Sue Prent: Much to regret

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Sue Prent, an artist/writer living in St. Albans who routinely blogs on Green Mountain Daily. She is self-employed by Pink House Studios, and works for Fairewinds Energy Education. She also serves on the board of Vermont Conservation Voters.

[T]he much-anticipated trial of suspended senator Norm McAllister of Franklin County began and ended in a single day with Mr. McAllister never having to take the witness stand.

The alleged victim was not so lucky. She was understandably reluctant to describe the graphic nature of the assaults before a roomful of press and strangers, but that is exactly what she had to do. In the end, it was all for nothing, because the prosecution seemed to be caught off guard by her problems with testimony; and, after five grueling hours devoted to interrogation and cross-examination of only the victim, simply withdrew the charges.

Our first glimpse of the alleged victim came as the doors opened and a little girl, who looked like she might be a high school freshman, stepped into the courtroom accompanied by a victims’ rights advocate. Her taffy-colored hair was gathered into a traditional ponytail and she was dressed neatly in jeans and a shirt. She later said that at the time of the alleged assaults she weighed just 85 pounds, and stood 4 feet 11 inches.

After witnessing the proceedings, I think I better understand why it is so difficult to get sexual assault victims to challenge their tormenters in a court of law. It would be a hideous and demeaning experience even for the most confident and articulate adult.

For an economically disadvantaged and unsophisticated girl, with barely a high school education, her encounter with the “justice” system following sexual trauma is likely to be about enough to finish her off.

By the time she reached the courtroom, she had already undergone deposition several times over the course of many months, with varying degrees of readinesss, and by people with conflicting agendas. Unsurprisingly, her memory was faulty and full of contradictions from one account to the next.

A well-educated and mature adult, untroubled by the trauma of sexual assault may find it difficult to understand how her story could be so inconsistent; but consider what that 21-year-old girl has had to contend with. Complicating the recall process was her instinct to hide her “shame” from everyone, but most especially from her boyfriend.

Apart from the direct trauma of the assault, there are societal taboos in play that trigger unjustified feelings of shame and guilt in victims of sexual assault, from which the mind may weave a tissue of altered narratives that only serve to complicate recovery of the real memories.

The longer the incidents of trauma persist and the later the attempt at recall, the more likely it is that those memories will be riddled with flaws and fluctuations. All kinds of odd dysfunction occur in individuals suffering abuse. Think of Stockholm Syndrome and the tendency of pedophiles to have been abused themselves as children.

There is likely some underlying pathology to the victim’s jumbled memories, as well as the contribution made by her youth at the beginning of the alleged abusive relationship (16 or 17), and the role of ignorant societal judgements on the violated.

But to dismiss the overarching complaint as a mere fabrication, as the defense was able to do in the McAllister case, seems the worst kind of injustice. It wasn’t her idea to bring charges against Norm McAllister. The police approached her in the course of their investigation of allegations made by two other women. Quite obviously against her will, she was persuaded to testify about the humiliating secret she had kept from everyone for so long.

Her revulsion at having to discuss the details in public was painfully apparent. She might have kept the secret indefinitely if the police hadn’t come knocking at her door.

Now I am sure she regrets having let them in.