To the editor:

I have been reading about the McLinn case all week. It is quite clear that this young woman killed Mr. Sasko, and a jury of her peers has decided that, despite all of her previous trauma, in both her immediate and past history, she was able to form the requisite intent.

But what strikes me about the coverage of the trial is this: No one is refuting the facts put forward about the drugs and alcohol Mr. Sasko gave her, at age 17 or his coercion of her to have a nose job and buttocks enhancement, telling her that, without all of this, no man would find her attractive. Nor is anyone, apparently, disputing the sexual coercion of McLinn by Sasko.

And yet still, we read that the psychiatrist for the prosecution, William Logan, referred to Mr. Sasko as McLinn’s “benefactor.” (March 20). Really? It seems that, in choosing his words thusly, Dr. Logan illustrates, unwittingly, how systems can and do trivialize the rape, abuse, coercion and oppression of women. Sarah McLinn will go to prison for a very long time. But the labelling of Mr. Sasko as a “benefactor” to Sarah McLinn cannot go unchallenged.