|
Allegations of Abuse
in NZ |
||
|
Tea Ropati - League Star accused
of rape |
||
|
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=1500916&objectid=10489792 NZ Herald
Tea Ropati. The jury in the Tea Ropati sex trial
will resume its deliberations this morning after retiring last night without
reaching a verdict. Jurors indicated they would be
unlikely to reach a verdict about 6pm last night, when they returned to court
to ask a second question. They told Judge Phil Gittos they
wouldn't be able to reach a verdict and were feeling fatigued. They began
deliberating at 1pm after listening to closing statements from defence lawyer
Gary Gotleib. The first question the jury of
seven men and five women asked was an explanation of law related to charges
of attempting to commit an offence, the second question relating to what
procedure they should adopt when considering each of the charges. A big group of Ropati's friends
and family waited outside court for the jury to return. Earlier in the day, Ropati's
defence lawyer Gary Gotleib said Ropati couldn't be found guilty because his
alleged victim didn't remember what happened. Mr Gotleib called into question
the Crown's portrayal of Ropati as a predator who was lurking in a bar
looking for sex. Ropati denies six charges of
attempting to sexually violate the woman and sexually violating her in June
2006, after meeting at The Whiskey bar on Ponsonby Rd. "They said he was looking for
sex, luring her in stage by stage," Mr Gotleib said. He told the court evidence showed
people bought Ropati drinks but not plying the complainant with alcohol. Ropati couldn't have known the
woman had had so much alcohol before they met, Mr Gotleib said. "Six hours of drinking and
doing whatever they were doing with not much to eat. They then turn up at the
Whiskey bar where Mr Ropati had no knowledge of what had been taken." The woman's friend's testimony
needed to be taken in the context they were "running scared"
because they had been snorting cocaine that night. The woman and the Crown were
putting "spin" on what actually happened at the bar, he said. The portion of the video from the
back room of the bar that showed the woman apparently sleeping, or resting,
was only one minute 47 seconds long. "And there was no audio so we
don't know what's being said." Mr Gotleib said the woman was
actually talking a lot during the scenes the jury watched. He described the encounter as a
"consensual romp". Her memory was "tainted"
and couldn't be relied upon when she finally gave a statement to police -
five weeks after the alleged offending. The jury heard Mr Gotleib detail
expert testimony that the memory loss the woman suffered did not mean she was
unconscious or asleep but simply that she couldn't remember what had
happened. Ropati had been co-operative and
honest with police. "This woman has done things
she just can't remember. Don't be persuaded by her and the Crown who are
beating it up," Mr Gotleib said. He urged the jury to ignore any
disapproval they might have that Ropati was cheating on his wife. Before sending the jury on its
deliberations, Judge Gittos said they needed to determine what witnesses had
told them the truth and which ones had lied to them. He urged them to not
pass moral judgments about the actions of Ropati or the woman and to consider
only the facts. |
||
