Prosecutors say Joshua Boyle, Canadian man on trial for assaulting his wife, advanced a narrative thats incompatible with reality

The testimony of Joshua Boyle, the former Afghanistan hostage on trial for assaulting his wife, was intentionally crafted to mislead the court, prosecutors have argued in closing arguments.

Crown lawyers once again took aim at Joshua Boyles credibility 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 Colemans tempestuous personality affected her ability to accurately recall events.

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 Boyles evidence cant be accepted in the face of this.

Prosecutors also took issue with Boyles account of 30 December 2017, the night Coleman ran from the familys apartment.

After her departure, Boyle called police, claiming he feared Colman was suicidal. But Neubauer said Boyles 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.

Boyles legal team has cast him as an unconventional and arrogant but maintain he was truthful in his testimony, even when it reflected poorly on him.

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.



Recommended For You

Like it? Share with your friends!


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.