It appears that the Uber Taxi driver discussed today is not the only person who is reportedly using the “she asked for it” defense to sexual assault. The Pennsylvania attorney general’s office is blaming a former state prison clerk for her own rape in litigation against the prison. The 24-year-old typist was working at the state prison at Rockview in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania in 2013 when she was choked unconscious and raped for 27 minutes by Omar Best, an image convicted three times previously of sex-related crimes. Worse yet, Best had been transferred from a different state prison for assaulting a female assistant but the prison still allowed him unsupervised visits with female employees.
The lawsuit alleges that the clerk offices were actually moved from part of the prison that was off limits to inmates to a less secure location before the rape. There were allegedly no locked doors between the offices and the cell blocks.
Best was convicted of the rape in May, but a senior deputy attorney general wrote that the woman “acted in a manner which in whole or in part contributed to the events.”
The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office insists that it was merely presenting all possible defenses including contributing negligence. However, there are a variety of defense that you can chose not to make. For example, they could claim that she raped the inmate but that was thankfully rejected.
Before this rape, Best had been convicted three times prior of sex-related offenses. He pleaded guilt to indecent assault in 1995. In 2010, he was tied to the abduction and rape of an 18-year-old woman in Philadelphia but only sentenced to 7 to 15 years. In 2011, he pleaded guilty to rape and robbery of another woman and was sentenced to 15 years in state prison.
He then reportedly assaulted another female employee at a prison in Graterfordand was transferred to the state prison at Rockview. Moreover, the victim allegedly complained twice to her boss — about a week before the attack — that she felt uncomfortable and unsafe with Best coming into her office. While she was told that Best would not be allowed to come to the office, he went to her office pretending to be taking out her trash. When she tried to blow a whistle as an alert, no one heard the sound and she was choked into unconsciousness. A later investigation led to the firing of the superintendent, Marirosa Lamas and the hiring of 70 new corrections officers. They also moved the offices.
However, the office of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane (right) still maintained that she might be entirely responsible for her own rape. After the fallout, her office is saying that they might not pursue the claim at trial. That would be wise since the jury would likely to have to be restrained in its disgust and anger. The filing was made under Kane’s name and argued:
“Some or all of the damages plaintiff have alleged are in part, or substantially due, to the acts of third parties other than the answering defendants, and/or plaintiff acted in a manner which in whole or in part contributed to the events which led to the damages plaintiff has alleged in her complaint.”
Kane also denied such assertions that the woman did not want Best in her office despite strong evidence to that effect at the rape trial.
To often, prosecutors and government lawyers will adopt a scorched earth policy toward those accusing the government of misconduct. Such argument rarely make the news but they are being made, in this case, in the name of all Pennsylvania citizens. The detachment from not just reality but decency in this case truly shocked the conscience.
Source: KFOR
Who did Kane sleep with to get to her position. She certainly did not get there due to brains.
The institution allowed a known sex offender with a history of attacking and raping female employees access to a female employee. The institution is at fault. There is nothing else to discuss. To bring any other issue to bear needs further scrutiny. Kane is obviously not mentally capable of being in the position she holds. The rapist has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. There is nothing else to be said.
Squeeky, Knowing govt. attorneys I would bet it is.
This sounds like typical cut and paste work from a previous tort response. The usual tort response throws in all defenses, including those for comparative negligence. I doubt this was an intentional act on the part of Kane.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Lady’s, go incognito with a Burqa dress. End the sexual attraction. New problem will be with the CIA and NSA…..Possible female jihadist. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!
Reblogged this on BLOGGING BAD w/Gunny G ~ "CLINGERS of AMERICA!".
I think being raped by the AG is worse for this victim, a REAL victim, a concept lost on some here.
It may be they are trying the case in the court of public opinion, which may be backfiring at this point.
Rule 8.4 Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct,…;
….
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
….
“Attorney General Kathleen Kane (right) still maintained that she might be entirely responsible for her own rape.”
It is well established (Linda Fairstein, _Sexual_Violence_) that women will often go to extreme lengths to excuse or explain away a claim of rape. No doubt this is a psychological self-defense mechanism.
I presume it is still standard practice to get as many women _off_ the jury as possible.
Reblogged this on Reality Check.
Yes, blame the victim. Disgusting.
“Image” instead of the word “inmate”. This makes me think that the article gets dictated and then typed by a computer or secretary. WordPress needs a new dimension.
Thanks, @Karen S. Here’s another:
Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others
In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or ….
SafeLibraries – good point!
Correction – an inmate would have access to his female defense lawyer alone, but there should be a guard within summoning distance, and dangerous inmates should be restrained.
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal
A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
….
(2) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. ….
^^&&**(((&^^! Sorry, couldn’t think of anything printable to say for a moment.
I cannot believe this even needs to be said, but prisons should always have male inmates separated from female employees when they are alone. Obviously sexual predators like Best should never have access to a woman, alone, for the rest of his miserable life. And he should be deemed dangerous to the public and never let out of prison.
The prison was negligent to move those offices, and to ignore her complaints and concerns about her safety.
And Kane should be ashamed of herself and her office.
I assume the rape victim sued the prison for her ordeal, and Kane is exploring all angles for defense. Is the “she asked for it” angle still considered a valid defense under any circumstances? How could she ask for it IF SHE WAS UNCONSCIOUS???
The poor victim.
Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.
Comment:
[1] The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client’s cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure. The law, both procedural and substantive, establishes the limits within which an advocate may proceed. However, the law is not always clear and never is static. Accordingly, in determining the proper scope of advocacy, account must be taken of the law’s ambiguities and potential for change.
[2] The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for a client is not frivolous merely because the facts have not first been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop vital evidence only by discovery. What is required of lawyers, however, is that they inform themselves about the facts of their clients’ cases and the applicable law and determine that they can make good faith arguments in support of their clients’ positions. Such action is not frivolous even though the lawyer believes that the client’s position ultimately will not prevail. The action is frivolous, however, if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to support the action taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.
http://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/attorneys/rules/pennsylvania-rules-of-professional-conduct.php
Really unbelievable. War On Women? There it is. Aren’t there PA Rules of Professional Conduct of possible relevance?