Who said this? Nobody on this thread. That’s just as unfair as saying that I see a lot of people who see rape wherever they look.
I think this is a situation in which there’s a problem in using a single word–in this case, “rape”–to describe a set of situations that are not morally or legally all the same. When somebody refers to this guy as the daughters’ “mother’s rapist,” that suggests something about him that is almost certainly untrue. If your relative is in a coma, and you hold his hand, are you “assaulting” him? After all, he can’t consent to you touching him–why are you touching him? Unwanted touching is assault, under the law. How dare you use him as a stuffed animal to stroke! That is obviously absurd–this case is less absurd, but to talk about it as “rape” and to actually prosecute it as rape is highly problematic.
If the daughters had felt him to be abusive, and had obtained a protective order telling him to stay away from her, and then he violated it, we’d probably feel very differently about the case. That would be a more appropriate context in which to litigate the issues involved.
<<<<
If the daughters had felt him to be abusive, and had obtained a protective order telling him to stay away from her, and then he violated it, we’d probably feel very differently about the case. That would be a more appropriate context in which to litigate the issues involved.
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
This is a very good point. The fact that the DD’s had not sought a protective order is very telling. They weren’t on strong ground. They had no evidence that he was doing anything wrong.
I don’t like this so-called evidence that the lady in the next bed said that she heard “sex noises.” I think this lady was jealous that this woman had a devoted H, and his visiting bothered her.
I also don’t like the assumption that because the H would “close the curtains” that that also suggested that they were having sex. We often closed the curtains when my parents were sharing a room to create some kind of privacy, and to lessen the “hearing” of conversations. Or, if we needed to help change their clothes or help them toilet in a bed pan.
The suggestion that he put her panties into the hamper after sex is also weak. She may have wet herself, and he changed her panties.
There was evidence of sexual activity on her quilt and bed linens. They were not able to confirm actual penetration. The whole issue here is that the medical director of the facility made a determination that she did not have the capacity to consent, told Mr. Rayhons and yet he ignored it. The facility is on record stating they do not prohibit residents from engaging in sexual activity. Absent the determination of the medical director this would not be an issue. If you believe the testimony of the staff and the daughter, the daughters had nothing to do with bringing these charges.
^I think once the determination was made she did not have capacity to consent, by the staff at the facility, and they were made aware her husband had allegedly had sex with her, the staff may have had no choice but to report. In the case of elder abuse, in a hospital setting, I was told it was not up to the family to decide whether to report. The staff was required to report.
Rayhons testified today. He denied that he had sex with his wife on the night in question. He was unable to explain how his semen got on her sheets. The care facility said that her sheets would have been changed that morning.
I don’t think that’s a fair request. The daughters, and the director of the health facility, and the doctor who examined her, all agreed that she was no longer able to consent to sex. The husband agreed. (There’s audiotape of this.) Presumably, the daughters thought that would be the end of it, and the husband would not have sex with his wife. Then the husband allegedly had sex with his wife, and the care facility called the police. At what point were the daughters supposed to have thought that a protective order would have been necessary?
Donna Rayhon’s roommate testified yesterday and her testimony appears to have been tepid at best about what she heard that evening. That gives the jury some leeway. I do not think they will find him guilty.
Please excuse the graphicness of this…but if he had, you know, by himself and got semen on the sheets, then is that rape? lol Has he done anything illegal?
<<<
But when the defense called Schoneman, 86, to testify in court Thursday, she seemed unsure of what happened to her roommate after Henry Rayhons pulled the curtain that split their room.
Defense lawyer Joel Yunek asked Schoneman to describe what she heard. “I could hear whispering,” she said. “I was uncomfortable, because I felt like I was intruding on somebody else’s conversations.”
Yunek asked her: “Did you think the noises were sexual in nature?”
“I can’t say that,” Schoneman replied.
“So you don’t think anything that you heard was sexual?” the defense lawyer asked.
“I really can’t say, because I wasn’t there,” she replied. “I only heard sounds, and I was trying not to hear that. We were in close contact, and the curtain was there, and I felt uncomfortable, wishing I wasn’t there.”
<<<
<<<
Staff members testified that she never specifically said she believed the couple were having sex, but the staff was sure that’s what she meant.
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
Oh brother.
I hope that he’s found innocent…and then sues the heck out of that place.
I actually don’t think I’ve seen this. Maybe I missed it. I have seen people saying that even sex with a person with advanced dimentia can be pleasurable for the person with dimentia and welcomed by them. Can, not always is.
This is what the 3rd daughter said at the trial.
" Wright said she did visit her mother, and she saw Henry Rayhons as a good influence. She said her mother always recognized him, and was happy to see him.
After the May 23 incident, Donna Rayhons was moved to a special Alzheimer’s unit in Hampton, where Henry’s family contends his visits were limited by Bruns, who had the power of attorney for her mother. Wright said her mother was “very sad, and very grieving,” and asked about Henry. "Mom said to me, ‘I beg of you, if you see him, please tell him that I love him.’ "
And Henry testified he visited with Rayhons almost every evening except when his legislative duties kept him at the state house late. My impression was that the limitations imposed on him after she was moved into the double room were on the frequency of her being taken out of the facility. The family and staff felt it “confused” her.
This is a messy case all around. There is enough ambiguity in what the roommate heard and in how Rayhons construed the doctor’s determination - he though it only prohibited intercourse- that if the jury wants a finding of “not guilty” they could most likely find a way to get there.
One thing that bothers me - do you have a right to have consensual sex in a nursing home where another patient is separated from you only by a curtain?
I’d be more worried about my mom being in a nursing home where she is rooming with someone who has conjugal visits! We aren’t talking about a college roommate who can leave the room if their roommate brings their boyfriend over!
NFN, it’s kind of funny - maybe the husband doesn’t even remember…
However, I, uh, smelled something “odd” on my mother’s sheets at an old folk’s home, yes I would follow up on it. I’d of course be more worried about an orderly overpowering an old woman, and if I found out it was her legal husband, I’d nervously laugh and that would be that. And yeah, get her in an Alzheimer’s ward I guess.
That sounds plausible. This was a woman who, when she entered the facility, didn’t remember how to dress herself or how to use silverware, and who thought a toilet bowl was for handwashing. And then, after that, from that low level of functioning, she suffered a severe cognitive decline. In other words, she, sadly, was already very confused by most things, and she was not capable of forming memories. Typically, a person in a state like that is happier and less agitated if they have a simple, quiet world around them. Bringing a late-stage Alzheimer’s patient to an event or a new place with other people around is not likely to be pleasant for them. They will be confused and unhappy.
As I said earlier, I don’t have direct personal experience with this. But it sounds as if her decline was extremely rapid, and it may have been difficult for him to accept that outings were no longer pleasurable. On the other hand. since he drove hours to see her and pray with her and put her to bed almost every night and even the caregiver testified that she was always happy to see him, there seems no doubt that he was devoted. The whole thing is very, very sad.
And to me, very, very distasteful. I don’t think this man should have been forced to sit in open court and describe the intimate sexual details of their relationship, such as how his wife would fondle him. It’s just disgusting, and demeaning to both of them. I think that deliberately moving her into a double room to make it more difficult for them to have ANY level of intimacy was officious and very likely cruel, to boot.
Oh, and on the subject of her bedding, you omitted to mention that he testified that he saw her D carrying her bedding to the new room that day. Maybe the sheets were put on by mistake. Maybe not. Maybe he ejaculated when she fondled him. Oh, the horror. How very sad.
The whole thing is so sad. He was clearly devoted to her, and keeping him from seeing her in the new facility was cruel. Both the husband and the daughters were watching her melt away in front of them, and that’s awful.
OTOH, if we’re talking about how to give sexual pleasure to a person who is in severe cognitive decline and who has few pleasures left to her, I’m at a loss to figure out how HER fondling HIM is the way to achieve it. And I don’t think that moving someone into a double room prevents ANY level of intimacy. When I was in a double room, hospitalized for an infection and nine months pregnant, nobody raised an eyebrow when Mr. Fang and I kissed and cuddled.
<<<
Sue them for what? They claim they had a legal obligation to report. It was investigated and the state of Iowa charged him.
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
Legally obligated to report that an elderly (also maybe confused) lady said that she heard “noises”??? lololol Good heavens, they’d be reporting all day long if that’s all it takes…and what nuisances they would be.
As for the “state of Iowa” charging him…I’m not entirely sure that there isn’t a political motivation behind this. Surely the “state of Iowa” has some real criminals that it should be focusing on.
Funny story: My grandfather hated sports, and didn’t like crowds (but loved music). My parents (and I) love sports. We had to bring him along when we went to sporting events. At first my dad would say “we are going to a football game” and grandpa wouldn’t be happy. Dad would then say “well, we’re going to a football game and they will have music at halftime”. Grandpa still wasn’t happy. We then started saying “we are going to a band concert and they will have a little bit of football before and after the concert”. Suddenly, he couldn’t wait for the Friday night band concerts.
