Testimonies continue in 2009 sexual assault case

By Sean Previl
Several witnesses involved in a 2009 rape case took the stand March 21 providing information about one of the complainants’ visit to a sexual abuse treatment centre following the alleged assault.

The witnesses taking the stand was unplanned as one of the girls, whose name is protected by a publication ban, was ill and unable to attend court.

“The plan was to call the two complainants one after another, then look at the forensics,” said Frank Miller, defence lawyer for Stan Laforge, one of the accused. “What results came from them with the observations and tests conducted.”

Miller said due to the complainant’s absence, the proceedings of March 21 would have to be done in an “unorthodox” way.

“Now we’re going to have to call witnesses out of order, which we normally wouldn’t do,” said Miller. “We were in the middle of examining the complainant so it’s not desirable to interrupt the questioning.”

Miller said normally they would cross-examine both complainants’ testimonies to see if they would match up. Miller said several witnesses would be called including independent witnesses and nurses who had helped the complainants following the alleged incident.

Lynn Pierozynski, a registered nurse examiner who works on call for the Teen Sexual Assault Treatment Centre, tended to one of the alleged victims the morning following the assault and said she was shaken.

“She was visibly upset,” said Pierozynski. “I asked her if she needed to see a doctor. She said she wasn’t feeling well and had a headache. She was weepy and teary.”

Assistant Crown attorney Frank Schwalm questioned Pierozynski about the tests conducted and asked about the alleged victim’s lack of sexual history.

Justice Steven Rogin said the court is interested in the history but only on a conditional basis.

“(The court is) only interested in a person’s sexual history if it impacts on treatment,” said Rogin.

Pierozynski said the sexual history doesn’t matter.

“It doesn’t matter if you had 10 partners yesterday,” said Pierozynski. “We treat everyone the same.”

In cross-examination Miller questioned the witness whether she could tell by the “naked eye” the complainant had been abused. Pierozynski said there was nothing physically to show she had vaginal intercourse, she could only confirm with what the alleged victim had said.