sexual assault and law enforcement and interrogations

Post Reply New Topic

A while back I was raped and the employer and union of the man who did it decided to report it to the police before I could, in a 'let's sweep it under the rug' action (the employer and assailant also work for the same municipality that the police do. Major conflicts of interest much?).
The employer did give the police information that I had Asperger's...with which the police did nothing--didn't make accommodations for it or take it into account during the custodial and non-voluntary interview.

The entire interrogation was around an hour and a half, although the interrogator stepped out of the room a few times. She interrupted me in the middle of speaking a grand total of sixty-two times--nearly once a minute if you do the math.
I've added annotations below the chunks of transcript--what I would've said if I'd been allowed to speak freely, corrections I would have made if I could have organization my thoughts and found my voice.

Below are snippets from the transcript (which I own) of the interrogation, the parts that stood out to me as being obviously connected to my complete lack of social interaction and ability to 'read' people and poor sequential memory retrieval. I tried to point out some of these parts to the police as examples why they should have had me interviewed by someone who was experienced in interviewing victims with ASDs, but they ignored me.

I'm wondering what other people with Asperger's/ASD think of these exchanges.



interrogator: "You can't explain how the sexual assault occurred, okay? You said you said no, you moved away, but you can't, you're not clear about whose pants came off, how the condom came on, I have great concerns about that....you say that you're worried about STDs yet you don't go to the Sexual Health Clinic or go into any clinic or go to the hospital, nothing. So, is the fact that you guys had sex, is it more about possibly getting fired because you had sex at work?"
victim: "No."
interrogator: "As opposed to the fact that it was, what you're claiming because I don't truly believe that this is a sexual assault."

I explained how I was assaulted. She didn't like it because it wasn't detailed enough. I'd spent the last seven weeks erasing what I could remember from my memory.
I wasn't at work. He was. Taxpayers money at work...

interrogator: "I truly believe that you went there with the intention to have sex, and, you know what? That's okay, it's not a crime. And I don't care, right? I don't care. The number of people who have come and sat in that chair and told me about the sex they've had in businesses in this city—there's a lot of places I don't want to go to any more. Okay? So, you're not the only one, it happens all the time. And if that's what happened, that's what I need to know right now. If you're worried about your job, I have nothing to do with that, okay?"

The only place the interrogator could have got the idea that I went there intending to have sex was from the suspect's boss.
Assuming I'm lying about being raped because lots of women do (which is and of itself a rape myth) assumes I'm like normal women—which I'm not.
I never said I was worried about losing my job, ever. I don't know why she brings it up (well, because she met with his employer, who also employed me at a different location across the city)

interrogator: "I guess what I'm saying is I don't really believe that this was a sexual assault. And if it wasn't, now is the time to tell me. Because...if you went there and willingly had sex with him, I don't care. The investigation will be over with and it's done, okay? And it has nothing to do--I'm not gonna be running to the Library ...okay? It's...this is between you and me right now. If you're feeling bad about what happened—I'm just saying that at this point and time, what you're telling me is not a sexual assault. And I, you know what, I've been a police officer for 31 years, I've been in Sex Crimes for 5 years. I talk to women, who sit in that chair every day. Okay? And, I think, I truly believe, I don't think, I know, that you're more concerned about losing your job, and that's what this is all about."

But she did go running to the Library, to his employer.
And because she assumed the sex was consensual, she assumed I was feeling bad because I was feeling guilty about having sex, which agan, if she'd taken a biographical sketch of me, she'd have learned that sex & guilt have never ever been an issue for me. Slut-shaming doesn't work on me because, um, I'm not ashamed that I like sex and it bothers me to be lumped in with women who feel guilty about their sexual desires. Especially when the police use that as some kind of motive to fabricate a complaint.

interrogator: "Is it, is it that you regret that it happened there?"
victim: "I regret being assaulted. I wouldn't have wanted to be assaulted any place. I've never been assaulted anywhere."

Again, she's focused on the stereotype of women who have sex and regret it, something that doesn't and has never applied to me.
And it seems pretty awful in general to tell rape victims (Autistic or not) that they weren't raped--that they just regret having sex.

interrogator: "I guess, you know what, a man, if I'm in a room with a man and he gets up and he locks the door and you guys have been flirting...you know what's going to happen!"
victim: "Not necessarily."

interrogator assumes the door was locked. I didn't see it and have no idea if he did lock it or not.
She also thinks I've been flirting. Wrong. I don't flirt. I can't--again...the ASD...

interrogator: "But, er, I mean you're there. He gets up and he locks the door, at that point it's like, No I'm leaving and you walk out the door. Like there's absolutely no reason for him to lock the door other than the fact that you guys are gonna have sex. Right? It's, like, it's, it's quite apparent to me—at least what you've told me—and in my experience because that's the way it's gonna look in court is that you agreed."

Again, I don't know if he did or not. So there goes that argument that locked door==sex because I didn't know if the door was locked or not.
Again, my brain doesn't make the connection between previous activity and the alleged locking door and future sex.
I didn't try to leave means I consented to sex? WTF? Why would I leave? I had no idea he was intending to have sex with me, I had no clue. How would I know his intentions? I'm not a mind reader--and because I'm Autistic I'm not a situation-and-context reader either, a fact that the investigator conveniently ignored to suit her needs.
And it's only apparent to her because she's not Autistic.
So if I understand what she's saying, the fact that I didn't leave (because I didn't realize sex was the next step—because Autism)--even though I had no indication that I should leave--means I consented to sex and the fact that I said “NO, I don't want to have sex with you” doesn't matter. Huh.

victim: "I felt my reactions to him, even before any pants came off, even before the condom went on, that I wasn't into this and I didn't want to do this. Maybe I'm naive, but I didn't think locking the door would equal him raping me."
interrogator: "What did you think? Why was he locking the door?"
victim: "I don't know. But I didn't think his plan was, 'I'm going to sexually assault her.'"
interrogator: "No, his plan was, “We're going to have sex."

Again, I didn't know if he was locking the door or not.
I can't make the connection between the alleged door-locking and impending rape.
I said I didn't want to have sex. He ignored me. Willfully.

interrogator: "So he locks the door and you're talking about condoms, so you knew sex was going to happen."
victim: "No."

Had she allowed me to speak more I would have said that “talking about condoms” meant me saying in a matter of fact way. “Condoms exist and I always carry them with me. They're useful sometimes, like they can hold gallons and gallons of water if you were traveling, can be used as a canteen, but you have to not use the spermicidal kind because that stuff is horrible. They also make excellent temporary bandages for sliding up horse legs to hold on medications and stuff and--” (etc etc). Condoms are pretty fun.
But again the interrogator assumed that I was capable of making the link between these events and she assumed I would 'get' the situation. Once I clued in what he had in mind--because he kept pulling my pants down and I kept pulling them up—I'd said “No” to sex and he ignored me.

interrogator: "And he starts pulling your pants off"
victim: "I did not"--interrupted
interrogator: "Well, I, I think, yeah, I'm having a lot of problems with that. And I'm having a lot of problems 'cause there's absolutely no way that I can go to court with something like that."

The interruptions! I started to say, "I did not consent to sex" and she interrupts me and stops me from talking about it!

interrogator: "There's evidence to show that it's not a sexual assault. Like, most times I have to tell women there's just no evidence to support your story, what your story has told me is that it was not a sexual assault, that you, at some point, you, you may have started with, “No, no.” But at the point where he locks the door and you pull a condom out , you're agreeing to have sex with him, so it's not a sexual assault."

Her order of events is wrong.
There is no proof he locked the door.
I didn't "pull a condom out."
And I said, not nicely to him because I lack tact, “No, I don't want to have sex with you.” I was clear that I didn't agree to have sex with him. I don't sugarcoat things.

victim: "I don't think that was consent. I don't feel that discussions about sex"--interrupted
interrogator: "being in a locked door [sic], with a man and having a condom out and him starting to pull your pants off and kissing you is not about sex? What's it about? What is that then? Explain to me."

Again, I try to speak, she interrupts me!
Again, no proof the door was locked.
There was no kissing. I never mentioned kissing.
He was in my personal space and I was vocal in telling him his attention was not wanted.
He was “about” sex and I wasn't, and I told him that. When she asks "what's it about?" the answer is: it's about rape.

interrogator: "...All I'm saying is there's nothing that you've told me that's—can—that I can work with to say that this is not consensual. Right?"
victim: "I feel"--interrupted

See? There's nothing I've told her because the interrogator doesn't allow me to speak! She makes assumptions, considers them facts, relies on rape myths, and tells me there's no evidence of non-consent.

She went on after this day to neglect to contact any of my witness or consider any of my evidence to support what happened to me. Wouldn't even look at the report from the physician confirming long-term physiological problems from the damage done to me that day.

interrogator: "Would you agree?"
victim: "I feel there was not consent...having condoms and talking about sex and trying to arrange a hotel is not the same as saying, 'Yes, I want to have sex with you here and now.'"
interrogator: "Well it is according to the courts, that is. Talking about sex, having condoms, talking about getting hotel rooms, you're consenting to having a sexual relationship with somebody."
victim: "Consenting to a relationship is not the same thing as consenting to sex."

"Talking about sex" was him expressing an interest in it with me and me saying “Sometime later" because we hadn't discussed STDs and he hadn't provided me with a recent and clean STI report.
I hadn't gone to the library prepared for sex and I don't have sex without the prep work.
Simply considering the potential for a future sexual relationship with someone is not the same thing as saying to that person--“by the way, you're free to have sex with me at any time, don't worry about my consent because I've already waived my right to say 'No.' by simply talking about sex with you, a member of the opposite sex.”

interrogator: "Well you pulled a condom out, you were discussing sex, okay?"
victim: "But that doesn't mean that sex is on the table."
interrogator: "Well according to the courts it is."

It's not though.
Pointing out, “I have condoms now because I always have them around” and having discussed a potential physical relationship does mean that what I'm actually doing is giving my consent for sex—and that this consent apparently overrides me from saying “No.” at any point in the future--this is simply not true.
And I've read a lot of court reports. There are many examples of where cases went to trial and even the rapist was convicted when the victim provided much less physical and verbal resistance than I did.

interrogator: "I believe that you had sex. That's...it's not that I don't believe you, I believe that you had sex...at the library...I just—I just think that your...and I don't even know how to put it, but what you think is a sexual assault and what I can prove is a sexual assault are two completely different things."

What I think is a sexual assault is one person saying “No, I don't want to have sex with you,” (or non-verbally indicating that) and the other person ignoring their words or actions. End of story.
What the interrogator thinks is a sexual assault is based on how many boxes she can check off on her list of how a 'real' victim of sexual assault will react—a list made in the early 90s or earlier based on rape myths and sexist stereotyping that have been disproven for years and that wasn't made for someone with Asperger's.

TL;DR - everything she said was BS.

I'm sorry to hear what happened to you

It does sound like the interrogator was particularly insensitive, not giving you time to express yourself and so coming to the wrong conclusions.

That first interview should be as neutral an non-judgemental as possible I would have thought. She shouldn't be playing devil's advocate against you.. saying things like "we can't go to court with that".

Can you get a copy of the actual interview tape? This might show the interruptions more clearly, and highlight how that resulted in distorted and inaccurate statement.

You might not get justice for yourself or him, but maybe you could start a campaign to raise awareness of ASD issues in rape cases and one day make it easier for other women in the future? With the tape and transcript as evidence, you could speak to your local government representatives, support groups etc. and try to get them on board.

I do have a copy of the actual interview. But like all the neglected evidence, I can't get anyone at the police station to look at it and the investigator won't talk to me (which is also odd).

I've spoken with my MLA but I don't know what will come of that.

There are lots of government agencies and police forces that are aware of ASD and accommodate for it in certain parts of the US and Canada. But nothing here in Saskatchewan. I'm trying to get something set up with the police's Training Division for the future, and that's great, but it doesn't change how the police handled me and the file my rapist's boss started.