Via Kevin Hayden--who's known the victim all her life--this truly degrading holiday story
about a 17-year-old girl went to police at the urging of her friends after
she was allegedly gang-raped by three men, including her boyfriend. The
men testified that the act was consensual. After reviewing all the
information and statements, prosecutors decided they didn’t think they
could prove a rape allegation, and so declined to prosecute the case.
Instead, they later prosecuted the victim for filing a false police report.
Their stories didn't match up, and of course they also didn't match up
to the story she told, which was that they raped her. There were
"inconsistencies" in the stories that she and each of the three alleged
rapists told. Note that "The three men testified Thursday that the acts
were consensual"--that is, they don't deny that they all three had sex with
her--they just claim that she consented. To sex with all three of them.
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.
This is obviously pretty troubling. If everyone agrees there were
significant disputes over the facts, how was it possible to conclude
beyond a reasonable doubt that the woman's version of the story was the
false one? The Oregonian provides only this brief explanation:
[Judge
Peter] 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.
The woman, who is 19 now, could be sentenced to 30 days and a $1,250 fine.
Kevin Hayden, who was present at the trial, made the following comments.
She had a public defender. The guy was formerly a prosecutor. He really
seemed to be on the ball to me, better than most PDs I've ever seen or
heard of.
When
the young woman went to the police, she told everything, even things
about herself that weren't flattering. Had she been trying to frame the
guys, wouldn't it be reasonable that she'd leave out such details and
cast herself in the best light?
Other things the detective found
odd: she did not shower for two days after. The detective said most
overshower because they feel dirty afterward. So why did this woman not
bathe?
Because she was afraid to be naked. Why's that so hard to believe?
There's
more like that. Some of her version does sound unusual to me. But
nothing she said sounded beyond belief. I came away wondering how and
why her credibility was so questioned, as there really was no evidence,
just lots of opinions. only to have the judge turn around
and convinct her of filing a false report because there were
"inconsistencies" in the stories that she and each of the three alleged
rapists told.
P.S. Oh, and as to "not acting traumatized"??--yuh, well, one of the
hallmark symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder is--numbing. Is there supposed to be a "Rape Profile" for Police to test for credibility?
The inmates are SO running the USA asylum.
And btw, I believe this is what you'd call an activist fucking judge.
