what a surprise the idiot lied...
I think we need context and his point of view before passing judgment.
a. at the time he filled out the questionnaire, he might not have known
b. he might have been so traumatized, he didn't want to connect in the moment with the reality that he had been abused
c. in that moment, he might have been in minimizing or denial mode
d. he might have dissociated in that moment; this is not rare for assault victims
e. he might have had a brain *** and only went to "women and sexual abuse" instead of boys, men, or himself. After all, the case is largely about female sexual abuse.
f. he might have missed the word "he"; I did when I first read it.
g. do we know if he came from a family with English as the native language; were other languages spoken in the home? How you read stuff like this can depend on how language is used in your orbit.
h. he might have interpreted that question 60 ways to Sunday. Indeed, every single juror should have said yes to that question if they were being real. I mean, how many people do you know who have NOBODY in their orbit who has been sexually harassed, sexually abused, or sexually assaulted? With something like 100% of women being sexually harassed in this country, e.g. by unwelcome come-ons at work (not to mention the large percentage of sexual assaults)......
From the judge's opinions so far, it seems like the approach is nuanced, which is as I think it should be. GM and her team want it to be black and white so they can have a do-over. The media want it to be black and white because it's dramatic and sound-bite-y. But memories and experiences and how you speak and think about them are a nuanced thing: they're not black and white.
