This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 8, 2012 8:16 PM. The previous post in this blog was Where's Ashley?. The next post in this blog is From Matt Wuerker. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Friday, June 8, 2012

Steve Houze goes after alleged rape victim's Google searches

It's not often that our law-and-order self and our privacy self wind up on the same page, but leave it to the premier courtroom defender of Oregon scoundrels with money to bring it all together.

Comments (18)

I wonder if "doctor" Bray uses his mug shot on eharmony?

Incredibly, suspect Bray looks alot like actor Alan Tudyk


Could that photo look any more rapey?

What abuse of judicial power! Probative value, if any at all, is way outweighed by irrelevance, prejudice, and invasion of privacy of the victim, and is unrelated to the occurrence/nonoccurrence of the sex crime and brutal assault alleged to have occurred beforehand.

I think the DA should instead subpoena all of Judge A. Michael Adler's Google searches.

Any woman who meets a guy on match.com and goes to his apartment on their first date is out of her mind, and her testimony becomes immediately suspect.

And this brings up for me the utter failure of public education. They spend inordinate resources on indoctrinating everyone on civil rights and ant-bullying and political correctness, and yet there is no standard for prospective grads to tick a few simple self-protection truths correctly on a multiple choice test, as a graduation requirement.

Do you think that a stranger you do not know might rape you?

Is the simplest way to prevent rape avoiding being alone with people you do not know who are bigger than you?

Have you heard of he-said, she-said?


The court, in this interlocutory appeal, did not say that refusal to comply would be grounds to overturn any potential future conviction.

The victim should insist that she must have no less of a right than any attorney to protect her work product. Imagine the accused were to demand the search requests made by an attorney for any witness in a criminal case.

If anyone searches on my lawzone.us site would I potentially be committing a crime by not preserving a record of searches? Should the defendant here be able to get an order to go on a fishing expedition and take possession of my computer that performs searches for others, so as to gain access to logs, if any, or merely to confirm that that there are none? What if a lawyer had the same sort of computer and database on an in-house intranet computer, would it likewise be amenable to seizure?

Imagine that the computer(s) cell phone(s) and all web-search-capable-gizmo(s) of all potential witnesses (and their attorneys) for any criminal trial had to be delivered to the defendant upon demand for inspection. This is beyond preposterous.

Wow. So, Gaye, if a woman goes to a guy's place but then rejects his advances and he forces sex anyway, its not rape? Wow.

If she reported the crime soon after it allegedly occurred, of what value are any Google searches made after she's reported the crime?

Gaye: having been falsely accused of rape in College, I can relate to your suspicions.

That said, I have to assume most women would prefer to avoid attracting this type of attention. Assuming she has no prior history of making false accuasations, I would defer to the police report and focus on the suspect's background and social history. If she hasn't filed a civil suit, it is less likely she's motivated by a possible award of damages.

my bad: I didn't read the article before commenting.

37 to 38 year old Doctor is accused by two women (who likely have never met) of rape in a short period of time.

The fact both victims are much younger than he (21 and 23) suggests a pattern of seeking out naive targets.

What are the odds they're both lying? Very low, in my mind. And I would discount the $2 million civil suit assuming it was brought after she realized that the criminal process was getting bogged down by Houze.

Doug, you are putting words into my mouth. Please read what I ACTUALLY said. Rape may well have occurred. That problem is not what I was addressing. What I was addressing is that, even without witnesses, if every guy accused of rape can be put behind bars based on someone's testimony, you open the door WIDE open for all sorts of falsely accused innocents to be put away for long periods. That, to me, is an overrifding outrage, and it simply argues for a greater burden on women to exercise self-protection, and for the courts to exercise serious restraint in cases where self-proclaimed rape victims have ignored the most rudimentary self-protection measures.

Gaye, this is what I read:

"Any woman who meets a guy on match.com and goes to his apartment on their first date is out of her mind, and her testimony becomes immediately suspect."

Speaks for itself. Your further explanation is more nuanced (e.g., women/people should be careful), but to me this first statement is simply a variant of "she was asking for it" which, in turn, is somehow an excuse for rape. There is never an excuse for rape, wouldn't you agree?

I'm with Doug on this one, Gaye. I read your first comment the very same way. And was appalled. Rape is never OK or justified or a case of "she or he asked for it." It smacked of the 70s debate about whether if a woman wore a short skirt, she was "asking for it."

I would hope we're past that kind of thinking.

I do agree you should never go to anybody's house when meeting them for the first in person. Always pick a place to meet, let a couple of people know where you are, have your cell phone charged up and drive yourself to and from the meeting.

However, I don't think the bad judgement to do so makes your testimony "immediately suspect."

Gaye your perspective frankly is disgusting and your observation reeks of victim-blaming. That is exactly along the same lines of: "Well what was she thinking walking around that part of town dressed like that?"

She shouldn't have been wearing a hoody.

Oh, everyone is always, always banging on about "blaming the victim". It just shows how little the save-the-victim town criers care about all the people who get falsely imprisoned because the word "rape" and its attendant accusations are on the high wattage scale, while the words "spent x numbers of years on jail for a crime he didn't commit", well, those words are for the Innocence Project volunteers to sort out.

Most date rapes, like this one, are preventable, and yes, that fact gets no play, because people just can't reconcile it with their sympathy for the victims, and for fear that they may be called "disgusting" by someone who has no better words in their arsenal.

all the people who get falsely imprisoned because the word "rape"

How many folks do you think this happens to compared to those that are actually sexually assaulted?

What do you find suspicious about this woman's testimony?


Your question is exactly at the crux of the whole matter. We don't KNOW how many people get falsely imprisoned, in cases where rape sentences are based on conflicting testimony by two witnesses. Barring recantation, there are an unknown number of people moldering in jail who will NEVER see justice.


How bad or pervasive is the injustice? We don't know. But knowing that there are probably dozens, if not hundreds of such cases, should we therefore make it pretty difficult to put people away based on conflicting testimony of two witnesses? Absolutely. Does this mean we need to educate girls better about avoiding dangerous situations? Obviously. When a woman places herself in a dangerous situation, her testimony is weakened because 1)she has displayed horrible judgement and 2)her horrible judgement has now led the courts into the untenable moral position of potentially imprisoning an innocent person, based on who they think is more believable during proceedings.

One way to compare injustices is to ask a person who was falsely imprisoned how many times they would have preferred to be raped, rather than spendIng ten to fifteen years in prison, and the rest of their life as a felon of the most despised kind?

At too young an age, I watched Audrey Hepburn and Shirley McClain in in the '60's movie, "the Chidren's Hour", which made me permanently wary of accusers, and loathe to jump to conclusions about the accused.

Clicky Web Analytics