Rape Victim Faces Jail

[moosmom]

Good!! I'm glad they ruled NOT to make her watch it. That stupid judge is nothing but a dirty old man in a robe on a bench, who was looking for a free "peep show". UGH!!!

I also think they were trying to make her drop her case. Glad she stood her ground.

The judicial system needs to stop making the VICTIMS the bad guys in rape cases and concentrate on what's important...putting disgusting criminals who commit the crimes behind bars!!

[Cataholic]

A couple of things. Rape is not about sex, but, about power/conquest. So, when someone says the person deserved, or was asking to be raped, they aren't understanding the psychology of the crime. If rape was about sex, and people 'asking' to be raped by their apparel (or lack thereof), why are completely clothed people raped?

However, I imagine we are missing a significant part of the story as it relates to the Judge's order. If the prosecutor thought introduction of the video tape was necessary for a conviction, I can't think of any other way to get it into evidence unless the victim 'authenticated' it, "yes, that is me on the tape". (The defendant can't be ordered to testify against himself..so, he won't be authenticating it).

In rape/assualt cases, it often comes down to one person's word against another's word, and since the prosecution must prevail beyond reasonable doubt (something we often say is in the 95% range), and sometimes victim's testimony can't stand on its own, I can see how the viewing of the tape could be critical, and where the Judge might be coming from.

I guess if it were me, and I wanted to be sure of a conviciton, I would view the tape.

[lizbud]

However, I imagine we are missing a significant part of the story as it relates to the Judge's order. If the prosecutor thought introduction of the video tape was necessary for a conviction, I can't think of any other way to get it into evidence unless the victim 'authenticated' it, "yes, that is me on the tape". (The defendant can't be ordered to testify against himself..so, he won't be authenticating it).

In rape/assualt cases, it often comes down to one person's word against another's word, and since the prosecution must prevail beyond reasonable doubt (something we often say is in the 95% range), and sometimes victim's testimony can't stand on its own, I can see how the viewing of the tape could be critical, and where the Judge might be coming from.

I guess if it were me, and I wanted to be sure of a conviciton, I would view the tape.

No it was an effort on the Defense side to compel the victim to watch the
tape as he asked questions. The judge sided with the defense.The story
was covered by the Chicago Tribune.

[AbbyMom]

No one was disputing that it was her in the tape. She had already testified that she had no recollection of the rape and the taping because she was unconscious. Prior testimony had already focused on how drunk she was prior to the incident.

No one said that the jury couldn't see the evidence. They have now viewed it.

The reasoning from the defense to make the complaining witness view it in court and answer questions was that the defendent had the right to confront his accuser.

"If the government is using this tape, then the defense has every right to ask the complaining witness to view it and to talk about it."

In other words, he wanted to point out specific actions in the tape and say "doesn't that look like you were enjoying it?" What else would he ask her? That was no point in saying "can you confirm that's you?"

However, the defense can still review the tape with jurors and say "doesn't that look like she was enjoying it?" without making her view it too. If she claims to be unconscious and she's not, they should be able to tell. His rights to protect himself against false claims is preserved.

BTW, a second defendent has already pled guilty and a third has fled the country. I think the defense for this defendent was desperate.

BTW, The Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses act says the privacy and dignity of crime victims should be protected throughout the trial.

[Cataholic]

Lizbud,
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't follow the story at all, I don't read/watch much news these days.

From the defense perspective, I can see how pointing out she was enjoying it, participating in it, etc., would weaken the prosecution's case. If she was comatose, she was comatose. If she was a willing participant, she was a willing participant.

Like someone else said, it certainly pinpoints the dangers of binge drinking. It totally clouds your judgment.

In any event, lest someone jump to some conclusion about me- I am in total support of victim's rights, and do think people should be punished for their crimes. I just wanted to highlight WHY the Judge might have ruled how he did, not just have some knee jerk reaction to his order.

[Scooby4]

I remember seeing part of this case on TV awhile back. A clip of the tape was shown. The clip was hard to distinquish between her "enjoying it" and being unconscious. From what I saw on the tape there was "movement" on her part that indicated she was atleast "semi-conscious". She had acted more "drunk" than drugged up.
I think the victim's fear was that it would portray her as a "willing participant" due to the fact that she was NOT fully unconscious. However, I do believe at one point she did "pass out" with one of the aggressors. Which would convolute the situation even more. That point was already addressed with one of the charges.
As a victim of a possible "date rape" myself, it is difficult because you know your own actions led you to the point of the attack. I never said anything about my incident because I knew it was partly my fault. The guy would NEVER get the concept even if confronted and deny it. Your word against his and you the victim were a participant willing or unwilling. It is that constant reminder that you lost control of a situation and allowed yourself to fall into a bad situation you can't get over the most.
I later figured out the guy was a serial date rapist. I knew something was wrong but could never put my finger on it. It was when he approached two of my friends at a bar I went to that I finally was able to see it. I could see the psychology to his thinking and it is more scary than being approached in a dark alley by a stranger!
A nice guy, with money, buying drinks, and willing to walk you to your car. What a great guy! However, if a man gives you enough alcohol to get you drunk and your NOT a regular drinker. RUN!!! Drink to your comfortable limit and STOP!!! That is my word of advice to women here!
As for the case, I kind of felt the girl was a participant to some degree. I am sure she didn't want her parents to see the tape. That would allow her parents to see she wasn't a "sweet angel" and showed her binge drinking. However, saying she was a "willing participant" to some degree does NOT say she wasn't raped. I believe she was raped 100%. It was just the point of where exactly and who was exactly the rapist with that many participants. Once she fell unconscious fully, that was the comittment of rape for sure. The aggressor should have recognized this and stopped. I think she may have agreed to one of the participators but NOT to the rest of them. That is when she got upset and that is when she got violated.

[lizbud]

I doubt you saw this 13 minute video on TV, as it's a prime piece
of evidence in this ongoing criminal case.