The Tribune

By PAVEL BAILEY

Tribune Staff Reporter

pbailey@tribunemedia.net

PROSECUTORS accused Khethino Cadet of inventing an argument about his son to explain away allegations that he raped and assaulted the child’s mother in Exuma, while his lawyer attacked the police investigation as “hasty and sloppy” and urged jurors to reject the woman’s account.

The sharply conflicting versions of what happened on August 17, 2024, were put to the jury during closing submissions in Cadet’s trial before Justice Jeannine Weech Gomez on charges of rape and aggravated assault.

Prosecutor Eucal Bonaby said Cadet wanted to have sex with the then 33-year-old complainant against her will, allegedly ripped off her clothes and forced his finger into her anus.

Defence attorney Keith Seymour maintained that no sexual assault occurred and said Cadet and the complainant instead argued after she said she was leaving with their son.

Mr Bonaby attacked that account as a “recent fabrication”, saying the claim about the couple arguing over their son was never put to the complainant when she testified.

The prosecutor also questioned how Cadet could give a detailed account of the conversation when he testified nearly two years later despite being unable to recall details of a conversation with the complainant during his police record of interview hours after the alleged incident.

Mr Bonaby accused Cadet of blatantly lying on the witness stand and described him as combative and defensive during cross-examination.

He also accused Cadet of fake crying when he expressed concern on the stand about the complainant taking his son away.

Mr Bonaby argued that Cadet’s decision to testify ultimately strengthened the prosecution’s case, claiming he took the stand to lie to the jury.

Cadet, who was present for the late-afternoon submissions, had his head down at several points and occasionally shook his head.

Mr Seymour, however, argued that the prosecution’s case rested almost entirely on the complainant’s testimony and lacked corroborating evidence.

He called the complainant “spiteful and deceitful”, told jurors that false allegations occur and said the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defence denied the allegation that Cadet inserted his finger into the complainant’s anus and challenged several aspects of her account of a violent struggle.

Mr Seymour pointed to testimony that no blood was seen inside the house or on the complainant’s clothing. He also said no torn clothing was submitted into evidence despite her allegation that Cadet ripped off her clothes and cut off her underwear.

The defence also questioned the absence of documentation showing damage to a bathroom door. The complainant alleged that she barricaded herself inside the bathroom and Cadet broke down the door.

Mr Seymour said an officer testified that there was no DNA evidence implicating Cadet.

He also relied on medical evidence, saying a doctor found no visible bruising on the complainant despite her account of a struggle.

The defence acknowledged that blood was detected on an anal swab but said the doctor offered three possible explanations for its presence. Mr Seymour attributed tenderness to the complainant’s forehead recorded in the medical report to her own account of falling down the stairs that night.

He argued that the evidence was conspicuously absent and the complainant’s account was inconsistent.

The prosecution countered that the physical evidence was consistent with her account.

Mr Bonaby referred to medical testimony concerning tenderness on the left side of the complainant’s face and anal bleeding.

He maintained that Cadet slapped the complainant and tore off her clothes, which the prosecution said amounted to aggravated assault, and that Cadet’s actions led to her falling that night.

The prosecutor said the complainant resisted Cadet’s sexual advances and locked herself in the bathroom.

Addressing the absence of physical evidence from the residence, Mr Bonaby argued that Cadet had a 72-hour window in which he could have cleaned up blood, burned the complainant’s clothing and removed the bathroom door.

The prosecution also relied on evidence about the complainant’s condition after she left the house.

Mr Bonaby said she slipped out after Cadet fell asleep and went at about 3am to the nearby home of Fredricka Dames.

The complainant was crying when she arrived, he said, arguing there was no reason for her to be in that condition over merely an “disagreement”, as the defence contended.

Although Ms Dames did not witness the alleged assault, the prosecution argued that her evidence about the complainant’s distressed condition corroborated that something had happened.

Mr Bonaby also challenged the defence’s portrayal of Cadet’s relationship with the complainant.

The defence emphasised that the two had previously been intimate, shared a child and were co-parenting at the time of the alleged incident.

However, the prosecution said the complainant testified that she and Cadet had separate rooms and were only co-parenting.

Mr Seymour said Cadet had denied the allegations from the outset and had nothing to hide. He also said the complainant had not informed Cadet of his son’s condition since the allegations were made.

He urged the jury to acquit Cadet.

Mr Bonaby maintained that the prosecution had proved its case.

Cassie Bethel also served as a prosecutor.