Home Scandal and Gossip Overboard reaction? Leslie Rasmussen Good English gigs cancelled cause of letter supporting...

Overboard reaction? Leslie Rasmussen Good English gigs cancelled cause of letter supporting Brock Turner

Leslie Rasmussen
Pictured, indie band Good English of which Leslie Rasmussen (center) is a member of along with her sisters Elizabeth and Celia.

How Leslie Rasmussen and her band, Good English found themselves ostracized after insisting political correctness was behind the public’s demands for justice for Brock Turner’s victim.

Leslie Rasmussen a member of Oakwood, Ohio based indie band, Good English, may think twice about publicizing her views in the future after her and her band have now found themselves being branded ‘rape apologists’ after a letter of support she wrote for childhood friend, convicted rapist Brock Allen Turner.

The ban on the female band, which has suddenly seen a slew of shows that the band had been slated for in Brooklyn, NY suddenly being cancelled comes after a character statement she provided in the 20 year old Stanford University swimmer’s trial. 

In her letter, Leslie Rasmussen dismissed the calls to have her childhood friend punished after claiming that ‘sweet Turner’ is ‘not a rapist’ while blaming campus rape on ‘political correctness,’ along with calling the incident a ‘misunderstanding.’

It wasn’t until the letter came to be published online and subsequently tweeted en masse that the drummer and her band found herself in the hot seat after upcoming concert venues found themselves besieged with requests to cancel the band’s shows. 

The commotion comes after many branded the star swimmer’s sentence of six months (prosecutors sought 6 years while California law allowed up to 14 years incarceration) outrageous, with many citing an egregious application of justice. A view that clashed with that of Leslie Rasmussen who maintained the public’s disgust was ill founded as drugs and alcohol are solely to blame (not one’s actions) along with the public’s misjudged politically correct views of rape culture.

According to a post via the dailymail, Rasmusssen later issued a statement on Facebook acknowledging Brock’s crime, while still blaming America’s drinking culture (aka Brock Turner’s 23 year old victim has only herself to blame for presumably getting drunk…).

That’s when the fireworks began (and the facebook account later deleted).

Responding to the post, commentator Jean Carson wrote: ‘Drop Good English. What will this one band cost your business? And a protest, in your venue? This could be VERY bad. Do the right thing — actions have consequences,’

‘The consequence of drinking too much is a hangover, NOT rape. What is the consequence of a band publicly supporting a CONVICTED rapist? And what is the consequence of hosting that band in your bar?’

While Caitlin Gaspar commented: ‘Good English has gotta go. Since when did girl bands start supporting rapists? They are an embarrassment and offense to your line up. I look forward to seeing you’ve resolved the situation, aka dropped ’em.’  

All-sister trio Good English have quickly become toxic and all their gigs at Brooklyn’s Northside music festival have now been completely scrapped.

Carl-Fredrik Arndt: Brock Turner’s rape victim was unconscious the whole time

Brock Turner father pathetic defense of Stanford rapist son explored

‘I only fondled her’ Brock Turner Stanford swimmer guilty of raping unconscious woman

Leslie Rasmussen
Pictured, Leslie Rasmussen

Told a spokesperson at Industry City Distillery via the Gothamist: ‘We have zero tolerance for the act itself, for anyone that would seek to defend that act, and certainly for the sentencing, which seems incredibly light.’  

Also responding were Bar Matchless, also due to host the band at Northside, releasing a statement on Facebook saying: ‘Good English will not be playing Matchless. We do not support victim blaming or rape apologists of any kind.’ 

Leading the social media campaign against the band was Daneile Guercio.

Following the blacklisting she said: ‘I’m just really happy that instead of it being about censorship or protest, it’s more about having real life consequences for your actions.’

Adding: ‘It’s about sending a message that if you’re a woman, we protect you. Especially in New York and in the music scene in Brooklyn, you can’t just come here with this kind of sh**…you’re coming to New York!

‘People with that kind of small-town sexism have no place trying to make money off or our independent infrastructure.’ 

Leslie Rasmussen

 Leslie Rasmussen

And it’s not just New York where the band have been blacklisted, Rumba Cafe in Ohio announced that they would also be canceling their show on June 17th.

Despite the onslaught of  denigration thrown at Good English, Leslie Rasmussen released a follow up statement on the band’s Facebook page – since deleted – where she defends her letter to the judge. 

In the statement she wrote: ‘I felt confident in my ability to share my straightforward opinion of him and how I knew him. I also felt compelled to share my deep concern over the misuse of alcohol that was a well-established contributor in this case. 

‘Beyond sharing my personal experience with Brock, I made an appeal to the judge to consider the effect that alcohol played in this tragedy.

‘I felt confident in my ability to share my straightforward opinion of him and how I knew him.’

Rasmussen, 20, who claims not to drink herself, goes on to blame the American drinking culture that she says led to the incident, rather than Turner himself. 

She also apologized ‘for anything my statement has done to suggest that I don’t feel enormous sympathy for the victim and her suffering.’

The musician added that while she doesn’t ‘condone, support, or sympathize with the offense or the offender’ she does still believe that ‘Brock’s character was seriously affected by the alcohol he consumed. 

And continued: ‘I have watched friends, acquaintances and complete strangers transform before my eyes over the course of sometimes very short periods of time, into people I could barely recognize as a result of alcohol over-consumption.’

She concluded that: ‘There is nothing more sad than the unnecessary, destructive and enormous toll that overuse, misuse and abuse of alcohol and drugs play in people’s lives, and I don’t think my effort to point this out in confidence to a judge while commenting on Brock Turner’s character, as the sober person I knew him to be, was an irresponsible or reckless decision.’ 

But said: ‘Due to the overzealous nature of social media and the lack of confidence and privacy in which my letter to the judge was held, I am now thrust into the public eye to defend my position on this matter in the court of public opinion.’ 

The band’s official website and Facebook page have also been deleted and it is unclear if they plan to continue with the rest of their tour. Which is a tacit admission while we may agree we live in a free society, certain viewpoints may and often lead to unperceived reactions, rightly or wrongly.

Never mind the view that one should be allowed to be politically incorrect if one is beholden, while bearing in mind that the public also has the choice to agree or disagree, whether one agrees with their choice to agree or disagree with one’s own views. 

 Leslie Rasmussen

Leslie Rasmussen

Like Scallywagvagabond on Facebook    
  • Thor Klamet

    Our inability to respect each other creates rape culture. How can we talk about rape and then find ourselves unable to respect the surprise of a childhood friend when the alcohol-abusing Brock Turner does something terrible?

    There is such a thing as context. Leslie was faced with a shocking reality that she had trouble accepting. She never said rape was okay or that it was okay because alcohol was involved. All she said is that we don’t know everything about what happened and that the jury’s verdict was hard for her to believe.

    She said alcohol is dangerous, which it is. Alcohol was obviously a contributing factor in Turner’s horrific lack of judgment, in his ruinous decision to rape an incapacitated woman.

    Alcohol also could easily have killed Turner’s victim who was comatose when he assaulted her.

    I’ve driven drunk (once). I could have killed someone. I was lucky. Brock will pay for his mistake for the rest of his life.

    And now, apparently, Leslie Rasmussen is being destroyed. How does this help us?

    No one is above reproach. And, by the way, the blacklist is something invented by right-wing tyrannical scum.

    If we don’t believe in rape, then we have to believe in respect. And respect is something you have to practice even if someone says something you disagree with. You don’t have to agree with the person but, if you want to practice respect, you do have to try to understand where they are coming from.

    In Leslie’s case, understanding her without agreeing with her is easy. Just remember your own vulnerability.

    Thor Klamet: Hardthinking (blog)

  • QuintoBlanco

    Nothing you write makes any sense. I specifically stated that I’m against any type of statement that can’t be proved or disproved, but is a general statement about the character of a defendant based on a personal opinion.

    If a statement is based on facts, it may still be irrelevant, but that is for the court to decide. And sometimes the court will get it wrong. But at least it can be checked if the statement is true or not.

    So a statement like “X has been violent in the past” may or not be relevant, but at least it can be checked for veracity.

    A statement like “I can’t imagine that X would ever be violent, because he is such a nice guy” is always irrelevant, because there are no facts that can be checked.

    The letter by Rasmussen is worse since she doesn’t even state that she believes that Brock Turner is incapable of rape. She writes that Brock Turner did rape somebody and then blames the victim.

    It is this statement that caused such an outrage, and if it makes other people realize that actions have consequences, that is a good thing.

    And if this causes other people not to write general opinions as a way to influence the justice system, that is a bonus.

  • “if public outrage prevents people from saying that rape victims are to blame, that is a good thing” – outside criminal defense, yes. But we let defense lawyers blame the victim in all kinds of cases, e.g. police shootings; why? Because restricting defense makes convictions & sentences suspect; and because a wrongful conviction or a too-harsh sentence is worse than a wrongful acquittal or a too-light sentence, and worse than an offensive statement. So we let defense lawyers say offensive things in court. Why not letter writers? Which of the reasons for letting defense lawyers do it, don’t apply to letter writers?

    Perhaps non-lawyers shouldn’t make arguments at all, or at least not general statements? But student groups submit letters with general “statements about rape”; MADD submits letters with general statements about drunk driving; no one says they shouldn’t. If Rasmussen put her “general statement” in a separate letter, writing this time not as defendant’s friend but as a member of the general public, would that be fine?

    No one “should be exempt from public criticism”; bad statements should be debunked. But the threat of defense arguments getting debunked doesn’t make trials suspect; the threat of argument authors getting blacklisted does.

  • QuintoBlanco

    You seem to have a problem with people who disagree with you. That is your problem, not mine. I have read your previous posts again and you lack a clear point of view. Everything you write is very vague, because you keep referring to hypotheticals and different cases.

    Stripped from all the superfluous nonsense that you added, your position is that a person who gives an official statement that doesn’t contain facts, with the specific intention to influence a judge to leniency should be exempt from public criticism for anything that is written in that statement. Your position is wrong.

    Nobody forced the young women who suffered from the backlash of writing her rather idiotic letter, to state that rape is not always the fault of the rapist. It was certainly not her place to make any statement about rape. She is in not an expert witness. But she did make that statement, and we can’t pretend she didn’t.

    Your argument that the defendant was somehow unfairly treated because his drug use was mentioned is not only irrelevant, it is also debunked. The defendant claimed that he had no experience with ‘partying’, and used this as an excuse for what he did. By making that false statement, he made his drug use relevant. And he did use drugs, this was not somebodies opinion.

    You come across as somebody who paints himself into a corner and tries to diffuse the situation by not addressing the real issue. This the real issue: there is no excuse for saying that rape is the victims fault and if public outrage prevents people from saying that rape victims are to blame, that is a good thing.

  • “people can and should be hold accountable for their opinion if they make a public statement” – then i’m surprised you’re posting under a pseudonym.

    “An opinion is worth nothing if somebody is not prepared to suffer for it” – that _was_ the view in medieval courts. Sticking to an opinion despite suffering shows sincerity, but the reverse isn’t true. Galileo’s recanting doesn’t mean he was insincere.

    “I’m against any form of testimony in a court of law that is either pure speculation or just an opinion” — but courts don’t exclude opinion. “Were you afraid of this guy? Yes, I was” is typical testimony. It’s fine to scrutinize the basis for an opinion, and if the basis is weak, the opinion shouldn’t count. Knowing someone for years is a valid basis for an opinion about their character, their potential for rehabilitation, their chance of reoffense, and the effect of a sentence of them. The probation officer’s report also gives opinion on these things.

    “pointing out the consequences of that crime is more relevant than [character evidence]” – of course. Good-character evidence shouldn’t be weighed against victim-impact evidence. But it _should_ be weighed against bad-character evidence unrelated to the crime of conviction.

  • QuintoBlanco

    I don’t think that I can be any clearer. I’m against any form of testimony in a court of law that is either pure speculation or just an opinion. So I’m not impressed by the argument that a negative reaction to an offensive letter should have been irrelevant, will prevent people from writing offensive letters that merely state on opinion, in the future.

    You have made an argument and I have rejected it.

    Not because I don’t understand your argument, but because I don’t think it is relevant. Especially because I feel that people can and should be hold accountable for their opinion if they make a public statement.

    An opinion is worth nothing if somebody is not prepared to suffer for it.

    I don’t buy into the whole, “I can say whatever I want without being accountable, because it’s just my opinion” philosophy. I also don’t care about your concern about other people being afraid to write letters of support (because that is what these letters are).

    Leslie Rasmussen has now ‘recanted’. So she either didn’t think things through the first time, or she isn’t prepared to stand up for her convictions. If it’s the latter that makes wonder about the value of her opinion in general. It’s easy to have a ‘strong’ opinion if it will cost you nothing.

    Furthermore I disagree with your tit for tat philosophy. Brock committed a crime, pointing out the consequences of that crime is more relevant than making a statement about the fact that some people think that this rapist is pretty awesome.

  • Support letters can include specific, telling examples to support the writer’s opinion. Courts take opinions all the time. The students’ letter cited by the prosecutor was pure opinion. Expert witnesses give opinions, which courts can credit or discount based on an expert’s qualifications and reasoning. A support letter writer is like an expert on the defendant’s character; if he’s well-qualified — knows the defendant well — and explains the basis for his opinion, why shouldn’t the opinion count? The expert might be biased, but the bias is well-known.

    I’m not sure why the mere fact of drug use tells more about someone’s character, than the reports of many people who knew the person over the years in various capacities. A report of drug use may not come with an opinion attached, but that’s just replaced by the judge’s general stereotype of drug users.

    As you said, using things unrelated to the crime to determine sentence is questionable practice; but so long as it’s done, both bad and good things should come in.

  • QuintoBlanco

    Clearly I object to all irrelevant character statements. And that includes mentioning previous and unrelated use of an illegal drug. But there is a big difference between mentioning something that actually happened and giving an opinion.

    “I witnessed the defendant snort cocaine” is a stating a fact (or telling a lie). It is up to the judge (or the jury) to assess the value of that statement.

    “I witnessed the defendant snort cocaine and therefore he is a bad person” is a stating a fact and an opinion.

    “I believe that the defendant is a good person” is stating an opinion.

    This is my problem with character witnesses. They don’t provide evidence. They state an opinion.

  • “It’s a backdoor into the justice system that allows people with the money to hire a good lawyer and ‘respectable’ friends to influence the judge.” — or, it can be a chance for a ghetto kid to show the judge that he’s more that his rap sheet. Poor people have close friends too, and many ways for friends to learn their character — maybe more than rich people.

    Much of bad-character evidence is only introduced at sentencing, since it’s irrelevant to guilt. So that’s when good-character evidence should come in. Courts aren’t shy about excluding whole categories of evidence, like hearsay, but they choose to allow support letters — presumably, after weighing the pros and cons of doing so. I wouldn’t dismiss that judgement out-of-hand on the basis of one case.

  • QuintoBlanco

    Yes. I stand by that statement. I don’t think that the opinion of a friend about the character of a perpetrator should have any impact on the sentencing. The judge explained that the letter we are discussing made him choose for leniency. So a girl who is barely able to write a coherent letter tells a judge that her former boyfriend is a great guy and the judge decides that this is reason enough to be lenient. This makes no sense to me.

    So what is the point of these letters? It’s a backdoor into the justice system that allows people with the money to hire a good lawyer and ‘respectable’ friends to influence the judge. Or these letters are an excuse for a judge to be lenient.

    Now I’m certain that there are cases in which the prosecutor tried to sneak in some unrelated facts about the accused. But that is for the defense lawyer to counter. And if the prosecutor oversteps the defense can use that to call character witnesses to the stand to react to specific allegations. During the trial. These letters were used after the guilty verdict.

  • But my entire point, from the beginning, was about the effect on future cases. I thought you understood that, when you said: “If the result of this backlash is that in the future people will be reluctant to act as a character witness, that is fine with me.” I tried to explain why that’s not fine. And btw, some people are objecting to being a character witness at all, not just to making general statements; see Kenton Campbell’s comment below.

  • QuintoBlanco

    Now you are being deliberately obtuse. It doesn’t matter what you and I think about LSD. It doesn’t matter if taking LSD will prepare somebody for drinking alcohol. What matters is that Brock Turner claimed that he had no experience with “partying”. And he used his non-existing inexperience as an excuse for what he did. He lied. Brock Turner has a lot of experience with partying.

    I really don’t know ho this could be explained any simpler. Brock’s history of using LSD, marijuana and alcohol contradict his statements of being a simple small town boy with no experience of partying.

    Other than that, I’m not going to discuss every case with you. We specifically posted about this particular case. There are many other cases where I feel that mentioning recreation drug use has been abused by either the prosecution or the defense. But that is not relevant here. In this case, Brock and his friends used the fact that he chose to get drunk as an excuse for rape.

  • It’s as if you haven’t read a word I wrote. I haven’t said a word about alcohol. The notion that prior LSD use proves experience with alcohol is a stretch. I think LSD and weed was general bad-character evidence. But even if it wasn’t in this case, it is in many others. See the New Yorker article linked above, where weed use was cited to justify the death penalty (successfully). In many cases evidence of bad acts unrelated to the crime is introduced to show bad character. In such cases, the introduction of good-character evidence is justified.

  • QuintoBlanco

    Brock Turner to the judge: “Coming from a small town … , I had never experienced celebrating or partying that involved alcohol.”

    I explained this already. Brock initially claimed that he had little experience with alcohol and drugs and that his inexperience made him drink too much and that he had a bad reaction to alcohol.

    He BLAMED his INEXPERIENCE with PARTYING for RAPING a women. I used caps, to make it absolutely clear that he lied to imply that he was the victim of circumstances.

    Later his friends blamed a ‘party’ culture of making rape not the fault of the rapists. Those two arguments lost their power when it became apparent that Brock had ample experience with drugs and alcohol.

    In other words: yes he had been drinking heavily, but based on his experience with drugs and alcohol he was better able to handle the effect of alcohol (basic biology) and he could have foreseen any type of behavior alteration. So his experience with drugs and alcohol made his defense of being implausible.

  • Kenton Campbell

    So the Judge cites HER letter as the main cause for his sentence. Good job Leslie.


  • “if you are asking me if LSD has anything to do with the severity of rape, I’m going to say no” – then why is it relevant that “he did use illegal drugs”? Because it tends to show bad character — disregard for the law, recklessness, lack of self-control, general anti-social attitude; which in turn goes to potential for rehabilitation and likelihood of recidivism. If evidence of bad character is relevant, so is contrary evidence. That the judge gave it too much weight here doesn’t mean it’s never relevant.

    Separately, I think it’s wrong to read a support letter from a childhood friend as some kind of manifesto. She’s not going around to every rape trial arguing for leniency, she’s doing what she can to help her friend. We wouldn’t expect a judge to stay objective and even-handed in a trial of his friend; so why expect her? Obviously, the judge reading the letters knows they’re biased, and should weigh them accordingly.

    The mother of the Hiroshima pilot once said something like “if you just discount the atomic bomb, he’s a very nice man”. If my close friend was accused of something I found hard to believe, I’d bend over backwards to see it in the best light possible (and perhaps impossible). In communist countries, if your friend or even parent was accused of something anti-social, you were expected to publicly
    denounce and disown them. But that was part of a larger project to coerce human nature into something it’s not.

  • QuintoBlanco

    You’re comparing apples with oranges. Brock claimed that he had little experience with alcohol and that was part of his defense. He argued that he made the mistake of drinking too much and that that his inexperience with alcohol made him behave in a way that was atypical and that he didn’t know what he was doing. When it was discovered that Brock had a history with alcohol and drugs, that defense went out of the window.

    Other than that, if Brock was in possession of an illegal substance than that is a crime in itself. But if you are asking me if taking LSD has anything to do with the severity of rape, I’m going to say no. And yes, I’m against all unproven allegations. The thing is, Brock did rape a woman. And he did abuse alcohol on a regular basis. And he did use illegal drugs. These three statements are facts, not allegations.

    The defense tried to paint Brock as a clean cut, well-behaved, all-round lovely guy and it seems they somewhat succeeded. But may I state the obvious? Rapists don’t have a great personality. And I fail how a letter that claims that he does have a great personality is relevant.

  • If it’s wrong to argue that “a crime is less of a crime if the criminal is well liked”, it’s also wrong to argue that a crime is more of a crime if the criminal has used LSD (as here). Prosecutors can cite all sorts of prior conduct, including unproven allegations, to argue for harshness; in an extreme case, marijuana use was cited to justify the death penalty ( http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/06/revenge-killing ). As long as that’s done, the opposite evidence in the form of support letters should be allowed.

  • QuintoBlanco

    In all honesty, I have a dim view of ‘character testimonials’. They tend to favor people with money and an education. And they don’t seem relevant to me. If the result of this backlash is that in the future people will be reluctant to act as a character witness, that is fine with me. The law should apply equally to all. If a lawyer wants to argue mitigating circumstances, that is something else. But character testimonials seem to imply that a crime is less of a crime if the criminal is well liked by his friends and lives a life of privilege.

  • I’m not questioning people’s “right to have an opinion and act on that”. I just want to make sure that if they act, they do so with full awareness of the likely consequences.

  • QuintoBlanco

    Such is life. If an employee insults his employer he might lose his job. In this case a woman made the choice to blame the victims of rape for being raped. Nobody asked her to do that. I don’t find your line of reasoning at all convincing. The women was not ‘punished’ by the law, she experienced a backlash by people who exercised their right to have an opinion and act on that. Let’s say that the same woman accuses you of pedophilia in a written statement to the court, would you have her over for thee and cookies? Probably not.

  • Being allowed to do something at the cost of your career, is not really being allowed to do it. Many defense arguments at the sentencing stage can sound indefensible, since you’re by definition minimizing the seriousness of a proven crime. If defense and supporting statements were limited to only “defensible” things (a subjective standard), we couldn’t be sure that sentences were obtained despite the most vigorous defense, and therefore proper.

    The offensive statement may have been part of drawing the line between incorrigible, rapist-by-nature people who set out to commit rape and jump a stranger in a dark alley, and people who start a consensual encounter but miss when it becomes non-consensual, or even people who are willfully blind to a partner’s intoxication level. The law recognizes different degrees of culpability; drawing distinctions between less culpable and more culpable conduct isn’t the same as excusing crime.

    But the larger point, is that sometimes we should adopt a categorical rule, which yields some bad outcomes but more good ones. Double jeopardy prevents retrying OJ Simpson, but is still the right rule. I suggest that not firing people for writing support letters is the right categorical rule on balance. The likely result of the firing is that people will refuse to write support statements, even deserving ones, because who wants to risk their whole career on the chance that some will find their words indefensible? And the result will be unjustly harsh sentences, which I find hard to ignore.

  • QuintoBlanco

    I can’t follow your argument. The defense WAS allowed to do that. And they did. And the offensive part was not a rebuttal of it not being safe to walk home. Actually, the letter seems to imply that it is NOT safe to walk home since rape is the result of drinking too much which, according to her, is encouraged…

    Let’s see what it is that she wrote: ” … and see that rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists.” This is the point where she is not defending Brock, she is defending rapists by explicitly saying that rape is not always caused by rapists. I’m really surprised by this odd statement, there isn’t even a subtext, she is literally saying that rape isn’t always caused by somebody raping another person. Of course this is going to cause an outrage and somebody (the lawyer of Brock for example) should have protected her from herself.

    Again: people are reacting to this particular statement and they have every right to do so.

    If you read the actual letter, you’ll notice that the girl comes across as a complete idiot. A smarter person would have known not to cross this particular line. A scrupulous lawyer would have instructed her better.

  • When the prosecutor’s sentencing memo cites extensively from a letter written by a group of Stanford students who “pass judgement on the case”, the defense should be allowed to do that also. The students’ letter said people are afraid to walk home at night; it’s not absurd to let a support letter point out that that’s not this case.

    Part of the people’s reaction, I think, is that they want to hit Brock harder but can’t, so they hit they next person they can reach. It’s a natural reaction, but that’s why it’s worth pointing out the consequences people might not have thought of.

  • QuintoBlanco

    I agree in principle. But what she wrote was indefensible. Of course people are going to react. That is their right. One option would be to seal these kind of letters, but that would make it impossible to know what impact these letters have on the judge and/or jury. Presumably she was asked to write this letter by the lawyer of the suspect, he should have instructed her not to pass judgement on the case itself and only write about the character of the defended.

  • Valid point. But since many people are making “blanket statements about an event that they did not witness and a blank statement about rape in general” to argue for harshness, such arguments for leniency should also be permitted. It’s important to let defense lawyers make any arguments they want at sentencing, and for the same reason, support letters should not be restricted in what they say. If the judge gives undue weight to improper factors or arguments, that’s on the judge — not on the defense lawyer or the support-letter writer.

  • Mike

    Free speech doesn’t come with immunity from criticism. You pen silly words, you cop the backlash. It’s that simple.

  • QuintoBlanco

    She did not give testimony, she made a statement about rape. If she had simply described the character of her friend as she perceived him to be based on facts (as she was asked to do), that would have been testimony. Instead she made a blanket statements about an event that she did not witness and a blank statement about rape in general.

  • QuintoBlanco

    She did not give testimony, she made a statement about rape. If she had simply described the character of her friend as she perceived him to be based on facts (as she was asked to do), that would have been testimony. Instead she made a blanket statements about an event that she did not witness and a blank statement about rape in general.

  • Ilya Shlyakhter

    To punish someone for their court testimony is witness tampering.

  • Gail

    The explanation behind her letter was just as bad as the letter itself. If she had a brain cell in that dull head of hers she would try and learn why so many people are extremely offended by her words and her excuses for her words. She just increased her only likely hood of being raped. What a clueless idiot.

  • Joe King Elegua

    They should title their next LP “Twenty minutes of excuses.”

    Of course, there’ll *be* no “Next LP” because nobody wants to hear a trio of talentless hacks who condone rape as long as it doesn’t happen to anyone *they* know.

  • Amanda Lu

    You could get the opinion of https://www.facebook.com/liz.rasmussen.9/friends?pnref=lhc Elizabeth