Editorial
Compromised
The immediate reaction to the release of the sworn statement of Suzette Nicolas, formerly known only as ?Nicole,? was to seek the opinion of legal experts. How would this affect the case of Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith, now pending before the Court of Appeals? A Makati judge had convicted Smith of rape, on the strength of Nicolas? testimony, in December 2006.
Nicolas says she now doubts whether she was raped. She concedes that she might have given Smith the impression that she was amenable to having consensual sex with him. ?It dawned upon me that I may have possibly lost my inhibitions.?
Nicolas? mother insists nobody pressured her daughter to come out with the statement even as it was released at the height of calls for the re-negotiation of the Visiting Forces Agreement and a few days after the call of US President Barack Obama to President Arroyo.
Both Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez and Nicolas? former lawyer, Evalyn Ursua, say the affidavit does not immediately translate to Smith?s acquittal. They cite technical reasons.
But let the lawyers ponder the legal and political implications of Nicolas? carefully crafted words?released, most curiously, by Smith?s lawyer rather than her own. The rest of the country, who followed the crusade of a girl against what seemed to be formidable odds, simply feels duped.
Her words, measured against the drama surrounding the trial and the fervor with which women?s groups supported her cause, make Nicolas a disappointment, to say the least.
Worse, thousands of legitimate rape victims may find themselves facing the additional burden of a tarnished credibility through no fault of their own, as they try to get justice for their ordeal.
Ultimately, the grieving, shrouded girl has revealed who she is?and ?victim? is not the word for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sinking fast
|