Gould found not guilty of taxi cab assault

(CMR) Everette Leon Gould (40) was found not guilty of assault by penetration by a jury after they heard over a week of testimony against him that he digitally penetrated a lawyer who used his mom's taxi service to get home on Friday evening.

The jury of six women and one man returned the verdict shortly after 3:00 pm Monday afternoon.

The victim testified that she passed out after being out for an evening with friends drinking and awoke to find herself in a horrific situation.

DPP request chaperone for taxi driver accused of sexual assault

On Friday, Crown Counsel Greg Walcolm laid out the prosecution's case for the jury to consider. He shared that the complainant said that she was sexually assaulted by Gould as he moonlighted as a taxi driver without a valid taxi license.

After the assault, the victim could not recall much of the man who gave her a ride home except that he was a bearded man. The evidence was that he pulled off right before her residence where he penetrated her with his fingers almost in visual sight of her home in an empty lot next to her house for about 10-15 minutes.

As police began their investigation into the situation they pulled CCTV footage from a local property to make further inquiries into the identity of the driver. It was soon determined that the vehicle belonged to Gould's mother and she was the only licensed taxi driver for that taxi.

Gould gave a no comment interview but did chose to answer some questions about who he was. He did admit that he was working as a dispatcher occasionally for his mother's company. He claimed that wanted to engage in sex with him.

The victim said she awoke to find him penetrating her digitally with his finger and she attempted to quickly find a way to get him to stop by informing him that she was on her period. The prosecution also noted the point of her having a tampon inserted at the time.

Telephone evidence showed that during the pickup of this passenger he was arguing with this girlfriend via messaging and having a conversation. When he was asked about this during his police interview he made no comment. He noted that he did not remember anything to do with June 28, 2019.

Phone evidence further found that he told his girlfriend, an associate in Finance and Corporate Group at Walkers, asked him what happened that night and he said that he couldn't remember anything about the Friday night's event.

He told the court:

I am innocent, I was the one who was sexually assaulted.

The crown made the point that her husband and children were at home waiting for her and it's particularly odd that a married woman would be willing to take a chance a one-off fling with a total stranger so close to her home.

The defendant's position was that he was sexually assaulted by the alleged victim and she told him on the drive home that her husband was unable to satisfy her. The prosecution questioned the unlikely nature of these events pointing out it was peculiar that a mother of two and wife whose husband knew she was on her way home would take a chance of having sex within view of her home.

The alleged victim gave notice behind and screen and shared that he informed her husband of the assault but over a few days revealed more about what she believed happened to her. He pressed her more when he found her sitting down crying.

On July 3 she made a report to the police station.

During his testimony, Gould claimed that she grabbed him and grabbed his privates which was not something he had said during his no comment police interview. The prosecution asked the jury to consider the difficulty of her unbuckling his pants as he had claimed from her position.

When he was asked by DPP's office what happened next there appeared to be some confusion about her grabbing his private parts whilst at the same time pulling his hand to hold her vagina.

The prosecution noted that the defendant's strategy was to throw multiple things into the mix to question the credibility of her and her husband.

Johnathan Hughes of Samson Law Associates represented the defendant.