The letter is just so wrong on so many levels, and what's sad is that she sounds like she actually believes what she's saying. What really bothers me about her letter as a lawyer is that she starts arguing the facts of the case. That's already been decided by a jury. You don't get to argue some twisted version of the facts you assume happened. It's not relevant anymore.

Let's look at the letter for a minute, just so it's clear that I really do think this letter is a piece of trash:

It was with great sadness that I read the news about Brock Turner, and the horrible situation that he was involved in.

You're saddened at the news you heard about the attacker and the horrible situation he's involved in. Understand that while you didn't come all the way out and say "I'm saddened that he's in this situation", that's how it comes off sounding, once you read the rest of the letter. You're really sad that he's in this horrible situation of being called a rapist. Poor Brock.

[Misc. character reference about how he's a great guy and you have known him forever]. Everyone who knows him thinks he's great

Fine. This is the kind of character reference you would expect in this sort of thing.

In all honestly, if I had to choose one kid I graduated with to be in the position Brock is, it would have never been him

Another reference to "the position he's in". As if he's unfairly being falsely accused. Except he's already been found guilty. Also, "He's the last person I would have expected to be a rapist" isn't exactly a reason to give the guy a lenient sentence. For all we know that means he's good at covering up his true character and could lead to future victims trusting him and putting themselves in a vulnerable position.

It’s pretty frustrating to see the light that people are putting him in now. It used to be “swim star” and now it’s like he is the face of rape on campuses.

I'm sure you're very frustrated for him. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you. Maybe he's being made the "face of rape on campus" because someone is trying to teach campus kids the lesson that rape is not just a drugging or threatening someone after waiting behind their parked car, but rather any non-consensual sex or sex with someone who can't consent because they are too drunk or unconscious. Maybe that's what the powers that be at this campus are trying to teach other students.

It’s such a false way to put it.

That's because you don't seem to understand what rape is, as becomes clearer in the rest of your letter.

I tried to accept that maybe he did intend to harm this girl, but I just couldn’t imagine that was the case.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if someone doesn't intend to harm you, they aren't raping you. I'm not a psychologist or expert on rape, but I'm guessing there are, in fact, people out there who rape as a power trip. To get pleasure from controlling or hurting or asserting themselves on unwilling victims. But I believe there is a whole other class of rapists that simply want sex and either feel that they are entitled to it even if the victim is unwilling, or feel that silence is equivalent to consent, or feel that if the victim doesn't know it's happening, they'll never care or some other shit like that.

I honestly don't believe this guy wanted to HURT this girl. I don't think that was his goal. None of us will ever know what was going on in his head, but I think he just wanted to have sex; perhaps they were in fact consensually (or at least seemingly consensual from his POV) kissing or making out at the party, and he took this as license to subsequently have sex with this girl whether she was in any position to give consent or not. That's still rape, and it's the kind of rape that I'm guessing is far more prevalent on campus than knife-wielding maniacs out to rape for the purpose of harming victims. Even those adults like priests who rape children - Again, not a psychologist, but I'm assuming they do that shit for their own pleasure, not with the intent or desire to harm their victims.

I am not backing it up or making excuses,

It kind of seems like you are.

but there is absolutely no way Brock went out that night with rape on his mind

Whether your crime is premeditated or spur of the moment, it's still a crime. His intentions when he left his house have no bearing on this. If it's true, all it tells us that this guy has no ability to control his impulse to commit rape (at least when he's been drinking).

The woman recalls how much alcohol she drank, which was a lot. She was no doubt about to black out if not already. I’m sure she and Brock had been flirting at this party and decided to leave together. Just as they did she passes out, which after that many drinks, anyone would.

So you acknowledge she was close to blacking our or may have already blacked out, but you're fine with the fact that he decided to leave the party with her for any reason other than to make sure she got home safe?

Just as they did she passes out, which after that many drinks, anyone would. At the same time, Brock, having a few too many drinks himself, is not completely in control of his emotions. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that alcohol increases emotions and feelings

He is not in trouble because of his feelings. There is no feeling police. He's in trouble because of his actions. I agree that he was obviously drunk. But if you can not control your actions to the point that you commit a crime while drunk, it's on you. You chose to drink. If he had gotten in a car and killed someone, would you argue he was too drunk to know not to drive drunk? If you can't control your actions when you drink, don't drink.

I think this is all a huge misunderstanding.

If by "this" you mean your letter, I agree.

I think that the bikers who found him did the right thing by keeping him there in case he was attempting rape,

Firstly, I'm not sure why the word "attempted" is even entering into this discussion. There was no unsuccessful attempt at anything here. Even if you refuse to call it rape, he admits to the actions; there is no "attempt".

Secondly, he's already been convicted. That means 12 people who heard all of the facts determined beyond a reasonable doubt that he raped this woman. Did you attend the whole trial or are you just making assumptions based on the fact that you know him and you can't imagine he intended to hurt someone?.

but that after the investigation, it should have found Brock to be innocent.

I guess you know better than the jury. This should not even be permitted to be put before the judge. "Hey. I wasn't there, I didn't see the trial, I wasn't on the jury, but seriously. They really shouldn't have convicted this guy based on my view of the case. You shouldn't sentence him harshly because he shouldn't have been convicted." The Court should not be permitted to even hear an argument that basically reads as "you should overturn the jury's verdict by giving him a light sentence".

[Too long: more in reply]