During closing arguments, the prosecution's lawyer asserted that the woman, identified as E.M. due to a publication ban, initially resisted the events in the hotel room but felt compelled to comply. The lawyer described the situation as highly stressful and unpredictable, where the events escalated rapidly.
E.M. had consensual sex with one player but alleges she did not agree to further sexual acts with the other players who entered the room. The Crown lawyer highlighted a video clip taken by one of the players, Michael McLeod, where he asks E.M. if she is "okay with this," to which she responds affirmatively. The prosecution argued that the video actually reveals that E.M. was already upset before the video was taken.
The Crown lawyer emphasized the significance of the word "though" in McLeod's statement, suggesting that it indicates E.M. had previously expressed her discomfort. The defense maintains that E.M. was the one who requested sex. The prosecution argued that the video doesn't support the defense's claim.
The five players, Michael McLeod, Alex Formenton, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé, and Cal Foote, are charged with sexually assaulting E.M. in June 2018. They have all pleaded not guilty. E.M. testified that she feared for her safety and felt pressured to perform multiple sex acts.
The Crown lawyer stated that the players instructed E.M. to touch herself, which she initially refused. She then testified that she felt like her mind separated from her body and performed sexual acts to escape the situation. The prosecution argued that E.M.'s actions were a normal response to an uncomfortable situation.
The defense lawyer questioned E.M.'s credibility, citing inconsistencies in her testimony. The defense also argued that E.M. exaggerated her claims to pursue a lawsuit against Hockey Canada for financial gain. The Crown argued that E.M.'s civil claim has no bearing on the criminal trial. The judge is scheduled to deliver her verdict on July 24.
0 Comments