Robert Anthony Scott. PHOTO: ODT FILES A woman who accused a Dunedin businessman of rapes and assaults has repeatedly lied to police and ‘‘manipulated’’ witnesses, the defence says. Robert Anthony Scott, 69, is on trial before the Dunedin District Court after pleading not guilty to six charges of rape, two of indecent assault, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection and three charges of assaulting a female. Last week, the jury was played footage of the complainant in bed with Scott as she says ‘‘Please, I can’t breathe’’ and ‘‘Ouch, you’re hurting me’’. She told the court she had taken the footage to show the defendant was causing her pain, but in cross-examination, Fiona Guy Kidd, KC, suggested they were ‘‘roleplaying’’. Yesterday, as the case entered its second week, the Crown called its final witnesses. Among them was a man who visited Scott’s home on the day the woman had shown the defendant the secret video she had taken. The witness said Scott was ‘‘quite agitated, nervous even’’ when he discussed the existence of the recording. ‘‘We have this game we play and things get a bit rough,’’ Scott allegedly told him. The witness said he did not want to discuss the issue, but the defendant continued. ‘‘This could be really damaging for my reputation,’’ Scott reportedly said. The same witness also told the jury details of a violent incident, which occurred later, allegedly involving the complainant. ‘‘I saw her dragging [another woman] along the ground by her clothing. She was just screaming at her and pounding with her fists. She was very angry,’’ the witness said. Ms Guy Kidd, opening the defence case yesterday, told the jury her client would not give evidence himself, but would opt to call several witnesses. She said it would become clear the woman at the centre of the case had ‘‘manipulated’’ many of the other witnesses and lied to police. ‘‘We’ll hear evidence that clearly counters the evidence the complainant has given in court,’’ Ms Guy Kidd said. The first witness for the defence was Scott’s son, Isaac, who spoke in glowing terms about his father’s character. He described the defendant’s ‘‘incredible’’ story, his father having grown successful businesses from humble beginnings. ‘‘Even he’ll tell you he’s not the smartest, but he always tries to work the hardest,’’ his son said. He was in a neighbouring room when some of the alleged incidents took place, but he never heard anything unusual, he said. He had never seen his father assault anyone and if he ever became frustrated he might voice his anger with an expletive, but quickly got over it, he said. Ms Guy Kidd asked the witness what he would have done had he heard screaming or thudding. ‘‘I would have actively intervened,’’ he said. ‘‘Not only that, I would have called police at that time.’’ He said he heard his father in the throes of intimacy, but it was ‘‘just the usual noises’’. ‘‘Yelling?’’ Ms Guy Kidd asked. ‘‘No,’’ the witness said. ‘‘Crying?’’ ‘‘No.’’ Ms Guy Kidd urged the jury to keep an open mind and to broaden their focus outside what they might believe were the central issues. ‘‘Often you will find the truth in the small things,’’ she said. The trial continues.
