Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Stranger Rapist: She Didn't Say No

In this Texas (correction: Colorado) rape case in which a man who isn't claiming that he knew the woman before he allegedly raped her, his defense attorney is claiming the sex was consensual.

The charges were filed with the man's DNA as the only identifier. Allegedly he was wearing a ski mask when he kicked the woman's door in. He was only found because his DNA was in the system due to a rape conviction in Kentucky.

“All the (DNA) science in the world is not going to resolve the central issue — if the sex was consensual,” [Deputy Public Defender Cindy] Jones said. “There was no force, no weapons — he just tied a slip around her head.”

He just tied a slip around her head? If the slip wasn't also around her neck it could easily be moved there so that if she didn't do as she was told that he could easily strangle her. But, hey, as many people claim, if the rapist didn't use a knife or a gun it can't be real rape. Never mind if they break in wearing ski masks.

For all those who defend alleged rapists who knew their victim simply because she didn't say no to unwanted sex, your attitude contributes to men like this rationalizing rape when their victims are too scared to say no and too scared to try and call 911.

When you rationalize away date rape until it becomes non-criminal (she could have escaped if she really wanted to, she didn't call 911 immediately, etc.), all rapists thank you for giving them more leeway.

Technorati tags:


Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 8:33 AM   10 comments links to this post


At June 20, 2007 10:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What the fuck is happening to this country? "“There was no force, no weapons — he just tied a slip around her head.” JUST? That's not considered a weapon - or at least a THREAT? In what fucking pornified dreamland is Cindy Jones living in?

I wonder if Cindy Jones would feel differently about this if someone just "tied a slip aronud her head" and raped her. I wonder if she would be confused by otehrss wondering if she consented?

Fucking hell.

At June 20, 2007 11:09 AM, Blogger Layla (aka Barbara) said...

Just wanted to let you know I read you every day and am very thankful for this blog. I linked to it. I don't often comment, but I am supporting you and what you are saying here.

Thank you.

At June 20, 2007 11:20 AM, Blogger Kate said...

To hell with the slip. The man frakin' KICKED HER DOOR IN. If that doesn't result in "reasonable fear for her life," the term "reasonable" has lost all meaning.

At June 20, 2007 11:33 AM, Anonymous trvolk said...

As a public defender, Cindy Jones is only doing her job (and probably not enjoying it very much in this case). If you want to get angry at someone, wait to see if the jury acquits and then get mad at them for swallowing such a tale. Besides, Daniel Hayes isn't going anywhere but back to Kentucky to finish his 21-year sentence for rape there.

At June 20, 2007 11:49 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Layla, thanks for the praise. I appreciate it.

Trvolk, you are right about the defender's motives, but the fact that this strategy is being used indicates that there are enough people who hold very troubling views about rape so this defender thinks she has a shot at getting some of them in her jury.

That deserves attention now and doesn't become a non-issue if this particular jury doesn't buy this defense.

At June 20, 2007 11:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As a public defender, Cindy Jones is only doing her job (and probably not enjoying it very much in this case). "

I'm so fucking sick of the excuse. I don't give a rat's ass if she's enjoying it or not. She's trying to help a rapist go free so he can hurt some more women. There's nothing justifiable about that.

And of course the jury will buy it. Apparently everyone in this sick country believes women love being assaulted - especially if it by a group of men.

At June 20, 2007 12:46 PM, Anonymous trvolk said...

To be honest, I don't think the defender put a whole lot of thought into her defense; I believe the phrase is "phoning it in".

She doesn't have much with which to work: a) a solid DNA ID* b) of a repeat rapist c) from out of state d) who is unlikely to have the resources to appeal e) kicks in a door f) wearing a mask g) and binds the victim with her undergarment. Hell, if I was on the jury, I'd be phoning in my guilty verdict. (... and generally speaking, I'm not one to jump to such conclusions based on a newspaper account.)

* That ol' CSI syndrome works both ways: juries today expect DNA results, and here they have it.

I doubt the judge in this case is going to get upset with such a lame defense. Hayes will be almost 70 before Kentucky releases him to serve his time in Texas, so once they get a hold of him again, Texas taxpayers won't be supporting his sorry ass for very long.

At June 21, 2007 10:03 AM, Blogger Seeing Eye Chick said...

Its hard to swallow, but defendents are entitled to due process. Because of that, it is supposed to protect the public from wrongful convictions, and its supposed to make our court system a legitimate justic system and not a glorified vigilante party where we go through the motions of trial just before hanging someone or throwing away the key to their cell.

That being said, All of our systems are run by fallible, mortal human beings who sometimes do deplorable things or screw things up royally.

His defense of "She didnt say no," after he kicked her door in and covered her head with a slip, is the equivalent of telling someone your dog ate your homework or the check is in the mail.

I hope that no one in that court room buys that tripe. Because that is the lamest shit I have ever heard. Breaking and Entering a home isnt that a felony? And then commission of rape after that should carry additionally harsh charges, and then his prior convictions contribute to intent and a pattern of behavior that marks him as a danger to society.

Breaking and entering would also turn this into a premeditated crime as well wouldnt it? He had a locked door to overcome before "finding" himself in her presence.

My concern would be with her attorney. If her attorney cannot fend those sophomoric claims of silent consent after breaking and entry and a display of violent force, then what the hell is she paying that person for?

His attorney has to offer the best defense they can provide as professional. Its how our justice system work.

But how many times have we seen plaintiffs who could not afford to hire a Johnie Cochran, get stuck eating a fucked up defense because they hired the legal equivalent of Homer Simpson?

Also the judge is going to have a lot to say about what is admissible here as well. Shouldnt we be keeping our eye on the bench?

At June 21, 2007 11:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Cindy Jones is only doing her job"

I don't know anything about law and legal proceedings - so forgive me if this question sounds dumb, but, is it a defense attorney's job to help ensure criminals are not punished for their crimes?

At July 12, 2007 1:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This crime didn't take place in Texas, but rather in Colorado. He was voted guilty of rape, and also second degree burglary.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home