September 8

We discussed parts 3 and 4 of the book today. In this post, I will talk about the Cecilia Washburn case. The way this was described, the case was treated like Washburn was lying about what happened.

In the incident, Cecilia Washburn and Jordan Johnson were friends and she had been a little interested in him, romantically. He was not particularly interested in her, but he was under the assumption that they would probably have sex at some point. However, he was not interested in dating her. The night of the rape, Washburn did not do any of the things that a girl pursuing a guy would do. She didn't shower, put on nice clothing, do her makeup, but even though she didn't do any of this, an earlier quotation about her intentions was included in her questioning. When both people were at a dance and were drunk, Washburn had told Johnson: "Jordy, I would do you anytime." That comment would put her into question later, which would be a detraction for her case. However, she just didn't want to have sex that night. And she told him so, but as we have seen in a couple other cases, this case became a "he said," "she said" case.

One part I found interesting about this case was the fact that she had acknowledged along the way what was consensual. She said that the kissing was consensual and other activities, but firmly acknowledged that she did not want to sleep with him. She firmly said "no" and "let's just watch the movie." This case is like the other one with Kerry Barrett. Both women knew exactly when they gave consent and where they didn't.

The other part that would be brought up was why Washburn did not scream to her roommate in the other room that she was being harmed. The assumption there was that he would come and stop the assault from happening. However, I think it is reasonable that she would not have yelled anything, as she was likely in shock of what was happening. We know that victims of trauma don't often believe what is happening to them; they are in denial. So that might have been what was going through her head. Another part of her case that was brought up as a way to diminish her case was the fact that Washburn sent a smiley face to another friend afterwards, who had asked her to pick him up and drive him home. The argument there is that someone who has had a violent encounter would not respond with a smiley face. They argued that is acting like nothing had happened. Yet again, she might have been in denial. If someone just got raped, they might have intuitively known it (shown by her text to her roommate Stephen), but they might still be in shock. Furthermore--and I know this could be considered a stretch but I think it is still valid--most people that text frequently use smiley faces. Some do it without realizing it. If she was processing her assault, then she might have just gone through the motions without taking an additional look at it. Additionally, she said that she didn't want this other friend to know what had just happened. This is reasonable because that is an intensely personal assault. If she had texted in a manner that was different than she usually would, then the receiver might know she was not acting normally and might ask her how she was doing. She probably wasn't ready to answer an inquiry like that. To me, her actions made some sense.