Arthur Allan Thomas' defence has told jurors the two women accusing him of rape and assault are vengeful liars who want to destroy him.
Arthur Allan Thomas in court. Photo: RNZ/ Jordan Bond
The Crown case countered that, saying the recollections of five different people were reliable, and enough to convict him.
Thomas is facing one charge of rape and four of indecent assault relating to two complainants. All are historical in nature.
After six days of evidence, the Crown and Defence today made their closing arguments before jurors retire to decide whether Thomas is guilty - something he heard half a century ago having been framed for the Crewe murders.
The Crown's case: why would two women and three witnesses make up allegations of rape and indecent assault, recount them in detail to police and in court, all these years later, if they were not true.
He said it was not only the women making the allegations who said it was true; three other people also took the stand to support their allegations.
"The Crown's position is that it is far-fetched in the extreme to suggest that they were just making all that up," said Crown Prosecutor Aaron Perkins QC. "[The defence argument is] five people have come along and committed perjury," Perkins said.
Perkins emphasised the evidence given by one man, who said he was involved in some of these incidents and somewhat implicated in them, and remembered specific details which largely matched what the complainants said.
"You might think, based on everything you've heard, that it's just inconceivable that that man would come along and tell you the things he did... Why on Earth would [he] do that, unless it were true?"
That man's evidence - a key Crown witness - was dismissed as unreliable by the Thomas defence team, led by lawyer Marie Dyhrberg QC.
"He [the witness] said one thing, tries to back away, doesn't leave you with anything, then doesn't know, then doesn't remember - you gotta say you can't put weight on this... he cannot be relied on," Dyhrberg said.
Dyhrberg said the complainants were dishonest, angry, vengeful and motivated by getting money out of Thomas.
She said they threatened to go to police with false allegations if he did not pay them.
"Extortion," she said. Thomas did not pay and the complainants followed through with the threat, she said.
"Once you start not telling the truth, it gets harder and harder to stop. Because dishonesty has its own momentum," Dyhrberg told the jury.
She said the complainants felt wronged by Thomas.
"Those feelings became too overwhelming, took on a life of their own, and went down a dangerous and wicked path ending up in this courtroom."
The case, she said, was "a sad, final chapter in this awful, sorry saga".
Dyhrberg said another supposed witness contradicted the women's accounts, by denying there was any sexual contact at all.
She said the prosecution case was filled with too many inconsistencies, and contradictions between witnesses, for the jury to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that this happened.
"This is real miscarriage of justice territory. We just need to take great care on this."
Suppressions restrict the media from publishing more detail about the case.
Judge Bergseng is expected to sum up tomorrow before the jury retires to consider its verdicts.