Jane Doe is the pseudomyn for one of thirteen women who sued the City of San Diego following the arrest of a police officer for sexually assaulting women while on duty. Now the city's lead prosecutor has been discovered trying to slut shame the woman as her civil case nears trial.
In 2011 Officer Anthony Arevalos pulled over Jane Doe, for drunk driving in downtown's Gaslamp District. She later testified he told her he'd let her off a possible DUI charge if she gave him her panties. They subsequently went to a nearby convenience store where she gave the officer her underwear in the restroom.
She went on to tell the court: That's where I took my pants off and took off the panties and where he had me pull my shirt up and where he touched me.
SDPD Chief Chief William Lansdowne called the woman 'very courageous' for reporting Arevalos and cooperating with investigators shortly after Arevalos was arrested three days after the March 8, 2011, incident.
The local ABC affiliate, 10News, revealed on Monday that the San Diego City Attorney's office hired a private investigator to follow and videotape Jane Doe over a 23 day period. The investigators report, uncovered during the discovery process, clearly indicates the intention to portray her as wanton woman.
Twelve of the victims have settled their lawsuits, with payouts totaling $2.3 million. Jane Doe has stood fast, even as City Attorney Jan Goldsmith has portrayed her in the news media as a gold digger.
The real issue at hand is the young woman's demand that the city create an independent monitor at the San Diego Police Department to watch for corruption. She and her attorneys claim there were several reports and accusations Arevalos engaged in similar misconduct over a decade.
From the 10News story:
Private investigator reports to the City Attorney's Office paint a vivid picture of a woman captured in seemingly normal situations, yet described as promiscuous and flirtatious.
One interaction documented in the reports said Doe was kissing and hugging her boyfriend in public; attired in shorts and bending fully over ¦ on several occasions.
Watch the video. (DKos won't let me link, so you'll have to go via the SD Free Press site)
She is a young women engaging in normal day-to-day activities. Obviously the City Attorney's office was hoping for something that would convince a jury that Jane Doe was some kind of despicable creature.
Several weeks ago public reaction forced the City Attorney's office to back off from accusations made via legal documents that victim Jane Doe bribed officer Arevalos with her panties to avoid a drunk driving arrest. Those legal documents were filed specifically in response to the request for an independent monitor overseeing corruption in the SDPD, according a report on CBS8.
This fits right in with reprehensible practices used to discredit rape victims by defense attorneys. It's called slut shaming. The intent is to make jurors (or judges, or the public) view the woman as an inferior beingâless than human and undeserving of justice.
The City Attorney 'expressed concern' to 10News about the video being leaked in an interview, saying it was simply standard legal practice in a civil lawsuit and (ta-da!) his lawyers had not decided if they would use it in court.
Some people think it's insensitive, Goldsmith said. I can't address that. That's what practicing law is.
Here is my rant from my daily column in the San Diego Free Press.
Perhaps it is time to have a broader conversation of what 'practicing law' at the City Attorney level in San Diego means. This is the same office that brought us chalkgate. This is the City Attorney who chose to defend the blatant lies of corporate interests instead of the City Council in the lawsuit about the petition driveto overturn the Barrio Logan Community Plan. Young children in San Diego's neighborhood with one of the the highest rates of asthma in California will be sacrificed for military contractors General Dynamics and BAE systems.
This is a City Attorney who is elected to protect the interests of citizens, but is choosing to hide behind a claim of prudently protecting taxpayers to draw attention away from a demand of more oversight of the police department. This is the City Attorney who is defending the poor decisions made allowing a Jack-in-the-Box fast food restaurant to run roughshod over the North Park neighborhood.
This is the City Attorney who boasted to KUSI TVafter ex-Mayor Bob Filner resigned in disgrace that his office had been working on his ouster for eight months. This was five months before the first indications came out about Filnerâs abhorrent behavior.
Now it should be City Attorney Jan Goldsmith's turn to resign. But I don't think that's in the cards. After all, Goldsmith is a politician at heart, and he's had a full court press on to charm (I hear he's very charming) the news media and distract the public from the -at best- questionable activities of his office.
It may be possible for him to fly under the radar and avoid scrutiny for some of his past mistakes. Slut shaming shouldn't be viewed as mistake. It should be viewed as a conscious decision to oppress the aspirations of 51% of humanity. I don't care what kind of standard practice he thinks it is. It's wrong. For this action, he should pay a political price.
There is a Recall Goldsmith Facebook page generated in the aftermath of Chalkgate that could use a little renewed love (or Likes).
I can only hope that somebody like Rachel Maddow in the national media turns this mans shaming strategy back on him. San Diego's Daily Fishwrap, also known as UT-San Diego has yet to run one world on this story, despite having a regular sharing relationship with the TV station that broke the story.
In 2012 he ran for re-election without opposition. When his next campaign in 2016 comes around, please help San Diego make it so he slinks back to whatever hole he crawled out of.
Portions of this story originally appeared at San Diego Free Press.