Defence Tactics Scrutinized in Hockey Assault Trial

At the sexual assault trial of five former world junior hockey players in London, Ontario, complainant E.M. has faced several days of intense cross-examination by defence lawyers, who questioned inconsistencies in her statements, memory gaps, and her alcohol consumption on the night in question. The defence pressed E.M. about differences between her police interviews and a written statement to Hockey Canada, which she said was drafted by her lawyers and not thoroughly reviewed. E.M. clarified that she did not view the Hockey Canada statement as seriously as her police account and accused the defence of attempting to discredit her. Defence lawyers also highlighted why her texts to friends did not mention alleged assaults. The proceedings have drawn comparisons to the ongoing Harvey Weinstein retrial in New York, where similar legal tactics and challenges for complainants are evident. Both cases underscore the difficulties complainants face under cross-examination and the strategies used to scrutinize their credibility.