So did Crystal Magnum.
And Danmell Ndonye.
And Wanetta Gibson.
And Tawana Brawley.
But no, let's pretend "women never lie about rape".
For starters, I do not recall anyone ever claiming that "women never lie about rape" But if you can quote such claim whether from FRDB or TFT, please do so. You tend to build cases against claims that were never made.
So, we have her testimony that it was rape.
And his testimony that it wasn't.
I think we have already agreed that cases solely based on "he says" "she says" should be falling under reasonable doubt. Note the specific of "solely".
We have video evidence that he tied her down, duct taped her eyes and mouth, and violently raped her.
Common with BDSM sex. I posted the case of false accuser Jamie Rzucek. Their sex looked similar to this.
Except that what is actually common with BDSM adepts is that the non dominant party remains able to use a safe word to convey non consent at any time during the activities. Which cannot be the case in a situation where the non dominant party's mouth was duct taped. So, that was NOT a "common BDSM sex" situation.
And we have his own admission that she said "no".
Irrelevant as "no" is often used as part of BDSM playacting.
Certainly not in a situation where the non dominant party is rendered unable to communicate consent or non consent DURING the play acting activities. A BDSM adept dominant party is going to insure that the non dominant party remains able to verbalize non consent with a safe word throughout the entire set of activities. Such adepts would NOT go along with any scenario where the non dominant party is either left without a safe word or rendered unable to verbalize a safe word indicating "stop".
It is evidence of her participating in those activities that introduced sufficient reasonable doubt as to make any conviction difficult. In this case it resulted in a (very likely) guilty man getting off but that is a favorable outcome to innocent men getting wrongfully convicted.
Though I personally would rather see a guilty party go free than an innocent man being convicted, I am not sure it is a justification to ignore or dismiss the fact that a guilty party going free sends the signal to all rape victims that they are highly susceptible to not be recognized as victims of a sexual crime. Unfortunately it can only add fuel to their pre existing state of being reluctant to come forward for reasons that have been covered, detailed and explained several times in the course of rape-topic threads.
On the other end, just about any male is susceptible to be falsely accused by an ill intended female. And short of the accusing party confessing she made it up, a non guilty verdict pronounced by a Jury based on reasonable doubt still leaves DOUBT in the mind of the public that he is innocent. The French fiction based drama film "Les Risques du Metier" superbly interpreted by Jacques Brel takes us into the mind of an innocent man facing several accusing parties. It tells us about the lingering suspicions affecting the main character even after his female students confess they made it up. He is reduced to pack his bags and permanently leave(along with his spouse) the rural community where he had been a dedicated school teacher.
Going back to the "college rape mess", and in view of the broad wide circulation of drugs and alcohol among College students, those students who will consume alcohol or drugs should yield to this set of advice :
1) If you are going to be drinking or using drugs, KNOW your limits.
2) If you are the remaining sober type, acknowledge once for all that having sex with a drunk person or on a drug induced trip comes down to that person's mind and thinking/reasoning process being altered. You are effectively taking advantage of a party whose mental process is off. You might not consciously think in terms of " I am going to exploit that person in a vulnerable state", but it still comes down to the same result.
3) Rely on the "Golden Rule" as you are part of the remaining sober category. I hope I do not have to explain why the Golden Rule remains the code of ethics which covers situations where there is a potential for the exploitative factor to prevail.
So the ONLY way for you to continue saying there wasn't enough evidence to convict is if, and only if, you assume she is a "lying bitch."
No. You obviously don't understand how the burden of proof works. I do not have to assume she is a "lying bitch" but merely not be convinced she is telling the truth
beyond a reasonable doubt and without the benefit of knowing what he would do years later.
I agree with your reply. IMO it is unreasonable to conclude that a Jury rendering a non guilty verdict is motivated by the belief that the accusing party is a "lying bitch". Jury's hands are pretty much tied up by the rigor of their being called to measure the validity of the defense argumentation versus the prosecution argumentation. A weak prosecution is bound to result in the Jury leaning towards a non guilty verdict. Not related to rape trials, but I think everyone would agree that the OJ Simpson's trial resulting in a non guilty verdict was the product of a pathetic prosecution which failed to eliminate reasonable doubt. The majority of analysis which came out following the verdict all agreed that it should not be confused for the Jury being convinced that OJ was innocent rather that the prosecution missed their opportunity to eliminate reasonable doubt.
