Malta
Accuse di stupro e colpi di scena: assolto per versioni contrastanti
The alleged victim’s roommate’s version of events also contradicted the woman. Photo: Times of Malta
A man accused of raping a work colleague who invited him over to her flat was cleared of all criminal charges because of the alleged victim’s conflicting versions which made her a non-credible witness.
Marcel Andreas Ekvall Parada, now 30, was arraigned under arrest almost six years ago after a female colleague and Swedish co-national dialled the police for help, .
Police were alerted to the incident on January 13, 2019, when they responded to a woman’s 4.35 am request for assistance at a Swieqi residence.
The then-20-year-old woman told officers who turned up at her apartment that she had just been raped by Parada who had since left.
She claimed that she had invited him over for drinks to introduce him to her new flatmate, another foreign guy who was asleep in his room when the alleged incident took place.
She remained alone with Parada after her flatmate went to sleep at around 10pm. That was when he suggested that they should go to her room.
But she tried to change the subject, suggesting going out to Paceville instead.
The two went out, drinking at a couple of bars. When it was time for her to go home, Parada insisted on following her, she claimed. He went with her to the flat and into her room.
They were to sleep in separate beds.
But as she lay on her side, waiting for him to go to sleep so that she could slip out of the room, she dozed off.
She woke up suddenly, sensing his presence next to her behind her back. That was when she realized that he was raping her, first anally, then in her vagina.
She got up and rushed to her flatmate’s room, too shocked to be able to explain what had happened.
Parada followed her into the room, asking what had happened. She fled out into the street.
The suspect was charged with rape, harassment as well as simple possession of cocaine.
The alleged victim told police that Parada had used cocaine throughout that evening.
The accused pleaded not guilty.
During his arraignment, his lawyer Alfred Abela, requested the court to appoint an expert to preserve messages exchanged between the defendant and the alleged victim in the days prior to the alleged rape.
When delivering judgment this week the court, presided over by magistrate Marse-Ann Farrugia observed that the victim gave conflicting versions of her alleged ordeal.
She first told police that the accused penetrated her twice. When testifying before a court expert, she began to change that version, saying that there was attempted anal penetration.
When testifying later before the court, she “even omitted any attempt of anal penetration,” observed Magistrate Farrugia.
Such inconsistencies acquired greater significance in the light of medical evidence.
A gynaecological expert who examined the alleged victim said that she had mentioned “an attempt of sexual intercourse.”
He found no trauma, such as scratches, irritation, signs or bruising on the patient.
Another expert also confirmed that the woman changed her claim from “penetration” to “an attempt.”
A DNA expert found no extraneous genetic profile on samples taken from the woman. This was significant since she told police that she “did not wash herself after the incident.”
There was a “total lack of forensic medical evidence,” observed the court.
Moreover, in light of the fact that the woman was petite while the accused was “very well-built,” the “complete absence of any kind of physical trauma on her body [was] even more unexplainable.”
The alleged victim’s flatmate cast further doubt on her testimony.
He said that it was her idea “from the beginning” to go out to party that night.
The woman claimed that she suggested going to Paceville so as to lose Parada in the crowds.
But text messages she sent to him that evening appeared to indicate otherwise.
“Where are you?” “Looking for you.” “Write where you are, have to find you,” the alleged victim texted Parada.
Such evidence further “dented” her credibility as a witness.
The woman mentioned certain previous incidents which led the police to prosecute Parada for alleged harassment.
However, the court observed that there was “no independent evidence” to corroborate the victim’s allegations and the court did not consider her “a credible witness.”
The woman’s behaviour clearly showed that she was “not being annoyed, alarmed or under emotional distress” by the actions of the defendant.
Had she truly been harassed, she would not have invited him over for drinks, describing him to her flatmate as a “nice guy.”
As for the charge of simple cocaine possession, the prosecution relied solely on the victim’s statement that she had seen “white powder” while drinking with Parada that evening in Paceville.
The prosecution did not produce any toxicological results of tests carried out on the accused when he was admitted to prison shortly after the alleged incident.
The court again declared that the alleged victim was not “a credible witness,” and cleared Parada of all criminal charges.
Lawyers Alfred Abela and Rene’ Darmanin were defence counsel.