An Unbelievable Story of Rape

[Sweetpea7788]

Why? She was reporting a crime, not being investigated for criminal activity.

The problem is that she responded to that by turning around and saying her initial report was a lie.

The problem is that she was treated like a criminal, rather than a victim, and she came to the point where she would do anything they told her to do just to get the ongoing trauma to end.

The police always consider the possibility that the person reporting a crime is lying.

I think people are confusing roles here. The police are just supposed to take a report. It is the prosecutor who is responsible to read that report, consider the facts, meet with the victim (not required but strongly preferred), and decide whether or not to file charges. Prosecutors have wide latitude in taking a case or not, and part of that does come down to credibility of the victim.

It's the defense attorney who will attack the victim's story the strongest. That is their job.

Police are not prosecutors or lawyers, and shouldn't try to act like them.

The police are supposed to investigate. That includes the accuracy of the initial report.

Unfortunately the police fucked that up pretty well by intimidating the woman who was raped in her own home by a stranger, in the middle of the night.

Maybe if they focused on an actual investigation, supported by ample physical evidence, not clouded by their own biases, Marie would not have endured so many other traumas and subsequent victims could have avoided their traumas altogether.

I agree with you completely, Toni. Let there be a trial if needed.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

 

[RavenSky]

No. Zimmerman acted like he was entitled to do whatever, including stalking an unarmed teenager.

Marie acted like a rape victim, like seome who had been traumatized by an attack in her own home-- the first home she had of her own. Who was further attacked and traumatized by police officers who were more interested in establishing that she lied than in investigating a rape.

Victims of crimes have inconsistencies in their accounting of the crime. This is well known, just as it is well known that eye witness accounts of a crime are inconsistent between witnesses and even from the same witness. Memories and recollections are not videotaped recordings from multiple perspectives with audio that can be stored and retrieved at will. That's not even considering the terror and trauma of being the victim of a crime, which in this case was a home invasion in the middle of the night, being assaulted, threatened and raped.

It's the attitude that took that made the cops believe, that's the issue. When told someone had videotaped the whole scene Z said, "I hope so" and when the same question went to Marie she said, "I might have made it up" That was the difference. The issue is trying to find the protocol to try and identify when people are lying.

So you are saying that Zimmerman is a delusional sociopath and Marie was a traumatized rape victim.

Fair enough

 

[RavenSky]

He did. In the article, Marie is described as shopping for new ones.

The POLICE took her sheets

Really? Where does it say that?

In the articles you fucking well CLAIMED you read:

When the police arrived at Marie's apartment, they did what you'd expect-- they processed the crime scene. A crime scene technician snapped photos of the place. It didn't look like much, an 18-year-old's tidy, bare-bones apartment-- a sofa, a bike, a desktop computer on the floor in the corner. The bed was unmade, green comforter on the floor, a messy sheet.

Marie was blindfolded, and her attacker wore a mask, so there wasn't a real description. He wore gloves to avoid fingerprints. He wore a condom. But there was physical evidence. The police got fingerprints off the sliding glass door. Just beyond the glass door, on the back porch, it looked like someone had brushed off a dusty railing while climbing over it.

Police collected the bedding, hoping for DNA-- maybe fibers or hairs.

Now, go READ the articles with some comprehension and compassion, do not post in this thread until you have done that - and do NOT derail my thread again with your fucking hobby horses! You were told that on page 2, and here you are repeating the same fucking strawman that was roundly refuted by there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree with you completely, Toni. Let there be a trial if needed.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

What would a trial accomplish? The normal standard in the courtroom is once you show one lie in someone's testimony that all of their testimony is considered untrustworthy.

We have her telling the police she lying when she told them she was raped. The defense introduces that, that's it, case over. Her testimony is worthless.

 

[Arctish]

No. Zimmerman acted like he was entitled to do whatever, including stalking an unarmed teenager.

Marie acted like a rape victim, like seome who had been traumatized by an attack in her own home-- the first home she had of her own. Who was further attacked and traumatized by police officers who were more interested in establishing that she lied than in investigating a rape.

Victims of crimes have inconsistencies in their accounting of the crime. This is well known, just as it is well known that eye witness accounts of a crime are inconsistent between witnesses and even from the same witness. Memories and recollections are not videotaped recordings from multiple perspectives with audio that can be stored and retrieved at will. That's not even considering the terror and trauma of being the victim of a crime, which in this case was a home invasion in the middle of the night, being assaulted, threatened and raped.

It's the attitude that took that made the cops believe, that's the issue. When told someone had videotaped the whole scene Z said, "I hope so" and when the same question went to Marie she said, "I might have made it up" That was the difference. The issue is trying to find the protocol to try and identify when people are lying.

It's obvious you didn't read the article.

 

[Arctish]

So because one woman was really raped after recanting means that all women who ever allege rape are truthful?

No.

But no one is arguing that. People are saying crimes should be thoroughly investigated, that rape victims sometimes act strangely, and that cops should not bully, threaten, and harass people reporting crimes into recanting.

We have been presented with a case in which an actual rape victim was further victimized by the police who extorted a false confession from her. What is so hard about acknowledging that the actions of those two police officers were wrong? What is so hard about admitting that other victims of crimes might have experienced improper police behavior resulting in the crimes being uninvestigated and the criminals being free to commit other crimes? Why is it so hard to acknowledge that the fears of many rape victims, that the cops won't believe them and will instead attack them for reporting their rape, are well founded?

 

[Sweetpea7788]

I agree with you completely, Toni. Let there be a trial if needed.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

What would a trial accomplish? The normal standard in the courtroom is once you show one lie in someone's testimony that all of their testimony is considered untrustworthy.

We have her telling the police she lying when she told them she was raped. The defense introduces that, that's it, case over. Her testimony is worthless.

The police should never have acted the way they did and should be held accountable for doing so. If the police had done their job correctly, a trial could accomplish a lot.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What would a trial accomplish? The normal standard in the courtroom is once you show one lie in someone's testimony that all of their testimony is considered untrustworthy.

We have her telling the police she lying when she told them she was raped. The defense introduces that, that's it, case over. Her testimony is worthless.

The police should never have acted the way they did and should be held accountable for doing so. If the police had done their job correctly, a trial could accomplish a lot.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

You are assuming they did it wrong.

The reality is that cops are often lied to, the investigation of a case includes looking for such lies. Once they find an inconsistency they're going to dig into it--and rather than her saying she must have misremembered the details she turned around and said the whole thing is a lie.

Given the current trend of throwing cops to the wolves I'm not too impressed by the claims they went too far in their questioning.

 

[Toni]

The police should never have acted the way they did and should be held accountable for doing so. If the police had done their job correctly, a trial could accomplish a lot.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

You are assuming they did it wrong.

The reality is that cops are often lied to, the investigation of a case includes looking fohr such lies. Once they find an inconsistency they're going to dig into it--and rather than her saying she must have misremembered the details she turned around and said the whole thing is a lie.

Given the current trend of throwing cops to the wolves I'm not too impressed by the claims they went too far in their questioning.

We understand completely. A videotape of three officers tazing an unarmed 80 year old man during a routine traffic stop would not make you question police tactics even the slightest tiniest little bit. Even if it was a white 80 year old.

Unless maybe the cops were black.

 

[thebeave]

The police should never have acted the way they did and should be held accountable for doing so. If the police had done their job correctly, a trial could accomplish a lot.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

You are assuming they did it wrong.

The reality is that cops are often lied to, the investigation of a case includes looking for such lies. Once they find an inconsistency they're going to dig into it--and rather than her saying she must have misremembered the details she turned around and said the whole thing is a lie.

Given the current trend of throwing cops to the wolves I'm not too impressed by the claims they went too far in their questioning.

Yep. Watch a few episodes of Columbo to see how its done. His whole schtick was looking for inconsistencies and lies in the crime.

 

[Sweetpea7788]

You are assuming they did it wrong.

The reality is that cops are often lied to, the investigation of a case includes looking for such lies. Once they find an inconsistency they're going to dig into it--and rather than her saying she must have misremembered the details she turned around and said the whole thing is a lie.

Given the current trend of throwing cops to the wolves I'm not too impressed by the claims they went too far in their questioning.

Yep. Watch a few episodes of Columbo to see how its done. His whole schtick was looking for inconsistencies and lies in the crime.

Columbo is a tv show and a big reason why people do not understand the criminal justice system. I worked the entire process for 7 years total. Police are to report facts and evidence. Prosecutors decide if there is enough evidence to file charges. Prosecutors can drop a case at any time if they think there is not enough evidence or the main witness (usually the victim) is lying. CSI is mostly bullshit, too, btw.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

 

[Sweetpea7788]

Yep. Watch a few episodes of Columbo to see how its done. His whole schtick was looking for inconsistencies and lies in the crime.

Columbo is a tv show and a big reason why people do not understand the criminal justice system. I worked the entire process for 7 years total. Police are to report facts and evidence. Prosecutors decide if there is enough evidence to file charges. Prosecutors can drop a case at any time if they think there is not enough evidence or the main witness (usually the victim) is lying. CSI is mostly bullshit, too, btw.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

Trials expose inconsistencies, lies, and problems with evidence. That is why they are useful and there should be more of them.



Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

 

[Sweetpea7788]

Columbo is a tv show and a big reason why people do not understand the criminal justice system. I worked the entire process for 7 years total. Police are to report facts and evidence. Prosecutors decide if there is enough evidence to file charges. Prosecutors can drop a case at any time if they think there is not enough evidence or the main witness (usually the victim) is lying. CSI is mostly bullshit, too, btw.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

Trials expose inconsistencies, lies, and problems with evidence. That is why they are useful and there should be more of them.



Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

http://job-descriptions.careerplanner.com/Police-Detectives.cfm

Detectives are supposed to gather and present evidence, not play psychologist or judge. And they're supposed to do their job ethically, too (that includes their treatment of suspects and victims).

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

 

[RavenSky]

The police should never have acted the way they did and should be held accountable for doing so. If the police had done their job correctly, a trial could accomplish a lot.

Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk

You are assuming they did it wrong.

They DID do it wrong. Even THE POLICE said they did it wrong. Even the cops involved said they did it wrong.

There is no "assuming" here... there is a fact... admitted by the police themselves.

Holy fucking shit Loren, you've got it bad... you even defend the police when they are fully admitting to fucking up.

 

[laughing dog]

The longer this thread gets, the more unbelievable the response of LP and Derec etc... become. Its as if they are incapable of getting the clear lessons that
1) when a rape victim is less than certain or changes the details that does not necessarily mean the rape victim is lying, and
2) there are still good reasons why rape victims are afraid to come forward.

 

[RavenSky]

The longer this thread gets, the more unbelievable the response of LP and Derec etc... become. Its as if they are incapable of getting the clear lessons that
1) when a rape victim is less than certain or changes the details that does not necessarily mean the rape victim is lying, and
2) there are still good reasons why rape victims are afraid to come forward.

Their refusal to understand/acknowledge item #1 explains item #2

 

[coloradoatheist]

The longer this thread gets, the more unbelievable the response of LP and Derec etc... become. Its as if they are incapable of getting the clear lessons that
1) when a rape victim is less than certain or changes the details that does not necessarily mean the rape victim is lying, and
2) there are still good reasons why rape victims are afraid to come forward.

Their refusal to understand/acknowledge item #1 explains item #2

No, that's not the problem. The bigger issue that people have is her saying that it didn't happen when it did. Juries haven't been too kind of people who give false confessions.


If she had made up the story and the cop found it out, would you have praised the cop?

Rape victims are afraid because the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was rape and the defense is going to do a lot to keep their defendant from going to jail so they are going to question everything. At least in this case there would have been no doubt that was not consensual if they had caught the guy.

 

[laughing dog]

No, that's not the problem. The bigger issue that people have is her saying that it didn't happen when it did. Juries haven't been too kind of people who give false confessions.

The problem is the police did not perform competently and bullied her into a recanting. The problem in this case is the actions of these police officers.

If she had made up the story and the cop found it out, would you have praised the cop?

Yes.

Rape victims are afraid because the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was rape and the defense is going to do a lot to keep their defendant from going to jail so they are going to question everything. At least in this case there would have been no doubt that was not consensual if they had caught the guy.

If there was no doubt that the sex was not consensual, then there was no reason for the police to disbelieve this woman. This serial rapist was caught but not due to the non-efforts of these two police officers, And as this story indicates, rape victims also have reason to fear the police when they come forward.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The problem is the police did not perform competently and bullied her into a recanting. The problem in this case is the actions of these police officers.

Of course with hindsight. We've seen cases where the police weren't skeptical enough. And it wasn't just the one officer, it was also Marie's friends and family who said she was making it up.

If there was no doubt that the sex was not consensual, then there was no reason for the police to disbelieve this woman. This serial rapist was caught but not due to the non-efforts of these two police officers, And as this story indicates, rape victims also have reason to fear the police when they come forward.

It took 5 or 6 cases for this guy to be caught, he was good, the cops were lucky. The only way in this case for them to have caught him was to get lucky with a hair on the sheets. Did the story say that the police did not test the sheets?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course with hindsight. We've seen cases where the police weren't skeptical enough. And it wasn't just the one officer, it was also Marie's friends and family who said she was making it up.

Making it up? They'd need to be accusing her of fabricating a wild story and harming herself in a manner consistent with being tied up and sexually assaulted. If they really thought that was the case, she needed to be, at least temporarily, institutionalized.

If there was no doubt that the sex was not consensual, then there was no reason for the police to disbelieve this woman. This serial rapist was caught but not due to the non-efforts of these two police officers, And as this story indicates, rape victims also have reason to fear the police when they come forward.

It took 5 or 6 cases for this guy to be caught, he was good, the cops were lucky.

You misspelled unprofessional and incapable of following protocol.