Tuesday, September 05, 2006

“I think it was seduction. She was 22 and Danny was 19. The only one accused of touching her is Danny, the baby boy.”

That was fr. james reuter, commenting on the Subic rape case. He said that it was the pinay who "seduced" "Baby boy" Danny.

LEANING forward in his wheelchair at the front of a courtroom is a small, bald man in a crisply ironed white cassock, his eyes darting from witness to judge to angry lawyer, drawing his own conclusions.

“I think it was seduction,” said the man in the cassock, the Rev. James B. Reuter, of the highly charged case in which four American marines are accused of raping a Filipino woman.

“She was 22 and Danny was 19,” said Father Reuter, 90, an American Jesuit priest who has lived in the Philippines for most of his life. “The only one accused of touching her is Danny, the baby boy,” he said, referring to Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith, who is at the center of the case.

The words have a discordant ring in a trial that has been cast by nationalists and women’s-rights groups as a symbol of American abuse and exploitation of its former colony.

They come as a particular surprise from Father Reuter, whose fondness for the Philippines and high-profile involvement in public affairs have offered a contrasting view of the American presence here.

He has no formal role in the case but has taken it upon himself to be not only a spiritual adviser but also an energetic advocate for the marines. “I don’t think they’re guilty,” he said, “not a bit.”

Oh, so it was the filipina's fault because she "asked for it", huh?

Sabi ni Carlos Celdran:

...after reading the Ateneo de Manila's "beloved" Father Reuter's defense of the accused in the Subic Rape Case, I'm now thisclose to ditching everything and going Protestant - heck, Pagan even. In an article in The New York Times, he inferred that the victim in the aforementioned case was a "seductress" simply because she was older than her attacker and claimed that she really instigated the whole thing (Um, so I guess it was also her idea to get assaulted and have her drunk immobile body dumped on the side of the road too, eh?). In addition, he called the accused, Danny Boy, the real victim here. Even bizaarely referring to him as the "baby boy". Now this is totally out of line for a man who has zero ideas about sex and even much less about sex crimes.

Word. MLQ3 observes:

An article by Seth Mydans is causing quite a buzz: Beloved Priest Defends Marines, Angering Filipinos. Is it a case of Fr. Reuter surrendering, at the end of the day, to “my country right or wrong,” or is he simply bucking the trend and daring to be different? Should he have spoken up, does he have a point? There are those, like Carlos Celdran, who are irritated with Fr. Reuter. My view is, he’s not the most effective backer for the Marines. He couldn’t have had any personal knowledge of the crime, and if he relied on his pastoral experience to figure out if the accused Americans are guilty or not, whatever he says can only be marginally helpful -after all, his knowledge surely didn’t extend prior to the incident. However, he must have known the implications of his publicly taking sides the way he did, since he is wise in the ways of public relations and media.

The Ca t OTOH defends Fr Reuters:

One sin of expressing his opinion and he is already criticized to eternal damnation by people who must have not lifted a finger to help the fellow kababayans. Where were these people when that Filipino woman was treated shabbily by Australian authorities?

What did these vigilant Filipinos did to help expose the plight of the young children sharing prison cells with the hardened criminals?

For an opinion that he is entitled to, what right do some people have to cause hate against a person just because some people hate Americans. duh.

cathcath, mr. reuter has a right to his opinion, even if it’s wrong. and people have a right to criticize him if they strongly disagree with his opinions.

Kung ako ang tatanungin mo, I STRONGLY disagree with Mr. Reuter's opinion. And I'm not anti-American at all.

For more information of the Subic Rape case, read this.

Related:

- My reaction to Mindanao Bob's comment on the Pinay rape case
- If this rape case happened in Iraq...
- Bush promises "absolute justice" and "transparency" on the Iraq rape case
- Teresita Ang See deplores RP mendicancy in Subic rape trial

1 comment:

AIEPRO said...

Fr. Reuter is certainly entitled to his own opinions.

I don't know who he is. The first time I ever heard of him is in this post. So I cannot make a well-informed analysis right now.

However, here's what I can say. What is his purpose as an expert witness? Is he an expert in what? An in these expertise, will it help the accused?

Like Lord Dracula said, it's up to the courts to decide. That is the beauty of the Justice system. But then again, who comprises this justice system? Is it the old cronies?

Anyone can make their own opinions. I wonder why the defendants didn't consult with me? I could have given them a better opinion. Perhaps Fr Reuter is really an expert? on what though? I don't know. Why would a "father" get involved? Is it a s a character witness? how much does he know about the character?

Damn, it's just so illogical sometimes, don't u think?