A young woman faced her stepfather in a State Court hearing held on Tuesday, accusing him of sexually abusing her over nearly a decade, starting when she was five and continuing until she reached thirteen. The court heard her recount how the abusive behavior began with improper touching and gradually escalated to full sexual intercourse. She described a pattern of coercion and fear, saying, He told me not to tell, because if I did, everything would go wrong for us. The prosecution pressed for a sentence of eleven years in prison and sought compensation totaling twelve thousand euros, arguing that the harm inflicted was grave and lasting. The narrative presented at oral proceedings underscored the extent of the alleged abuse and the lasting impact on the victim.
The accused, however, denied all charges and submitted a formal complaint in his own defense. He stated that he had treated the young woman like a father and described the relationship as aggressive, insisting that boundaries were not violated. He claimed to have behaved with care and respect, and he requested the court to evaluate the allegations in light of his version of events, arguing that the case lacked credibility in several key aspects.
Testimony surrounding the case reflected a lack of consensus among important witnesses. The mother of the young woman and the accuseds partner did not corroborate the girls story, and both suggested that the victims account did not seem real to them. The mother recalled hearing about alleged abuses but interpreted them as inconsistent with what she considered to be a more ordinary relationship within the family. She explained that she believed the girls intention had been to end the relationship with the suspect for reasons that were not fully clear to her at the time.
The father of the complainant disputed the characterization of the girl as complicated child and spoke in defense of his daughter by asserting that the family environment did not reflect a pattern of manipulation or deceit. He described the stepfather as someone who had been a part of the household in a caretaker role and suggested that accusations of abuse might have stemmed from misunderstandings or conflicts within a difficult family dynamic. The defense asserted that the complainants allegations were not supported by consistent evidence, urging the court to examine the overall context and the reliability of the testimonies presented.
A medical examiner, called to the stand, reviewed the physical condition of the complainant and observed findings that were interpreted as consistent with penetration, specifically noting an anal fissure that could be associated with such events. The coroner, while acknowledging these findings, did not state conclusively that they confirmed the alleged acts, emphasizing that medical testimony could be interpreted in multiple ways depending on the broader evidentiary picture. The court weighed these medical observations alongside the statements of both sides to determine the strength of the prosecutions claims and the plausibility of the defenses rebuttals within the framework of applicable law and standard evidentiary thresholds.