Sports

Financial gain had nothing to do with E.M.’s sex assault allegations, Crown tells Hockey Canada trial

‘Words matter, but so does context’

WARNING: This post contains graphic content.

During the trial, defence lawyers have been meticulously analyzing the words used by E.M. in various contexts – from her initial interviews with the police in 2018, to her statement to Hockey Canada in 2022, and throughout her nine days of testimony, according to Cunningham.

An example of this scrutiny is E.M.’s use of phrases like “I think” and “I feel” during her testimony, which often occurred when she was struggling to recall certain details. Additionally, she sometimes used “asked” and “told” interchangeably, although for E.M., there was no distinction between the two.

“It felt the same. Being asked to do something is the same as being told to do something, when you feel like you can’t say no,” Cunningham explains.

“Words matter, but so does context. She was very careful about her words, but she was testifying for nine days and that is an extraordinarily long time for a witness to be in the witness box.”

Greenspan, representing Cal Foote, raised objections to E.M. using “in my face” and “on my face” when describing the incident involving Foote’s genitalia during the splits.

“With the greatest respect to Ms. Greenspan, there’s no particular difference in this word choice,” Cunningham responds.

It is important for individuals to understand that subtle nuances in language, such as the difference between “in” and “on,” can carry significant weight in a courtroom setting, Cunningham emphasizes.

She advises the judge to focus on the substance of E.M.’s testimony rather than getting caught up in minor linguistic distinctions.

See also  CFL staging Women in Football program

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button