I knew a guy, generally a good guy, and he helped me out when I was young.
Anyways, he made some bad choices (namely cheating on his fiance with his childhood bestie), knocked said girl up, they got married… they had another kid… a few years later this relationship turned sour, and I was rarely hearing from him. I later learned he was living out of his car at times.
At one point during this mess he told me his soon to be ex wife invited him over one night, they slept together, then he woke up with the cops in his face and her accusing him of raping her last night.
I didn’t know what to think of it at the time, and I still don’t. The person I thought I knew never would’ve cheated on his fiance… surely he wouldn’t have raped someone.
Unlike this story, the charges for the guy I know were dropped and he wasn’t prosecuted, let alone convicted. Maybe it was just a ploy for a better outcome in the divorce? That seems to be the conclusion the police drew. If it had gone to trial and he’d been convicted… I probably wouldn’t have written a similar letter? But also maybe it would’ve been in some ways good for the judge to see not just this person at their worst moments but at better moments? What if the evidence wasn’t strong? What if I hadn’t followed the case closely?
I haven’t heard from this guy in years at this point, hence why I’m avoiding the word friend. However at one point, he was a friend … and I don’t find it so easy to reconcile the “person you know” with the “person you’ve been told you know”
I think it’s more about that difficulty reconciling, than “he never raped me.” If they weren’t lying in their letters as well… maybe this should just be considered part of the process? Like, yes Masterson committed the crime, now who else was he? Did he contribute nothing to society except for being a vicious Hollywood predator? etc.
The scientology thing adds a whole other angle here…
Anyways, the point is it’s easy to not understand why someone would do something, but that doesn’t mean it’s not understandable (it doesn’t mean it’s justified either).
All the letters have one thing in common though: they’re overly saccharine and suspiciously dodgy (actually that’s two things, sorry). It’s like they’re trying to describe a modern-day Beaver Cleaver.
I knew a guy, generally a good guy, and he helped me out when I was young.
Anyways, he made some bad choices (namely cheating on his fiance with his childhood bestie), knocked said girl up, they got married… they had another kid… a few years later this relationship turned sour, and I was rarely hearing from him. I later learned he was living out of his car at times.
At one point during this mess he told me his soon to be ex wife invited him over one night, they slept together, then he woke up with the cops in his face and her accusing him of raping her last night.
I didn’t know what to think of it at the time, and I still don’t. The person I thought I knew never would’ve cheated on his fiance… surely he wouldn’t have raped someone.
Unlike this story, the charges for the guy I know were dropped and he wasn’t prosecuted, let alone convicted. Maybe it was just a ploy for a better outcome in the divorce? That seems to be the conclusion the police drew. If it had gone to trial and he’d been convicted… I probably wouldn’t have written a similar letter? But also maybe it would’ve been in some ways good for the judge to see not just this person at their worst moments but at better moments? What if the evidence wasn’t strong? What if I hadn’t followed the case closely?
I haven’t heard from this guy in years at this point, hence why I’m avoiding the word friend. However at one point, he was a friend … and I don’t find it so easy to reconcile the “person you know” with the “person you’ve been told you know”
I think it’s more about that difficulty reconciling, than “he never raped me.” If they weren’t lying in their letters as well… maybe this should just be considered part of the process? Like, yes Masterson committed the crime, now who else was he? Did he contribute nothing to society except for being a vicious Hollywood predator? etc.
The scientology thing adds a whole other angle here…
Anyways, the point is it’s easy to not understand why someone would do something, but that doesn’t mean it’s not understandable (it doesn’t mean it’s justified either).
All the letters have one thing in common though: they’re overly saccharine and suspiciously dodgy (actually that’s two things, sorry). It’s like they’re trying to describe a modern-day Beaver Cleaver.