Trial Concludes In Alleged Rape Of 13-Year-Old: Witness For Defence Claims Victim Retracted Rape Accusations, Prosecution Says Girl Was Systematically Raped
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
Arguments from defence and prosecution counsels ended in the Grand Court today, December 22, 2025, where a Caymanian man faces serious rape allegations concerning a 13-year-old girl. The allegations stem from incidents reportedly occurring a few years ago, involving claims of inappropriate conduct by the man in a vehicle and a bathroom. Court testimonies reveal a complex web of events, including the victim’s detailed accounts, the accused’s denials, and a key witness’s assertion today that the victim later retracted parts of her statements.
According to recordings of police interviews and cross-examinations, the 13-year-old girl alleged multiple instances of sexual misconduct by the man.
One key incident allegedly occurred in a car where the young girl claimed the man pulled over, parked and asked her to “give him head.” The man denied this.
The young girl further alleged that the man entered the bathroom while she was showering and proceeded to assault her sexually, including touching and penetration. The man said this is not true, and he only entered the restroom where the girl was showering because he needed to use the restroom urgently. He explained that the shower had frosted glass for privacy, and he did not see the girl in the shower while he used the toilet.
Crown counsel from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions challenged the man’s account of his going home on his lunch break that day and using the bathroom. DPP Crown Counsel alleged that the events could not have occurred as the man described due to the timeline.
Expanding on his arguments, DPP Crown Counsel ascertained that the man had one hour for lunch. Estimating, DPP Crown Counsel said that the man took about 20 minutes to drive from his workplace to pick up lunch and head home.
DPP Crown Counsel explained that, after taking 20 minutes to get home, the man reportedly noted that the young girl was in the bathroom for 30 to 45 minutes taking a shower. After the passage of this time, the man reportedly could not hold back his urgent bathroom needs to do a “number two.” DPP Crown Counsel estimated that, given the time that would have transpired, including the time spent in the bathroom, the man would have returned late to work. The man rejected this claim, saying that he had eaten parts of his lunch while driving home and, after using the bathroom, he returned to work on time. DPP Crown Counsel asserted that the man was lying and painted a picture of systematic abuse.
When questioned about the allegation of exposing his penis to the young girl, the man denied this, saying that, although his pants were faulty because it did not have a button, he wore boxers and shorts underneath his pants. Reportedly, the purpose of the extra layers was to prevent any accidental exposure if the zipper moved its position as he moved. The man indicated that the young girl was fabricating the stories.
Explaining another incident, the man said in his testimony that, at one stage, he confronted the young girl about playing songs with explicit lyrics, such as those referencing “sucking d*ck,” but his questions were disciplinary and not sexual in intent.
A pivotal element in the case came today when a woman who initially reported the allegations to police after the young girl confided in her appeared as a witness.
Reportedly, in the woman’s police interview years ago, she shared detailed accounts, including the car and shower incidents, and confirmed that the man had admitted to asking the 13-year-old girl for “head” (oral sex) and apologising tearfully.
However, the woman testified today that the 13-year-old girl retracted parts of her statements during a conversation in September 2025. Defence arguments appeared to lean on this retraction and the man’s position that the young girl’s allegations were false. On the other hand, DPP Crown Counsel pointed to the statements made by the woman in her prepared statement and alleged that there were inconsistencies in that statement and her testimony today. DPP Crown Counsel asked the woman if the reason for the inconsistent comments was that she was trying to help the man in court proceedings.
Written submissions are expected to be made by defence and prosecution counsels in January 2026, following which Justice Richards is expected to issue a verdict.
Note to readers
While no judgment has yet been issued and no guilt has been proven, the case underscores ongoing concerns about child protection in the Cayman Islands and the lack of a sex offender registry to alert the public about the names of sex offenders.
In this case, neither the accused’s name, the victim’s name, nor any information may be published in the media which may directly or indirectly identify the victim.
