“She would have been disgusted. She would have been enraged,” Mr Nicholls said. “She would have insisted in speaking to someone about it. But the evidence is clear she doesn’t”.
Instead, Mr Nicholls said, the woman waited a few days before approaching a supervisor at the pool, telling him a version of the complaint that did not mention touching of the vagina.
Mr Nicholls said in her initial complaint to the pool, it was clear the mother “didn’t want anything done about it” and “she considered it was a mistake”.
He said despite the woman saying “I’ll never forget what was said” by her daughter, “it wasn’t even in her statement to police. It’s simply not believable.”
“It was something that she made up. It has to have been. There can be no other explanation for it,” he told the court. “She was clearly motivated by bias against the accused.”
Mr Nicholls said it was a “common theme” throughout the trial that the children’s and parents’ reactions to the alleged incidents were on “first impression it was accidental”.
He said Detective Emma Stewart, the officer in charge of the investigation who interviewed the children in recorded evidence played to the court, “was prepared to do inappropriate things to assist her investigation” including asking the girls leading questions about where they had been touched.
“When she doesn’t get the word vagina you can see the frustration on her face,” he said.
The trial continues.