Travesty Trial of Rape Victim Continues
Carla at Preeemptive Karma has most of the latest details.
To add clarity, the young woman will now be subject to a presentencing investigator who will inspect her life to determine whether she’s a serial criminal, whether she’s the issue of a fit and functional family, or whatever. The investigator’s report will include a recommended sentence based on his or her interpretation of her life.
Nobody will be investigating the three rapists and their families and backgrounds. No sword remains over their heads, because their inconsistent stories were less inconsistent than the woman’s, in the mind of the last interpreter (the judge).
Judge Ackerman, by the way, claimed he’d received threatening messages after declaring her guilty, though he offered no details of what those threats were. Based on his previous interpretations in this trial, it’d be enlightening to see the evidence of those threats. (I certainly would never threaten an officer of the court, or anyone else, for that matter. Threats to a court officer are criminal, so presumably, the city will be investigating and pursuing those writers making such threats. Unless they’re merely opinions or threatened perfectly legal responses.)
The community service and monetary restitution that Carla mentioned were part of the city’s original recommended sentence, but when the defense attorney queried about this, it was determined the city had withdrawn its recommendation in favor of the presentencing investigation.
In the judge’s original decision, it was clear by his own statements that the BARD level had not been reached (Beyond A Reasonable Doubt), yet he felt compelled to make a ‘best guess’ anyways. In this sentencing hearing, where he chided the defense attorney for not putting an expert on rape victims on the stand, it suggests he remains open to the possibility that the woman is not guilty… which leads to the question: why did he convict on less than a BARD level of evidence? If his finding was meant to tell the defense attorney he could have done a better job, it adds to the victim’s trauma needlessly.
Veteran observers of court trials in Oregon - attorneys and others, some present at this trial and some not - have been pretty consistent in their opinions. Which include:
- many murder trials take less time and effort than this one has, so this is unusual for a class C misdemeanor.
- as Carla noted, why were charges brought against the victim a year after the rape occurred and the investigation began? All the pertinent details the judge cited in his decision were discovered in the investigation within the first 2 or 3 months, so why the delay in filing charges? Was someone behind the scenes - perhaps family and friends of the men - agitating for charges to be brought?
- the evidence presented, to unbiased observers, was not conclusive and everyone I spoke to in researching this was clearly surprised at the judge’s decision. (this doesn’t include me, as I didn’t hear the evidence nor the judge’s rationale firsthand. I simply phoned several attendees.)
It’s not surprising that the judge was unhappy with the media’s reporting, but given that he again could issue a written explanation of his decision, and hasn’t, he’s done a poor job clarifying anything. Instead, he’s chosen to pass the buck, blaming the media, the defense attorney and the threatening message senders for interpreting his actions incorrectly, in his opinion).
I imagine it must be hell to have one’s actions so misunderstood. The judge should have had an ‘expert’ explain it to everyone, don’t you think? I mean, to be consistent with his own opinion about the attorney of the young woman he convicted after she was raped.
Tune in next time to see if the judge continues to confirm what a putz he is, and whether the woman ever gains any justice.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Ackerman sounds like a whiny asshat. This ‘trial’ and subsequent conviction is a travesty.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:17 pm
I contacted Ackerman when this first came out. I’ve exchanged several emails with him and can confirm that The Super’s article is substantially correct.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:58 pm
Hey, Dave,
Those emails sound interesting. Care to share?
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:41 pm
okay, so maybe the guys put their story together, and stuck to it. And maybe, just maybe the woman blocked out some of the stuff that happened to her, because she didn’t want to think of the fact that her so called boyfriend allowed this to take place. And what kind of boyfriend was he, to want his friends to have a piece of the same slice of pie he was having. Nasty B-astards.
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:58 pm
The characterization of one of the rapists as her ‘boyfriend’ only is marginally true. She had gone out with him twice previously. And having ended a longterm relationship with a real boyfriend several weeks before, she didn’t consider this one to be her boyfriend, just a new guy she had dated.
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:44 pm
I don’t think the woman should have been prosecuted, but characterizing her as a “rape victim” is making a judgment you are not qualified to do, as you were not there, and you didn’t even set though the trial.
There is a certain rigidly ideological point of view which holds that there is no such thing as a false rape or domestic violence charge. Believe me, I’ve seen plenty during 15 years in criminal practice.
A classmate of mine was a sexual assault detective. When he left that squad, he said that he was so glad to be getting off. I asked whether it was because of the sordid and tragic nature of the crimes. He said no, it was because of the way people would lie and make up serious charges out of spite, jealousy and revenge.
I once heard two women on a subway platform: “You want to get a man back, you put a restraining order on him . . . ”
Many people really don’t know what sort of a chaotic mess many people make of their lives . . . they should hang around a busy criminal court some day.
December 23rd, 2005 at 10:55 pm
Most women are pretty sure about when they have been raped, notway, and you are a sexist pig for pretending that there is a lot of gray area here. Grey area is what slots like the people who attacked this young woman are looking for.
When she says no and you say yes, a crime is being committed, ass hole, but your like wouldn’t know that.
And if you don’t understand why women don’t like you, maybe you should look at your attitude toward sex, you fucking neanderthal.
Melanie
December 24th, 2005 at 9:40 am
Melanie, pointing out unpleasant realities does not make me sexist: I give women their full due as humans, including all the nefarious and conflicted motives that men have. Men lie, women lie: is that news to you?
Go to any busy courthouse and talk to the court officers who sit though trials: they will tell you some stories of false accusations revealed.
I agree with you that “most” women are pretty sure when they’ve been raped, but it is a well known courthouse truism that there are women whose definition of “rape” may not be the same as yours.
Like, “he disrepected me after we did it”, or “he cheated on me.” We are not talking about highly intelligent and morally centered persons here, maybe in your world you have little contact such people, but cops, lawyers and courts do. Don’t make the mistake of projecting your values and judgment on the rest of humanity.
I once cross-examined a “rape victim” at a bail hearing: she called the alleged “rapist” to come to her house the day after the “rape.” Why? “I wanted him to fix my car.”
Of course, he said he was too busy, “bitch,” which was a big mistake on his part. The prosecution did not go too far, but he was held for a couple of weeks.
So, any accusation of rape must be accepted as an established fact?
Again, I don’t think this woman should have been prosecuted, because of the ambiguity of the situation, but I suspect there is more to this story than is being reported. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a heavy burden.
December 25th, 2005 at 9:07 am
Having spoken to courtroom observers who were there at trial, at sentencing or at both, male and female, including impartial ones, members of the press, the legal profession and the rape crisis folks, I made my choice of words without using ‘alleged’, on the basis of their opinions.
They spoke of how unusual the trial was. They indicated they were surprised by the decision based on the lack of anything but hearsay. The judge said he relied on the words of the detective and the mother-daughter pair who the 17 year old was living with, who opined that the girl didn’t act like a typical rape victim.
If you’re truly in criminal practice, notway, you already know there’s no ‘typical’ about the way rape victims can react. And what expertise can the mother-daughter pair possibly have about what is typical? Is it relevant that the pair were the ones that convinced the girl to go to the police in the first place?
Should it be admissible that the mother in this expert pair had stolen the wine cooler drinks from her place of employment and provided it to the girl, who imbibed it on the night of the rape? Or that the mother had notified the girl previously that she’d have to move within two months when her (the mother’s) boyfriend completed his sentence from the criminal justice system? Or that he’d been convicted of molesting his own daughter? Should any of that be considered in determining the mother’s credibility as a witness?
If she’s not credible, then the judge would have to rely on the girl’s classmate, another minor, for her expert opinion on rape victims, plus the lead detective’s opinion. As for him, from what I’ve heard (secondhand, admittedly), the detective was upset that the rape victim didn’t stay in more regular touch with him in the year between his interviews with her and their filing of charges against her. How odd. At every discussion of the event, the girl relived it. Fright, anger, depression and confusion were evident in her actions at each retelling, whether she was speaking with family members, or rape crisis counselors.
Could it be possible that she was acting out of spite, embarrassment, or that she was emotionally troubled prior to that night? An impartial observer would say, ’sure, ANYthing’s possible.’ But actual evidence of those motives was nil; there was only conjecture. Was there a psychiatric expert who concluded that her emotional troubles preceded the event or resulted from the event? No. Such expertise, or any expertise was limited to the opinion of a detective who’d had some experience with other rape investigations.
Was the detective aware that in the year between her first report and the charges being filed that the girl lived at seven different addresses? Worked at four different jobs briefly? Or that she’d gone to emergency rooms several times for a longterm pre-existing medical condition and underwent surgery for that last Spring?
Does it matter that the judge noted that there were inconsistencies in the stories of the men, and the girl? Or that the defense attorney challenged aspects of the detective’s assertions and his expertise?
Reasonable doubt was evident. By noting he’d found inconsistencies, the judge seemingly admitted this. At the sentencing, when the judge chided the defense attorney for not calling rape experts as witnesses, wasn’t he again indicating some doubt remained?
Yes, I was not present in the courtroom either time, so I can only rely on the pretrial documentation the investigating detectives had amassed, the news reports, the opinions of witnesses, of family members and friends of the girl - both biased and unbiased sources.
I can be sufficiently objective to understand that prosecutors felt it would be futile to attempt a prosection of the men on the weight of hearsay - the whole provided by the girl. But the turnaround, the decision to prosecute the girl at an adult trial when she was a minor at the time, the evidence again based on hearsay or opinions of almost exclusively non-experts also seem to me to be rooted on the thinnest of grounds.
Unfortunately, the judge’s opinion carries more weight than mine, which is not to say that his decision was actually correct. So when I call the men ‘rapists’ I freely admit that I’m voicing an opinion, not relating a proven fact.
But my forum here is a blog, not a courtroom. My opinion is at least as valid as all but one witness who testified in that courtroom. Having some experience working with rape victims, victims of domestic violence and people wrongly accused of sexual assault, I believe my ‘expertise’ exceeds that of every witness except the detective.
Also, as a male, privy to plenty of male-to-male conversations about sex, I’ve heard plenty opine about fantasies of having sex with more than one woman at a time. I’ve heard none suggest they’d like to participate in a gangbang with other males. While I’m reasonably certain such men exist, I certainly wouldn’t consider them to come anywhere close to being ‘the norm’. Yet these men presented themselves and were presented as the norm, merely taking part in a consensual act. ‘Initiated’ by a minor with a very limited and previously monogamous sexual history.
The girl, if motivated by vindictiveness, was smart enough to know that she could simply say she was too drunk and they took advantage of her. But she didn’t. She told what occurred, then, and previously, admitting details of her life that she knew would not be flattering nor would enhance her case.
Overall, from what I’ve uncovered, I’m comfortable maintaining reasonable doubt exists and opining that if the girl’s telling the truth, the men must be rapists. Perhaps I’m aware of more than got presented to the judge. Or less. Perhaps the defense attorney could have done more to emphasize reasons for doubt to remain. I certainly don’t have all the answers since I have to rely on secondhand accounts.
But even without years of criminal practice, I can temper my emotions sufficiently to weigh the fact that two plus two equals four, and that four can’t be arrived at without clear evidence that two numerals exist that combine to make four.
Were I the defense attorney, I’d advise the young woman to take part in counselling, possibly to add to his defense, and at least to combat the trauma of the rape and/or any other emotional problems she might be enduring due to, or previous to, the events that caused this trial.
I’d also be more thorough in putting forth more experts in the appeal, which will not be based on technicalities, but will essentially be a complete retrial.
I fully reject the notion that the mens’ behaviors would constitute the norm if such an event was proposed by any minor, ever. I’m no prude and I was their age in a pre-AIDS era, yet if a couple of my pals invited me to a gangbang, I’d have immediately thought such friends were not folks I’d like to continue friendship with.
Just like I reject the judge’s opinion about the guilt of the woman, I also reject the ‘boys-will-be-boys’ attitude that pervaded and prevailed at this trial. Some men will put getting laid ahead of common sense, some will succumb to peer pressure, and some will be monsters. But I believe most men, even at 18, would reject the course these men claim they took, and would be repulsed at the course the woman claims they took.
That the judge never even commented on that pervasive attitude - which I firmly believe to be unsupported by the motivations of the vast majority of men - suggests that he may have viewed their choices to be the norm. If that’s his belief, I’d recommend that he better educate himself before consenting to presiding over any trial where allegations of sexual assault exist.
December 25th, 2005 at 10:27 am
Super, the testimony of the girl would not be “hearsay,” it would be direct evidence legally sufficient to obtain a conviction for rape, if believed by a jury or judge. Anyone can be convicted of rape by a credible witness who states “He raped me.” People are convicted every day on the say-so of one witness. It’s scary and something that surprises people, which is why I advise men to avoid women who may be suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder or other mental illnesses.
Hearsay is “She told me that she was raped . . . ” Even that is admissible as “fresh complaint” evidence, which is often used in rape cases. I guess there was no fresh complaint in this case.
I agree there is no one typical way that a rape victim would behave, which is why I would object to the testimony of “experts” at a rape trial who would state that any behavior is “consistent with the behavior of a rape victim.” On the other hand, as exculpatory evidence for this young woman’s trial, it should have been offered, as the judge said.
As for the rest of it, it seems you have a lot of opinions. About the intelligence of the girl and her ability to manufacture a more clever story if she were fabricating, her motivations, her credibility, the willingness of adolescent males to copulate with a female in turn. I would suggest Googling “gangbang” on that question. Make sure you have “safe-search” off.
All of these speak to what I said earlier: don’t project your values and judgment on what may have been a lurid and dysfunctional underclass milieu.
By maintaining that a rape did occur, you made the same mistake the judge made, just in reverse. Sorry, some questions just can’t be answered beyond a reasonable doubt. Deal with the gray.