NOTE: ****Y is not the real name of the defendant. The Vanguard is not using the real name to protect the identity of the victim.
A preliminary hearing was held here last Friday in Riverside County Superior Court for ****Y, who is accused of raping four minors, including his own daughter—the four alleged victims were interviewed about their experiences with the defendant.
The longest interview took place on Jan. 12, and the victim detailed her experiences with ****Y. She was 14 when her sexual relationship with the defendant, her own father, started.
An investigator said that the victim was attracted to her father because “he wasn’t in her life when she was a kid, so he wasn’t like a father figure to her.”
At the beginning of her interview, the victim “described how she had been sexually assaulted by a separate individual” at a young age in Mexico, and that this had severely impacted her. She said that rape in Mexico, culturally, “is the victim’s fault.”
The investigator said the victim “proffered that she might have felt sexual curiosity [toward ****Y] as a result of the rape that happened in Mexico,”
The defense pointed out that ****Y felt regret the morning after the first sexual experience, uttering, “What the hell did I do?”
The victim reassured ****Y by saying “If you like it, just don’t do nothing.”
During one sexual encounter, ****Y was driving a car “and she told him she wanted” to perform a sex act. ****Y told her to do it and recorded it.
On the subject of the nude photographs sent to ****Y, it was concluded by the defense that the victim “would send photos because she wanted to.”
While the victim described the relationship as “completely consensual,” the investigator pointed out that she was still a child when she said so.
The rest of the prelim focused primarily on whether or not an element of force was present in this relationship.
During their first sexual encounter, the victim told ****Y to stop “because she was nervous and had never done it before.” The defense argued this nervousness was “more indicative of a novel sexual act” than because she was afraid of ****Y.
The defense said it was actually quite the contrary, and that according to the evidence “all their relations were consensual, and that she was initiating.”
During her interview, the victim stated, “I was the one who touched his arm and then we ended up kissing.” The judge questioned whether the victim was able to express to ****Y whether or not she was comfortable “when he took it too far,” given ****Y did not stop when she initially asked him to.
During her interview, when the victim asked ****Y about their relationship, he told her, “You have the kind of thing. You have the power.” The defense claimed ****Y gave her the ability to speak out about their relationship if she wanted to. The defense also said ****Y had indicated to the victim that “he would go to jail” if their relationship was revealed.
At one point, the judge dismissed the narrative he thought the defense was trying to form—that ****Y was the victim, and that his daughter had forced herself on him.
The judge found there would be an element of force and pressure as a result of ****Y being the victim’s father, whether or not he physically asserted more force than was expected during an act of consensual sex.
This was, the judge reasoned, because ****Y, despite not being involved in the victim’s early life, was still an authority figure for her and could easily take advantage of her trust in him.
The judge found there was sufficient evidence provided during the preliminary hearing to go to trial.
This case will reconvene in court on Nov. 5.
Amy Berberyan | Contributed
Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle