December 4, 2005
-- by Dave Johnson
Update - The story is spreading as other blogs pick it up - see the updated bloglist at the end. Also see this at Shakespeare's Sister, hearing from rape survivors and this from Pacific Views pointing out that the legal age of consent in Oregon is 18, but this Kos diary that explains why that doesn't apply.
The original story:
This one is beyond belief. A judge decides that since he doesn't know who to believe he'll convict the woman for filing the charges in the first place.
After a day-and-a-half trial, Municipal Judge Peter A. Ackerman on Friday convicted the woman of filing a false police report, a class-C misdemeanor. Ackerman explained his decision, saying there were many inconsistencies in the stories of the four, but that he found the young men to be more credible. He also said he relied on the testimony of a Beaverton police detective and the woman's friends who said she did not act traumatized in the days following the incident.Kevin at American Street has more.
[. . .] The woman, who was 17 at the time of the April 30, 2004, incident, testified Friday that she was attacked by an 18-year-old boyfriend and his two friends. She said she was in the boyfriend's bedroom preparing to go to a party when she was sexually assaulted by the men. The three men testified Thursday that the acts were consensual and at the girl's initiation.
Read the whole thing. Just beyond belief.
Update - Shakespeare's Sister has picked up on the story - also here now with a list of blogs covering this - and we're starting to get other bloggers bringing this to people's attention. Maybe we can get something done about this outrage.
Bark Bark Woof Woof
Once Upon a Time
Science and Politics
Wonderland or Not
Crooks and Liars
King of Zembla
Lawyers Guns and Money
Pam's House Blend
Night Bird's Fountain
Outside the Beltway (warning, right-wing perspetive)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rape Victim Found Guilty:
» How to Stop Rape from Abnormal Interests
In the light of the story that a likely rape victim was prosecuted and convicted for filing a false police report, I thought I would post something I saw the other day on Feministing.com but has been circulating for a... [Read More]
Tracked on December 4, 2005 2:59 PM
What can I say that won't get me a personal visit from Negroponte himself?
Not a hell of a lot.
Posted by: grannyinsanity at December 3, 2005 1:27 PM
Shameful, simply shameful.
Posted by: Night Bird at December 3, 2005 10:21 PM
I think every sane person agrees , that this is so outrageous that it is hardly credible.
I asked on my blog..
Is there a aid fund for this young victim being started? If so where ?
John and I would like to do more than just
talk about this.
Posted by: Pet Campbell at December 4, 2005 6:47 AM
Posted by: cooper at December 4, 2005 7:18 AM
We picked up the story at blondesense blog as well. This story requires some sort of action. I'm completely shocked. Completely. Thanks for breaking this, Dave.
Posted by: blondesense Liz at December 4, 2005 8:08 AM
Crooks and Liars posted it. that's how I got here.
Truly horrific. I look at my own experience as a victim of a felony offence (Id theft) to be puny in comparison.
Posted by: miss_kitty at December 4, 2005 10:03 AM
At No Blood for Hubris, see: SHE DIDN'T ACT TRAUMATIZED ENOUGH.
Posted by: No Blood for Hubris at December 4, 2005 10:05 AM
How do we know that the young men were not being falsely accused? If they were, then the judge's decision would be appropriate. Each case is unique. It would be an outrage if the young woman was falsely accused, but do we have evidence she was?
Posted by: youngfox at December 4, 2005 6:46 PM
This ranks right up there with the Italian judge who returned a verdict of not guilty, because her jeans were so tight that he believed it would have been impossible for them to be removed involuntarily. How the hell does reasonable doubt translate into a verdict of guilty in a criminal trial?
Posted by: Thomas Leavitt at December 4, 2005 8:02 PM
Youngfox - she was 17. Oregon law says the age of consent is 18. The "boys" were 18 and over.
I don't agree with prosecuting 18-year-olds for being with 17-year-olds but that's not what this is about. This is about prosecuting the 17-year-old for it.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at December 4, 2005 10:20 PM
I think my blogging software doesn't allow comments with the word 's*x' in them.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at December 4, 2005 10:20 PM
Look - I and others here don't have the full scoop on what happened; who lied, whatever. That said, sure is sad that we can entertain the real possibility that a rape victim, after filing a grievance and reported a crime (citizen's duty and all that shit) is herself a criminal.
C'mon - I would expect this to be a plot for the lifetime channel, not a real court case.
Posted by: Thor Likes Pizza at December 5, 2005 7:46 PM
Something else that has been percolating through my brain... how many seventeen year old women would actually voluntarily and spontaneously initiate a consensual sexual encounter with three men at the same time? In general, this is pretty damned rare even among sexually experienced women. ... just another reason to doubt the credibility of the contention that the situation was consensual.
The presence of alcohol in the situation only increases the likelihood of mis-communication and exploitation. Even sober, a teenaged American male is not the best communicator or reader of signals. Nor are American women really trained to explicitly say "no" in a prompt and expiditious fashion. The result is a formula for disaster.
Posted by: Thomas Leavitt at December 6, 2005 2:19 AM
It is outrageous that the judge in this case would charge her after she has already gone through so much.
Posted by: Doughboy at December 6, 2005 11:55 AM
"It would be an outrage if the young woman was falsely accused, but do we have evidence she was?"
No, youngfox, it actually wouldn't be an outrage if she was falsely accused. People make mistakes, we only prosecute them for the criminal ones, and filing a false charge is only criminal if the accuser knows it was a false charge. If the prosecution genuinely believes they have a valid case, I may think they are unfit for their position depending on their reasoning, but I would definitely think they are unfit for their position if they didn't prosecute simply because there was a (not overwhelming) possibility of innocence - that's the defense's job.
The young woman was falsely convicted (according to the information available to us - which includes the judge's own statement that he largely convicted her because she didn't "appear traumatized"). That is an outrage and a travesty of justice.
Posted by: Jenny K at December 6, 2005 7:18 PM
When I was young I was told that there was no such thing as rape because a woman could run faster than a man with her skirt up than a man with his pants down. 35 years later (I didn't believe it then) I still think that the extreme right thinks this way.
Women are our equal and they deserve our respect.
If it weren't for women we would have global war now. Their sensibilities have made us realisize our violent nature needs to be toned down.
I have hated violence for decades. My wife has taught me to realize that there is a hidden violence of women that needs to be quelled.
Final comment: "NO MEANS NO"
Posted by: kimmy at December 7, 2005 9:08 PM
Amazingly, everyone seems to be missing one aspect of this story, which to me is absolutely crucial: the alleged rape was videotaped by Haidl July 5, 2002, during a party at the home of his father, Don Haidl, a top-ranking sheriff's official in Corona del Mar.
Based on cicrumstance alone, it appears the sherrif's department pushed prosecutors to not only not charge the son, but to attack the accuser. This appears to be an ugly case of the powerful taking care of their own.
The question remains what influence, due or undue, the sheriff had over the prosecutors and/or judge in this case. There's a lot more going on than was reported.
Posted by: Lawrence at December 8, 2005 2:08 PM
Three phrases should be among the most common in our daily usage. They are: Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.
Posted by: size genetics at December 9, 2005 3:05 PM
Posted by: cholo at September 22, 2006 11:44 AM
Posted by: cholo at September 22, 2006 11:45 AM
Post a comment
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.)