Fourth week of testimony in the case that has gripped NI

TUESDAY: It was not possible to determine whether intimate injuries the alleged victim suffered were caused by consensual or non-consensual sex, a doctor told the trial.

A forensic medical officer examined the woman less than 24 hours after the alleged attack, and found an internal “bleeding laceration”, internal bruising and minor bruising on her arm and legs.

But Dr Philip Lavery told Belfast Crown Court: “There’s no way of giving credence as to whether this was consensual or not — it does not help on deciding consensuality of intercourse.”

The doctor identified a “one centimetre bleeding laceration” on the wall of the woman’s vagina, just inside the vaginal opening.

When questioned about what might cause a tear of this sort, Dr Lavery said: “Any blunt force trauma to the wall of the vagina.”

He added: “It could include a penis, it could include fingers, it could include any object.”

Prosecution barrister Toby Hedworth asked: “Is there anything about this tear that could allow you to choose between any of those as a cause?”

The doctor answered “No.” He also told the jury how he had witnessed ‘fresh blood’ from the injury, using a technique of applying and removing pressure with a swab. Dr Lavery said he did not believe the blood was a result of menstruation.

The jury also heard how swabs and blood samples were taken by medics at the Rowan Sexual Assault Referral Centre at Antrim Hospital, and that clothing the woman had worn on the night in question was also retained.

The court also heard how the alleged victim had been tearful but co-operative during the hour-long examination, and showed no signs of intoxication.

WEDNESDAY: Semen containing the DNA of Ulster and Ireland rugby player Stuart Olding was found on the clothes of the woman he is accused of raping.

A forensic officer told the court that traces of Mr Olding’s semen were found on the alleged victim’s white jeans, underwear and black sequinned top.

Medical expert Dr Janet Hall, who was giving evidence on behalf of the defence, said that she had looked at the video of the woman’s examination, as well as at the notes provided by the doctor who carried out the examination.

She told the court that she could not identify where blood found on the complainant’s clothes had come from.

Dr Hall said that, although she could see ‘a pool of blood’ in the video shown to her of the complainant’s examination at a sexual assault centre in Antrim, she could not say whether or not it was menstrual blood.

Speaking of the video, Dr Hall said: “It didn’t show me where the laceration was, just where the blood was.

“From my perspective, I didn’t see the injury. I saw a pool of blood and I didn’t see where the blood was coming from.

“I would have liked to have seen the injury and have the blood swabbed away so I could have identified the injury.”

Dr Hall added that, having thought of the previous doctor’s evidence “what struck me overnight”, that any internal laceration that was still bleeding 14 hours later, “gives me cause for concern.”

She added later “it leaves a question in my mind: could it be menstrual?”

In discussing injuries in rape and sexual offences, Dr Hall said that tears to the vaginal wall are “the least common of injuries”.

She told the court: “If this injury was caused by a penis which was used by excess force, then I would have expected outer structures to be injured.

“It’s hard to believe an injury happened inside and not to the protecting structures outside,” the medical expert said.

The case continues.