A past player for the Peterborough Petes was questioned on Wednesday about alleged contradictions between his initial statements to the police and what he later claimed during his testimony regarding an alleged sexual relationship with his former billet.
She is represented by Toronto lawyer Julianna A. Greenspan.
During a lengthy cross-examination, the defence lawyer walked through each encounter described by the former player, comparing his first and second statements to police with evidence he provided at both a preliminary inquiry and at trial.
Greenspan argued that they communicated briefly, exchanged some messages and photos, but there was never any sexual intercourse, nor did his former billet send him explicit photographs or videos.
The player denied those claims.
Greenspan focused her questioning on two separate statements the player gave to police just eight days apart.
In his first statement, he told police that they found each other attractive, started texting, and exchanged pictures before realizing after a few weeks that their actions weren’t right.
When asked about physical contact by an officer, he described touching around his arms, chest, core, and abs.
When specifically asked whether there had been any groping of either party’s genitals, he replied no.
Greenspan suggested that this initial account accurately reflected what happened between them.
“I would suggest that the two of you never had sexual intercourse,” defence counsel asserted to him.
Counsel also proposed that the woman never sent him sexually explicit photos.
Eights days after his first interview, the player returned to police with a much more detailed statement.
During this second interview, he stated that he had only given about 70 percent of the story previously because he was nervous.
The defence then examined each alleged encounter one by one.
One involved what the player referred to as an attempted sexual encounter while he was taking a pre-game nap in his basement bedroom.
In this second statement to police, he mentioned that his billet knocked on his door and said she was “ready to be a dick,” which he interpreted as meaning she wanted to cheat on her husband.
He said he turned her down because he was tired and needed to prepare for a game.
The defence noted that there was no mention in his statement of her exposing herself. However, during the preliminary inquiry, the player testified that once she entered his room she took off her sweater and showed her breasts.
At that hearing, he called this allegation “a memory from the day that it happened.”
The defence contrasted this with what he’d said at trial where counsel noted that now the player didn’t remember her exposing herself during their encounter anymore.
This led them to suggest that perhaps this pre-game encounter never actually occurred.
The questioning then shifted towards what the player claims was their first instance of sexual intercourse. In his second statement to police,
he mentioned they had been texting before she came downstairs into his bedroom. He stated they removed their clothes and had sex in bed together.
At the preliminary inquiry , however , his description included several more details about other sexual acts.
The player acknowledged these details weren’t part of that earlier statement.
The defence further scrutinized when exactly these supposed encounters took place.
In fact , the player’s second statement indicated their first alleged intercourse happened in his basement bedroom.
He went on to say “maybe a week or two” passed before something similar occurred again.
When specifically asked where this second encounter took place , the player responded “in the room again.”
Later , he described another supposed meeting occurring in a bathroom upstairs while a friend waited downstairs.
This bathroom incident brought up another inconsistency.
In his initial police account , he claimed he’d told a friend he’d be using restroom but instead went upstairs for sex with her.
Yet during preliminary testimony , he stated this incident involved both oral sex as well as intercourse.
The defense pointed out how oral sex wasn’t noted at all in original accounts concerning what happened in bathroom context.
Counsel pressed him regarding conversations held post-encounter with friends who were present downstairs.
“We never really talked”, the players said concerning conversation upon returning outside; however added some doubts existed since friend might’ve suspected otherwise based sounds upstairs.
“What took you so long?”, was how one question posed remained among highlights within court appearances
.I told him I met my billet while washing hands,”(testifying). (P) The witness also recalled sharing how shocked friend appeared having trouble believing this exchange transpired saying“He didn’t know what say.”(P) Another highlight put forward concerned explicit video admitted as exhibit becoming focal point today (Wednesday). (P) Upon showing footage April 2025 inquiry session stating recognition previously seen somewhere (specifically through social media platform Snapchat ). (P) When prompted whom sent file admitting identifying own billets image therein fitting description matching overall report against allegations brought forth; furthermore stating bluntly quotes like “So I’ve seen nude”. (P) However defense maintained perceived changes arose leading towards uncertainty surfaced throughout trials developments whereby initially uncertain later became unable pin identification connected back toward filed evidence submissions altogether. (P) Moreover questions arose regarding source behind additional photographs exhibited preceding courtroom gatherings displayed various sites showcasing bikini-related imagery alongside others transformed into digital stickers thus arising uncertainties surrounding origins’ validity surrounding couple visual interactions. (P) During sessions concluded participant affirmations varied distinctly raising issues revealing gaps within recollections made tying back timeline events pertinent under investigation scrutiny faced ultimately presenting challenges reconciling respective credibility standards employed throughout exchanges aiming clarify narratives depicted above-mentioned matter contexts assessed closely therefore tasked against respective allegations posed forth implying possible alternate interpretations drawn amidst testimonies collected along way.
Source link
