logo
Defense cites ‘reliability concerns' of E.M. in first of closing arguments at Hockey Canada trial

Defense cites ‘reliability concerns' of E.M. in first of closing arguments at Hockey Canada trial

New York Times2 days ago

LONDON, Ont. – Defense attorneys began delivering their closing arguments in the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial on Monday, attacking the complainant's testimony as containing a 'cornucopia of credibility and reliability concerns' and suggesting that she has re-tooled her narrative to present herself as a victim to evoke sympathy from friends and family and in pursuit of the civil lawsuit she settled in 2022.
Advertisement
Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote are all charged with sexual assault after an alleged incident in June 2018. The complainant — a woman known as E.M., whose identity is protected by a publication ban — has said she was sexually assaulted over the span of several hours in a London, Ont., hotel room. The players were in town for a Hockey Canada event celebrating their gold medal at the 2018 World Junior Championship.
McLeod is also facing a second charge for 'being a party to the offense' for what the Crown has asserted was his role 'assisting and encouraging his teammates to engage sexually' with E.M. All five players have pleaded not guilty.
David Humphrey, attorney for McLeod, was the first defense attorney to make oral submissions in front of Justice Maria Carroccia in the eighth and final week of the trial. He pre-empted his argument by telling Carroccia that usually defense teams are 'happy to have a few hits' on the complainant, but this case has an abundance.
'This is a case where the defense has an embarrassment of riches,' Humphrey said. 'A cornucopia of credibility and reliability concerns in (E.M.'s) testimony.'
E.M. testified that she met McLeod at a local bar, engaged in a night of drinking and dancing before the two went back to his hotel to have consensual sex. She said that following that initial sexual encounter, she emerged from the bathroom to find more men in the room. Over the course of several hours, she said she was pressured to perform sexual acts, spit on, slapped and asked to insert golf clubs and golf balls into her vagina.
She described feeling scared and vulnerable and said that she went on 'autopilot' – dissociating to get through the night.
Multiple players testified about a group text message they received from McLeod, inviting them for a '3 way quick' and supplying his room number, but said she initiated the sexual acts, asking players to have sex with her and goading them when they declined.
Advertisement
Humphrey said that E.M. is a 'flawed witness' whose testimony is 'unbelievable and unreliable.' She may have not wanted to acknowledge that she had a 'sexually adventurous' night in the hotel room, Humphrey said. He said that she didn't want to take responsibility for her actions and suggested that embarrassment and regret prompted her to tell a 'white lie' to her mother about what happened in the early-morning hours of June 19, 2018. Humphrey said that 'white lie' then snowballed into a criminal investigation.
Humphrey seized on E.M.'s initial police interview in the days following the alleged incident and noted that she did not describe the fear she testified about when speaking with Detective Stephen Newton. (E.M. testified that at the time of that June 2018 interview with London Police, she was still processing what happened to her and felt uncomfortable talking about it with a male detective whom she had never met previously).
Humphrey said that the element of fear was not sincere and instead invoked to support her $3.55 million lawsuit against Hockey Canada, which was resolved via an out-of-court settlement in 2022.
'Her new terror narrative that was advanced in the claim was scripted to remedy the deficiencies in the first narrative she had provided to Detective Newton,' Humphrey said.
Justice Carroccia's first substantive remark of the day was to note the speed with which the Hockey Canada lawsuit was settled:
'Extremely quickly, frankly,' Carroccia said. 'I have never seen a settlement that takes place one month after the statement of claim is served.'
In his submission, Humphrey addressed a few elements of his client's actions, including his initial interview with police in November 2018 and the two videos he referred to as 'consent videos.'
Humphrey acknowledged that when McLeod was interviewed by police he did not detail the full contents of the text messages he sent to teammates, including the group chat message with an invitation for three-way sex and an invitation to another player offering a 'gummer,' which is slang for oral sex. Humphrey said he wasn't sure if McLeod just didn't remember the content of his texts or had not done a deep dive on the contents of his phone. He expressed disappointment that Newton did not ask further questions after McLeod disclosed he texted teammates that he was ordering food and had a girl in his room that night.
Advertisement
Humphrey said McLeod only invited a 'limited number' of players. (The 'gummer' text was sent to Taylor Raddysh. The '3 way' text was sent to a group chat of 19 players.) Humphrey argued that because the text describes a 'three-way' it wasn't reasonable to conclude he anticipated more than a few players taking him up on the invitation.
'He was surprised by the number of people who came,' Humphrey said.
Humphrey said the two videos recorded in the early morning of June 19, 2018 are critical to McLeod's defense. In one of the videos, she says 'I'm OK' when asked if she's 'OK with this.' In the other, she says, 'It was all consensual.' E.M. has testified that she didn't recall those videos being recorded but said that she believes they were taken at the end of the night because she recalled McLeod hounding her to say the sexual acts were consensual.
Humphrey said it was an 'unusual' and 'awkward' situation and that McLeod didn't know if E.M. would wake up the next morning to 'gloat' about what happened or with regret. He praised McLeod's presence of mind in memorializing what he described as evidence of her being 'happy' and fine with everything that was happening.
'He was drunk but he still had his head on straight and he wanted to make sure she was fully consenting,' Humphrey said.
In his oral submission, Humphrey argued that the Crown had not met its burden of proof in proving the charges against his client beyond a reasonable doubt. He added that the alcohol consumption and passage of time that degraded the memory quality of many witnesses in the trial should leave the court with reasonable doubt.
Humphrey also said that he wanted to explain, for those watching the proceedings less familiar with the law, that it was not the court's job to 'assess the morality of how the accused or others in the room were acting, whether they could have been better behaved or more respectful.'
Advertisement
'Those issues may be of interest to the public, but they are not issues for assessment by the court,' Humphrey said.
— The Athletic's Dan Robson reported remotely from Toronto and The Athletic's Kamila Hinkson reported remotely from Montreal.
(Courtroom sketch of defense attorney David Humphrey from earlier in the trial by Alexandra Newbould / The Canadian Press via AP)

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Prosecutor calls Michael McLeod the architect of Hockey Canada sexual assault
Prosecutor calls Michael McLeod the architect of Hockey Canada sexual assault

New York Times

timean hour ago

  • New York Times

Prosecutor calls Michael McLeod the architect of Hockey Canada sexual assault

LONDON, Ont. – The prosecution described Michael McLeod as the 'architect' of the 'group sexual activity' at the center of the Hockey Canada sexual assault trial and said he told 'outright lies' to portray the complainant as the aggressor in the sexual interactions of the night and advance a 'false narrative.' Advertisement Attorney Meaghan Cunningham provided Justice Maria Carroccia an outline of the Crown's argument, showing a power point in a closing submission on Wednesday that she said will demonstrate E.M. did not voluntarily agree to the charged sexual acts of the night. Cunningham began that presentation by telling Carroccia that she intended to prove E.M. did not want to engage in group sex and that McLeod repeatedly lied about his role as the orchestrator of the alleged incident. McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dubé and Cal Foote are all charged with sexual assault after an alleged incident in June 2018 in which a 20-year-old woman — known as E.M., whose identity is protected by a publication ban — has said she was sexually assaulted over the span of several hours in a London, Ont., hotel room. The players were in town for a Hockey Canada event celebrating their 2018 World Junior Championship victory. McLeod is also facing a second charge for 'being a party to the offense' for what the Crown has asserted was his role 'assisting and encouraging his teammates to engage sexually' with E.M. All five players have pleaded not guilty. Cunningham highlighted that a key factual difference between the Crown and defense cases is what prompted McLeod's teammates to come to his hotel room after he and E.M. had consensual sex. She said that the factual issue will 'shape how the evidence is viewed.' The defense has asserted E.M. encouraged McLeod to invite his teammates in seeking what McLeod's attorney David Humphrey described as a 'wild night.' E.M. said that she did not know McLeod was inviting others and was 'surprised' when other men showed up in the room. Cunningham said there was no evidence to suggest that E.M. encouraged McLeod to invite teammates back to his room and laid out five elements to demonstrate why Carroccia should accept E.M.'s version of events – that she did not want group sex and was surprised by men entering the room. She pointed to 1) McLeod's 2018 police interview, 2) the June 20 text exchange between McLeod and E.M., 3) E.M.'s testimony, 4) the witness testimony of Taylor Raddysh and Boris Katchouk, and 5) McLeod's actions in 'recruiting' others to his room. Advertisement Cunningham said that McLeod was well prepared for his November 2018 interview with London Police, which took place under negotiated terms in Toronto with his attorney in the room, and yet did not make any mention of E.M. encouraging him to text his teammates. He also did not disclose the text messages he sent to a 19-person group chat and to Raddysh in the early-morning hours of June 19, 2018. He texted the group chat 'Who wants a 3 way quick' with a follow-up message providing his hotel room number. He also texted Raddysh separately to ask if he wanted a 'gummer,' which is slang for oral sex. Cunningham asked why McLeod would omit these messages in his interview with Detective Steve Newton and why, if it was true that E.M. was the initiator, he wouldn't disclose that in the interview, considering that would bolster his narrative. 'There is no logical or plausible reason why he wouldn't if it was a true fact,' Cunningham said. 'McLeod lies repeatedly to Detective Newton in that interview but it's the Crown's position that he's doing that in furtherance of a false narrative about what happened. The false narrative that Mr. McLeod is trying to craft is that he and his friends are completely innocent and that (E.M) was the instigator and the one demanding sexual activity.' In the interview, McLeod initially told Newton he didn't know why guys 'kept showing up in his room.' When asked directly whether he texted teammates, McLeod acknowledged he texted teammates he was ordering food and had a girl in his room. Cunningham said that if E.M. was the instigator of the group sexual activity, McLeod also would not have expressed the surprise and shock he conveyed to Newton in his interview about what he said was her sexually aggressive nature. 'It's not just that he forgot, it's not just that he didn't mention that he sent those texts. He outright lies to Detective Newton,' Cunningham said. 'He lies to Detective Newton repeatedly but in particular he lies to Detective Newton about the text message he sent or didn't send that night.' Advertisement Cunningham showed Carroccia the text exchange between McLeod and E.M. from June 20, 2018. In that exchange, in which McLeod asks E.M. if she went to the police, E.M. tells him she was OK going home with him but that she didn't expect others to come to the hotel room. She said she felt the players were making fun of and taking advantage of her. McLeod responded, Cunningham said, by re-framing what she said and responding that he was 'sorry that she was embarrassed' but warned about the serious 'implications' if the police matter moved forward. Cunningham said that if E.M. wasn't the instigator, as multiple players had testified, McLeod should have expressed surprise that she was upset about the other players joining them in the hotel room. Cunningham said E.M. was pressed repeatedly on the suggestion that she had prompted McLeod to invite others back to the hotel in pursuit of a 'wild night' but 'never wavered' in her testimony that she was surprised when players arrived in the room. 'Time and again she is pushed on this very same issue and her evidence is always the same, that she was surprised when other people started coming into the room and she does not think she would have ever asked for him to invite other people,' Cunningham said. Cunningham said that Raddysh and Katchouk both testified about E.M.'s behavior that was consistent with the Crown's assertion that E.M. was not seeking group sex. Both players said that they observed E.M. in bed, with the covers up to her shoulders and neck, and that she did not participate in any conversation beyond asking Katchouk for a bite of pizza. She said this was behavior consistent with someone who felt uncomfortable, not someone who was looking to engage others sexually. She said that if the defense theory was true that she was asking McLeod to ask his teammates to come over for group sex — and wanting to engage in group sex — Raddysh and Katchouk's testimony defies logic. Advertisement 'It would make no sense she would make absolutely no effort to engage or attempt to engage with Mr. Katchouk or Mr. Raddysh, not a single offer,' Cunningham said. Cunningham also pointed out that the testimony of both Raddysh and Katchouk differed significantly from other witnesses about E.M.'s behavior that night. Crown witnesses Tyler Steenbergen, Brett Howden and defense witness Carter Hart all testified that E.M. was the aggressor, asking players to have sex with her and insulting them when they declined. When Carroccia pointed out this divergence in stories, Cunningham replied: 'I agree these things are irreconcilable and someone's not telling the truth,' Cunningham said. She noted that Raddysh and Katchouk's description 'is completely at odds' with the testimony of the players who were on the June 26, 2018, group chat. In that group chat, players strategized how to handle the impending Hockey Canada investigation and discussed what to tell investigators. Cunningham said that they were the only two players who saw E.M. in Room 209 that night who were not on that June 26, 2018, group text chain. Cunningham pointed to McLeod's actions from the night to make the case that he was the instigator instead, and facilitated a group sexual encounter unbeknownst to E.M. Cunningham used a visual display of the '3 way quick' and 'gummer' text messages, sent at 2:10 and 2:15 a.m. respectively. She said McLeod made no efforts to vet who came to the room or took any efforts to get people to leave, but instead was 'trying to drum up more business' and 'recruit more people.' Cunningham cited McLeod's phone call to Hart, his recruitment of Katchouk from the hallway and his knocking on Raddysh's door as evidence of this. '(E.M.) was doing nothing either verbally or through her actions to communicate that she was at all interested in engaging in sexual activity with them,' Cunningham said. 'But the evidence does establish that someone was offering sex to Mr. McLeod's teammates in Room 209 and it wasn't (E.M.).' Advertisement Cunningham ended with the fact that by McLeod's own admissions, he said he was consistently checking in on her throughout the night, telling Detective Newton in his 2018 interview that he and his teammates had a 'no phones' policy and that at one point he 'calmed her down' because he said she was upset no one was having sex with her. Cunningham said McLeod was intervening to 'take some responsibility for managing the room' while all the events were unfolding. 'The reason he is doing that is because this was his idea to begin with,' Cunningham said. 'He set this up.' Earlier in the day, the defense teams finished their closing arguments. Julianna Greenspan, who represents Foote, said that her client performed the splits over E.M. as a 'party trick' that was both 'non-threatening,' not sexual and a 'momentary interaction.' Foote is accused of doing the splits over E.M. while she was lying on her back, grazing his genitals over her face. Greenspan said that E.M. was seeking sexual encounters and attention and that Hart's testimony that she was laughing was 'consistent with her performative behavior in the room generally.' 'In plain language, Mr. Hart's evidence was, this was in a playful manner, this was a playful trick, and (E.M.) was absolutely in on it,' Greenspan said. Greenspan spent significant time returning to the issue of E.M. referring to the players as 'men' throughout her testimony, painting the decision as intentional. Greenspan hammered this point repeatedly in cross-examination, but reinforced on Wednesday that E.M. had 'an axe to grind.' Greenspan undermined the credibility of Crown witnesses Brett Howden and Tyler Steenbergen, both of whom said Foote asked in a phone call to leave his name out of what happened in the hotel room prior to the players' participation in the Hockey Canada investigation. Advertisement Greenspan said Howden was in 'protect Howden mode' and suggested that Steenbergen was influenced by Henein Hutchison investigator Danielle Robitaille in his 2022 interview with Hockey Canada; she described that as 'an investigation intended to support and corroborate the complainant's civil lawsuit, one that Hockey Canada had just settled.' Greenspan ended her closing argument by suggesting that the intense level of publicity and interest in the case has compromised the presumption of innocence and subjected the players, their families and their legal teams to unfair treatment, such as bullying and taunting. Lisa Carnelos, attorney for Dubé, finished her closing submissions on Wednesday by arguing that her client did not engage in any collusion via the group chat he participated in with teammates on June 26, 2018 — 'This is the most lame attempt at collusion I've ever seen in my life,' she said — or in either of the phone calls he had with Tyler Steenbergen and Brett Howden. She explained the group chat as 'the banter of young men' who were 'confused' and 'expressing nervousness and shock.' Carnelos described the phone calls Dube had with both Howden and Steenbergen prior to the Hockey Canada investigation — asking them to leave his name out of interviews with Hockey Canada about the incident — as 'innocuous,' and 'context specific.' (Steenbergen testified that Dube asked him not to mention what Dube did in the room to investigators, adding that he wanted to speak for himself. Howden previously told investigators that Dube made the same request of him.) Carnelos suggested it was 'reasonable' that the call was about Dubé's desire to call Hockey Canada staff member Shawn Bullock to tell Bullock himself about what happened. Carnelos also suggested that the Hockey Canada and London Police reopened their investigations as a result of a 'media frenzy' and described the situation as a 'political hot potato.' — The Athletic's Dan Robson contributed reporting remotely from Toronto. (Courtroom sketch of Crown attorney Meaghan Cunningham and Justice Maria Carroccia from earlier in the trial by Alexandra Newbould / The Canadian Press via AP)

Ernie Clement homers and Blue Jays beat Cardinals 5-2 for 3-game sweep
Ernie Clement homers and Blue Jays beat Cardinals 5-2 for 3-game sweep

Washington Post

time2 hours ago

  • Washington Post

Ernie Clement homers and Blue Jays beat Cardinals 5-2 for 3-game sweep

ST. LOUIS — Ernie Clement homered and Spencer Turnbull worked two scoreless innings to win his Toronto debut as the Blue Jays beat the St. Louis Cardinals 5-2 on Wednesday for a three-game sweep. Clement finished with three hits but did not take the field in the ninth at third base after suffering an apparent leg injury. He dove for a grounder in the eighth and needed some attention but finished the inning. Clement's fourth homer gave Toronto a 5-2 lead in the fifth. Toronto won for the seventh time in eight games and is 22-10 over its last 32. Turnbull (1-0) worked the sixth and seventh innings, striking out two. He signed with Toronto last month and began the season in the minors. Turnbull played five seasons with Detroit and was with Philadelphia last year. Yariel Rodríguez pitched the ninth for his first major league save. The Cardinals lost their fourth straight. Matthew Liberatore (3-6) and gave up five runs, three earned, and eight hits in five innings. Yohel Pozo's second homer gave the Cardinals a 2-0 lead in the second. Cardinals infielder/outfielder Brendan Donovan didn't play after leaving Tuesday's game with a sore big left toe. The club is awaiting MRI results. He leads the team with a .310 average and 77 hits. Bo Bichette's sacrifice fly in the fourth scored Myles Straw and allowed Jonatan Clase to reach third. Vladimir Guerrero Jr. followed with an RBl single for a 4-2 lead. The Cardinals were swept in a three-game series at home for the first time since April 19-21, 2024, against Milwaukee. St. Louis' Sonny Gray (7-1, 3.35) pitches against Jacob Misiorowski, who will make his major league debut for host Milwaukee on Thursday. Toronto's Kevin Gausman (5-4, 3.87) faces host Philadelphia and Ranger Suarez (4-1, 2.70) on Friday. ___ AP MLB:

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store