W.B. and the complainant entered into an investment agreement. W.B. was behind on repayments for IOUs that were issued to the complainant.
On the date of the event, the complainant showed up at W.B.’s parking lot and demanded W.B. to get into her car and talk about the debt payments. After W.B. entered the complainant’s car, she started putting on her lipsticks. Once she finished, the complainant started kissing W.B. while stating to W.B. that she was being sexually assaulted.
W.B. got out of her car and started running towards his car. The complainant gave a chase and blocked W.B. from leaving. It was at this point, the complainant called police on her phone and started scratching her face, neck and chest.
When police arrived, the complainant had multiple scratches on her face, neck and chest. In addition, she had a ripped shirt.
As a result, W.B. was charged with sexual assault – 271 of the Criminal Code, Assault/Choking – 267 of the Criminal Code, Assault – 266 of the Criminal Code.
After carefully examining W.B. cellphone, Jake found a video clip of 10 seconds showing the complainant calling 911, while standing outside W.B.’s car, reporting a sexual assault. At the time, she had no scratches on her body at all, and her shirt was not ripped.
In addition, Jake uncovered large amount of text messages where the complainant texted W.B. that she was going to use police to get him into “big trouble” days before the alleged incident.
During cross-examination, the complainant testified that she was sexually assaulted by W.B. while in her car. She fought back, and W.B. scratched her face, neck and chest; further, W.B. ripped her shirt. She then called 911 in her car. W.B jumped out of her car and escaped. She chased W.B. and blocked him from leaving.
When impeached on the video showing that she called 911 outside her car and she had no scratches or a ripped shirt whatsoever, the complainant was not able to provide logically reasonable answers. When she was further confronted by the text messages showing a clear motive to fabricate, the complainant again was not able to provide logically reasonable answers.
The trial judge decided to dismiss the case entirely mid-trial, and W.B. was acquitted on all counts.