By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

AN eleven-year-old girl who is an alleged victim of child pornography and unlawful sexual intercourse cried in the Supreme Court as she recalled the occasions a man allegedly woke her out of her sleep to give him oral sex.

The girl, who was nine between November 9, 2009 and January 8, 2010 when the alleged events occurred, told the court that on a day she was home from school due to illness, a man known to her family had entered the room she slept in and awoke her.

He asked her for oral sex, the girl claimed, wiping her face with the tissue given to her by the court clerk.

Prosecutor Darnell Dorsett asked the girl what she did as a result of the request.

“I went back to sleep,” she said, before adding “he wake me up again.”

When she got up, he forced her to give him oral sex, she claimed.

Edward Butler, 64, the accused, sat in a crouching position in court shaking his head as the complainant gave her evidence.

He faces a charge each of unlawful sexual intercourse and child pornography, which he denies. The court heard yesterday that the oral sex allegedly continued for a short time, and afterwards the girl claimed she was told not to say anything.

The girl said she went outside of the house to be with a relative who was working. When asked why she didn’t tell the relative what happened, she said: “Cause I was scared.”

The girl claimed that another day she was home, it happened again, this time, with the man pulling a cell phone out of his pants pocket and photographing the act.

She claimed that another time he pulled her into the bathroom to tell her that he had lost his phone but got a replacement before the oral sex happened again.

The girl said she went with her mother and uncle to a police station to report the matter in May 2010.

A week later, they returned to the police station where she saw the accused and his attorney present and she identified herself in the picture on the phone.

In cross-examination Raymond Rolle asked the girl if she had female cousins who visited where she resided at the time of the alleged offence. The girl said “yes.”

He asked if her relatives had shown her a phone and photograph. The girl said “yes.”

“How’d you feel after they showed you this photograph?” the attorney asked. The alleged victim said she felt scared and that she felt pressured.

He suggested she gave Butler’s name because she was pressured to do so.

The girl disagreed and said “because I did know.”

Mr Rolle suggested to her that Mr Butler “never, never” had oral sex with her.

“Yes he did,” she said.

He suggested Butler never took a picture of the girl having oral sex with him.

“Yes he did,” she said.

The attorney suggested to the girl “you made up this story” because she didn’t want the person who had had oral sex with her “to get in trouble.”

“I know it was him [the accused] because he did it to me,” the girl said.

The attorney suggested to the girl that she and her cousins were doing things they weren’t supposed to and that was how the image came to be on the phone, and the phone got lost because she took it.

The complainant denied all of the suggestions.

“I’m going to suggest that your evidence is not true, it never happened,” the attorney said.

“It did,” the girl said.

The trial resumes on Monday.