prove and E.M.'s own personal testimony appears to be working against her own case. Again, this is coming from someone with little knowledge on the subject but the sentiment that I'm reading online from professionals seems to indicate that it will be difficult for prosecutors (The Crown) to get a conviction in this case.

Court resumes tomorrow and the Crown will have more opportunities to present its case, however.

Read below for Friday's report on this developing story, published by Hockey Feed staff writer Chris Gosselin.

After the lawyer of Alex Formenton, one of the accused, Daniel Brown kept questioning E.M. about how much she had to drink at London, Ont., bar the night of the alleged assault, and pressing on why she had previously wrongfully accused Sam Steel, another member of the 2018 world juniors team who’s currently with the NHL’s Dallas Stars, he turned his attention to another player on the 2018 roster.

When accusing E.M. of leaving her friends on purpose that night, the victim explained how was approached by someone and she became separated from her friends.

This is the breakdown of that cross-examination by Formenton’s lawyer, via CBC:

“Court previously heard the “someone” E.M. refers to was Brett Howden, a former world junior player who’s now with the NHL’s Vegas Golden Knights. He does not face any criminal charges.”

The cross-examination went on with Howden’s name mentioned several times:

“E.M. has previously testified that a man we now know is Howden approached her and then introduced her to Michael McLeod, one of the accused.

Brown is now showing a video of E.M. and Howden on the dance floor at Jack’s bar.

The lawyer suggests she left her friends behind so she could dance with him.

E.M. says no, her friends were in her vicinity and it was a man who approached her.

In the video, Brown points out, Howden’s head or face is “right in” her neck.

“You chose to dance with Mr. Howden,” Brown says. “Is he kissing your neck?”

E.M. says she doesn’t know.”

The Crown objected to Brown’s persistence as the defence lawyer kept pressing E.M. about her dancing with Howden:

“You didn’t mention you were interested in Mr. Howden,” Brown says.

“I didn’t even know him,” E.M. replies.

“Are you saying you can’t be interested in people you don’t know?” Brown asks her.

“I’m just dancing with someone at the bar,” E.M. says.

The Court then broke for lunch with the cross-examination continuing in the afternoon.

Dillon Dubé, Cal Foote, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart and Michael McLeod have pleaded not guilty.