Almost all of victim's evidence 'uncontradicted' argues Crown in sex abuse case

In his closing argument Tuesday, Michael Marin's lawyer painted the woman who has accused his client of sexual abuse as a vindictive liar.

Bruce Willson described her evidence at the 64-year-old man's trial as "unconvincing, incredulous," and suggested it "strains credibility."

"There are people who can tell a lie and do it really well," he told Superior Court Justice Edward Gareau.

"You can manufacture evidence that sounds true. Unfortunately we're human and unfortunately for the system there are complainants who lie and ruin it for others who tell the truth."

Prosecutor David Kirk argued that "much of her evidence, almost all of it, was uncontradicted."

The complainant went through vigorous, "exhausting and exhaustive" cross--examination and there was nothing to contradict her version of events, he said.

She provided "compelling detail,"  her evidence came across clear and concise, and she didn't embellish or exaggerate, the assistant Crown attorney maintained.

There was too much intricate detail to suggest it was fabrication, Kirk said.

"If this is fabrication where is the exaggeration, her trying to put extra nails in the coffin," he told the court. "It doesn't exist."

Marin has pleaded not guilty to six charges, including three counts of sexual assault.

The offences are alleged to have occurred over a number of years, beginning when the complainant was young and continuing for years after she became an adult.

Gareau will give his decision on Oct. 5.

A publication ban prohibits reporting any information that could identify the complainant, the only Crown witness who testified at the trial.

Willson did not call a defence.

He said during his closing submission that it isn't unusual for the defence not to call any evidence, and suggested the evidence presented by the Crown was not of the quality that required a defence response.

Willson listed what he suggested was a myriad of examples of inconsistencies, contradictions and improbable answers in the woman's evidence. 

"The point of the defence is that the evidence is totally improbable," said Willson, who also described some of it as bizarre. "To convict you have to throw common sense out the window."

The defence lawyer said the evidence is far from clear and convincing, and when measured with common sense "you may have to come back and say this didn't happen."

Kirk countered that there is no evidence of a motive to lie and if there are any inconsistencies in the woman's testimony they are minor or on a peripheral matter.

Perfection isn't required in witness testimony, he said. 

The Crown told the judge it is important when an inconsistency is pointed out that  "you have to look at the answer (given by the witness) and if it makes sense to you it is not inconsistent."

The only evidence the court has is from the complainant, and the idea that she concocted everything is not borne out, Kirk said.

"She was credible," he said. "Her evidence clearly supports convictions for all six counts."

EDITOR'S NOTE: SooToday does not permit comments on court stories