posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:21 AM
Originally posted by bjarneorn
You are an insult, not the judge. The judge, is correct ...
You want to judge everyone, accused of rape ... based on your sole feelings of "sympathy" for the victim. In your mind, the "accused" must prove
Actually what the judge stated was an insult to all victims of rape and/or sexual assault, and no the judge is NOT correct, and my response has
nothing to do with feelings of sympathy for the victim.
The judge stated as fact something that has no basis in fact what so ever and in fact is so incredibly ignorant (meaning completely uneducated)
regarding the workings of the female body one is left wondering how someone so lacking knowledge or education regarding sex and the female anatomy
could maintain his status as a judge for 12 years.
The judge's statement which is an insult and completely unfounded was as follows :
Statement copied from
I spent my last year and half in the D.A.'s office in the sexual assault unit. I know something about sexual assault ... I've seen women who
have been ravaged and savaged whose vagina was shredded by the rape. I'm not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something. If someone doesn't want
to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage in inflicted, and we heard nothing
about that in this case ... That tells me that the victim in this case, although she wasn't necessarily willing, she didn't put up a fight.
I copied from here because the official statement is a pdf and the statement can only be copied as an image. To read the entire statement one can
find it here:
Decision and Order Imposing Public Admonishment
The public is supposed to be able to have confidence and trust in the impartiality of the judiciary, A judge who states with such certainty something
that is so entirely, outrageously, and were it not for the gravity of the case laughably, erroneous, then goes on to firmly state that he is granting
the defendant a lesser sentence based on his false belief, undermines the confidence and trust the public is entitled to regarding the impartiality of
This case also raises questions regarding how many other cases regarding rape or sexually assault he used this reasoning on, and upon finding no
shredded vagina, determined that the crime did not occur and allowed a potentially dangerous sex offender go free to harm others