She Led, He Followed

In my past posts I have focused a lot on autism. It’s difficult to explain how autism is relevant in this case to those who have no understanding of the communication and processing differences between autistic and neurotypcial (non-autistic) people.

I want to make this series of posts short and understandable.

It is not my intent to embarrass or shame anyone. It is my intention to provide accuracy and transparency so that the truth about this horrific injustice can be understood. Incarceration for Drew has been torturous. Imagine being labeled a ‘violent sex offender’ for life when you know you are innocent of such a heinous crime.

Misreading social cues is often difficult for those with autism. But even if you take autism out of the equation I think you’ll conclude reasonable doubt and, that an innocent young man was wrongfully convicted.

The judge based his conviction on the relative credibility of the two witnesses, Drew and the woman. An important part of the police report was withheld prior to trial. Months later the judge was presented evidence of inconsistent testimony by the woman, backed up by her statement in the police report. The judge was unswayed and held firm to his conviction.

Over the next few weeks I will share many of the details that often wake me up at 3 o’clock in the morning. There are many.

Drew dated this woman when they were in high school. She was Drew’s first sexual partner. She taught him what she liked. As is typical for those with autism, Drew followed her lead. She taught him her coy ways. She liked to bite his lip. She led, he followed. She groomed him. It was that way in high school. It was that way 7 years later when she invited him to her apartment.

There are two key issues here, autism and consent. The therapist made it clear to us that Drew’s pattern is to follow the lead of the person he is in a relationship with.

The judge is correct that there was deception in the courtroom on the day of the trial. This deception however was not on Drew’s part. His testimony was honest, open, unguarded, not coached or rehearsed.

For the next few weeks I will post facts using the actual court transcripts as my reference.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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