Did you know you can highlight text to take a note? x

Long before Dr. David Lisak appears as a character in one of Missoula’s main storylines, Krakauer presents the reader with Dr. Lisak’s research and statistics. Because of Krakauer’s planning, Lisak appears before the reader on the witness stand as a familiar name from sexual assault scholarship rather than as an anonymous expert. The prosecution hopes that Lisak’s testimony can undermine the deliberate mis-education being exercised by the defense. Prosecutors want to make sure jury members understand the true facts of acquaintance rape. By this point in Missoula, most of Dr. Lisak’s testimony is a repetition of information that Krakauer has already presented to the reader. Washburn’s story, according to Lisak’s testimony, isn’t an absurd fantasy. Instead, her being raped by an acquaintance is typical of most rapes. Because the defense team cannot discredit the accuracy of Dr. Lisak’s research, they try to attack him personally and question his motives for testifying. Kirsten Pabst implies Lisak is after money. Because Pabst can’t refute his research, she also argues that ignorance is better than education. She portrays Dr. Lisak as an outsider who comes from the East Coast to tell honest Missoulians how to think and act.