4 hours ago 1

Hockey Canada Sexual Assault Trial: Defense Lawyer Questions E.M. On Cal Foote's Alleged 'Party Trick'

The trial involving five members of Canada's 2018 world junior team is taking place in Ontario Superior Court in London, Ont. (Anthony Fava)

Warning: coverage of the Hockey Canada trial includes graphic details of alleged sexual assault that may be disturbing to readers.

A defense lawyer questioned the complainant in the trial of five former world junior players accused of sexual assault about what happened in the hotel room involving one player in particular, and what she wore that night.

Defense attorney Julianna Greenspan took to the podium Tuesday to begin her questioning of the complainant, who is referred to in court documents as E.M.

Greenspan represents Cal Foote, one of five former members of Canada’s 2018 World Junior Championship team – the other four being Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton and Dillon Dube – who pleaded not guilty to a charge of sexual assault. McLeod has also pleaded not guilty to an additional charge of sexual assault as party to the offense.

The charges are connected to a June 2018 incident where the complainant alleges the men sexually assaulted her in a London, Ont., hotel room following a Hockey Canada gala.

Greenspan questioned E.M. regarding the events in the hotel room. She focused specifically on how Cal Foote allegedly, without permission, did the splits over the complainant’s face while she was lying on a bed sheet on the ground, grazing her face with his genitals in the process.

The Crown’s opening statement and E.M.’s testimony mentioned this allegation. Current NHL player Taylor Raddysh also testified that Foote does the splits as a “party trick.”

“It was not funny to me,” E.M. said. “They were all laughing and thought it was hilarious.”

Greenspan then referenced the complainant’s police statement from June 2018 following the incident, in which E.M. said Foote “just did the splits on my face, just to put it in my face kind of.”

The complainant told Greenspan it was very awkward to tell the police what Foote allegedly did, saying the act was out of the ordinary.

Greenspan suggested the complainant may have heard somebody say, “Footer, do the splits,” as advanced notice. E.M. disagreed, saying all she heard was the men in the room laughing and encouraging each other.

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

After shifting her questioning briefly, Greenspan returned to the topic of the splits, suggesting this trial was the first time E.M. mentioned Foote’s genitals grazing her face.

Greenspan then suggested Foote wore shorts or pants at the time.

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

Greenspan also suggested Foote did the splits as a funny moment, and E.M. attempted to turn it into a sexual act by touching his genitals.

E.M. disagreed with this as well, saying she was laid down on the sheet with her arms at her side and that he put his “full penis and testicles” on her face.

Greenspan suggested again that E.M. wanted to turn “this party trick into sexual contact, but he pulled away.”

E.M. asked Greenspan to repeat the question.

“I was really thrown off by the term ‘party trick.’ ”

Hockey Canada Sexual Assault Trial: E.M. Told Friend She Felt 'Dirty And Used' As Defense Shows More Texts Warning: coverage of the Hockey Canada trial includes details of alleged sexual assault that may be disturbing to readers.

Foote's Lawyer Presses Complainant About Clothing And Accessories

Earlier on Tuesday, Greenspan questioned the complainant about some of her clothing and accessories worn the night of June 18 and the morning of June 19, beginning with the high-heeled shoes E.M. wore.

Greenspan asked E.M. if she had ever put on her shoes when she got dressed and attempted to leave the hotel room multiple times. The complainant said she could never put them on by the time the men redirected her back to the bed sheet.

Greenspan suggested E.M. was never actually trying to leave the room, suggesting the complainant faked attempting to leave as a way to have the men’s attention put back on her.

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

E.M. disagreed, saying she did not want the attention.

Greenspan also brought up the complainant’s jewelry. She compared footage from earlier in the night at Jack’s Bar in London to two videos filmed in the hotel room showing E.M.

In the hotel room videos, the complainant did not appear to wear the bracelet and earrings she had worn earlier in the night.

Greenspan dove further into this, referencing the complainant’s statement to police from June 22, 2018, in which E.M. said she had been wearing her bracelet “the whole time.” E.M. also said in that statement that she went to put the bracelet on again days after the alleged assault, but she couldn’t do it because of the memories she had from the 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.”

Added Greenspan: “It was an effort to suggest to the officer, falsely, that you were impacted by what happened.” She also suggested E.M. didn’t know there would be a video to disprove her claim.

E.M. disagreed with both of these suggestions.

Greenspan’s questioning brought an end to the defense’s cross-examination of E.M., but the trial is expected to resume Wednesday morning with the Crown asking more questions to the complainant.

Read Entire Article