Convicting Drew – Part 5

The Judge continues with his rational for convicting Drew.

The Judge: More relevant to me and what I’ll respectfully call dissembling is this. I hear Mr. Harrison describe the application of force to (her name), the very essence of the case that we’re talking about as the issue in dispute. I heard Mr. Harrison and saw in my notes use the adverb gently at least three times. He described that he gently held both of her arms. He didn’t really restrain her. In his view he gently held both her arms. He gently pulled her down on the bed. Parenthetically when he said she allowed me to disrobe her, there’s been no comment nor rebuttal on how her brazier got torn. That would seem to be inconsistent with a gentle undressing.

Mr. Harrison similarly used the word gently in describing some of (her name), what I’ll call, resisting behavior. Because there’s no dispute that (her name) hit Mr. Harrison. There again, he says gently. She says gently. She said her belief and training, if you can call it that, was that when someone bigger is in this position, you don’t hit them so as to produce a more violent response. There’s no question that resisting behavior by (her name) included hitting Mr. Harrison. It included biting his lip. It included saying, No, or No, I can’t. It included saying, I have a boyfriend. Here in each case Mr. Harrison’s take or interpretation, that was all coy. That was all flirtatious. That was all because she’s a submissive. That was all because she likes, in his words, the illusion of force.

The sum and substance of it is that I believe Mr. Harrison did apply force. I believe he’s essentially conceded it. He believes, at least he testified, that he thought the force was play act, something she actually wanted. To put it more simply, I believe someone who engages in this sort of conduct, who is admittedly being told no, who is being hit, who is being bit on the lip,  proceeds at his own peril if he thinks those are counter indications of what the other person wants. That’s the long and short of it. Mr. Harrison says no meant yes. Being hit and bit, that’s just part of being submissive.

The judge stated that Drew essentially conceded force. I cannot find anywhere in the transcripts where Drew was being forceful or conceded forcefulness. It was the opposite! Unless the judge is referring to the immature, Aspie, inflammatory message he sent to his former friend which was mentioned in a past post. If that is what the judge is referring to, and if we are going to begin using the blurts and rants that young people send to each other via social media as evidence of serious crimes; then we better start building more and bigger prisons. Both Drew and the young woman agree that she gently hit Drew, they agree to the lip biting and they agree that she had a boyfriend. They agree that the undressing was not forceful. She owned discussing her BDSM submissive desires with Drew. She owned liking biting as a part of sex.

So, the judge states that there is no question that hitting, biting, saying no I can’t, and saying I have a boyfriend are all resisting behaviors. In a vacuum of no other information one could reach this conclusion. But, we were not in a vacuum that day.

The prosecutor and the judge repeatedly use the young woman’s explanation as to the gentle undressing at their convenience. If they wanted it to seem as though she was fighting him off, they said she fought him, she bit him, she hit him, she pushed him. But, then all three of them (young woman, prosecutor and judge) stated that she DIDN’T fight because – in the judges own words – She said her belief and training, if you can call it that, was that when someone bigger is in this position, you don’t hit them so as to produce a more violent response.

A more violent response? From a young man who stopped when she said stop, and left her apartment? Again, as stated in a previous post, and in the trial transcript as part of her own testimony, the doctor’s testimony, and Drew’s testimony; when she told him to stop, he stopped and left her apartment. He complied with the young woman’s request. From the trial transcript a part of Drew’s testimony is below:

Drew’s defense attorney is asking a question. Drew is answering:

Q: There comes a point where she does say something. Tell the court how that happens.

A: There came a point after I was giving her oral sex where she kind of rolled off the bed and kind of got up against the side of the wall and kind of put her hands up and said, Stop. I think she actually said the word stop. At that point I think I said to her, Are you okay? She says, Yeah. Just stop. So, I said, Okay. I stopped. I put my shirt back on. I put my shoes on and I said to her, so we’re going out later, right? She said, Maybe. Then I left. I left feeling like I wasn’t pleasing her right. That was the thought that I had driving home was just that that was – – that I didn’t satisfy (her name) and that’s why she asked me to leave. The thought in my head wasn’t – – there was absolutely no question at the time about any type of sexual assault. That would have been ridiculous. My only thought was I wonder what I did wrong.

The judge brought up the torn bra as being inconsistent with a gentle undressing. The young woman testified that it was torn at the bracket. The judge stated that there was no comment nor rebuttal of how the bra was torn. Drew was not asked about the bra. If asked, I’m sure he would have answered honestly, as he did with every question asked of him. My son told me that he has trouble with ‘those little hooks’ on bras. A broken eye hook was used in court as the indicator of force without anyone; prosecutor, his own defense attorney, or the judge asking Drew about the bra. Since the application of force is the true essence of the case Drew should have been asked about the bra. Or, since the judge found the woman more credible perhaps he could have asked her for more specifics. But, should a court of law conclude force and ruin a young man’s life without asking for clarification on any issue the judge is placing this level of importance on? Difficulty with fine motor skills is a common manifestation of ASD.

Drew’s knowledge in a few areas of interest goes far beyond anyone in our family. But, when it came to making legal decisions he was a fish out of water, a young ASD man immersed in a system that made no sense. He relied upon others to navigate – which attorney, a jury or a bench trial, every piece of paper, every photo presented in court, even what to wear that day.

I’m taking a really deep breath right now. Reliving these details makes my head spin. My son took the stand and stated his honest recollection of what happened…period! Deceptive because he used the word gently three times? What?!? Repeating words and phrases is what he does…especially during highly stressful circumstances. It is another ASD trait. Knowing you could be sentenced to up to life in prison would induce major stress in any man; autism spectrum or not.

I looked up the word ‘dissembling’ to make sure I knew what it meant. It means to conceal or disguise one’s true feelings or beliefs … to be deceitful. I knew my son couldn’t have been more truthful. But, seeing this truth required a judge who understood the behaviors typical of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) on the one hand; and Bondage, Domination, Sadism and Masochism (BDSM) on the other.

2 thoughts on “Convicting Drew – Part 5”

  1. Confirmation bias. You get viewed a certain way and it’s near impossible to break out of that box. Like a witch hunt. My thoughts are with you and your son. I hope he gets out soon.

    1. It has felt like a witch hunt, Neil. Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. I know it’s long. It’s an outrageous story.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *