Twist in trial of Double Bay chiropractor accused of choking ex-girlfriend as ‘private’ emails and early-morning phone calls emerge between alleged victim and senior cop
The trial of Double Bay chiropractor Walid Kesserwani, who is accused of choking his former girlfriend, has reportedly taken a new turn after evidence emerged of private emails and early-morning phone calls between the complainant and a senior police officer. The development may be significant because it could affect how the court assesses evidence, relationships and credibility in the case.
The article identifies the alleged victim as Ludivine Elisabeth and says the communications involved senior officer Gary Coffey. Mr Kesserwani faces a choking charge, but the article text provided does not state the content of the exchanges, their timing, or any ruling by the court.
- Private communications emerged during the chiropractor’s choking trial.
- Emails and calls involved the alleged victim and senior police officer.
- No court outcome is stated.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those concerned about the communications argue that private emails and early-morning calls between a complainant and a senior police officer could be relevant to procedural fairness, particularly if they overlapped with an investigation or prosecution. Full disclosure and careful scrutiny would help the defence test whether any relationship, advice or information-sharing might bear on the reliability or independence of evidence. This position rests on the principle that an accused person is entitled to a fair trial and to challenge material that could reasonably affect credibility.
The case against
Others argue that the existence of private communications alone does not establish impropriety, bias or unreliability, especially when their content, timing and purpose have not been reported. A complainant may have legitimate reasons to contact police, and senior officers can have lawful professional or personal interactions that do not influence the evidence in a case. This view reflects the importance of avoiding speculation that could unfairly discredit an alleged victim or distract from the court’s assessment of the choking allegation on the evidence.