HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017345.jpg

4.2.12
WC: 191694

The 99-pound rapist

The great violinist Itzhak Perlman called me one day and asked if I would look into a disturbing
case involving a young violinist he knew who attended college in the Boston area. The young
violinist—who was 5 feet tall and weighed 99 pounds, and whose only exercise was lifting a
bow—had been accused by a 5 foot 4, 140-pound lacrosse player of raping her. Itzhak did not
believe that the allegation could be true. The circumstances of the case certainly didn’t lend
credence to the charge.

The young man and woman had been close platonic friends. She had a steady boyfriend back
home, with whom she regularly had sex. One night she invited the violinist to her dorm room
where they had sexual relations. Several weeks later, she invited him to spend the weekend with
her family, where he said they again had sexual relations. But soon thereafter she began to
experience psychological problems and someone at the college left an anonymous message with
her parents that she may have been the victim of an unwelcome sexual encounter. After being
confronted by her father, who was adamantly opposed to any premarital sex, she told him that the
violinist had raped her in the her dorm room. She then filed a complaint with the police. The
young man was immediately suspended from college and subsequently indicted for rape.

I referred the case to a small law firm in town that specialized in criminal matters, and the case
was assigned by the senior partner to a well-known woman lawyer active in feminist causes. She
found the story implausible – so much so that the lawyers decided to waive a jury trial and have
the case decided by a judge, whom they believed would be less susceptible to political
correctness. They were wrong and they were right. The judge found the young man guilty, but
gave him a prison sentence of only 95 days thus suggesting that he didn’t find him that guilty.

I followed the appeal closely, reviewing the briefs and offering suggestions. The argument was
made by the feminist lawyer. The opposing lawyer was also a feminist. Although the court found
that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, it considered the evidence quite weak.
This is what it said:

“In this case the defense was consent. The evidence is many ways was contradictory, and,
even looking only at the complainant’s testimony, in some respects was inconsistent with
allegation of rape.”

The court then ruled that the defense should have had access to certain treatment records that the
defendant generated when she was hospitalized following the alleged rape. Accordingly it
reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. In the end the prosecution
dropped the case and the defendant went free, but not before his college career was seriously
disrupted.

The court’s decision was roundly criticized by many feminists, on the ground that allowing the
defense to have access to the complainant’s psychiatric records would discourage complainants
from coming forward. The court was sensitive to this concern and said the following:

258

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017345