Sex assault case against Nygard either defies 'coincidence' or defies 'common sense,' court hears

The similarities of the independent testimony of five women who all say they were sexually assaultedby Peter Nygard "defy coincidence,"which is why the one-time Canadian fashion mogulmust be found guilty,the Crown argued on Tuesday.

The closing submissionby Crown attorney Ana Serbanafter nearly six weeks of testimonycame hours after Nygard's lawyer Brian Greenspan had told the jury the opposite that his client should be acquittedbecause theprosecution's case was based on evidence that's untrustworthy and defies"common sense."

Nygardhas pleaded not guilty in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice to five counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement.Justice Robert Goldstein is presiding over the Toronto jury trial, which began in late September.

Court has heard from each of the five complainants that from a periodof the late 1980s to around 2005, each woman ended up in Nygard's private bedroom suite in his downtown Toronto buildingwhere they saythey were attacked and sexually assaultedby him.

'Simply not credible'

Nygard has testified that he doesn't recall four of the five women, nor rememberhaving any interaction with them. But he has alsoinsisted that any ofallegations of sexual misconduct and sexual assault attributed to him could not have happened because he would never engage in such activity.

Serban told the jurorsthat the blanket denials of Nygard, who spentfive days in the witness box, do not leave you with reasonable doubt.

"His evidence is simplynot credible," she said.

Once Nygard's evidence is rejected, Serban said, the jurors are left with evidence from five women who "independent of each other, describe similar features of how they met Peter Nygard, how they came to be invited to his office building and how he sexually assaulted them in his private bedroom suites."

She said they also providedescriptions of Nygard's office building and his private bedroom suite.

"These similarities defy coincidence," she said. "PeterNygard is guilty."

Nygard evasive, Crown says

Serban laid out multiple reasons why the jury should reject Nygard's evidence:she said Nygard was evasive;internally inconsistent; that he framed his testimony in absolutes and certainties; and that his memory was unreliable and selective.

She pointed to Nygard evading a question about whether one would provide incentives to a person one wastrying to hire, as acomplainanthad testified that after briefly meeting Nygard on a plane, he had offered to give her a new job and triple her salary.

"I recall this was asked about eight different times ineightdifferent ways and we still don'thave a straightanswer," Serbansaid.

One of the women had testifiedshe had gone to a Rolling Stones concert in December1989with Nygard the same night she says he sexually assaultedher.But Nygard denied he was atthat concert, somethingSerbansuggested was inconsistentwith his testimony that he would attend key events. (Nygardtold court he wasn't a big Rolling Stones fan and therefore wouldn't have considered their concert a key event).

"That's ridiculous," Serbansaid. "Members of the jury, he was at that concert."

She also pointed out how Nygardhad said he didn't remember ever having sex in his private bedroom suite yet admitted there were condoms in the room.

Serban went through the testimony of each woman, acknowledging that some did make the odd mistake about facts. But taken overall, each woman, she said, with the many details they provided, made their evidence as a whole "credible and reliable."

Complainants' testimony defies reason, court hears

Greenspan, in his closing submission,told the jury that they need tocarefully consider the totality of the evidence presented by the Crownand reflect on the"fatal flaws and lack of testimonial trustworthiness" of the five complainants.

Greenspan saidif the jurorsconsider the many aspects of theevidence "that defy reasonand common sense,"their "duty will be clear."

"You will recognize thatPeter Nygardmust be acquitted because the prosecution has utterly failed to establishguilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Greenspan also did a brief overview of the testimony of all five of the women, posing the question to the jury whetherthe evidence the complainantspresented was possible to have occurred.

Greenspan suggested that despiteNygard's inability to recollect the women,some of the details they testified to in court could have happened. For example he said some of their evidence about how they initially met Nygardon flights could be possible.

But other details court heard were either unlikely, impossible, absurdor pure nonsense, Greenspan said.

"What never occurred were the sexual assaultsdescribed by each of the complainants," he said.

'Contradictions and innuendo,' defence says ofCrown's case

The Crown's case, Greenspan said,was based on "contradictions and innuendo" and that the Crownwould often advance a position that "simply makes no common sense."

Revisionist histories of events hadbeen advancedas if they presented a clear picture of events18 to35 years ago, Greenspan said.

Greenspan also suggested that some of the women had been motivated to testify against Nygardbecausethey had joined a U.S. class action lawsuit against him.

"Gold digging runs deep," he said about the fourth complainant to testify, who has also joined the class action lawsuit.

Referring to the testimony of another of the women, who said they had been taken on a tour of the building by Nygard, Greenspansaid she had described his office building toinclude"a non-existentgrand sweeping staircase leadingup severalfloors."

"A figment of her imagination," he said.

He said she got other details wrong, about hallways and showrooms that "simply don't exist."

"This imagined journey is not merely flawed recollection or result of the passageof time. It'sAlice in Wonderland."

On Wednesday the judge will make his charge to the jury after which they will begin their deliberations.