We've chronicled the treatment a rape victim received at the hands of Ken Buck when she went to him, as Weld County prosecutor, to plead that he prosecute her case. Among other things, he told her that he thought she just had "buyer's remorse" and that she essentially asked for it by inviting the man into her home, and that she had some sort of motive in accusing the suspect because she had aborted his child.
But in today's installment it gets much worse for Buck. It turns out that he refused to prosecute the case, even though the police had a virtual confession from the alleged rapist.
In establishing whether there were grounds to arrest the suspect, Greeley police had the victim phone the suspect from the police station. That call was recorded and entered into evidence.
In the call, this exchange takes place:
Victim: “You do realize that ... it’s rape.”
Suspect: “Yeah, I do.”
Victim: “Like in a number of different ways, because I didn’t want to do it and because I was intoxicated and because I was afraid.”
Suspect: “Yes I do. I know.”
The recording was made without the knowledge of the suspect, and thus could not be used in court. But when you combine this with the statement the suspect made to the police, reported second hand in the follow up discussion the victim had with Buck, it's pretty clear the suspect knew what he did was rape.
Victim: His statement says, “When he finished, ... (reading police report)... tried to get the victim to wake the victim up so he could apologize.” How is that not “physically helpless, meaning unconscious, asleep, or unable to act” (legal code)
KB: Because when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances, based on his statements and some of your statements, indicate that you invited him to come to your apartment... that you told him how to get in .... It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say yes or no... ?
So you've got a remorseful suspect who had confessed to the victim that he raped her and who told the police that she was incapacitated when he did it. And Buck still refused to prosecute, maintaining to this day that he had a lack of evidence. Seems like that evidence could have been pretty easily lawfully obtained, given the remorse, and the two confessions, from the suspect.
Instead, Buck chose to blame the victim. He chose to believe the suspect who, the victim says, lied about her having an abortion. In fact, Buck chose to believe the suspect when he said the woman had an abortion but to ignore him when he said he knew he had raped her. Call it the abortion red herring, an issue completely tangential to the actual case at hand that Buck apparently allowed to trump the facts. Did Buck's extreme anti-choice politics get in the way of his doing his job?