[
Hart’s lawyer gets court started by arguing E.M. had ‘an agenda’
Megan Savard says she has about 10 more minutes of closing arguments.
She says she wants to answer a question that Justice Maria Carroccia asked McLeod’s lawyer, David Humphrey, yesterday, about whether or not it is normal for a person to come to court with a goal or agenda in mind.
“Generally, not this much of an agenda,” Savard says. “There’s a difference between hoping for an outcome but nonetheless trying to be careful, objective and a non-advocate, so to speak, versus actively trying to advance an agenda, and it is the latter that we are dealing with here, and that is a credibility problem.”
The way E.M. testified obscures what she did, how she felt, what others did, and how and why she changed her account, Savard tells Carroccia.
“The goal is to obscure because this witness knows that the truth will not serve her agenda, which is to see her not in consent,” Savard says.
Savard calls E.M. “deliberately slippery” in how she gave her testimony, and gives some examples from E.M.’s testimony.