The defense accuses Kristin Smart of ‘at-risk behavior.’ That’s blatant victim blaming

“Ruben Flores would tear down ‘missing’ posters of Kristin — tore down her smiling, beautiful face — called her a ‘dirty slut,’ all while her corpse was decomposing underneath his deck.”

That was San Luis Obispo County Deputy District Christopher Peuvrelle, speaking Monday during opening statements in the Kristin Smart murder trial.

We can expect to hear many statements disparaging the victim over the next several weeks, as the case against Paul Flores and his father, Ruben Flores, unfolds in a Salinas courtroom.

But there’s something especially heinous about the thought of a grown man angrily tearing down “missing” posters of Kristin Smart and calling this young woman — just 19 when she disappeared on the night of May 25, 1996, — a “dirty slut.”

Ruben Flores’ son, Paul Flores, is accused of killing Smart — and hiding her body with the help of his dad.

The prosecution has alleged that Smart was killed in Flores’ dorm room during an attempted sexual assault. But her body has never been found, allowing the defense to argue that there’s no evidence of how or when she died.

Public sympathy clearly is with the Smart family.

If a poll were taken today, the percentage of San Luis Obispo County residents who believe the Flores men are innocent might not even make it into the single digits, which is why it’s a good thing the trail was moved to Monterey County.

The defense case is built on a lack of hard evidence, along with a heavy dose of victim blaming. That was on full display during Monday’s opening statements.

Paul Flores’ attorney, Robert Sanger, accused Smart of regularly engaging in “at-risk behavior.”

He said evidence will show Smart was known to lie about being a model and having a job.

He claimed that she was flunking out of school.

That she had a history of going off with men, including older men.

Sanger attempted to sanitize his remarks about Smart: “You’re gonna hear evidence about Kristin Smart,” he said. “It’s not nice to talk about somebody that’s not here to defend herself.”

No, it’s not.

Nor is it especially relevant. Smart’s grades, her work history and her history of “going off” with men have nothing to do with what happened that night.

Flores and his father are, without a doubt, entitled to a vigorous defense, but blaming the victim is a weak argument.

Disturbingly, victim blaming happens often, both in courts of law and courts of public opinion.

There’s still a tendency in society to find victims of sexual violence as somehow responsible, to some degree.

They went out alone at night.

They were drunk or high.

They were wearing revealing outfits.

They caught a ride with a stranger.

They were sexually active.

In other words, “slut shaming” is alive and well in America, and in many, many other places.

Look at the picture Sanger painted for the jury — claiming that Kristin Smart was a liar who engaged in risky behavior and was possibly promiscuous.

Interestingly, Sanger also told the jury that Paul Flores’ past behavior — including allegations that he raped three women — offers no facts that can be applied to the Smart case.

So why isn’t that true for Smart herself?

No matter the final verdicts, Kristin Smart is not to blame for what happened that night on the Cal Poly campus. And she does not deserve to be defamed in a court of law.

Whatever the outcome, it’s time to allow Kristin Smart to rest in peace.

This story was originally published July 19, 2022 at 6:00 AM.