No Win Situation

My heart sank as I read this article in the Trib this morning: Alleged rape victim threatened with jail

Un-fucking-believable. A 16-year-old Naperville woman was allegedly raped while being unconcious and has no recollection of the events. The attorney of defendant Adrian Missbrenner has a tape of the events, and is trying to force the victim (who has never seen the events that happened while she was unconcious) to watch the tape. The young woman is refusing (who can blame her?) and may face jail time for it.

It makes my soul hurt.

6 Comments so far

  1. Marty (unregistered) on March 1st, 2006 @ 12:44 pm

    First of all, I am in complete agreement with Lauren.

    I’ve beem able to talk to my coworkers and supervisors about this, and we’re a bit shocked about this. Making this girl–she’s a woman now, but she was a girl when she was victimized–watch her own rape is REVICTIMIZING her.

    By law, since she was intoxicated at the time of the rape, she cannot give consent. Even to be videotapped. Since she cannot give consent to either being videotapped or to have sex, the point is moot.

    I have no idea what this judge is thinking.

  2. nikkos (unregistered) on March 1st, 2006 @ 2:09 pm

    No kidding. This is a travesty. Readers, if you have not read the article yet, read it. The details are shocking and disturbing. Not only was this young woman a 16 year old girl at the time of this assault, but the sick fucks that assualted her apparently took turns raping her on camera. Then, the tape shows the young woman “unconscious as people spit on her and write derogatory words on her naked legs and abdomen.”

    Does it get any sicker than that?

  3. nikkos (unregistered) on March 1st, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
  4. Dave! (unregistered) on March 1st, 2006 @ 3:33 pm

    That is ridiculous. Yes, a defendant has every right to confront a witness against him–but that right is preserved in this case without her seeing the tape. The tape can still be shown to the jury who can draw their own conclusions. He can ask her questions regarding her actions and conduct on the tape without her seeing it. I’m glad the judge wised up.

  5. Nicolette Kittinger (unregistered) on March 2nd, 2006 @ 3:26 am

    I was watching Chicago Tonight, and they had a discussion about this case. The only man present (whose name escapes me and isn’t listed on the website for Chicago Tonight, sorry) scoffed, and said that, on the tape (which he hadn’t seen, but had “heard about”) this girl was “responding to questions” and “making noises,” and therefore, it was consentual and she was coherant enough to make that decision.
    Now, what I’d like to ask the scoffing man is “how many times have you done something while you were drunk that you NEVER would’ve been up for if sober? Do you talk when you’re drunk? Do you remember everything you say the next day? A year later? FOUR years later?”
    He was asked if he would have his own daughter watch a tape of her own rape were she in the same possition, and he warbled a little, and then decided on “Yes, if I thought it wouldn’t cause any sort of damage” or something to that effect.
    People are suchs dicks. I’m glad this poor girl doesn’t have to watch the tape after all.

  6. Alexandria (unregistered) on March 2nd, 2006 @ 8:05 am

    The issue wasn’t just that she refused to watch the tape, she also refused to answer *any* questions about the tape yesterday, that was why she was threatened with a contempt charge and the defense threatened to call for a mistrial. After she agreed to answer questions about the tape, the defense dropped for now their threat to call for a mistrial.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.