Rape trial isn’t about lying

STEVE SMITH

I know that the rape trial of Greg Haidl, Kyle Nachreiner and Keith

Spann is no laughing matter, but I have to chuckle when I think of

the silly strategy attempted by the defense team on Wednesday.

To recap, the three boys are accused of the rape of an unconscious

girl, being called Jane Doe, then 16, at the home of Greg Haidl, now

18. Haidl, whose parents, including his father, Orange County

Assistant Sheriff Don Haidl, apparently believe that a lack of

supervision builds character, has been detained by law enforcement

authorities three times since his arrest on suspicion of trespassing

and vandalism, and was found with a small amount of pot in his

possession.

At Wednesday’s court session, the defense called on some of Doe’s

so-called friends to undermine her credibility by pointing out

discrepancies in Doe’s story. The strategy here is that if you can

convince the jury that Doe lied about the little stuff, surely she

has lied about the big stuff, specifically, the events surrounding

the rape. Some friends, eh?

Unfortunately for the defense, however, the lying works both ways.

One of these “friends,” (my first laugh), Jenna Stroh,

contradicted several small aspects of the events leading up to the

alleged rape, events that, as far I can determine, have no bearing on

whether Doe was conscious during her ordeal and able to authorize the

insertion of several objects into her vagina while she lay on a pool

table.

Stroh told the court that four girls, Doe, Stroh, Melissa

Matsumoto and Crystal Davis, had planned to stay overnight at Haidl’s

home on July 4, shortly before the alleged rape.

In the Daily Pilot report, Stroh is quoted as saying, “We had all

lied to our parents about where we were going.”

OK, so help me out here. If we’re not to believe what Doe says

because Stroh said Doe has lied about certain inconsequential

circumstances, why should we believe Stroh who has admitted on the

witness stand that she herself is a liar?

As of right now, Stroh is an admitted liar while Doe is only an

accused liar. So far, Doe wins, no? There’s my second laughing point.

Here’s my third: The trial recap states, “Both girls, [Stroh and

Matsumoto] said they gradually lost touch with their friend, but that

they still love her and would want to be friends with her again.”

Yes, sir, I’m sure I’d go running back to those two after the

friendly testimony they’ve given.

My fourth laugh is that a defense attorney could even remotely

believe that a 16-year-old girl who lied to her parents, in this

case, Doe, is some sort of criminal. Your child excepting, of course,

it is common knowledge that kids lie to their parents. They lie about

their schoolwork, about how much candy they’ve eaten, how much

television they’ve watched and whether they’ve cleaned their room.

They lie about whether they’ve broken the nice white ceramic and

chrome vitamin jar in the bathroom (actually, I cannot tell a lie,

Cay, I did that last Thursday), and they lie about their friends and

where they’re going. Kids lie all the time (again, your kid is the

exception) and they often make Pinocchio look like Mother Teresa.

But to the defense team, childhood lying is being portrayed as

some sort of rare and serious offense.

My version of this is that I don’t care who lied and who didn’t.

What I know about that night, and what no one seems to dispute, is

that those three boys did these sick and disgusting things to Doe.

Whether she consented or whether she was conscious is stuff for

high-priced defense attorneys to prove. That Doe may have approved,

if in fact she did, does not make it OK to do. It takes two, folks,

and the boys could have declined at any time.

But they did not. They made conscious decisions to be pigs. And

what really burns me about this whole sordid affair is that they may

be found not guilty of a crime and that is likely to send approval of

their behavior that night.

Here, I have to judge what I can’t see based on what I can see. If

Greg Haidl is found not guilty, his life will resume as it was before

the trial.

He’ll be able to run around unsupervised as though none of this

ever happened. I know this based on the parenting -- or lack thereof

-- he has received so far during this trial. To guess otherwise is to

go against established precedent.

My own two kids have received more discipline for sneaking sweets

than Greg Haidl is likely receive from his parents for his

unspeakable behavior that night.

Finally, here’s a special note to Wendy Leece, who has questioned

what she believes is the excessive coverage of the trial. Over the

years, Leece and I have seen eye-to-eye on most issues, but not on

this one. We need the coverage of this trial to highlight the sorry

state of parenting in this country and to show that having lots of

money can never make up for having lots of interest in our children’s

lives.

* STEVE SMITH is a Costa Mesa resident and a freelance writer.

Readers may leave a message for him on the Daily Pilot hotline at

(949) 642-6086.