Article contentThe prosecutor urged the court, when assessing the evidence of the six women who say they were assaulted by Gaum, to “consider the case as a whole, given the mutually collaborative effect of all of the witnesses, rather than a consideration on a count-by-count basis.Article content“Why do these six women have strikingly similar stories about what happened to them? In the Crown’s submission, the answer is clear: because they are telling the truth.Article content“In light of the evidence called at trial, is there any reasonable doubt that Dr. Gaum assaulted these children in the manner described? … The Crown submits that the answer is “no,” and for that reason asks that Dr. Gaum be convicted of each count.”Article contentThe defence elected not to offer any evidence at trial.Article contentIn his closing submissions, Nick Fitch said the “defence position and alternatives can be stated simply. … These events did not occur; if they did occur, it was not Dr. Gaum; and if it was Dr. Gaum, what was done was to protect the child from harm.”Article contentArticle contentFitch said the Crown downplayed the issues around the passage of time.Article content“The concern of inadvertent collusion is central in this case,” he said, referring to news coverage and Facebook posts about Gaum.Article content“The Crown wants the court to find the witnesses must be telling the truth because they each claim a slap with something like a ‘shut up,’ but every witness saw the news (stories) and had some part to play with the Facebook group.Article content“Most posted their own experiences on the group. Many of the witnesses could not keep their evidence straight from statements they gave (police) within the last five years, yet the Crown suggests a tainted memory from 50 years ago is reliable enough to convict.”Article contentFitch said pediatric dentists are specialists who are referred the “most difficult patients.”Article content“These are children with behavioural issues that fight, bite, kick and are often sedated,” he said. “There is no doubt that dentistry of combative children, particularly when these matters occurred, was not pretty. It is easy to imagine why a child may interpret an experience that involves pain, scary tools, restriction and harsh tones as assault.Article contentArticle content“The Crown has failed to prove the allegations.”Article contentOutside court, Anstey told reporters the Crown’s case basically comes down to the fact that six witnesses testified about essentially having the same experience.Article content“They were all young girls who were patients of Dr. Gaum,” the prosecutor said. “In the course of the treatment, when he was prevented from doing something, he got angry, he yelled at them – generally to shut up – and then struck them across the face.Article content“The Crown submits that it’s beyond coincidence that these witnesses … could have the same stories, other than that they’re telling the truth.”Article contentAnstey admitted the court had some concerns about the ability of each of the witnesses to identify Gaum as their assailant.Article content“The Crown takes the view that three of the people who testified were long-term patients of Dr. Gaum,” Anstey said. “They saw him for years. I think the shortest of our long-term patients was about four years, and our longest saw him for about 15 years. … The Crown’s view is that these are not witnesses who are mistaken about who it was that they saw.
Judge reserves decision at retired pediatric dentist’s Halifax trial on historical assault charges
