Day three of Semyon Varlamov’s civil trial took place today with the conclusion of the testimony from Evgeniya Vavrinyuk, the plaintiff and Varlamov’s ex-girlfriend. Before getting into it, be sure to read the recap from yesterday’s day in court.

Today’s day in court started off with the continuation of the cross-examination of Vavrinyuk by the defense as they leaned on her status as the victim of not only a violent crime but also as someone manipulated by everyone around her. When asked, Vavrinyuk stated she had been betrayed by her original attorney, Robert Abrams, her best friend in Russia and Abrams’ fiancee, who was also a friend to Vavrinyuk. She claimed her betrayal at the hands of all of them ultimately led to the dissolution of her criminal case against Varlamov, which sent her into an emotional spiral that led to a hasty relationship with another man who she would have a child with.

Vavrinyuk then came under heavy scrutiny as the defense keyed in on the inconsistencies in her story of the alleged incident with Varlamov. Upon learning her case was being dismissed on December 13, 2013, Vavrinyuk began adding details she had previously left out, such as the portion of the incident that saw her follow Varlamov into the second bedroom to retrieve his phone because she was unaware hers was on the couch. The taking of his phone is what led to him allegedly blocking the door and squeezing her leg in the door as she tried to leave.

Another inconsistency noted was her clothing during the alleged incident as Vavrinyuk initially told police she was wearing just underwear but later changed her story to say she was wearing a creme-colored sweatshirt that had “MOSCOW” scrawled on the front of it. Despite being in her police statement, she denies wearing the sweatshirt and steadfastly claimed she was only wearing underwear.

The defense then turned its attention towards the amount of money she received after the incident and her separation from Varlamov. Living in an apartment costing approximately $1,900 per month but with no income, Vavrinyuk stated she was not paying her bills and was currently living with the grandparents of her baby’s father, who were paying the bills.

Before living with them, however, she was living on her own and received an estimated $35,000 from a friend of hers. That total, which included rent, would balloon to over $50,000 when taking into account money received from media interviews. Despite receiving this money, not being responsible for her medical expenses and post-incident therapy sessions, Vavrinyuk still applied for a financial hardship when attempting to get a u-visa, which is a nonimmigrant visa designed for victims of crimes. In doing so, she left out all the money received from above and despite claiming they were “loans”, she neglected to claim them as such on the u-visa application and proceeded with her financial hardship claim.

As Vavrinyuk is seeking damages from Varlamov for “emotional distress”, among other things, the defense went into great detail in looking at the therapy sessions she was scheduled for after the alleged incident with Varlamov. Citing monetary and transportation concerns, she attended only 3 of 24 scheduled sessions, and in one of the sessions she did attend she claimed she was feeling much better and no longer felt the need for therapy. Vavrinyuk also never paid for the sessions as an outside organization ultimately paid for them, making her concerns over paying for them a key point for the defense. Vavrinyuk would later testify she verbally notified Homeland Security of her omissions from the financial hardship portion of the u-visa application.

As the defense finished its cross-examination of Vavrinyuk, they would quickly go through the re-direct and re-cross processes before adjourning for lunch. Upon returning, the juror’s would ask their questions of Vavrinyuk before she was dismissed from the stand. The only question and answer I found interesting amid a sea of technical clarifications was one juror asking why, after being together for so many years, the two would breakup so quickly and with such finality. Vavrinyuk’s response was a somber “The man I loved, wanted to marry, and bear children with beat me up.”

After the the lawyers finished following up on the juror questions, Vavrinyuk was dismissed and current Colorado Avalanche Senior Vice President of Business and Team Operations Greg Sherman was called by the plaintiff as the next witness.

Sherman would go on to discuss the team’s party at the Chophouse on October 28, 2013, stating he was aware of a disagreement between Vavrinyuk and Varlamov that night and that Vavrinyuk left alone while Varlamov stayed with his teammates. Sherman did not provide details beyond that.

The majority of Sherman’s time on the stand was focused on the morning of October 30, 2013 as the team learned of the incident relating to Varlamov. Sherman learned of the incident from Jean Martineau and subsequently called Joe Sakic and Patrick Roy. The group then met at the Pepsi Center, along with Charlotte Graham, and waited for Varlamov to arrive to find out more information about the situation.

When Varlamov showed up, they met for about 45 minutes as Varlamov provided a “broad outline” of the situation, leaving out many details and painting himself as a man who simply defended himself from his attacking girlfriend. When he informed the team officials of the text message from Vavrinyuk, he paraphrased it as saying “I’m going to get you.”

An attorney hired by Varlamov’s agent then showed up and he re-told the story, with no alterations the second time, and the group universally support Varlamov. When asked if he unconditionally believed Varlamov, Sherman firmly responded “Yes” and went on to describe Varlamov as “the ultimate team guy.” Sherman was dismissed from the stand shortly later.

Given scheduling difficulties with the plaintiff’s final witness, Avalanche Head Coach Patrick Roy, the defense was given an opportunity to call its first witness, Denver Police Department officer Gary Yampolsky, who served as the Russian interpreter each time Vavrinyuk met with DPD.

Yampolsky’s time on the stand was particularly notable for only two pieces of information: he confirmed Vavrinyuk originally claimed Varlamov slammed her face into the ground, something Vavrinyuk herself testified yesterday did not happen, and when Vavrinyuk was offered medical assistance at Denver Health during her first visit to the police station, she responded “I don’t know if I need to”, a particularly curious statement given she would later claim how beaten up she was.

Yampolsky was dismissed from the stand and former Avalanche and current San Antonio Rampage forward Patrick Bordeleau was called as another defense witness.

Bordeleau’s purpose on the stand was to provide additional context to the night of October 28, 2013 and the early morning hours of the 29th as he attended the team party at the Chophouse when Vavrinyuk and Varlamov initially got into an argument.

He remembered having drinks with the couple the night of the party, saying both were drunk but not excessively so, and recalled the two began fighting over something to do with Varlamov’s phone. Bordeleau was in the bathroom with Gabriel Landeskog, Cody McLeod, and Varlamov when Vavrinyuk came in and began shouting at Varlamov in Russian.

Bordeleau then left the bathroom, asked Varlamov how to say “calm down” in Russian, repeated the phrase in Russian to Vavrinyuk when she had left the bathroom herself, and was told to “fuck off” by Vavrinyuk. Bordeleau stated he took the unfriendly suggestion to heart and left the couple alone until Vavrinyuk ultimately departed on her own later in the evening.

Varlamov would accompany Bordeleau and then-Avs winger P.A. Parenteau to a local lounge Bordeleau frequented that allowed him to stay after closing hours called “Spill”. The three players drank, though not excessively according to Bordeleau, and he departed the lounge between approximately 3:30 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. with Parenteau, leaving Varlamov on his own.

Upon learning about the incident, he, along with the rest of the Avalanche roster, was forbidden from talking about the case with Varlamov. Bordeleau stated that while he considered Varlamov a friend, he never broke team rules and inquired about the case privately.

Bordeleau, who described his role on the hockey team as “the protector”, was questioned by the plaintiff’s attorney if that’s simply the role he was fulfilling by appearing in court today – protecting his former goaltender and teammate, Varlamov. Bordeleau said that was not the case and was dismissed from the stand moments later, ending the events of the day.

Tomorrow the plaintiff’s case is expected to come to a close as they are planning to call Roy to the witness stand first thing in the morning before resting their case and allowing the defense to begin their defense in full, which is expected to include the lengthy testimony of Varlamov himself.