SVU Episode #15-8: Rapist Anonymous
I also appreciated Olivia’s stance at the beginning, before we knew Lena was a conniving liar. Just because a woman has had sex with a man consensually, doesn’t mean she consented to a later encounter, even if it was just a few hours later that day. Every person had a right to say yes or no to every encounter; each choice must be respected.
Barba made some good choices tonight. After he discovered Lena’s omissions, lies, and sultry texts, the rape case was over. But he offered counseling and help with a restraining order. Additionally, he was correct to note that, although organizations like AA offer confidentiality, that does not confer a legal privilege. Although members generally obey a code not to reveal each other’s identities, that code is not like a preist-penitent relationship – a prosecutor may question members about it.
What they got wrong:
Amanda needed to get off the case before the second commercial break. She was not only friends with the players, she was a player herself. She’d had dinner with the murder suspect and victim a few nights before the murder. The final shocking end – where we learn that Lena set up Amanda – pretty efficiently demonstrated why detectives are not allowed to investigate their friends.
I wish real trials could proceed the way SVU ones do – as if there were no rules against hearsay (which is an out-of-court statement admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted). Personally, I find hearsay to be some of the most interesting and illuminating evidence. Folks are sometimes more truthful before they put their hand on that Bible and swear to tell the truth. Nevertheless, there are rules against hearsay (and rules providing the defendant a right to confront her accuser). In real life, the fiancée could not testify that Gene told her he was scared of Lena.
What do you think, SVU fans? Leave your comments!
