The trial began with the prosector arguing that the semi-nude photos of the woman, not be shown in court. She was also asking that autism only be considered at sentencing, not during the trial. This discussion takes up pages 9-32. The short version is the judge allowed the defense attorney to show him the photos. He would later decide which, if any might be admissible. The judge also said he would have to consider autism as he would have to consider blindness or deafness. The trial transcripts do not reflect a genuine attempt on his part to ask for clarity and help understanding how autism was relevant in this case. Actually the opposite occurred when the judge literally used testimony meant to help him understand autism traits as reasons to convict Drew.
Part of the woman’s testimony.
Trial transcript page 37 – Q: The prosecutor asking questions, A: The woman answering.
Q: How was it ultimately that he ended up at your house that day?
A: We met at Barnes and Noble. We were talking. He still just didn’t seem happy. I was like, come hang out with me at my apartment. I’m packing, but we can watch a movie or hang out.
Q: When he gets to your apartment, what happens? Well, tell me when you first get there, what the two of you were doing.
A: I put in Southpark and had a big fuzzy, blue blanket that I laid on the floor because most everything is gone, and then I was like going to pop some popcorn or whatever because I didn’t want to rush into packing. I did invite him over. So we were just hanging out for a bit. He starts rubbing on me. I’m like all right, you know, because I knew he had romantic interest.
Trial transcript page 66 – Q: Defense attorney asking questions, A: The woman answering.
Q: And then you invite him to come to your apartment.
A: I did.
Q: At that time you knew that he had an interest in you.
Q: And you get there. Do you change clothes when you get there?
A: I don’t remember changing clothes, but I – – I don’t remember changing clothes.
Q: You told the court you popped popcorn and then you both laid down on the carpet.
A: He was on the couch at first, but then we eventually laid on the blue blanket that I laid out.
So, wait a minute. She said on page 37 that she put the fluffy blue blanket on the floor because she was packing and most everything was gone. If Drew was sitting on the couch then apparently all the furniture wasn’t gone. What was the purpose of the blanket? And why the need to justify putting it down for them to lie on? Given that she said she knew he had a romantic interest in her does this sound a little intimate, putting a fluffy blanket on the floor for them to lie on? And, allowing him to rub you because you know he has a romantic interest in you?
I am not suggesting that, by itself, laying a blanket on the floor is a message of sexual consent. Thankfully we are past the days when a woman wearing a short skirt means she is asking for sex. However, I am a firm believer in truth and justice in a court of law. I think repeated justifications are indicative of deliberate deception. I will never understand how a judge can listen to a series of justifications and conclude that she was the more credible witness. After reading every post I believe you will agree that Drew should not be in prison, and facing a lifetime on the sex offender registry.