The members of the jury are the triers of fact. They hear the account the complainant and if the
defendant elects to testify they hear the testimony of the defendant. This is the classic "she said,
he said" situation in which jury members must decide what they believe is the truth.

In an attempt to provide greater credibility to the complainant, and thereby tipping the scales of
justice in favor of conviction, Ann Wolbert Burgess, DN. SC., and Lynda Lytle Holmstrom wrote
up a psychological description of what they termed the "Rape Trauma Syndrome" in 1974.
A syndrome is a constellation of symptoms that when presented by an individual leads to a
diagnosis of an illness. First of all, "the rape trauma syndrome" is not a true syndrome because
no diagnosis of rape can be made from the syndrome. Secondly, there was no scientifically
controlled study done by health professionals that supports the theories of "rape trauma
syndrome." The fact is that this highly questionable theory is not a recognized syndrome in
the DSM-IV. The DSM-IV Diagnostic and Statistical Manual that is the current bible for the
mental health profession, containing all recognized diagnoses and syndromes. "Rape trauma
syndrome" is not in the DSM-IV because it was rejected by the mental health community of physicians, psychiatrists and psychologists.

One reason "rape trauma syndrome" is unscientific is that its theoretical basis is not based on
observable phenomena, but on emotional bias. Burgess and Holmstrom assumed that any
allegation of rape was true and on that foundation, they devised a variety of explanations for
whatever the alleged victim might say or do. These explanations do not constitute a description
of symptoms of an illness, but rather ways of manipulating evidence in the favor of the
complainant. For example, if a woman recants her story and admits that she was not raped, the
prosecution can put a supposed rape trauma expert on the stand to testify that this behavior was
"consistent with" being raped". The implication is that the original rape story should be believed.
(As an aside, this behavior is also "consistent with" the guilt associated with a false allegation
of rape once the complainant understands the full consequences of the charges and possible
conviction. However, our office has never witnessed a so-called rape expert testify on direct
that such behavior is also consistent with false allegations of rape, though it is widely known and
accepted by others in legitimate mental health fields.)

Other descriptions of rape trauma syndrome explain that if a woman immediately reports, such
action is consistent with the typical reactions of a rape victim. If the woman waits for years to
report, that is also consistent with the typical reactions of a rape victim. If a women is flirtatious,
such behavior is consistent with the typical reactions of a rape victim. If the women is withdrawn,
that, too, is consistent with the typical reactions of a rape victim. Should the woman cry, such
behavior is consistent with the typical reaction of a rape victim. But if a woman doesn't cry,
that too, is also consistent with the typical reaction of a rape victim.

The list of descriptions covers almost every conceivable behavior that a human being might
have over the course of a lifetime in order to turn any behavior into evidence that supports the
charges of an alleged rape victim.

Burgess and Holmstrom's assumption that all allegations of rape are true is not only unscientific,
but dangerous. Such thinking is contrary to the US constitutional principle that a person is innocent
until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. "Rape Trauma Syndrome" is not science but the
courts have given it legitimacy by allowing the testimony of supposed experts to be heard and by
allowing the prosecution to misuse the word "syndrome." This pseudo-evidence makes it easier
to mislead the jury in order to obtain convictions, not just of those who are guilty, but those
falsely accused as well.

Top of Page