Defence keeps woman initiated intercourse, closing arguments give attention to means she did not fight or yell no
Warning: This tale contains visual language and troubling content.
Regina prosecutor Randene Zielke argued that to get Gioulian Nikdima not liable of intimate attack, Justice Fred Kovach will have to ignore compelling medical proof and think the alleged victim ended up being, «spiteful and vindictive toward this guy she scarcely knew.»
«which can be preposterous, as you would expect,» Zielke said during closing arguments in Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench monday.
Nikdima, 49, happens to be faced with intimate attack causing harm that is bodily.
A 48-year-old Regina girl stated she linked to Nikdima on the web site that is dating of Fish after which met face-to-face for an initial date in March 2016. She told the court that the coffee date with a charming gentleman ended with him driving her outside town limitations and raping her.
The lady, whom is not identified because of a book ban, testified that Nikdima yanked down her jeans and forcibly penetrated her vaginally, pushed her face down seriously to perform dental intercourse, then penetrated her anally.
«we felt frozen,» the woman testified.
Defence questions ‘inconsistencies’
Defence attorney Barry Nychuk stated in their shutting argument that the female’s testimony is not dependable, pointing to examples by which her wording changed from the time she was initially interviewed by authorities in 2016 to her wording within the 2019 test.
«the data changed. It offers evolved. It’s be much more damning into the accused, and it’s also due to the reconstruction of her memory,» Nychuk stated, arguing that the alleged victim has pieced together a variation of occasions «that she can now live with.»
Nychuk don’t deal with the truth that their customer’s tale changed notably within the time period that is same.
In the test, Nikdima stated that the girl had been the aggressor and initiated sex, alleging me. that she yelled, «F–k me, f–k» Nikdima failed to share that version of events with police as he ended up being interviewed after their arrest in 2016.
Nychuk devoted much of their 46 moments of dental submissions into the reality the lady did not make an effort to hightail it, fight the man off, or repeatedly yell «no.»
He argued the girl did not state that she explicitly told Nikdima «no» until following a police prompted her to do this.
You would need to think that she actually is a crazy, spiteful, vindictive individual.
– Randene Zielke, Senior Crown Prosecutor
He argued that the girl description of exactly exactly how Nikdima picked her up «like a cloth doll» and manoeuvred her around into the backseat therefore from behind had been «illogical. which he could penetrate her»
«this woman is a non-willing, non-actively participating person that is ‘frozen’. although I do not quite recognize that. and yet my customer has the capacity to grab her,» Nychuk states, conveying doubt. «It does not seem sensible.»
Nychuk additionally questioned the girl credibility centered on her explanation that she found myself in the backseat regarding the car to get her bag rather than attempting to hightail it into the available industry.
Kovach stopped Nychuk at that point, and stated, «But was not her phone in her bag?»
Alleged victim is ‘credible and dependable’
Zielke, a senior Crown prosecutor, argued that the alleged victim had been «credible and dependable» and tthe womanefore her testimony ended up being sustained by corroborating proof, including accidents documented within an exam that is five-hour.
Sexual attack nursing assistant examiner Stephanie Carlson told the court that she’s got carried out significantly more than 600 rape exams and just when before has she seen an outside anal injury because big as the only entirely on this girl.
Zielke took problem with all the defence’s detail by detail distribution on which the lady «didn’t do» and stated «implied permission» is maybe maybe maybe not predicated on legislation.
«Consent isn’t the absence of ‘no.’ It’s the existence of ‘yes,’ » Zielke said.
The prosecutor cited the Supreme Court’s directives on what permission should be acquired. The court that is highest has ruled that too little opposition will not indicate permission and that permission that is provided under duress or predicated on fear will not qualify as real consent. The alleged victim said she was terrified in this case.
The Supreme Court additionally stipulates that consent for just one act that is sexual perhaps perhaps not universal permission for many intimate functions.
Justice Kovach interrupted Zielke many times to make clear that when he thinks Nikdima’s declare that the girl stated «f–k me, f–k me personally» so it would count as explicit, maybe not suggested, permission.
Zielke countered by urging the judge to take into account the plausibility regarding the guy’s testimony as he stated the lady guided their penis easily into her anal area, without force or lubrication.
«that is just maybe maybe maybe not believable. Why ended up being she hurt therefore defectively?»
Alleged target’s motive
Zielke stated the girl would not embellish or exaggerate just just exactly what took place. She cited a few examples in that the female’s actions had been in keeping with her tale, and never the person’s.
For instance, Nikdima advertised which he provided to make use of condom but that the lady said and refused, «I’m safe.» Zielke stated the guy’s tale is not legitimate considering that the girl invested per year following the assault that is alleged bloodstream work and evaluation for sexually transmitted conditions, actions that aren’t in keeping with an individual who voluntarily foregone a condom.
Once the girl got house, she removed her Plenty of Fish account straight away.
Zielke additionally questioned what motive the lady would need to falsely accuse a guy herself to the humiliation and intrusion of a sex assault exam, multiple police interviews, a preliminary hearing and a prolonged trial that, altogether, spanned three years that she barely knew, and subject.
«You would need to think that she is a crazy, spiteful, vindictive individual.»
Kovach is planned to provide the verdict on September 5.