Complainant capable of lying, defence lawyer tells sexual assault trial

Final submissions have been made in the sexual assault case trial of North Bay bus driver Michael Linkie.

The submissions followed a cross-examination of Linkie by Crown Attorney Frances Howe.

Your momma
Linkie testified that bus driver etiquette dictates that drivers must be polite and helpful to those who ride the bus.

Linkie said he carries those principles with him on and off the bus.

"Because that's how your momma raised you," Howe responded.

Howe’s “momma” comment prompted an objection from defense attorney Andrew Perrin. He told Justice Paul Rivard that the comment was disrespectful, particularly because Linkie’s mother was sitting in the courtroom.

Howe apologized for the remark after Justice Rivard told her to get on with her questioning.

At first
Linkie went on to explain that the complainant, who’s name cannot be published due to a court-ordered ban, would put stress on “those principles” by being “loud and annoying" until he had to ask her to leave the bus.

“All drivers are pleasant to (the complainant) at first,” Linkie said.

“Try driving a city bus for a week.”

Linkie, who appeared calm and laid-back during his testimony, told the court that he never sexually assaulted the complainant on the bus or in his motor home.

“She was never invited into my motor home,” Linkie said.

“And certainly never invited into my bus.”

Credibility and reliability
During Howe’s final submission she explained that there are two factors that need to be taken into consideration in this case.

“Credibility and reliability,” Howe said.

She explained that reliability is a factor because of the complainant’s capability to present the facts of the alleged sexual assault.

“One of her limitations is being able to pin the time,” Howe explained.

The time of the alleged sexual assaults have never been given a specific date.

Lack of motive
Howe said that capability is a factor because either Linkie or the complainant is not telling the truth.

“The evidence will not permit that both Mr. Linkie and (the complainant) are telling the truth” Howe said.

Howe explained that people lie for many different reasons, but there is a lack of motive as to why the complainant would lie about sexual assault.

“Nothing indicates she was making it up as she went along,” Howe said.

Fraud attempts
During the final submissions made by Perrin, he explained that the evidence in the trial showed the complainant is capable of lying.

He explained the that the complainant has lied to police in the past, by making a sexual assault complaint against her boyfriend and another friend. This complaint was determined as “unfounded” by police, and the sex believed to be consensual.

Perrin explained that the complainant has been involved in previous fraud attempts.

He told the court that she was an “accessory to commit fraud against the North Bay transit system,” when her ex-fiancé filed a false complaint about falling off of a bus and injuring himself.

One doozy of a lie
Perrin explained that the missing diary is also an example of how the complainant lies. The complainant has testified that she gave her diary from around the time of the sexual assault to Cst. Helen Kent.

“Helen Kent has not received that diary,” Perrin said.

“And she has no reason to lie.”

Perrin told the court that the alleged incidents are “one douzy of a lie,” and the complainants possible motives are money and attention.

“(The complainant) has had some very serious handlers,“ Perrin said.

He explained that Howe, Kent and Wendy Abdalla of the Victim Witness Assistance Program, are all considered by the complainant to be her friends.

“I can’t say why people do what they do,” Perrin said.

“But they do it.”

Justice Rivard will deliver his verdict Friday morning.