The Oregonian also reports that the judge in the case, Peter Ackerman, used the occasion of her sentencing for filing a false report to defend himself, criticize the media, and blame her defense attorney for the outcome of the case against her:
When Ackerman convicted the woman Dec. 2, he said he relied in part on the testimony of a Beaverton police detective and friends of the girl, who said she did not appear to be traumatized in the days after the incident.A sitting judge in the position of hearing a rape trial should not require an expert witness to explain to him that there is no typical response to rape. Why he would weigh more heavily the testimony of the girl’s “friends” than her own is beyond me, and it shouldn’t have required a rape expert to balance the scales of justice. Experts aren’t usually called in to refute friends’ opinions.
Advocates for rape victims criticized that reasoning. But Ackerman said Monday that the woman's lawyer should have offered expert testimony to counter prosecution witnesses.
The case is under appeal, and I suspect this isn’t its end. I’ll continue to post updates on this story for its duration.
Original post.
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus