The psychologists who this Wednesday have intervened in the second session of the trial that is being held in the Court of Tenerife for a presumed gang rape to a minorindicated that the accounts made by the victim are “probably credible” but they have also warned that there are “numerous” contradictions.
The events took place during the carnivals of Santa Cruz de Tenerife in 2020when the young woman agreed to go with two boys and another minor to a house in Miramar where she assures that she was the victim of a sexual assault.
Psychologists have pointed out that the young He has suffered various situations of abuse, rape, abortions, drug use and family problems, so it is “very difficult” to confirm that the consequences he suffers derive from what happened in the carnivalsbut rather supposes a continuation of everything that has lived.
Hence the story of what took place that night is not “entirely credible since she tends to misinterpret situations”, especially when she was alone with three young people whom she accuses of having harassed her into having sex. She “She is very vulnerable and it is difficult for her to say no, although there are no indications that she suffered threats, but simply that she does not think about things.”
The girl presents traits of vulnerability, a violent character, the impossibility of being controlled by her mother, drug use, running away from home, abortions or the inability to make proper use of social networks.
In short, since childhood he has been in a risky situation, which has been reflected especially in sexual relations that began at age 11.
Since then, she has suffered abuse by a family friend, another group rape with video recording included, a relationship with a worker much older than her from the juvenile center where she was, and what happened at the carnivals.
Her profile is that of a young woman who seeks an inappropriate pattern of relationships, managing to maintain several at the same time, presents fear of rejection, a search for new sensations, emotional deficiencies and is a victim of mistreatment and abuse, which has caused her to develop a Overestimated psychosexual systems that results in misinterpreting relationships.
The psychologists confirmed that she has trouble making decisions, lacks critical thinking, is highly dependent on others and, in general, is immature for her age.
When analyzing that carnival night, the experts indicate that the young woman had the ability to refuse but that a characteristic of her personality is that “when she looks vulnerable she is not able to say no.”
Her experience in matters of sex is “much higher” than the average for young women her age and in fact the specific case of what happened at those parties was reported as one more episode of abuse that for the experts has not had a significant influence. in his conduct.
“It cannot be said that it is the sole and exclusive reason that has led her to be treated by psychologists and psychiatrists. It is another episode along with the other attacks, an abortion, failed relationships… it is very difficult to say that one has influenced more than another“, have pointed.
one of the accused He said they had consensual sex.which the complainant admitted, although she was annoyed by the alleged recording of a video that is not actually known to exist.
The young man said that everything happened in a natural way, that she never refused but she did not like that her other two friends tried to enter the room, so she put a board to close the door.
Next the young man went to bathe and therefore cannot say what happened between them. He doesn’t know anything about the video and says that his cell phone was on because the house was under construction and there was no electricity.
They all agree that at no time did she even say that she wanted to leave, that she was uncomfortable or asked for help, and in fact later they went together to Añaza, her neighborhood and there they had breakfast and saw each other the next day.
“I don’t think I did something wrong, everything was normal, I don’t understand what happened”, in relation to the complaint filed six months later, said that defendant.
The other defendant, K., He assured that he did not know that he was a minorHe denied having had any kind of relationship with her because, in addition, she is his cousin and he assures that he entered the room to say that he wanted to leave.
Then she told her sister what had happened and she made up that there was a video and told the victim’s mother in order to get the complainant to explain what had happened.
K. assures that he did everything so that the family knew where the girl was, since at that time she had run away from home. She also did not hear any screams, threats, or calls for help, and said that “everything” was cosmetic.
The prosecution He maintains his request for ten years in prison but, since the “only if it is” law has entered into force, the qualification may drop in one year and a maximum of twelve, and he also regretted that it is not possible to find intermediate sentences for this type of crimes
He Public ministry maintains that the young woman was pressured, could not act freely and her ability to consent was diminished.
The lawyers for the two defendants upheld their request for acquittal. I.’s defense reiterates that the relations were by mutual agreement, that nothing was ever recorded, and that she precisely filed the complaint to find out if the video existed.
As for the second defendantthe lawyer asked for his acquittal, since he has said that the accusations are identical to those of the minor, who has been acquitted.
