Below is my response to a comment by reader Justice 58. I would hate for anyone to misunderstand the meaning of my post, "Happy Thanksgiving", in which I discuss certain a certain statement made by the Duke accuser, which I felt did not ring true.
As I said, I tend to focus on little details first and it was some of those details, right from the start of this case, that I felt either just didn't add up or else just didn't have the ring of truth about them.
The statement, " Sweetheart, you can't leave," said at the time it was supposedly said, in the context in which it was supposedly said, did not ring true to me. In fact, when I first read it, it was like that "nails on a blackboard" feeling to me. It sounded very false.
I do take exception to the implication that I believe that just because a rapist may say, " Shut up and you won't get hurt," means that the victim won't get hurt anyway.
I feel certain that anyone who has read my blog, especially the posts regarding rapist profiling, primarily the anger retaliatory type of rapist and how much injury he can cause, will know that I don't feel that way at all.
From justice 58: "Wait a minute...hold up
So rapists have to say shut up and you won't get hurt!
You think...since they're college (duke) students they couldn't have
raped her b/c those are NOT the right words. GIVE ME A BREAK
Come on Kathleen... do better than that!
Pardon me please but that is the most asinine thing I've ever heard.
Kathleen in this world we learn things everyday. Maybe you just learned
that rich duke students do use the words "sweetheart". I'm shaking my
head with disbelief at you."
November 24, 2006 at 09:03 PM
You have mistinterpreted my meaning, Justice. No I am not saying that
is what rapists have to say or that college boys can't use the word,
"You think...since they're college (duke) students they couldn't have
raped her b/c those are NOT the right words. GIVE ME A BREAK"
Justice 58, please show me where I said anything like this.
However, I did review my post and saw that the
statement, 'Sweetheart you can't leave,' would not seem to be said to
an intended rape victim..." was incorrect, as it was written.
I had meant
to say "gang" rape victim and I corrected it - meaning that given this particular type of scenario, a statement like that would not ring true to me.
One of the main things I've discussed in my posts all along are known patterns.
There are known patterns of injuries. There are known patterns of
abuse. There are also known patterns of behavior and patterns of speech
which tend to be used by certain criminals in certain types of crimes.
These known patterns are watched for by law enforcement, and other professionals, all the time.
When a suspect, in any criminal case, is being interviewed (or
interrogated), law enforcement personnel are not just there to ask
questions & get their questions answered.
The suspect is also observed very closely (or should be) to see if
his speech & behavior patterns indicate either truthfullness, or
evasiveness and deception.
This is called Behavioral and Statement Analysis, which is an
investigative tool used by top law enforcement agencies in the country,
including the FBI.
All of our patients are asked, "What did the alleged offender say to you?" "Did the offender verbally threaten you?"
The words an offender uses, and how he uses them, can often be a clue to his identity.
The particular words or phrases a patient uses to describe her
attack, the way she uses them, can also indicate whether she is being
truthful or not.
I am not saying that the term, "sweetheart" could not be used. What I am saying is:
#1) None of my patients have ever repeated anything close to that to
me. In fact, quite often, my patients have stated that they were not
verbally and / or physically threatened.
When they have been, It's almost always been something like, " Shut
up and you won't get hurt." or "B****, shut up!" [in an aquaintance or
stranger rape] or, if they have or imply a weapon, it's something like,
" Shut up or I'll kill you."
If the offender has or implies a weapon, he may or may not say
anything. Just the fact that the victim believes he has a weapon, is
often enough to force her to be quiet & cooperate. She's too afraid
to do otherwise.
Most of my patients have told me they did not put up a fight. Of
those who have said they started to fight back, once they perceived a
real (or implied) physical danger, most immediately ceased.
In a date rape situation, the offender often uses coercion.
In a date rape drug situation, the offender(s) often doesn't have
to say anything at all, since the victim is usually out of it.
If you've read my posts about rapist profiling, you'll recall that
both the power assertive and the anger retaliatory type of rapist will often use very vulgar
language as a way of demeaning their victims.
This is what I'm talking about when I refer to known patterns of speech & behavior.
#2) The other thing I was trying to ask was that, given that
particular scenerio & type of assault that supposedly occurred,
would that phrase, being used at that particular time, in that
particular context, have made sense?
Especially when [as I read later], it was supposedly followed by a
string of expletives and threats, from the alleged offenders, - all
while in the act of strangulation, beating, kicking, and raping the
accuser vaginally, orally, & anally over a period of about 5
Think about it. Try to visualize the scenario as the accuser said it happened.
Supposedly - depending on whichever version you choose to believe -
the accuser & Kim Roberts are pulled apart by six - count them -
six very large strong athletic males [while they are "clinging" to each
She is supposedly dragged into the bathroom, at which time, one of
the alleged perpetrators then closes the door, and says, "Sweetheart,
you can't leave". HUH???
Then a second one proceeds to put a choke hold on this impaired
woman [to the point where she's having trouble breathing]- who
reportedly had been tripping all over the place and was photographed
sprawled on the living room floor - in order to subdue her.
And if that wasn't enough to get her cooperation - after, according
to the accuser, she had stopped fighting - they then supposedly proceed
to beat & kick her while suddenly changing the tone of their
language, to spew forth foul mouthed expletives and threats.
And you think that makes sense?
Try this scenerio instead:
After the broomstick comment offends Kim Roberts, she cuts the evening short and they head for the door.
Those present feel jipped of their $800.00 and one shouts out, "Sweetheart, you can't leave!"
Kim Roberts and the accuser are in their car. A guy followed them
out to their car and apologized (according to the accuser).
Trying to convince them to come back inside, he says something like, " But Sweetheart, you can't leave!"
The accuser's statement reflects something from a past experience?
Which scenario makes more sense?
November 25, 2006 at 09:25 AM
Please do not try to use logic with justice 58, it simply will not work.
November 27, 2006 at 07:36 AM
what really "doesn't ring true" is good-looking white guys raping a fat, unattractive black woman, but i guess it's not PC to address the obvious
jim clyne |
December 01, 2006 at 03:09 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Certified Forensics Nurse Examiner and Independent Consultant