As ever, everyone wants bad actors to be punished. But where facts are disputed and there's no evidence and two witnesses with opposing testimony, everyone is stuck with asking awkward questions and making hard decisions.
Trying to figure from the article if the judge was clumsy or cynical. It sounds like he had the impression the alleged victim was a liar to me.
Was he trying to find a way to ask if she had indicated anything to the alleged perpetrator - in words or behaviour - so that he understood she was not a consenting participant?
People don't write legal contracts in the bedroom. They don't necessarily strike a verbal agreement. So you may want to examine behaviour. Women do lie as do men, and you can only get to the truth by asking questions.
It's quite a demand to disqualify a judge from asking impolite-sounding questions ("insensitive, threatening, and discourteous") where a long jail sentence is involved for the alleged perpetrator. Especially if you think she is not entirely honest.
I hope the review panel was filled with thoughtful people who understand the difficulties in such situations. MeToo has revealed the monster. Tara Reade is a wonderful example of what happens when you adopt the principle that one should always assume honesty in women. Awkward questions can reveal the answers you need. Depends on the situation and whether everything else hangs together.
Without doing research I am not going to do, I am not sure this article impresses me with an opinion. Many cases aren't about someone jumping out of the bushes. They are about possible misunderstandings between adults in a bedroom.
Lest we forget, newspapers evoke outrage to sell their product.
| 