Thame hairologist accused of telling ‘a pack of lies’

PRAMINDER Mankoo has been in the witness box for the second day today, and continued to deny most of the eleven sexual and indecent assault charges against him.
Mankoo maintained that the most serious allegation, that he tried to force a patient to commit a sex act upon him, was instigated by the woman herself.
“She was more in control of the situation than I was,” he said, on what was the seventh day of his trial.

Mankoo admitted becoming aroused during a massage treatment on the woman, saying that he allowed her to massage his private parts. (Editor’s paraphrase)

The Prosecution counsel accused him of “telling a pack of lies” about the incident, and that he claimed it was consensual because he was trying to explain away the fact that he knew she had seen his burn scars on his abdomen.

“Absolutley not,” Mankoo replied.

When asked,”Why did you do what you say you did with this witness, knowing you had faced a previous Caution for a sexual assault, and a police complaint from another patient?”

He replied: “I was afraid that if I didn’t comply, I would offend her and she might go to the police, because I had told her about the 1998 incident.”

Following evidence from a second defence witness, an ex-patient, Mankoo admitted that he had not told this witness, nor the ex-GP who spoke in his defence yesterday, the whole truth about the 1998 incident
for which he was cautioned.

When cross examined about not remembering a great deal about one particular complainant, an ex temp. employee, Mankoo was asked how he was then able to say later that she was “quite busty.”

“Do you remember the bust size of all your patients?”
“No,” replied Mankoo.

Three other defence witnesses, including Mankoo’s dentist brother, described him in turn as, “Very honest, caring and someone who “puts the needs of others before his own,” “someone who would be taken advantage of, rather than the other way round,”someone who would do nothing to jeopordise his family, and by his brother, as someone the family would go to for a massage if they felt tense or had a headache,”a good man, gentle, soft and compassionate,” “a great father,” and “easily lead.”

Earlier, Mankoo had told the judge in reply to questioning, that he was treating ladies in an intimate way, without a chaperone or other female on the premises, out of “financial necessity,” because he could only afford to pay for a limited number of receptionist hours.

“I was always concerned,” he said, “because you are putting yourself in a vunerable position. But I couldn’t do anything about it. I was trying to offer a service.”

The trial continues tomorrow at Oxford Crown Court.