Jesus wept.

Yeah, it might have helped if the defense attorney had some called some experts. But you know what? Under the law, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. It's the state's burden to prove her guilt, not her burden to prove her innocence. And some testimony about how she "appeared" in the days after the rape proves NOTHING one way or the other, a fact that should have been common knowledge for decades to anyone holding a judgeship in this country.

Sheesh.

Offering expert testimony might have helped, true. But it's not the woman's job, nor that of her lawyer, to prove her innocence. The burden is on the prosecution to prove her guilt. And testimony from a detective and a couple of friends that the woman, then 17, "did not appear to be traumatized in the days after the incident" PROVES. NOTHING. (Why, yes, I AM yelling, thank you. That's because I am ANGRY.) Rape victims, whether out of shock or shame, frequently act afterward as if nothing untoward has happened. Sometimes they're in denial. Sometimes they just don't want anyone to know, or they (wrongly) blame themselves, or are afraid of unrelated consequences if anyone finds out. But rape victims do not all act the same way, and anyone holding a judge's job should have learned that decades ago.

The verdict should be overturned ... and the judge disbarred.

(I'm not sure, but I might have posted twice. If so, I apologize.)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: