Cross-examinations done after tense day at sex assault trial of ex-world junior hockey players

With proceedings finished for today, we are winding down our live updates. Thank you for sticking with us.

If you’re just getting here, scroll down to get caught up on how the day unfolded.

We know testimony has included details some might find difficult to read. There are support services available.

If you’re in immediate danger or fear for your safety or that of others around you, please call 911. For support in your area, you can look for crisis lines and local services via the Ending Violence Association of Canada database.

Greenspan has finished her cross-examination and court has concluded for the day.

We begin tomorrow with the Crown asking more questions of E.M.

WARNING: This post contains graphic details.

Greenspan suggests that this trial is the first time E.M. has said a penis grazed her face while a man did the splits above her.

Greenspan suggests that Foote was wearing shorts or pants.

“I think I can clearly remember having a penis in my face,” E.M. says. “It would not have been as shocking in my mind if he had shorts or pants on.”

Greenspan suggests that the men were having fun, got her to lie down and Foote did the splits, but E.M. tried to turn it into a sexual encounter by touching him as he was in the splits position over her face.

“I was lying down and my arms were at my side…. He put his full penis and testicles on my face…. It was all there. It was on my face,” E.M. says.

Greenspan pushes back and says E.M. “wanted to turn what was funny in the moment, to turn this party trick into sexual contact, but he pulled away.”

“I’m sorry, can you repeat the question?” E.M. asks. “I was really thrown off by the term ‘party trick.’”

Greenspan says E.M. turned the splits into something more than it was to give more power to her civil lawsuit.

E.M. says that’s not true.

E.M. says that the men were having a “good time” at her expense.

But Greenspan says that the men were having fun without her, that they were laughing and having a good time and she wanted them to pay attention to her.

E.M. says that each of the men had his own room, but they were in that room because they’d been told that there was a “drunk naked girl there.”

“This was attention I never asked for,” E.M. says. “They were objectifying me. They were literally laughing at me. They didn’t need to be in that room.”

Greenspan says E.M. was having a “good time” until she left, that the guys were all there for her and she didn’t like when they were having their own side conversations.

E.M. responds that “literally any one of those men could have stood up and said: ‘This is not OK.’

“They didn’t do that. They didn’t want to think about the fact that I wasn’t consenting…. I felt like I had no choice the second other people started walking in.”

WARNING: This post contains graphic details.

Greenspan’s client, Cal Foote, is accused of doing the splits over top of E.M.’s face while she was lying on her back on the bed sheet on the hotel room floor.

In her first statement to police in 2018, E.M. told the officer that one of the accused “just did the splits on my face, just to put it in my face kind of.”

She says it was an awkward thing to tell a police officer and it was not something she’d heard of before.

“It was not funny to me. They were all laughing and thought it was hilarious. It wasn’t funny to me.”

Greenspan says E.M. likely heard the men say: “Footer, do the splits.”

But E.M. doesn’t remember the “Footer” part, just that the men were encouraging each other and laughing.

Greenspan says “you were acting like this was fun and games as well,” and suggests that E.M. was egging the men on.

“This was not something I asked for,” E.M. says. “I got no notice before that happened to me. No.”

E.M. says she had never heard of anything like that happening before.

“They were having a good time at my expense.”

E.M. has previously testified that she left a ring in the hotel room that night and went back to look for it right after she left.

She testified that she was met with a rude reception from McLeod and Formenton, who wanted to go to sleep so they could rest before a golf tournament on June 19, 2018.

Greenspan says it’s strange that E.M. would leave the room and immediately rummage through her wristlet to look for her missing jewelry. She says that’s something a sober person would do, not someone who was drunk.

“Drunk people do strange things,” E.M. says.

We also see a video of E.M. leaving the hotel at 4:46 a.m. from a different angle. She doesn’t use a hand rail near three small stairs, Greenspan points out.

Greenspan has shown E.M. still photos from the two videos from the end of the night.

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

E.M. is surprised because she doesn’t recall taking her jewelry off that night.

Greenspan takes her to the transcript of her first statement to police, where she talks about the impact that night had on her.

She tells the officer on June 22, 2018, that she had the bracelet on “the whole time,” and that when she went to put it on again sometime over the next four days, she couldn’t bring herself to do it because of the memories that night.

“I truly believed I was wearing it,” E.M. says to Greenspan. “I’m not sure why I thought I had my jewelry on.”

Greenspan says E.M. probably didn’t know there’d be 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 asks E.M. if she put her shoes back on when she was trying to leave the hotel room a few times. They are not slip-ons and require some work to put on, with a zipper and straps to tie.

E.M. says she doesn’t think she ever got to the point where she had put the shoes on before she was redirected back to the bed sheet, but Greenspan suggests that E.M. was never trying to leave at all.

“You were never planning on leaving without your shoes. You were never getting ready to leave,” Greenspan says.

“Why else would I be getting dressed?” E.M. asks her.

“You were putting on an act to say: ‘OK, I’m leaving,’ to put the focus back on you. Do you agree?” Greenspan asks.

“No, not at all,” E.M. replies.

“I’m suggesting that it worked. The attention was put back on you and you were back interacting with the boys,” Greenspan says.

“No, I don’t agree at all. This was never attention I was asking for,” E.M. replies emphatically, shaking her head.

Greenspan has put up a still from a video of E.M. walking in the shoes, which do actually appear to have stiletto heels.

They are black sandals and have a zipper at the back as well as straps around the ankle.

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

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

E.M. has a replica left shoe in the CCTV room with her and Greenspan has a replica right shoe with her in the courtroom.

The replica right shoe is handed to the jury.

Greenspan says E.M. is “bolstering the narrative” that she was really drunk that night because her mom, her boyfriend and her friends would not have accepted her actions if she had been sober.

Greenspan says this is the first time in seven years that E.M. has said she hadn’t eaten that night before drinking and is doing so in order to bolster the narrative as well.

E.M. says that’s not true.

“You know that you cannot possibly [abandon] that narrative now, having perpetuated it for seven years,” Greenspan says.

“It was not a narrative. I was drunk. I was drinking at the bar. We all saw it,” E.M. replies, adding that she hasn’t been describing things such as the empty stomach to add to her claim that she was drunk.

“That’s just one more thing you’ve added and made up to bolster the fact that you were drunk that night,” Greenspan says.

“No. I added it because I want to give you all the details,” E.M. says.