Under cross-examination, E.M. says she has no memory of ‘consent video’ taken by ex-world junior player
Deciding whether to proceed with charges
After a conversation with a detective from the sexual assault and child abuse section on June 22, 2018, E.M. decided to go to the hospital for an examination. She chose not to undergo a full-body physical exam, as she did not have any visible injuries that she felt necessitated it. At the sexual assault clinic, she recounted the details of the incident to two individuals.
On June 24, E.M. was informed that the police could not interview the suspects unless they agreed to it. This revelation left her feeling frustrated, as it meant that the men could potentially escape accountability by simply refusing to cooperate. Despite this setback, the detective assured E.M. that he would support whatever decision she made regarding pursuing charges.
During their discussion, the detective mentioned that he had reviewed surveillance footage from the Delta hotel lobby. E.M. was disheartened to learn that he believed she did not appear heavily intoxicated based on her gait while wearing high heels. This observation challenged her perception of the events that transpired.
At one point, E.M. was asked by Humphrey whether her decision to press charges was driven by her own volition or if external pressure, particularly from her mother, influenced her choice. E.M. asserted that she was committed to pursuing charges and that her mother was simply offering her support during a difficult time.
Ultimately, E.M. grappled with the decision of whether to move forward with pressing charges in a complex and emotionally charged situation. She navigated conflicting perspectives, including her own understanding of the events and the feedback she received from the detective. Despite the challenges she faced, E.M. remained resolute in her determination to seek justice for herself.
