Defence suggests student’s memories of alleged sexual assaults ‘are unreliable and inaccurate’

Warning: This story contains sensitive subject matter, including details of sexual assault and self-harm.

Some memories from spring and summer 2017 are fuzzy." Traumatic events can cause confusion, she testified.

But what's clear to her is that she didn't consent to any sexual encounters with a former professor, she testified.

The McMaster University student has alleged she was assaulted repeatedly by her former professor, Scott Watter.

Watter, 48, is charged with sexual assault and sexual assault causing bodily harm. He has pleaded not guilty.

The judge-only trial began Tuesday before Justice Amanda Camara.

The complainant, a PhD student in the university's Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour (PNB), cannot be identified due to a publication ban.

During cross-examination on Friday, defence lawyer Jeffrey Manishen, who is representing Watter, looked for holes in her testimony, comparing it with previous accounts of the events in interviews with the police and The Hamilton Spectator.

The first alleged assault of 2017, which she says occurred in early March or late April of 2017, was an unwanted kiss on a piano bench in the basement of Watter and his wife's home in early March or late April.

What did you do physically when he kissed you," Manishen asked.

I don't know that I knew how to respond," she replied.

You never pushed him away, for example," Manishen pressed.

I don't believe I did because I was frozen," she replied.

It might not necessarily be always the way you remember it," Manishen said.

Referring to transcripts from an interview with then-Spectator reporter Katrina Clarke, Manishen pointed out that she told Clarke she pushed him off" after the kiss.

So you told Ms. Clarke that you actually pushed Dr. Watter off of you, but that's not accurate," Manishen said.

I don't believe I did, no," she said. Occasionally small parts of memories may not be distinctly clear."

Watter's lawyer pressed her on another incident: an alleged assault in the bathroom, in which she says her former professor touched her vagina underneath her underwear while he was dressing self-inflicted wounds on her thighs.

At the time, she was cutting, something she had done on occasions in the past but that became significantly more pronounced and severe" after interactions with Watter, she testified.

Reading from transcripts from a Feb. 29, 2020, interview with police, Manishen points out that she didn't mention the sexual touching to police.

I recognize that," she replied. That memory came back later."

She previously testified she was intoxicated and in a state of distress at the time.

Manishen suggested to the student her memories are unreliable and inaccurate" and that Watter never put his hand under her underwear in the bathroom.

He suggests there was a kiss, but that she initiated it.

Both times, she disagreed.

Again referring to transcripts, this time from interviews with The Spectator, Manishen noted that the victim remembered something new, that Watter had an erection and appeared aroused in the bathroom, late in the interview process.

Manishen asked why she didn't mention it in previous interviews.

Within each of these interviews these subjects were very, very difficult to speak of and it was not comfortable to speak of, so I don't think I always mentioned certain things," she said.

I'm going to suggest to you that you didn't speak about it because it didn't happen," Manishen replied.

Manishen also suggested that an alleged beating was actually a spanking" in which she was a willing and enthusiastic participant and engaged fully in all that happened."

I will disagree with you," she replied.

She previously testified Watter held her down a struck her buttocks and legs with a cupped hand, causing bruising and welts.

Defence also questioned the witness on an interview in which the victim tells police the kissing that preceded an incident in which she alleges Watter twisted her nipples until they bled - might have been somewhat consensual at that point."

She said that might have been true in a weird, f---ed up way."

I think I started feeling a lot of shame and blame and ... I didn't really know what was happening at that time," she replied.

The victim repeatedly denied all suggestions that any of the incidents were consensual. There was a power imbalance" because Watter was in a position of authority over her, she testified.

Consent is more complicated than that," she said.

The trial continues June 13.

Kate McCullough is an education reporter at The Spectator. kmccullough@thespec.com