WARNING: This story contains details involving the sexual abuse of children. The Crown says the evidence against a man accused in three historical sexual assaults is “so overwhelming that we need a new word for overwhelming.” Prosecutor Monica MacKenzie made the comment as she completed her closing address to the jury at the trial of Richard Neil on Friday afternoon. Neil, 67, has pleaded not guilty to 17 charges related to three sexual assaults on children that took place in Kitchener, Brampton and Oakville in the early 1990s. His trial began in Brampton at the start of October. The jury has heard the children were all attacked in parks, tied up, sexually assaulted and forced to drink their assailant’s urine. “The only issue is identity,” MacKenzie reminded jurors Friday. Neil does not dispute the attacks happened, but denies being the perpetrator. MacKenzie argued the DNA and fingerprint evidence leads to Neil, that the victims’ descriptions of their attacker align with what Neil looked like at the time, and that Neil had the opportunity to commit the crimes. MacKenzie also pointed to Neil having admitted to having a urine fetish, calling it “highly distinctive.” “Each piece of evidence independently points in the same direction,” MacKenzie told the jury. “Collectively, they are so overwhelming that we need a new word for overwhelming. There’s no reasonable alternative explanation. It is the only reasonable inference that is available on the evidence: that Richard Neil committed all three offences.” MacKenzie’s arguments come after Neil’s defence lawyer, Leo Adler, argued Thursday that there were problems with the DNA and fingerprint evidence presented at trial, and that the descriptions the victims gave of Neil didn’t match. As for the urine fetish, Adler recounted Neil’s testimony during the trial that it was an interest he developed around 2012 and something he only practises with consenting male adults in the privacy of a home. MacKenzie questioned Neil’s credibility during her closing argument, saying some of the things he said on the stand were “preposterous,” such as a claim he had never had a single pimple in his life. “Unfortunately for Mr. Neil, credibility is not measured by how often an accused person says ‘I didn’t do it,’” MacKenzie said. “Credibility is assessed by the way a person answers questions, whether the answers make sense, whether they remain consistent and whether the witness is prepared to acknowledge obvious facts when the evidence requires it.” The Crown also noted Neil never provided explanations for the “overwhelming evidence” that points to him being the perpetrator. MacKenzie asked jurors to find Neil guilty on all counts. “The person responsible has been identified by forensic science. There’s no reasonable doubt, no reasonable alternative explanation, and no innocent explanation of the evidence.” Jurors have been asked to return on Monday, when Justice Rosemarie Juginovic will give them instructions before they begin deliberations.
