The Tribune

By PAVEL BAILEY

Tribune Staff Reporter

pbailey@tribunemedia.net

The defence called it consensual “lovemaking”. Prosecutors called it rape at gunpoint.

Both sides made closing addresses yesterday in the rape trial of Kennedy Ingraham before Justice Jeannine Weech-Gomez.

Prosecutors allege Ingraham raped a 36-year-old woman, whose name is being withheld, after giving her a ride in western New Providence around 9am on March 20, 2023.

They allege he took the woman to a residence in Coral Harbour, where the assault happened in his car, before driving her to work at a grocery store.

The defence argued the sex was consensual and transactional, claiming the complainant fabricated the allegation after Ingraham failed to pay her the $250 they had allegedly agreed on beforehand.

Defence attorney Sonia Timothy Knowles said the prosecution bore the burden of proving its case. While accepting that sex took place, she said this was not a case of rape.

Ms Knowles recalled the complainant’s evidence that she had just dropped off her child and was seeking a ride to work on Bacardi Road when she accepted a ride from Ingraham.

The defence questioned why a woman would get into the front seat of a car with a man she did not know. The complainant told the court she tried to sit in the back, but said Ingraham insisted she sit in the front.

Ms Knowles described the sexual intercourse as “lovemaking”, not rape. She said Ingraham tried to kiss the complainant and fondle her breast, arguing that a rapist would not be so tender with a victim.

The defence also referred to evidence that when the complainant asked whether Ingraham had a condom, he told her he would give her a “second child”.

The complainant alleged Ingraham choked her and threatened her with a gun.

After the complainant was dropped off at work, the defence questioned why she did not immediately tell her coworkers about the alleged assault.

The defence called the complainant a liar and questioned why the torn shirt she said she wore that day was never produced in court.

Ms Knowles said the complainant, who speaks Creole, pretended not to understand English well. She noted that although the complainant used an interpreter in court, the defence alleged she and Ingraham spoke at length in English during the car ride about work, children and his phone number. The defence also noted that the complainant had lived and worked in The Bahamas for seven years.

Ms Knowles questioned why Ingraham would drop the complainant at the front door of the grocery store if he had raped her, and noted that no security footage from the store was exhibited in court.

The defence also questioned why the complainant did not call for help when she arrived at the store, and why she relied on a male pastor during the intimate process of a rape examination.

Ms Knowles argued the complainant had opportunities to escape, including when the gun was allegedly tossed aside during the alleged assault. She also questioned why Ingraham would take the complainant to his Coral Harbour home if she could later identify it to police.

The defence said the uniform at the house was a female immigration uniform and claimed Ingraham did not use it to intimidate the complainant.

Ms Knowles acknowledged that Ingraham could not be ruled out as a possible contributor to mixed DNA found on a vaginal swab taken from the complainant.

However, she said the complainant’s physical examination showed no abrasions, bruises, tenderness, choke marks or bite marks.

She said the complainant’s lengthy evidence in court contrasted with the “solemn” state a doctor recorded during the rape examination. She also said the complainant did not tick choking or threats on the hospital rape form, despite testifying that Ingraham did both.

Ms Knowles called the complainant “inconsistent” and said there was no medical evidence of rape or a struggle.

She said the allegation was made because the complainant wanted payment for sex and asked the jury to return a not guilty verdict.

Prosecutor Shaneka Carey countered that the complainant did not consent to sex.

Ms Carey said DNA evidence proved sexual intercourse occurred and noted that Ingraham admitted having sex with the complainant.

She said Ingraham emerged with an immigration jacket after stopping at his house, allegedly told the complainant he was an officer, and threatened to kill her with a gun if she did not have sex with him.

The prosecutor said Ingraham pretended to be an immigration officer to manipulate the complainant. She rejected the defence’s claim that the encounter was “lovemaking”, saying the alleged use of a gun made it an act of fear.

Ms Carey said the complainant did what she had to do to survive and tried to make the best of a bad situation by asking Ingraham to use a condom, which he did not.

She said the complainant first disclosed the rape to someone she trusted.

The prosecutor said choking does not always leave visible marks, especially on dark-skinned people.

Ms Carey also rejected the defence’s suggestion that the complainant ripped her own shirt, saying multiple witnesses, including police officers, testified that they saw her in a ripped shirt.

She said the defence claimed the complainant alleged rape because Ingraham failed to pay her $250 for sex, but questioned why no call or text logs were produced to support that claim.

Ms Carey said it was unreasonable to expect the complainant to jump from the car, arguing she could have injured herself.

The prosecution also questioned why Ingraham allegedly tried to hide the car used in the alleged assault by dropping it at his sister’s house the day after the rape, despite having used it for months before.

Ms Carey said accepting a ride was not an invitation for sex.

Addressing the complainant’s use of an interpreter, Ms Carey said the complainant could understand some English but could not respond in long phrases.

She said the complainant took the stand, said she was raped, and had to relive the experience.

The prosecution said Ingraham did not rely on charm, but used deception by wearing his fiancée’s immigration uniform and intimidating the complainant with a gun.

Ms Carey said the complainant went from work to the police station, where officers testified she cried.

She told jurors not to consider the defendant’s or complainant’s nationality, saying justice belongs to everyone.

The prosecution claimed the complainant’s freedom was taken when Ingraham allegedly threatened and raped her.

Ms Carey invited the jury to return a guilty verdict, saying it was the only verdict justice and common sense permitted.

Indiana Fitzgerald and Crystal Stuart also represented Ingraham.

Betty Wilson also prosecuted the case.