Geiringer called rape story an ‘invention’

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34105, 18 March 1976, Page 2

Geiringer called rape story an ‘invention’

(New Zealand Preu Association;

WELLINGTON, March 17. A doctor had said a woman pa tient’s allegation that he had sexual intercourse with her was a “complet e invention,” the Wellington Magistrate’s Court was told today.

Eric Geiringer, a medical practitioner, is charged with having raped a 20-year-old woman on January The taking of depositions will resume on Friday.

Late this afternoon, Mr J. A. Wicks, S.M., said an application had been made under the provisions of section 156

of the Summary Proceedings Act and he had agreed to It He said that because the hearing was a preliminary one and not a trial, part of the evidence Would not be heard in open court.

The section allows this in the interests of, among other things, justice or public morality or the reputation of any victim of any alleged sexual offence.

Opening the case f<?r the prosecution, Mr J. H. C. Larsen, said the woman would say Gelringer took the opportunity provided by a gynaecological examination and had intercourse with her. The act took only a few but none the less was completed.

She would say she was taken so completely by surprise, and so shocked and stunned by what had happened, that she did not protest or call for help.

"Indeed, she left without making a complaint and went by taxi to the railway station and then home before she fully realised the significance of what had happened and, more particularly, what she should do about it,” Mr Larsen said.

Detective’s inquiry Gelringer confirmed she had been to his surgery on the day in question but denied intercourse took place.

Mr Larsen said it was established that seminal fluid oh the woman’s pants was in a grouping with semen that could not have come from her de facto husband but was of the same group as Geiringer, from whom a sample of blood was takeji. Another fact which confirmed what she said was that she was able to tell the police that Geiringer was circumcised. Detective Sergeant Brian Anthony Toomey said that on January 22 he took charge of inquiries into the alleged rape of the complainant by Geiringer. At 10.20 a.m. on January 30 he visited Geiringer with another detective at his home at Katori. He told Geiringer he was

inquiring into an assault alleged to have occurred on Geiringer on the night of January 16 and into a woman’s allegation that she was raped that day.

He showed Geiringer a photograph and asked him if he recognised the woman in it. Dr Geiringer replied: "Yes, she is a patient of mine.” He asked Geiringer if the woman visited him on January 16 at 1.30 p.m. He replied "Yes,,” but he did not know what time it was. He asked Geiringer what was the purpose of the medical examination carried out. Was it because of dryness of her private parts during sexual intercourse?

Geiringer had replied: "Yes, she was there for dryness of her private parts, and she also had an injection for polio for her child.” He asked Geiringer if he had intercourse with her either with or without her consent. He replied he did not have intercourse with her.

Geiringer had said, "Yes,” when asked if he had been circumcised.

Mr Toomey said he told Geiringer the police had found the de facto husband of the woman and that he admitted assaulting Geiringer. He had said to Geiringer: "He told us that when he assaulted you he told you why he was assaulting you, and said, ‘You rooted my missus.’ Why didn’t you tell this to the police when they came?” Geiringer had replied: “It is a l(e. He didn’t tel! me that. My wife was present.”

Geiringer said he gathered from what the man said . . . “What did you do at your practice today?” . . . that there was some dissatisfaction and that he was a relative of the patient. Geiringer said he had known the woman about four years. When asked if she stripped for the examination, he said: “She took her lower clothes off. This is normal. I cannot say what clothes she was Wearing.” Mr Toomey said he asked Geiringer the nature of his examination. Geiringer replied it was a Vaginal examination for any abnormality. He had said the patient’s

complaint was “one of dryness during sexual intercourse.” He could find nothing physically wrong and thought the problem was a psychological one.

He asked Geiringer if the woman had any medical problems. Geiringer had replied: “For the first year she had considerable problems, but after that she came right, and obviously she has not.”

During further questioning he had said he examined her private parts with his gloved hand, and that he was wearing a surgical glove. Mr Toomey said he told Geiringer the woman stated he pushed up her blouse and manipulated her right breast. Geiringer replied that he could not say yes or no, but he examined her breasts at one stage of the examination.

When told that the woman stated he licked her nipple, Geiringer had said he did not. "I said she says you turned her round the bed and had full sexual intercourse with her,” Mr Toomey said. “The defendant replied, •That is a complete invention.”

He had asked Geiringer if he knew of any reason why the woman should make such a serious allegation that he had sexual intercourse with her without her consent.

Geiringer replied: "Yes, I could invent reasons, but I don’t know. There is no known reason why she should make any allegation like this about me. After the assault I went over my list of patients for that day. I couldn’t see anything. The whole story Is ridiculous.”

He asked Geiringer if he was prepared to give him a sample of his blood and he agreed. He again asked if there was anv reason for the woman’s making the allegation of rape. Geiringer had replied: "The nature of the complaint she came for would point to the reason for making the allegations.”

He had said to Geiringer: “Yet she was a patient of yours for several years.” Geiringer had agreed that was so. "I said, 'you had a normal doctor-patient relationship?’ ” Mr Toomey said. “He replied, •Yes.’.”