MovieChat Forums > Profoundly NormalĀ (2003) Discussion > Why wasn't there a rape investigation?

Why wasn't there a rape investigation?


Donna and Earline were beaten and raped by an institution employee. I think he was a janitor. The head of the institution told the social worker that there was evidence of penetration and rape. She went on to say that the girls were exploring and it turned violent. The social worker was skeptical. But, didn't press the argument. You would think she could see how far-fetched that was. The head of the insitution was not there and did not see what happened. Why weren't the girls questioned? Donna was able to talk. Why wasn't there some kind of investigation? The employee was still working at the institution until it closed.

reply

Because it was their word against his. You have to think rape itself wasn't investigated into at the time for anybody who wasn't mentally handicapped. Two girls in their situation and in the place they were weren't not going to be believed over that jerk.

reply

They didn't even know who 'he' was.

Earline wasnt able to say anything (and apparently died after the attack) so all that left was Donna and as we see in the movie, she is blind-sided and never saw him, so she wouldn't know who it was.

Even if they believed Donna that it was a staff member who attacked her and Earline, how would they have determined who it was back then?

check to see who was on staff?

reply

They way that I viewed it was that it was easier to blame the attack on "mongrel" behavior, either because they didn not completely understand MR at that time or if they did and they didn't care because the facility like many at that time was a dumping ground for children who showed any type of difference and could not or did want to be cared for by their families. They were often overpopulated and understaffed. The last thing they wanted was an investigation.

I really enjoyed this movie and thought that it was very well done!













By the way, it says BALLS on your face

reply

At the time there was a lack of awareness and child abuse and neglect laws weren't really strict and probably weren't enforced more.

reply

It's because as my lawyer has stated before your word against there's. It doesn't matter how obvious it appeared to be they would call it circumstantial evidence or narrative summary.

It was VERY obvious those girls were attacked like it was obvious I was attacked by a co-worker but they ignore anything that is obvious even recordings because it's all circumstantial.

Then you wonder how creeps get away with everything.

reply