Defence suggests woman wasn't as drunk as she says on night of alleged assaults

The missing ringing comes up again

E.M. has antecedently testified that she near a ringing successful the edifice country that nighttime and went backmost to look for it close aft she left.

She testified that she was met with a rude reception from McLeod and Formenton, who wanted to spell to slumber truthful they could remainder earlier a play tourney connected June 19, 2018.

Greenspan says it’s unusual that E.M. would permission the country and instantly rummage done her wristlet to look for her missing jewelry. She says that’s thing a sober idiosyncratic would do, not idiosyncratic who was drunk.

“Drunk radical bash unusual things,” E.M. says.

We besides spot a video of E.M. leaving the edifice astatine 4:46 a.m. from a antithetic angle. She doesn’t usage a manus obstruction adjacent 3 tiny stairs, Greenspan points out.

Lawyer shows E.M. photos of bracelet, earrings

Greenspan has shown E.M. inactive photos from the 2 videos from the extremity of the night.

E.M. is not wearing the bracelet and earrings she’s seen wearing astatine the opening of the night.

E.M. is amazed due to the fact that she doesn’t callback taking her jewelry disconnected that night.

Greenspan takes her to the transcript of her archetypal connection to police, wherever she talks astir the interaction that nighttime had connected her.

She tells the serviceman connected June 22, 2018, that she had the bracelet connected “the full time,” and that erstwhile she went to enactment it connected again sometime implicit the adjacent 4 days, she couldn’t bring herself to bash it due to the fact that of the memories that night.

“I genuinely believed I was wearing it,” E.M. says to Greenspan. “I’m not definite wherefore I thought I had my jewelry on.”

Greenspan says E.M. astir apt didn’t cognize there’d beryllium video to disprove her story.

E.M. says that’s not true.

“It was an effort to suggest to the officer, falsely, that you were impacted by what happened,” Greenspan says.

That’s not true, E.M. tells her.

Greenspan focuses connected shoes

Greenspan asks E.M. if she enactment her shoes backmost connected erstwhile she was trying to permission the edifice country a fewer times. They are not slip-ons and necessitate immoderate enactment to enactment on, with a zipper and straps to tie.

E.M. says she doesn’t deliberation she ever got to the constituent wherever she had enactment the shoes connected earlier she was redirected backmost to the furniture sheet, but Greenspan suggests that E.M. was ne'er trying to permission astatine all.

“You were ne'er readying connected leaving without your shoes. You were ne'er getting acceptable to leave,” Greenspan says.

“Why other would I beryllium getting dressed?” E.M. asks her.

“You were putting connected an enactment to say: ‘OK, I’m leaving,’ to enactment the absorption backmost connected you. Do you agree?” Greenspan asks.

“No, not astatine all,” E.M. replies.

“I’m suggesting that it worked. The attraction was enactment backmost connected you and you were backmost interacting with the boys,” Greenspan says.

“No, I don’t hold astatine all. This was ne'er attraction I was asking for,” E.M. replies emphatically, shaking her head.

Clarification astir the shoes E.M. was wearing

Greenspan has enactment up a inactive from a video of E.M. walking successful the shoes, which bash really look to person stiletto heels.

They are achromatic sandals and person a zipper astatine the backmost arsenic good arsenic straps astir the ankle.

E.M. has fixed the shoes to her person and says she hasn’t seen them since that night.

But she has seen them successful the videos of that night, Greenspan says.

E.M. has a replica near footwear successful the CCTV country with her and Greenspan has a replica close footwear with her successful the courtroom.

The replica close footwear is handed to the jury.

E.M. accused of ‘bolstering the narrative’ of however drunk she was

Greenspan says E.M. is “bolstering the narrative” that she was truly drunk that nighttime due to the fact that her mom, her fellow and her friends would not person accepted her actions if she had been sober.

Greenspan says this is the archetypal clip successful 7 years that E.M. has said she hadn’t eaten that nighttime earlier drinking and is doing truthful successful bid to bolster the communicative arsenic well.

E.M. says that’s not true.

“You cognize that you cannot perchance [abandon] that communicative now, having perpetuated it for 7 years,” Greenspan says.

“It was not a narrative. I was drunk. I was drinking astatine the bar. We each saw it,” E.M. replies, adding that she hasn’t been describing things specified arsenic the bare tummy to adhd to her assertion that she was drunk.

“That’s conscionable 1 much happening you’ve added and made up to bolster the information that you were drunk that night,” Greenspan says.

“No. I added it due to the fact that I privation to springiness you each the details,” E.M. says.

Cross-examination resumes

We’re backmost aft luncheon and Greenspan’s cross-examination of E.M. continues.

Before lunch, Greenspan had started to inquire E.M. astir the heels she was wearing.

The lawyer called them stilettos, but E.M. said that’s not however she would qualify them. E.M. calls them heels. (On video, we tin spot the shoes person a chunky heel, not a bladed stiletto heel.)

Either way, Greenspan was showing E.M. the video from extracurricular Jack’s successful which E.M. is walking rapidly oregon moving down McLeod, who is getting them a cab.

Clarification: This station has been updated to region an inaccurate statement of the heels.

Greenspan begins questioning E.M.’s quality to locomotion successful precocious bottommost shoes, calling them stilettos.

That enactment of questioning volition resume aft the luncheon break.

We’re expected to restart soon.

Questions astir hanging retired with the 'Team Canada boys’

As shown successful a video viewed successful tribunal respective times, E.M. spoke to her bouncer person by the ATMs astatine the backmost of Jack’s barroom for astir 7 minutes.

Greenspan suggests E.M. was having a lively speech astir having conscionable spent the nighttime hanging retired with and dancing with the “Team Canada boys.”

“No, I don’t judge that. I didn’t cognize that’s what they were,” E.M. reiterates.

She says she looks hyper and animated successful the video due to the fact that of however drunk she was.

Greenspan responds the video shows E.M. “not drunk retired of your mind, but excited to archer your friend” astir who she had met.

E.M. says that’s not true, and didn’t archer anyone astir the bouncer person due to the fact that she didn’t retrieve him being determination oregon speaking to him that night.

She says she archetypal alerted constabulary and lawyers to her bouncer person erstwhile she watched the videos from the barroom successful March 2025, during proceedings preparation.

Greenspan suggests E.M. “completely and utterly” failed to archer the constabulary astir the bouncer person due to the fact that helium would attest astir their speech and accidental she was not drunk.

E.M. says that besides isn’t true, and she would person liked to person remembered the speech with the bouncer person due to the fact that helium could person testified she was drunk.

‘I don’t cognize what was being said’

Greenspan continues to inquire E.M. astir what she heard successful the barroom and her clip past with McLeod.

The lawyer asks her: “Is your representation that you don’t retrieve what was being said oregon is your representation that it was large and you didn’t perceive what was said. You recognize those are 2 precise antithetic things.”

“Not really. Either way. I don’t cognize what was being said,” E.M. replies.

Greenspan suggests 1 of the things she was talking astir was, “‘Where are you from, what are you doing here?’ and helium told you helium was with the satellite inferior team.”

E.M. maintains she didn’t cognize until the extremity of the nighttime that they were hockey players. She besides decidedly didn’t cognize they were satellite inferior hockey players and if she had known, she would not person cared.

Greenspan is playing video antecedently viewed successful court.

It shows E.M. astatine the barroom waiting for a drink, scrolling oregon texting connected her telephone (or sending a connection connected Facebook Messenger).

She drinks 2 shots of alcohol, past goes to the creation floor, wherever she has said she was approached by Brett Howden (a erstwhile satellite inferior subordinate whose named has been brought up earlier successful the trial). A fewer minutes later, she comes backmost into the video framework with Howden, who leaves his portion with her astatine the bar, and Howden goes to drawback McLeod.

“You past prosecute successful immoderate chit-chat astatine the barroom with McLeod,” Greenspan asks E.M. “You’re intelligibly speaking to Mr. McLeod astatine this constituent —fun banter, you’re smiling, you’re laughing.”

“Right,” E.M. says, adding she has a representation of being with him astatine the bar, but doesn’t callback circumstantial conversations due to the fact that it was loud.

“I cognize it was large and I don’t cognize what I was proceeding oregon saying.”