Tags

,

As noted before, given the media coverage, I know little about the facts of this case and their intrigue, and almost surely never will know. Apart from a few vague generalities, I know nothing of what the “child” and “victim” said when testifying at trial and under cross-examination as to how Abigail initiated the affair and supposedly “introduced him to a shocking world of rough sex,” nothing about the nature and details of their liaison and how often they had sex and what this entailed as to sex-acts “rough” and “kinky” or otherwise, or what he said when he initially told the police and prosecutors and testified under oath at a pretrial hearing that he was the aggressor in their sexual union and forced himself on her, nothing specific and concrete much less thorough and definitive. And apart from some “cherry-picked” quotes, little of what they said to each other in hundreds of emails and text messages, exactly what was said about the sex and “rough sex” and their “love” for each other and who knows what else. And I will never know unless I read the transcripts of the legal proceedings: pretrial hearings, the trial, the sentencing, etc. And, since I doubt that will ever happen, I’ll forever remain largely ignorant.

But I do know that she was charged with 4-counts of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct” and also with “accosting a minor for immoral purposes,” and that she rejected a plea-bargain under which, apparently, she would have served 5-months in jail or could have been released in such time for “good behavior,” and testified at trial that her “victim” was the aggressor who “controlled” her life and forced himself on her three times and that the purpose of responding to all his emails and text messages was to appease and keep him away from her.

Perhaps the reason she abjured the plea-bargain is because she’s telling the truth -if not the “whole truth and nothing but the truth,” as witnesses swear to under oath when testifying at trials and other legal proceedings, then most of the truth, or the truth essentially, with some lies and half-truths and exaggerations/embellishments.

Perhaps she was afraid of him in that he was 8-inches taller than her and outweighed her by almost 100 lbs. and was 6-10 stronger in the upper-body and a minatory force of energy and aggression. Perhaps he was the aggressor, as is true in many if not most of such illicit affairs, and perhaps he did force himself on her, albeit the force was minimal and didn’t entail violence or explicit threats of same, and she didn’t resist, forcefully, which she would view as “rape” and he would view as consensual sex. Perhaps he forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse, as did the “victim” in the Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall case, and she then assented to coitus a few times thereafter. Even if he did rape her, initially, but she assented to a few or even one act of coitus or fellatio or whatever thereafter, she would still have been guilty of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct.”

It’s possibly she told the truth in essence but with some lies and half-truths and exaggerations/embellishments, and imagined him to be far more of a threat, in the sense that he might kill or seriously injure her, than he was in actuality, which explains why she said she “did nothing wrong,’ when interviewed on Dateline, and her decision to go to trial and the nature of her testimony. It’s obvious that he was the aggressor who “controlled her life” in some ways, probable that she feared him, understandably and justifiably(?), and possible that he did force himself on her, at least initially.

But she had to lie, inventing things that did not occur and/or inflating the severity of what did happen, to have any chance of being acquitted at trial and walking out of the courtroom a free woman rather than a slave in handcuffs attached to a waist-chain and leg-irons who would be sentenced to a mandatory-minimum of 8-25 years in prison and possibly 25-years to life and a lifetime of Orwellian persecution.

The D.A., after “weighing the evidence” and conferring with Brinkmann and the SVU detectives(,?), charged her with “four counts” of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” which apparently means they believed the accused and her “victim” only engaged in four acts of coitus or fellatio or whatever over a period of three months. If they believed that the “child” was the “victim” of dozens and scores of illicit acts subsumed under “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” wouldn’t they have charged her with 50-100 “counts” of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct”? Prosecutors love overkill. And, professionally, wouldn’t they have been constrained to so charge her if that is what they believed after listening to the “victim’s” account of his hellish and traumatizing ordeal after his recantation. Moreover, charging her with dozens of counts would have made their case even more powerful.

If she was so “in love” with her”victim,” a “victim” who also loved her -or “thought he loved her,” as he was told, insistently and repeatedly, to say at trial by the “experts” and authorities, and  wanted and needed to have sex with him so urgently and profoundly, if her “lust” for sex and “rough sex” was so insatiable and uncontrollable, they would have had sex dozens and scores of times. Her “victim,” a hurricane and volcano of testosterone at the acme of his erotic prowess, could have impaled and ejaculated inside her 5-6 times during a long afternoon or evening of lovemaking. That alone would have been 5-6 counts of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” I presume, not one. And probably 10-15 counts if their amour included other acts subsumed under “first-degree criminal sexual conduct.”

All this suggests if not all but proves that she was telling the truth when she testified, and continues to claim as the basis of her appeals, that she didn’t want to have sex with him and that the purpose of responding to his hundreds of emails and text messages was to keep him away from her, masturbating while reading her emails on his computer or while viewing her texts on his cell phone in a bathroom stall or wherever rather than knocking on the door of her apartment and imploring her for sex, or whatever or wherever. He was so “traumatized,” grievously and irremediably, by having sex with her that besides sending her hundreds of messages to which she responded, he also called her on the phone 170 times, as Manley pointed out in his post-conviction press conference. This all but proves that even if she was the initiator, initially, which I doubt, he was the pursuer and aggressor thereafter.

Apparently, she was convicted on three counts of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” declared “guilty” of having sex with her accuser the three times she claims he forced himself on her but “not guilty,” inexplicably, on the fourth, not because the jury found the testimony of her “victim” so persuasive and incontrovertible, but because of all the emails and text messages. The irony is that the texts and emails are more exculpatory than inculpatory, making her story more rather than less credible.

Apparently, she expressed her “love” for him in many texts and emails and the prosecutor emphasized, doubtless repeatedly during the trial from her opening statements to her closing arguments,  the “lovey dovey” (her words) nature of their affair as proof that she was lying about her fear of him and how he raped and terrorized her. If she is telling the truth about their intrigue and why she responded to his hundreds of emails and text messages (see above), such effusions of love were not sincere but a means of pacifying him. If she was afraid of him and wanted to keep him away from her to protect herself, would she tell him how much she hated and feared him?

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements