Crown argues E.M. ‘did not choose’ or consent to sexual acts with a group of ex-world junior players
‘Boys to men’ language change
During a recent court case, defense lawyer Greenspan raised an interesting point about a witness, E.M., and her use of language. Greenspan accused E.M. of deliberately changing her wording from “boys” to “men” in order to push her own agenda.
According to Greenspan, E.M. originally referred to the accused as “boys” in 2018, but during the trial, she switched to calling them “men.” This change, Greenspan argued, was not simply a matter of evolving language, but a calculated move to sway the court’s opinion.
Greenspan went on to characterize E.M. as a “biased and motivated witness,” suggesting that her decision to switch from “boys” to “men” was evidence of her lack of credibility. He claimed that this change was not a natural progression but a deliberate attempt to alter the narrative.
However, E.M. defended her choice of language, stating that she simply used the terms that felt most appropriate at the time. She argued that her understanding of the situation had evolved since 2018, leading her to refer to the accused differently.
Despite E.M.’s explanation, Greenspan remained adamant that she had ulterior motives for the change in language. He accused her of having an “agenda” and claimed that she was trying to manipulate the court with her choice of words.
This case serves as a reminder of the power of language and how seemingly small changes can have significant implications. It also highlights the importance of credibility and consistency in witness testimony. As the court deliberates on the case, they will have to consider not just the facts presented but also the motives behind the language used by the witnesses.
