There's a common refrain among men these days:

"IT" being sexual assault accusations. Last year I researched a series of sexual assault convictions (some acquittals) in this state with a single unifying element - no physical evidence was presented by prosecutors to corroborate the "fact" an assault even occurred.

Indeed, often contradictory evidence was presented by litigants and some times even an exact date for the "crime" was never established. In fact, rather than prosectors having to prove guilt, those accused were confronted with the McCarthiest task of proving innocence.

For those fortunate enough to win cases, legal fees start at about $30,000. Thirty thousand and up to defend against an unsubstantial accusation. In no other crime can a "victim" even seek an indictment on accusation alone. Consider that while jurors heard months of testimony on physical evidence in the O.J. Simpson trial, any evidentiary debates in these cases could simply not take place - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!

After the fourth mother in about as many weeks called me last fall with similar stories, I redoubled my research. Well over a dozen men sit in the state prison serving double-digit terms, convicted on the testimony alone of a "victim".

"Victims", counseled and coached by rape victim witness counselors who effectively engage in a form of witness tampering for the prosecution - for prosecutors who are bound by a code of ethics to find the truth, not just seek convictions.

Indeed Irene Letourneau, the mother of one man in prison, has filed a complaint with the state about a victim counselor she saw badgering the elementry-aged "victim" to strengthen the child's testimony against her son.

Irene epitomizes a contingent of family members increasingly vocal in their defense of accused male relations - relatives who were tried for crimes in which there was virtually no physical evidence. Often, in fact, the "crime"e; was committed so long ago, no evidence could possibly exist.

Echoing the state's three pending "repressed memory" cases, Robert Nasuti was convicted in Dover on the testimony of a 13-year-old who claimed she remembered this man assaulting her while babysitting when she was three years old. This master sergeant in the U.S. Army and father of three was convicted in spite of the fact the girl's own parents testified he could not have been babysitting as he was working the same shift at the same factory as them.

In a more recent case, Keith Mountjoy was not only convicted of rape, but burglary, in spite of the fact trial transcripts show state forensic scientists could find not one piece of physical evidence to suggest he was ever in the apartment. A rape kit also turned up negative on the victim, who claimed several days after the incident that she recognized a neighbor's voice and accused him. This employed father of two was tried and convicted on this voice ID alone.

In at least three other cases, "victims" waited so long to report the assault that there could be no physical evidence even of an assault. The only corroboration was that when asked by police if they had had relations with the "victim," these men truthfully answered in the affirmative. Would a rapist admit this?

Though prosecutors would argue that these men had their trial by jury, that there was due process, I would point out that in 1692, when the Salem witch trials were peeking, the Puritans, having experienced their own period of persecution, prided themselves in their dedication to due process. These propitious Puritans jailed at least 200 accused, coerced confessions to witchcraft from 50, and executed 20 "witches" - on testimony alone, obviously.

Similarly, our "due process" in sexual assault cases now is not justice, but the same brand of theater, produced by the prosecution and directed by therapists and rape victim counselors who coach the "victims." The jury then hands down the emotionally-charged award either a lengthy prison sentence, or legal fees that would bankrupt most.

I ask here what I have asked Attorney General Howard, Gov. Merrill, even Justice David Souter, without answer. Since when do we indict, much less try and sentence a person to prison on accusation alone?

NCFM EDITOR'S NOTE - The doing away with any and all corroborative evidence in rape trials was a direct result of feminist political campaigning in the mid and late 1970's.

Back to the NCFM home page: NCFM