?A woman?s anger and scorn? is how a defence lawyer described the laying of charges against her 30-year-old Jamaican client as his Supreme Court serious sex assault trial reached its penultimate day.

But Crown counsel Carrington Mahoney called Shade Subair?s client a gigolo who used the 24-year-old victim as a plaything, nor should they be swayed by the fact he once wrote numerous Bible verses to the woman.

Mr. Mahoney also suggested that the defence had three major hurdles ? a letter the defence allege the victim wrote, the defendant?s former schoolgirl mistress and alleged happenings at the defendant?s friend?s home.

The two lawyers gave their closing arguments in the week and-a-half long trial before a seven woman, five man jury. Chief Justice Richard Ground is expected to give his summation this morning and the jury is likely to have the case before noon.

The man denies two counts of serious sexual assault, two counts of unlawful wounding, breaking and entering and intimidating a witness in February and May 2003. He cannot be named for legal reasons.

Ms Subair suggested many times throughout her speech that the jury should believe the defence?s witnesses over the victim.

?Clearly this is a woman who was head over heels,? she said. ?Maybe even obsessed.?

She brought up various events in the case such as when the victim allegedly called the defendant 15 times in one night out of what she called ?desperation?.

?She saw the relationship she had worked so hard for, slipping through her fingers,? she said. The victim had previously told the court that she called the defendant for him to collect his belongings.

Ms Subair suggested that ?someone so temperamental who could smash up car windows could easily throw his stuff outside.?

The defence lawyer recounted part of the victim?s testimony where she said during the first attack the defendant tried to drag her out of her apartment she ran back into her room and locked the door.

The victim claimed the defendant must have opened the door with a screwdriver that was in her apartment due to renovations.

?Wouldn?t you run in the room and jump out of the window or scream ?help me? to avoid a fatal attack??, Ms Subair asked.

Ms Subair mentioned the cut that the defendant alleged he had due to breaking a cell phone in his hand. On Monday, Dr. Jatinda Heir told the jury that when he examined the defendant he found no lacerations.

Ms Subair also questioned why the victim did not call the Police right away on the first attack. The victim previously told the jury that she pressed redial on the phone and spoke to the defendant?s brother?s girlfriend and then called the defendant?s friend. Neither would help her.

?Wouldn?t the first number she called be 911 even if she couldn?t speak to them,? Ms Subair said.

She also asked the jury not to be prejudiced when deliberating ? imploring them to not be reduced to stereotyping Jamaican men.

Ms Subair read out again the letter her client says was passed on to him through a witness from the complainant, but was written as if it were from someone else.

The victim?s former friend ? who testified on the man?s behalf Monday ? recounted joking with the woman about writing a similar letter.

Mr. Mahoney said the victim ? a graduate of Berkeley Institute ? does not speak how the letter was written.

He also said the kiss mark on the letter resembled the lips of the defendant?s cousin ? a witness for the defence.

He told the jury that this case sounded like an episode from the soap opera ?The Young and the Restless?.

He said that the victim?s father ?smelled the rat straight from the start? referring to the defendant.

Mr. Mahoney said the defence stayed far away from the happenings on both nights of the alleged attacks.

?You don?t hear one thing from the defence about sex, whether it happened or if it was consensual,? he said.

He also suggested that all the defence brought up was the defendant?s former mistress.

Mr. Mahoney said that by looking at the pictures it was clear to see that the victim ?got trashed? that night and that the they could not be fabricated.

In response to Ms Subair?s suggestion that the victim should have reacted differently to the first attack Mr. Mahoney said that people respond differently to different things.

He also said that the defendant made ?admissions? to his wrongs by blaming Obeah (Jamaican witchcraft) for his actions.

He also wondered why the defendant would have apologised to the victim and her parents for the incidents if he was innocent.

The defendant apologising to the victim?s father was never challenged by the defence.

Mr. Mahoney also attacked the victim?s former friend?s credibility by recalling her testimony that she and the victim took pregnancy tests soon after in mid May 2003.

He told the jury that this was impossible because the victim became pregnant after the second attack on May 23, 2003.

?I ask you to reject the defence,? Mr. Mahoney said, adding the guilty should not walk away from crimes they committed.