RECAP | During intense testimony, E.M. recalls ‘degrading’ alleged sex assault by ex-world junior players

We’ll resume our coverage from London, Ont., when court is back in session tomorrow.

We know today’s testimony 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. ​​

Just before he finishes his cross-examination today, Humphrey asks E.M. how she would usually get home from the bar.

Sometimes, her boyfriend would pick her up. Other times, she’d take an Uber, home or to a friend’s house.

Because of the late hour, Humphrey concludes his cross-examination for the day and will continue tomorrow.

The jury is dismissed and so is E.M.

Court is set to return at 10 a.m. ET.

Humphrey asks her about her drinking and her level of intoxication.

“I suggest that a normal amount when you’d go out to Jack’s would be six to eight drinks?” Humphrey asks. “Sometimes it would be eight to 10 drinks?”

E.M. says she thinks six to eight is closer to normal for her. She usually would have Mike’s Hard Lemonade (coolers) before going out, so she and friends wouldn’t pay as much at the bar.

Usually, if she had too much to drink, she’d throw up, E.M. says under cross- examination. Then, she’d feel better.

That night, she couldn’t throw up, she says, which she felt was strange.

Humphrey points out the police investigation was closed in February 2019 because they “could not form the grounds” that she was too intoxicated to consent.

Humphrey asks E.M. about inconsistencies between her initial statement to police and her Hockey Canada statement of claim in her civil suit.

E.M. says there might be inconsistencies because the civil suit was started two years after her police statement, and she hadn’t reviewed her initial police statement when she reviewed her civil statement.

Humphrey didn’t specify what inconsistencies he was talking about.

Humphrey asks E.M. about the timeline of events after the alleged assault, including the statement of claim in her civil lawsuit against eight unnamed players and Hockey Canada.

The lawyer asks her several times about her state of mind while in the hotel room, which is outlined in the statement of claim.

“Throughout the time you were in the room, you were experiencing an ongoing apprehension of physical harm of a sexual nature?” Humphrey asks?

“Yes, that’s true,” E.M. says. “I didn’t know what they were capable of.”

“The actions of these men caused terror and fear in your mind?”

“Yes, they did,” she says.

As she testified earlier, she says she felt like she was watching herself and her mind had left her body.

We’re now on a quick break without the jury present, so can’t report on what they’re talking about.

E.M. says she told police in an interview months after the alleged assault that she didn’t remember the two videos that appear to show her giving consent.

Humphrey asks her, “The narrative you’re presenting is that you were completely out of it. Is that your position?”

She replies: “Yes, I had a lot more alcohol than I normally would have and it was within a short period of time. I was definitely feeling the effects of that.”

She tells the court police gave her an update on the investigation during an interview in February 2019. At the time, she says, she was told there were no grounds for laying a charge at that point in the investigation.

We’re on a break now.

When we return, there’ll be more on that February 2019 police interaction.

After speaking to a detective with the sexual assault and child abuse section on June 22, 2018, E.M. says, she went to the hospital for an exam.

She says she declined a full-body, head-to-toe physical exam because she didn’t have “typical injuries” and didn’t think it was necessary.

She says that at the sexual assault clinic, she detailed what happened to her to two people.

On June 24, E.M. says, she learned police couldn’t speak to the men unless they agreed to have a conversation.

“If they would just say ‘no,’ they wouldn’t be held accountable at all,” E.M. says.

She says the detective told her he would support her no matter what she wanted to do, whether that was pursuing charges or not.

But she said he told her he had reviewed footage from the Delta hotel lobby and it didn’t look as if she were that drunk, based on how she was walking in high heels. That was disappointing, E.M. says.

Humphrey then questions E.M. about whether she wanted to go ahead with charges on her own or if it was because of “pressure” from her mom.

E.M. says she did want to go ahead with charges and her mom was just coming from a place of support.

E.M. went into the London police station on June 22 and made a formal detailed report. Her mom was with her.

Police again gave her two choices:

• A formal police-E.M. interview, detailed investigation, police could lay charges.
• A formal interview, detailed investigation, police speak to the men.

She told court she wanted the second choice.

She says police told her she could change her mind about which option she chooses.

“It was really difficult to speak to a stranger to relive what happened,” E.M. says. “I was nervous and trying my best to recall what happened. It was hard to go in and talk to someone about all that.”

In one message after the alleged assault, E.M. says, she told McLeod via text that she told police everything was “a misunderstanding.”

At around the same time, she texted a London police detective that she decided she didn’t want to move forward with formal charges. E.M. says she just wanted police to speak with the men so something similar would not happen to anyone else.

“I wanted them spoken to so they would know what they did was wrong,” E.M. says.

E.M. says she was surprised and curious about what McLeod wanted when she got the direct message from him on June 20, 2018.

“I panicked," she says.

But Humphrey suggests she was being friendly and happy to speak to him. Otherwise, she could have blocked him or ignored his DM, Humphrey says.

“You knew exactly who was reaching out to you.…You could have ignored him. You could have blocked Michael McLeod. I suggest you were quite happy to have conversation with Mike McLeod and you chose not to block him,” McLeod’s lawyer says.

E.M. says she was feeling uneasy. Didn’t really want to speak to him but was also curious because he reached out, she was wondering what he wanted.

“I am generally a friendly person. That’s how I handle most confrontations or conflicts,” she says. “I try to keep people happy. Even if I’m angry or hurt, that’s not how I respond. I had questions, too. I didn’t know why he was contacting me. I wanted to know why.”

E.M.’s mom told her she should not speak to McLeod or message him.