Asked Thursday by the judge if she knew any of the accused, Gisèle said she recognised only one.
“He was our neighbour. He came over to check our bikes. I used to see him at the bakery. He was always polite. I had no idea he was coming to rape me.”
Gisèle was then reminded by the judge that in order to respect the presumption of innocence, it had been agreed in court not to use the word rape but “sex scene”.
She replied: “I just think they should recognise the facts. When I think of what they have done I am overcome with disgust. They should at least have the responsibility to recognise what they did.”
After the truth emerged, Gisèle found that she was carrying four sexually-transmitted diseases.
“I have had no sympathy from any of the accused. One who was HIV-positive came six times. Not once did my husband express any concern about my health,” she said.
While I agree the presumption of innocence should always be upheld in court. I’d argue saying the alleged rape would be better.
No, it’s not better to make a suspected victim use words that revictimizes them.
Any legal system that isn’t a joke understands that not everyone should be held to the same standard of professionalist ass-covering.