Hamilton police officer accused of sexually assaulting co-worker ‘purposely’ misinterpreted her: Crown

WARNING: This article references sexual assault and may affect those who have experienced​ ​​​sexual violence or know someone affected by it. It also mentions thoughts of suicide.

A Hamilton police officer who stands accused of sexually assaulting his colleague in 2022 “would not take no for an answer,” Crown lawyer Jason Nicol argued as he completed his closing arguments Tuesday in a Burlington courthouse.

“In a nutshell, this case is about a more experienced and senior police officer who would not take no for an answer from a younger, very inexperienced female colleague despite her attempts to mollify him and repel his advances,” Nicol said. 

In the trial, which began in January, Nicol said Jeffery Turnbull pursued a younger officer, made sexual comments, sent her unsolicited messages and gifts and inappropriately touched her without her consent before sexually assaulting her in March 2022.

The woman’s identity is protected under a standard publication ban. Turnbull has pleaded not guilty in the case before Ontario Justice Jennifer Marie Campitelli. The trial has taken place in Hamilton and Burlington, Ont. 

Defence lawyer Joanne Mulcahy finished making her closing argument at the Ontario Court of Justice in Burlington on July 17. 

Her final submission, which began in June, focused on what she said were inconsistencies in the woman’s story of the alleged assault and her interactions with Turnbull in the months before and weeks after.

On the stand, the woman said Turnbull spoke to and messaged her regularly even though she didn’t want to talk to him. She said he gave her gifts and flirted with her, including by sending her nude images of himself. She said he would talk about his poor mental health or even threaten suicide if she didn’t go along with what he wanted.

It was under those circumstances, the woman said, that she went to Turnbull’s home when his wife was away to visit him, his children and dog with her new puppy. The woman says it was on that visit that Turnbull pinned her to the couch and sexually assaulted her despite her saying she didn’t want to have sex. 

The defence says the two were actually having a consensual affair, which the woman denies. Turnbull said the two planned to have sex while his wife was away, the woman was a willing participant, and that the visit with her dog was actually the next day. 

Mulcahy said the crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sex at Turnbull’s residence was non-consensual.

The woman was inconsistent in her description of the alleged assault, Mulcahy said, not using the word rape with investigators and only using it on the stand Jan. 10. 

Her story about the alleged assault also didn’t add up, Mulcahy said. For example, the woman said a back injury prevented her from resisting, but she was working as a police officer in the field and had not been deemed unfit to perform her usual physical duties. 

The defence also said she mischaracterized their relationship. For example, Mulcahy said, text records show the woman called Turnbull “rude” when he removed her as a Snapchat friend, indicating she wanted to talk to him. 

Nicol said inconsistencies in the woman’s testimony were understandable and “peripheral.” For example, he said, she’s clear on which weekend the alleged assault happened, even if there is disagreement about the exact day. 

And he said that while the Crown and defence may disagree on when Turnbull allegedly touched the woman inappropriately at work, there was ample opportunity for that to occur within the time frame the woman suggested. 

He said the woman participated in preparatory meetings with the Crown and had already done an interview with Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit — which investigates police conduct — and the Hamilton police professional standards team.

It would be unreasonable to assume she could remember exactly what she said during a “gruelling” and “extensive” cross examination, Nicol said, alluding to her crying and requiring breaks while on the witness stand.

He noted she testified “a trial was the last thing she wanted,” and said “she has gained nothing from this process but stress and grief.”

Nicol also said the defence was tapping into myths about how a survivor of sexual violence should or should not act. He said her continuing to speak with Turnbull in the week after the alleged assault is not out of the ordinary. 

He also accused the defence of unfairly “blaming a victim for failing to be her own criminal investigator,” when Mulcahy asked why she hadn’t attempted to access deleted Snapchat messages for evidence like her client did. 

At one point in her closing argument, Mulcahy said her client may have honestly but mistakenly thought the woman was consenting. 

Nicol countered that consent must be communicated at the time of sex, so “unless Mr. Turnbull had telepathy,” it was irrelevant what he thought the woman was thinking if she didn’t say yes.

A recurring theme in the trial, Nicol said, was Turnbull  “consistently and purposely” misinterpreting things that would have been obvious.

Earlier in the trial, when Nicol questioned Turnbull about texting the woman after she messaged him saying, “I think I need space,” Turnbull responded by saying: “She never said, ‘I need space,’ she said, ‘I think I need space.'” 

Turnbull said he wasn’t clear on what the woman was thinking at the time and didn’t think their relationship would be very different going forward, Nicol recounted Tuesday. 

That “should be very telling,” he said, adding it’s easy in hindsight so say the woman should have been more direct but understandable why she wasn’t.

He said often in their relationship, she went along with what Turnbull wanted to keep the peace at work, fearful of getting into trouble for speaking out.

In her closing arguments, Mulcahy took issue with the complainants’ telling of how Turnbull would discuss his mental health.

Mulcahy said threats of suicide were introduced on the “eve of trial” to “justify her actions and her conduct” and that it “should be very troubling to the court” that the complainant is “using his disability against him.”

The woman never mentioned discussions of suicide to the police’s professional standards investigation or Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit, she said, bringing it up in the first time when she met with the Crown because she needed “spin” to explain why she willingly went to Turnbull’s house the instance of the alleged assault. 

Nicol responded that suicide is a difficult topic for the woman because of a family experience, and denied anyone was weaponizing Turnbull’s mental health. He said the officer referenced it to psychologically manipulate his colleague.

Campitelli is scheduled to read her verdict on Oct. 3.

If you’re in immediate danger or fear for your safety or that of others around you, please call 911. For support in your area, you can look for crisis lines and local services via the Ending Violence Association of Canada database. ​​

If you or someone you know is struggling with mental health, here’s where to look for help: