END SLAMS “BLAME THE VICTIM” JURY VERDICT IN NYC COP RAPE TRIAL AS “OUTRAGEOUS AND BARBARIC”; PRAISES CHIEF KELLY.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Manhattan, New York, United States of America (Free-Press-Release.com) May 28, 2011 --

New York, NY, May 28th, 2011: End Discrimination Now, NewYork’s leading discrimination advocacy group, came out swinging today after the jury verdict was announced in the “two Cops against one intoxicated woman” Rape case yielded a “Not Guilty” verdict. “It’s beyond comprehension”, END President Kathryn Jordan stated, “Even if, or especially if, this young woman was intoxicated where her judgment was impaired, the police in New York City have a duty to protect, not to exploit, vulnerable persons.” The verdict in favor of now-terminated police officers Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata incredibly centered upon “lack of physical evidence” and the fact that the accuser, a young woman who had just celebrated a promotion, was so “drunk” she could not remember all of what occurred to her. "That’s why we have Police Officers”, Jordan said, “To escort women home safely and avoid any dangerous situations. Here the cops were clearly predators”. Jordan said someone should have explained to the Jury how easy it would be for a police officer to dispose of physical evidence with a semi-conscious victim. Although it was revealed during the trial that the two cops not only entered the woman’s apartment, but took turns “guarding” the door, and called 911 to report a fictitious homeless person in the building at the time of the rape, in order to have an excuse to re-enter, the poor direction of the jury on the “weighting of the evidence” and the prejudicial disclosure of the amount of damages unfairly colored the jury’s analysis. Although one of the accused officers actually admitted to the rape when the victim was “wired” by the prosecutors, the entire focus was on the victim’s intoxicated state and lack of memory. “Rape victims or victims of violence do not process trauma the instant it occurs. Sometimes it will be years before the effect is fully experienced. Memories, even if sober, are almost almost cloudy and confused. The prosecution should have had an Expert explain this to the jury”. Moreover, END argued that revealing the amount of damages to the jury was “a fatal flaw” that would almost certainly guarantee an appeal. “The Judge should never have disclosed that during the liability phase of the case”, END complained. END has vigorously lobbied for “Bi-Furcation of Liability and Damages on all discrimination cases because of the “inflammatory bias that inevitably kicks in whenever “women” and “money” are used in the same sentence.
Though the jury here claimed to have painstakingly reviewed the evidence, “What did they think the police were doing when they were caught on videotape “checking” on the intoxicated woman and taking turns guarding the outside of her apartment while one of them entered and the other stayed outside? And why would an innocent Policeman make a phony 911 call to justify his return to the building? If he were innocent, he would have no reason to fabricate an excuse. Better yet, neither of them would have been there”.

END has been concerned about the directions that Judges give Juries for a long time from a purely legal perspective. “These cases where credibility is involved often turn on “weight of evidence” but the Jury is not given specific guidance as to what the value of any particular piece of evidence is. While the Jury clearly questioned the woman’s ‘morality” (the “asking for it” defense) for “getting drunk”, they had no problem accepting a very calculated scheme by two uniformed officers to exploit this opportunity to act in a predatory manner against a woman whose judgment was at best compromised. END says countless errors were made that led to the shocking verdict, including failing to cite the officer’s obvious lie about the 911 call as key evidence to the motives, failing to cite the admission of guilt by the one officer as “corroborative” of the woman’s testimony, not clarifying that the videotape showing the men re-entering the apartment as more evidence of “motive, means and opportunity”.
“It’s beyond disgusting. Who gang rapes an intoxicated woman who is vomiting?
How could there possibly be an excuse for that”, Jordan queried.

END encouraged the Prosecution to argue for a “re-trial and to add “gang rape” as a cause of action, while demanding the Judge “bi-furcate” the case and provide better direction on “weight of evidence” issues. “Predators lie in weight for young woman today. This woman, who was very “foolish” is lucky the situation did not progress to violence and meet up with a uniformed Joran Van der Sloot.”, Jordan warned. Jordan said that the victim would most likely experience “PTSD” in the future as her recollection returns, probably in fragments, and her attorney should secure the appropriate medical care for her. Fortunately Ray Kelly took a proactive leadership role and fired both officers the instant the verdict came in. But now he has to address the macho-sexist culture of the NYPD which is unfortunately not known for its respect of women. “There’s a world of difference between asking and taking,” Jordan said. “These were men in uniform and they were sober and had sworn to uphold the law. The young woman was not. End of story”.

More information can be found online at http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com

Commissioner Ray Kelley     Criminal Prosecution     discrimination against women     kenneth moreno     nypd     Police Brutality     rape     weight of evidence