Final evidence in Mankoo trial

THE jury in the trial of a Thame hair consultant facing charges of indecent and sexual assault, heard his receptionist describe the defendant, Praminder Mankoo, as “The best boss I ever had – a lovely guy!”
Julie Herron, who has worked at Mankoo’s clinic in Thame since June, 2007, said that she accepted an offer of a massage from her boss after work, for stress in her left shoulder. She said that she removed her top and trousers, and her bra, “because it would get in the way of the massage.”
She told the court that at no time did Mankoo touch her breasts or say anything “inappropriate.”

Miss Herron was asked by the Prosecution Counsel whether her evidence was at all influenced or effected by the fact that she liked her work and wanted to keep her job.”

“No,” she replied.

When repeatedly questioned about how much of Mankoo’s chest she had seen when he was wearing his white, clinic jacket, and whether she had ever seen chest scars (scars complainants had said they had seen when he was undressed), Miss Herron told the Prosecuting Counsel:

“You’re giving me a hard time; you’re a bit scarey!”

Pros. Counsel: “What do you mean?”

Miss Herron: “You’re pushing the point too much.!

P.C : “Some people are saying things differently to you.”

Miss Herron: “I know they are. I am totally surprised that they could say such lies.”

P.C : “Have you discussed things with Mr Mankoo then?”

Miss H : “We have talked about things. It is a horrible situation.”

She refuted a suggestion that she had come to court to lie because she was worried about paying her mortgage.

Three other women spoke today, on day eight of the trial, in Mankoo’s defence, about their experience of his behaviour, saying in turn:
“What I expected – a professional manner.”

“Extremely respectful and courteous with clients.”

“Very professional, straight forward and honest character.”

All the evidence completed, the Prosecution and the Defence then both summed up their cases for the jury. The following are some of their main points:

PROSECUTION

That there is a thread running through the evidence of the women complainants, i.e.
* that they were all complaining of going bald, a very embarrassing condition; all in desperate need of a cure.

* All offered a massage, during which the defendant “chances his arm” (Pros. Counsel’s words) by “groping” their chest area while saying inappropriate things.

* Most of the complainants said something to friends or family about what happened to them.

*That the women did not know each other so their allegations could not be coincidence.

That it was hard to believe that a professional person, against whom someone had made an allegation (the 1998 incident), would accept a caution rather than fight to clear his name, and if nothing else, whether he be guilty of that offence or not, should it not have been ‘flagged up’ to him that he would need to take more care with future patients?”

That Mankoo is “preditory”

That a couple of things the defendant said, are particularly telling i.e.
* That when interviewed about one of the complainants, there was no mention from Mankoo that the incident was consensual, until the officer interviewing him mentioned the allegation about Mankoo getting undressed and the complainant seeing scars on his abdomen.

* That in that same interview, he said: “She’s one that didn’t run out!” – Not just a ‘slip of the tongue’ said the Prosecution, but that Mankoo was indicating that others had taken unbridge with him and “stormed out.”

* That he had said in evidence that he could not control himself because he had an erection.
“He should have learned that a long time ago,” said the Prosecution.

DEFENCE

That Mankoo is entitled to the benefit of any doubt the jury may feel about his guilt.

That it is not a case of who you believe, but whether the prosecution has made “you” (the jury) certain.

That people do sometimes embellish, exaggerate and mis-interpret what happens to them.

That some of the women may have been influenced by what they had seen on TV, read in the news or been told by the police officer in the case of what other women had said.

That he may have been “a foolish, stupid man,” and over-stepped the bounds of decency, in having two extra-marital affairs (the two incidents that he claims were consensual) but that does not make him “a sexual predator or a sexual monster.”

That it is unlikely that a professional man would “take leave of his senses” and jeopordise his business and his family by sexually assaulting six women?

That it was patronsing to women in general to believe that because they were suffering from low esteem due to hairloss, that a woman would not be capable of saying “No!”

That there are inconsistancies in the statements of the first witness, (9 years apart) from the 1998 incident, which therefore made her evidence “inherantly unreliable. “

That several defence witnesses, who had known the defendant for some time, indicated that Mankoo was a man of good character, and “not the type to commit these sorts of offences.”

The judge will give her summing up of all the evidence tomorrow morning (11/09/08), and then the jury will be sent out to consider their verdict on each, individual count.