The testimony of Joshua Boyle, the former hostage on trial for assaulting his wife, was intentionally crafted to mislead the court, prosecutors have argued in closing arguments.
Crown lawyers on Wednesday, suggesting he had manipulated his testimony for self-serving ends.
“The narrative he was advancing at trial … is incompatible with reality,” said prosecutor Jason Neubauer.
Boyle and his American wife, Caitlan Coleman, were abducted by militants while travelling in Afghanistan in 2012. The couple were held for five years and had three children before they were freed by Pakistani forces.
Soon after their release, the family moved to Ottawa, where Coleman alleges Boyle sexually and physically assaulted her. He faces 19 charges – including assault, criminal harassment and unlawful confinement.
Boyle has previously testified that the couple had a turbulent relationship, that they participated in BDSM and that Coleman’s “tempestuous personality” affected her ability to accurately recall events.
Lawyers for former Taliban hostage say he’s ‘not easy to like’ but didn’t abuse wife
But the crown disputed this in their closing arguments.
“The evidence of Caitlan Coleman is confirmed and supported by other witnesses who testified and irrefutable exhibits,” said prosecutor Meaghan Cunningham, adding these factors enhanced the “reliability and credibility” of her statements.
“Mr Boyle’s evidence can’t be accepted in the face of this.”
Prosecutors also took issue with Boyle’s account of 30 December 2017, the night Coleman ran from the family’s apartment.
After her departure, Boyle called police, claiming he feared Colman was suicidal. But Neubauer said Boyle’s expression of concern for his wife was a “fiction”, arguing that the call was a way for him to mislead police and create his own narrative of the situation.
“He was in damage control mode,” said Neubauer. “Things were slipping out of his control.”
Boyle’s legal team has cast him as an unconventional and arrogant – .
Justice Peter Doody, who is overseeing the case, will permit counsel from both sides to ask further questions arising from the closing arguments, before he renders a verdict.