Dear Miss Rasmussen,
I have had the rather dubious privilege of reading both your character statement about Brock Turner and your rebuttal to the public backlash to said statement. I'd like to take a moment to address the things within your letter to the judge and your defense of yourself that contradict each other as well as provide my thoughts on both of your statements.
1. I do not fault you for you writing a letter on his behalf as someone who knew him for so long. What I do fault you for is this statement, “I don't think it's fair to base the fate of the next ten + years of his life on the decision of a girl who doesn't remember anything but the amount she drank to press charges against him. I'm not blaming her directly for this because this because that just isn't right."
That you included the word "directly" in reference to blaming the victim indicates that you are still placing blame for Brock's actions at her feet. This is incredibly wrong. That you then try to minimize the impact of your, very clear, indictment of the victim with platitudes and excuses further chafes one's sensibilities.
2. Your rebuttal included that "I know that Brock Turner was tried and rightfully convicted of sexual assault. I realize that this crime caused enormous pain for the victim." Yet again, I refer back to your character statement about the fairness of the decision. As well as "I think that the bikers who found him did the right thing by keeping him there in case he was attempting rape, but that after the investigation, it should have found Brock to be innocent."
Please, enlighten those of us who seem to be confused as to the true meaning behind this statement exactly how it illustrates that you know he was rightfully convicted? Or how it shows that you sympathize with the pain of the victim? Additionally, I would like to point out that you ended your letter to the judge with "I would not be writing this letter if I had any doubt in my mind that he is innocent."
If you had any belief that he was actually guilty beyond having had too much to drink, you'd have said so. You would have provided your stories from your childhood and adolescence, but instead of saying you had no doubt he was innocent, you would have said "I'd never have thought he would do something like this. In light of the person I've known him to be, I would ask for leniency in sentencing. I'd ask that you also make it mandatory for him to attend sex offender treatment and counseling for drug and alcohol abuse so he can come to fully understand why what happened was wrong and once more become the boy I used to know and hold in such esteem."
3. You compared what happened to the victim in this case with a woman who is kidnapped and raped, claiming that this is the true face of a rapist. Your statement said "These are not rapists. These are idiot boys and girls having too much to drink and not being aware of their surroundings and having clouded judgement."
As you seem to be unaware of what a rapist actually is, please allow me to provide you with a very simple definition. "1. unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim."
Do you notice that this definition says nothing about kidnapping someone, or about the intent the rapist held before encountering their victim? That's because they are irrelevant to defining what constitutes a rapist. (I would also like to point out that he had an intent to "hook up" with someone, so maybe his intent was as innocent as you want to believe.)
He changed his story from the time he spoke to the police, in that he claimed consent because she rubbed his back", he never intended to take her back to his dorm, he didn't know how they got behind the dumpster, he was leaving because he wasn't feeling well, to his statement at trial (a year later I might add)where he alleges consent beyond a simple back rub.
He claimed to not know she wasn't responding, I know you'll blame this on his level of intoxication, but I'd like to point out that he was, by his own statement at trial, aware enough to remember her alleged consent before he was caught. He was capable enough to remove the top part of her dress and her bra, as well as her panties. He was aware enough to then push his fingers inside of her. He was aware enough to try to run when he was found.
Brock took her behind a dumpster (arguably to hide his actions), even if it was just for privacy, this would indicate that he had a firm enough grasp on his faculties to think that privacy was necessary. Most people who were as intoxicated as you seem to believe he was, tend to not have any issue with exposing themselves and their activities to the public because they forget there are other people around.
Just as his statements proved him to be a liar, so too have your own statements proven you to be a liar. It also shows why you two were such good friends. You are both incapable of admitting when you are wrong.
Brock blames the Swedish bikers' the alcohol, the victim, for what happened that night. You blame the alcohol, political correctness, the victim (albeit "notdirectly"), and the campus for advertising themselves as a "party school", yet it wasn't until there was an outcry that you even remotely blamed Brock.
Now you blame the "overzealous nature of social media" and "the lack of confidence and privacy in which my letter to the judge was held" for the situation in which you find yourself. Everything about this statement says "I'm annoyed people found out and are mad. More political correctness from which I have to back pedal."
You have helped to re-victimize the victim, not just with your initial statement but with your continued fallacies and blame shifting.
Congratulations.
