The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A DEFENCE attorney told a jury that a girl made up her story about being molested by her grandfather over a period of six years in order to flee home and avoid being disciplined.

The prosecution countered, arguing that despite facing discipline, the complainant enjoyed herself while in the home –– except on occasions when her grandfather abused her, touching her breasts and vagina. These statements were made during closing arguments in Supreme Court yesterday.

Tomorrow, Justice Bernard Turner will sum the trial up for a jury of seven women and two men before retiring them to consider their verdict.

It is alleged that on January 15 and 16, 2011, the accused sexually abused the complainant while she occupied his home.

The complainant claims that the other occupants of the home were sleeping and that her grandmother was not there when she was molested.

The defendant denies this, claiming his wife was actually at home at the times in question, as he was preparing to take her to a funeral on one day and to work on the other.

Five witnesses have testified since the trial began on Monday.

Defence attorney Jomo Campbell told jurors yesterday that three police witnesses were merely “process witnesses” who followed an investigation to its end after receiving a complaint.

He said that the matter is about what the accused says verses what the complainant claims.

“A lie is still a lie even if it is told a hundred times, a thousand times and 10 thousand people repeat it,” he told jurors, adding that though the defendant has nothing to prove, he still took the stand to defend himself during cross examination on Wednesday.

The young girl’s story “made no sense,” he said, adding: “The virtual complainant wants jurors to believe her grandmother wasn’t home on both mornings in question in order to make it possible for the actions to have taken place. But her grandmother was home, readying herself for a funeral and for work.”

The girl had a plan, he said, adding that because she “didn’t like the conditions she was forced to live under and became tired of the beatings”, she concocted a story to get herself out of the house.

The prosecutor mentioned during closing submissions that the complainant testified during cross examination that she is being disciplined in the home she currently resides.

She asked: “Does that sound to you like somebody that doesn’t want to be disciplined?”

The young girl “now lives in Kemp Road,” the prosecutor said, adding: “She was previously living in Pinewood Gardens. She was going to a private school, now she’s going to a government school. In a sense she’s lost so much.”

The prosecutor called the wife of the accused “an alibi.”

“We can’t credit the wife as a credible witness,” she said. “She is the wife of the defendant.”

She “loves her husband. Every day she is here,” the prosecutor said.

As for the mother-in-law of the accused, who he claims was in the kitchen with him on one of the mornings the alleged molestation took place, the prosecutor said: “There’s no physical evidence before this court to say the mother-in-law was there. Would you not provide all the evidence to prove your innocence? You had a mother-in-law there? Did she take the stand?”

As for a document the defence attempted but ultimately failed to submit into evidence, which allegedly proved that the mother-in-law of the accused was most likely at the house on one of the mornings in question, the prosecutor said: “The piece of paper is not before the court and my learned friend knows exactly why.”

The prosecutor told the jury to “think about the fact that this young girl had to undergo examinations at 12 years old,” because of her molestation allegations.

She told the jurors to think about the fact that the girl was being kept at the Ranfurly Home until a shelter could be found for her.

“She is not here because she wanted to get out the house,” she said, adding: “She’s out of the house now. She has no need to proceed with this case but she has.”