Nygard must be acquitted, case against him defies 'common sense,' defence argues

Peter Nygard must be acquitted of all charges at his sexual assault trial because the prosecution's case against the one-time Canadian fashion mogul is based on evidence that's untrustworthy and defies "common sense," his defence lawyer argued in court on Tuesday.

In his closing submission, Brian Greenspan told the jury that they need to carefully consider the totality of the evidence presented by the Crown and reflect on the "fatal flaws and lack of testimonial trustworthiness" of the five complainants.

Greenspan said if the jurors consider the many aspects of the evidence "that defy reason and common sense,"  their "duty will be clear."

"You will recognize that Peter Nygard must be acquitted because the prosecution has utterly failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

Nygard has pleaded not guilty in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice to five counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement. Justice Robert Goldstein is presiding over the Toronto jury trial, which began in late September.

Court has heard from each of the five complainants that, from a period of the late 1980s to around 2005, each woman ended up in Nygard's private bedroom suite in his downtown Toronto building where they say they were attacked and sexually assaulted by him.

Greenspan did a brief overview of the testimony of all five of the women, posing the question to the jury whether the evidence the complainants presented was possible to have occurred.

Nygard has testified that he doesn't recall four of the five women, or remembering having any interaction with them. But he has also insisted that any of allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual assault attributed to him could not have happened because he would never engage in such activity.

Greenspan suggested that despite Nygard's inability to recollect the women, some of the details they testified to in court could have happened. For example he said some of their evidence about how they initially met Nygard on flights could be possible.

But other details court heard were either unlikely, impossible, absurd or pure nonsense, Greenspan said.

"What never occurred were the sexual assaults described by each of the complainants," he said.

The Crown's case, Greenspan said, was based on "contradictions and innuendo" and that the Crown would often advance a position that "simply makes no common sense."

Revisionist histories of events had been advanced as if they presented a clear picture of events 18 to 35 years ago, Greenspan said.

Greenspan also suggested that some of the women had been motivated to testify against Nygard because they had joined a U.S. class action lawsuit against him.