An Unbelievable Story of Rape

[RavenSky]

Because she foolishly said she made it all up.

Bullshit! OMfuckingG she was BULLIED and THREATENED into recanting.... TWICE!!!

That is not "foolishly" doing anything. That is being BULLIED and THREATENED into it.

 

[Arctish]

Because she foolishly said she made it all up.

After the cops threatened her with prosecution and jail time. After her first attempt to appease them (writing that perhaps she dreamed it) failed. After they thoroughly quashed any resistance she could muster by threatening to have her thrown out of her apartment regardless of any conviction if she didn't 'confess' to them.

Honestly, Derec, didn't you read the article?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, isn't there a rock you should be crawling under by this point?

That's a weirdly hostile response to somebody correcting your grammar.

Well it was about a response by someone that has a weird hostility towards women, so who fucking cares.

 

[Toni]

Because she foolishly said she made it all up.

After the cops threatened her with prosecution and jail time. After her first attempt to appease them (writing that perhaps she dreamed it) failed. After they thoroughly quashed any resistance she could muster by threatening to have her thrown out of her apartment regardless of any conviction if she didn't 'confess' to them.

Honestly, Derec, didn't you read the article?

Not to mention that other cops found their behavior unjustifiable.

It doesn't matter what Derec reads or doesn't read. His attitudes about women seem to be entirely formed by the fact that his only experiences with women are with prostitutes he hires, who wouldn't look twice at him without the cold hard cash he lays down. He thinks it's unfair that women don't like him because he has horrible attitudes towards them so therefore his horrible attitudes towards women are totally justified. A one man circle jerk, as it were.

 

[Playball40]

What I am saying is that the abrasions are unknown if they can be self-inflicted...

She reported a rape, and the physical evidence was consistent with her report. You are still acting like she was a crime suspect rather than a crime victim. Being a rape victim does NOT make one an automatic suspect of anything.

It does in Derec's world. I'm not sure anything is going to change that.

 

[Derec]

Not to mention that other cops found their behavior unjustifiable.

With the benefit of hindsight.

It doesn't matter what Derec reads or doesn't read. His attitudes about women seem to be entirely formed by the fact that his only experiences with women are with prostitutes he hires, who wouldn't look twice at him without the cold hard cash he lays down. He thinks it's unfair that women don't like him because he has horrible attitudes towards them so therefore his horrible attitudes towards women are totally justified. A one man circle jerk, as it were.

Back to ad hominems I see. Yes, women are shallow and would never look twice at a guy as physically unattractive as me. That has, however, nothing to do with my arguments here.

- - - Updated - - -

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

The POLICE took her sheets

Really? Where does it say that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

With the benefit of hindsight.

They knew she had vaginal abrasions.

It doesn't matter what Derec reads or doesn't read. His attitudes about women seem to be entirely formed by the fact that his only experiences with women are with prostitutes he hires, who wouldn't look twice at him without the cold hard cash he lays down. He thinks it's unfair that women don't like him because he has horrible attitudes towards them so therefore his horrible attitudes towards women are totally justified. A one man circle jerk, as it were.

Back to ad hominems I see. Yes, women are shallow and would never look twice at a guy as physically unattractive as me. That has, however, nothing to do with my arguments here.

Your "argument"? It is based on your hatred of women. That is the only reasonable explanation for continuously overlooking how the woman had suffered from wounds, including vaginal abrasion, consistent with rape. That isn't hindsight... that is called evidence that strongly suggests she was raped.

 

[laughing dog]

With the benefit of hindsight.

Bullshit - the protocols had already been in place. Competent police officers would have found those jackasses' behavior unprofessional, incompetent and unjustifiable on the spot.

 

[Toni]

With the benefit of hindsight.

Really. You mean the investigation of the way that Marie was treated didn't happen before she was raped? Before she was threatened by police officers? No! Say it isn't so!

The fact is that none of the other victims were treated in such a manner. They were not threatened or coerced by the offices who were supposed to be investigating.

It wasn't 'hindsight' that prompted the conclusions of the investigation into how she was treated. It was a combination of basic human decency and an understanding of actual police work and investigations

Back to ad hominems I see. Yes, women are shallow and would never look twice at a guy as physically unattractive as me. That has, however, nothing to do with my arguments here.

It's not an ad hominem to point out your prejudices.

Your looks are not the source of your poor success with women. They don't even make the top three.

The source of your lack of success with women is also the source of your equally poor reasoning and general hatefulness n any discussion involving women

 

[Derec]

Bullshit - the protocols had already been in place. Competent police officers would have found those jackasses' behavior unprofessional, incompetent and unjustifiable on the spot.

The problem with these "protocols" are going too far in the "always believe the woman no matter what". I am sure the Long Beach police who interviewed false accuser Wanetta Gibson followed these "protocols" to the letter.

 

[Derec]

Your "argument"? It is based on your hatred of women. That is the only reasonable explanation for continuously overlooking how the woman had suffered from wounds, including vaginal abrasion, consistent with rape. That isn't hindsight... that is called evidence that strongly suggests she was raped.

Let's back up a great deal. I do not think "consistent with rape" means what you think it means. It does not mean "indicative of rape" or "strongly suggestive of rape". It means, it could be caused by rape, but could be caused by other things, like consensual sex. It's not positive evidence of rape in itself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your "argument"? It is based on your hatred of women. That is the only reasonable explanation for continuously overlooking how the woman had suffered from wounds, including vaginal abrasion, consistent with rape. That isn't hindsight... that is called evidence that strongly suggests she was raped.

Let's back up a great deal. I do not think "consistent with rape" means what you think it means. It does not mean "indicative of rape" or "strongly suggestive of rape". It means, it could be caused by rape, but could be caused by other things, like consensual sex. It's not positive evidence of rape in itself.

Actually it is EVIDENCE for rape, it isn't PROOF of rape.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Let's back up a great deal. I do not think "consistent with rape" means what you think it means. It does not mean "indicative of rape" or "strongly suggestive of rape". It means, it could be caused by rape, but could be caused by other things, like consensual sex. It's not positive evidence of rape in itself.

Actually it is EVIDENCE for rape, it isn't PROOF of rape.

I agree


But what we have in the two scenerios of Z vs Marie that were very similar. Z acted innocent, Marie acted guilty and the police took their word for it based on their behavior.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually it is EVIDENCE for rape, it isn't PROOF of rape.

I agree

But what we have in the two scenerios of Z vs Marie that were very similar.

Who the heck is Z?

Z acted innocent, Marie acted guilty and the police took their word for it based on their behavior.

Marie was the victim of brutal trauma. Acting off isn't unusual.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I agree

But what we have in the two scenerios of Z vs Marie that were very similar.

Who the heck is Z?

Z acted innocent, Marie acted guilty and the police took their word for it based on their behavior.

Marie was the victim of brutal trauma. Acting off isn't unusual.

Zimmerman.

But I agree with you on the second. The issue is when cops assume rationality of people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Who the heck is Z?

Z acted innocent, Marie acted guilty and the police took their word for it based on their behavior.

Marie was the victim of brutal trauma. Acting off isn't unusual.

Zimmerman.

He raped Marie?

But I agree with you on the second. The issue is when cops assume rationality of people.

Officer 1: Yeah... this woman claims she was raped for 4 hours... she has vaginal abrasions, wounds around he wrists where she was tied up, but... she is acting kind of weird.

Officer 2: Throw the book at her!

 

[laughing dog]

Bullshit - the protocols had already been in place. Competent police officers would have found those jackasses' behavior unprofessional, incompetent and unjustifiable on the spot.

The problem with these "protocols" are going too far in the "always believe the woman no matter what".

Bullshit squared and irrelevant. In this case, she was RAPED. You are not fooling anyone.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The problem with these "protocols" are going too far in the "always believe the woman no matter what".

Bullshit squared and irrelevant. In this case, she was RAPED. You are not fooling anyone.

You have the tape of the officers asking her the questions? And how should a cop try and determine if someone is lying?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bullshit squared and irrelevant. In this case, she was RAPED. You are not fooling anyone.

You have the tape of the officers asking her the questions? And how should a cop try and determine if someone is lying?

Are you guys just fucking with us? You have to be. She had multiple physical indicators that was strong evidence she was raped. She said she was raped. 1 and 1 together everyone... she was raped. Unless there is strong evidence to counter the claim, they should not be trying to disprove her.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You have the tape of the officers asking her the questions? And how should a cop try and determine if someone is lying?

Are you guys just fucking with us? You have to be. She had multiple physical indicators that was strong evidence she was raped. She said she was raped. 1 and 1 together everyone... she was raped. Unless there is strong evidence to counter the claim, they should not be trying to disprove her.

They could go to the forensic or a doctor and ask, "Is it possible that these abrasions were self inflicted?"