David Bobbitt's dangerous offender/sentencing hearing continued Thursday, with cross examination of the alleged victim of a sexual assault in February, 2007.
Bobbitt's defence lawyer James Pennington repeatedly asked the woman about her dealings with the police on different occasions that year and also in 2006.
Initially he questioned why she did not follow up with the police after the incident, to which she responded she knew he (Bobbitt) had been arrested, and that's all she knew.
"After that incident I was left homeless with two dogs, no transportation, limited income, very vulnerable and basically I did not follow up," she said.
Pennington further stated "is it true you were not happy with the way the police conducted the investigation?" to which the woman responded she was not happy because it was two male officers dealing with a sexual assault.
She had assumed she would be dealing with female officers, because it was female officers who took her to Bobbitt's trailer to retrieve her belongings.
Pennington stated the reason she was upset was a constable was questioning her credibility, to which she said "that is not correct."
"I felt interrogated like a criminal. I felt right from the start that I was on trial for something, the fact it was two males, the sexual talk, I felt re-victimized like they were tricking me," she said. "I would have been more comfortable with female officers, able to express myself."
Pennington took her through a portion of the police statement, where a constable is saying, "look everything you told us today is what's happened. We've had a lot of involvement with you in the past and complaints that have turned out to be unfounded."
To which the woman responded "I made a mistake, I didn't know the definition of unfounded."
This prompted Pennington to say I'm going to suggest you knew perfectly well what the constable was saying, you'd made complaints about certain individuals, mainly men, before, and the police are saying this is untrue.
The woman denied that was the case saying she was dealing with one person over six months and one other incident.
Those were the only calls, she said,neighbours made the calls, or an ex-boyfriend made the calls, because I was in danger.
Pennington continued with the similar line of questioning suggesting that in November of 2006, the woman phoned the RCMP complaining that she was being assaulted, and a report filed at that time suggested she was intoxicated.
Pennington then asked about other November dates where there were calls to police regarding assault and intoxication.
To which the woman said she was not sure if it was the 5th, 4th or third, and that she did not keep a diary of trauma.
The lawyer stated the fact of the matter was she had a problem with alcohol in 2006 and 2007, whereupon she said she was a social drinker.
Following the February, 2007 incident, where she reported being sexually assaulted by Bobbitt, Pennington stated that in a doctor's report it was determined there was an odour of alcohol.
That same odour was detected by a constable at the RCMP detachment, where her statement was given.
The woman admitted she probably reeked, because she had not showered or brushed her teeth for days, and looked like she had just crawled out of a crypt.
She further denied having a history of drug abuse, stating it was more of a history of abuse with men and a few women.
During questioning by crown counsel on Wednesday, the woman, who cannot be named because of a publication ban on anything that would identify her, described what happened during the sexual assault.
Bobbitt's side of the story was given in a police statement earlier in the hearing.
The hearing is expected to continue to July 8, with another portion slated for September.
Also expected to testify is a victim of a 2011 sexual assault in Penticton, which Bobbitt pleaded guilty to last year.
The woman testifying this week, is the alleged victim of an incident in 2007. There were no charges filed in that incident. Another alleged victim is also expected to testify.