• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

An Unbelievable Story of Rape

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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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?"
Or maybe the medical professional that examined her? Or perhaps use the known evidence and draw a reasonable conclusion.

- - - Updated - - -

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.
Why in the world is a sociopath being brought into this discussion to determine what Marie's behaviors should and shouldn't have been after suffering from a serious trauma, after having been abused earlier in her life?
 
Fact: Marie _was_ a rape victim.
Fact: The police department is horrified by its own actions because they violate protocol
Fact: that protocol is in place because real rape victims are known to have reactions like this

Freaky ghoulish supposition: anything that forgets those three facts.
 
No. Zimmerman acted like he was entitled to do whatever, including stalking an unarmed teenager.
Why do we have to keep rehashing this case? We already went over the meaning of "stalking" and how it does not apply here.

Victims of crimes have inconsistencies in their accounting of the crime.
Well isn't that a convenient way to ignore inconsistencies in rape claims and still
Remember how long people on here maintained that Jackie Coakley (UVA) was raped, trying to explain away inconsistencies in her story?
 
EVIDENCE for rape, it isn't PROOF of rape.
No, saying X is consistent in Y does not make X even evidence for Y. All it does is say that X is not evidence against Y.

A trivial example, but one that makes the point I am trying to make. Marie being 18 is consistent with her being raped, because there is nothing with her being 18 that is inconsistent with her also being raped. But it is definitely not evidence for her being raped, because it is just as consistent with her not being raped.

If somebody is saying "X is consistent with Y" that is a very weak statement indeed.
 
Why do we have to keep rehashing this case? We already went over the meaning of "stalking" and how it does not apply here.

Victims of crimes have inconsistencies in their accounting of the crime.
Well isn't that a convenient way to ignore inconsistencies in rape claims and still
Remember how long people on here maintained that Jackie Coakley (UVA) was raped, trying to explain away inconsistencies in her story?
Have we already forgotten the moral of the OP here, where a woman who was raped for hours (documented proof) ended up saying she made it up, but she was still actually raped for hours.

You seem to have no capability of learning (compassion?) when it comes to women.

- - - Updated - - -

EVIDENCE for rape, it isn't PROOF of rape.
No, saying X is consistent in Y does not make X even evidence for Y. All it does is say that X is not evidence against Y.

A trivial example, but one that makes the point I am trying to make. Marie being 18 is consistent with her being raped, because there is nothing with her being 18 that is inconsistent with her also being raped. But it is definitely not evidence for her being raped, because it is just as consistent with her not being raped.

If somebody is saying "X is consistent with Y" that is a very weak statement indeed.
Ok, I'm done. I'm not wasting any more time on this misogynistic garbage of yours. Even in a case where a woman was brutally sexually assaulted, you seem to have no room in your head for any level of compassion.
 
Have we already forgotten the moral of the OP here, where a woman who was raped for hours (documented proof) ended up saying she made it up, but she was still actually raped for hours.
You seem to have no capability of learning (compassion?) when it comes to women.
So because one woman was really raped after recanting means that all women who ever allege rape are truthful?
It has been conclusively shown that Jackie lied. And yet her cheerleaders continued to support her even as her story was falling apart. Why? Because of this ideology that inconsistent statements ("well maybe she got the name of the fraternity wrong") do not mean anything if a rape 'victim' makes it.

Ok, I'm done. I'm not wasting any more time on this misogynistic garbage of yours. Even in a case where a woman was brutally sexually assaulted, you seem to have no room in your head for any level of compassion.
I am talking about language and evidence here.
What does compassion with the admittedly horrible things that happened to Marie have to do with the meaning of words like "consistent"?
 
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?"
Wouldn't that be the job of a defense attorney at a trial? Certainly this is NOT THE JOB OF THE POLICE taking a VICTIM'S statement!
 
It is NOT THE JOB OF THE POLICE TO DETERMINE IF SHE IS LYING.
EVIDENCE for rape, it isn't PROOF of rape.
No, saying X is consistent in Y does not make X even evidence for Y. All it does is say that X is not evidence against Y.

A trivial example, but one that makes the point I am trying to make. Marie being 18 is consistent with her being raped, because there is nothing with her being 18 that is inconsistent with her also being raped. But it is definitely not evidence for her being raped, because it is just as consistent with her not being raped.

If somebody is saying "X is consistent with Y" that is a very weak statement indeed.
 
Did Coakley go to the police?

Difference between a reporter being misled and the police taking a victim's statement.
Why do we have to keep rehashing this case? We already went over the meaning of "stalking" and how it does not apply here.

Victims of crimes have inconsistencies in their accounting of the crime.
Well isn't that a convenient way to ignore inconsistencies in rape claims and still
Remember how long people on here maintained that Jackie Coakley (UVA) was raped, trying to explain away inconsistencies in her story?
 
It is NOT THE JOB OF THE POLICE TO DETERMINE IF SHE IS LYING.
Of course it is. They are investigating her criminal complaint. Part of that investigation is determining if it is credible or not.

Derec, the police disagree with you. You are wrong. Your attitude makes crime worse, and ironically the very thing you rail about is made worse by an attitude like yours. But you will never realize that. The police would fire someone like you for doing a shitty job of fighting crime.

Fact: Marie _was_ a rape victim.
Fact: The police department is horrified by its own actions because they violate protocol
Fact: that protocol is in place because real rape victims are known to have reactions like this
 
Derec, the police disagree with you.
Show me where police say it is not their job to objectively investigate a criminal complaint, which includes determining whether the complaint is credible or not? It is not their job to be an advocate for the complainant.
Fact: that protocol is in place because real rape victims are known to have reactions like this
If "rape victims" are "known" to react "like this", what method do you propose to determine whether a rape claim is credible or not? Or do you think all rape claims should automatically be treated as credible?

By the way, you were one of those who believed Jackie Coakley was raped even after her bombastic claim bit the dust. I went back to the thread and looked.
 
Show me where police say it is not their job to objectively investigate a criminal complaint, which includes determining whether the complaint is credible or not? It is not their job to be an advocate for the complainant.
Fact: that protocol is in place because real rape victims are known to have reactions like this
If "rape victims" are "known" to react "like this", what method do you propose to determine whether a rape claim is credible or not? Or do you think all rape claims should automatically be treated as credible?
False dichotomy, as always. Not playing your sick game.
By the way, you were one of those who believed Jackie Coakley was raped even after her bombastic claim bit the dust. I went back to the thread and looked.

LOL, I don't even remember who Jackie Coakley is. I suspect I was talking about the evidence that I knew at the time, hence probably included language like, "if this is true," and "if there is no more information," because that's how I think about cases that we discuss here. I further suspect you have a faulty gauge of when her claim was "bit the dust" and a faulty analysis of what I was saying. Because, false dichotomy is your middle name. So - not interested in playing your sick game.
 
False dichotomy, as always. Not playing your sick game.
It is not false dichotomy.

LOL, I don't even remember who Jackie Coakley is.
The girl from UVA who made up a story of being gang raped by several frat pledges on a broken glass table. The ringleader of the "gang rape" turned out to be a catfish of Jackie's own creation whose initial purpose was to get a boy she liked jealous. You just can't make stuff like that up!

I suspect I was talking about the evidence that I knew at the time, hence probably included language like, "if this is true," and "if there is no more information," because that's how I think about cases that we discuss here.
Her story already fell apart, but you were clinging to a letter her room mate wrote about her believing her because she was depressed.

Something to think about before jumping from "rape claim" straight away to "bombastic deliberate hoax"

A letter from a friend: Jackie's story is not a hoax


A letter from a friend: Jackie's story is not a hoax
by Emily Clark | on Dec 07 at 10:43pm
Fellow Wahoos,

My name is Emily, and I was Jackie’s suitemate first year. I am writing to you in regards to Rolling Stone’s recent statement of “misplaced trust” in Jackie. I feel this statement is backwards, as it seems it was Jackie who misplaced her trust in Rolling Stone.

I fully support Jackie, and I believe wholeheartedly that she went through a traumatizing sexual assault. I remember my first semester here, and I remember Jackie’s. Jackie came to UVA bright, happy and bubbly. She was kind, funny, outgoing, friendly, and a pleasant person to be around. That all notably changed by December 2012, and I wasn’t the only one who noticed. Our suite bonded that first semester and talked many times about the new troubles we were facing in college. Jackie never mentioned anything about her assault to us until much later. But I, as well as others, noticed Jackie becoming more and more withdrawn and depressed.

I remember her alarm going off every morning. I always assumed she had gone to class and forgot to turn off her later alarms. Being the lazy freshman I was, I tended to roll over in bed and pay no mind to it, hoping somebody else would turn it off, and remind Jackie about it once she got back from class. If I had known Jackie wasn’t going to class, that she was curled up in bed without the will to turn off the alarm, things would have been much different. I remember second semester, she shared a Netflix account with me and I noticed how much TV she was watching — hours and hours of shows that seemed to get darker and darker as time went on. I wondered how she had time, with homework and school, and I wondered if she was okay. I didn’t ask. I wish I had.

In December 2012, Jackie broke down. All of a sudden she was going home and none of us knew why. It was right before finals, and I couldn’t believe she was leaving. She was distraught, and only said she needed to go home. Her teachers had given her allowance to take her finals over break. At that point, we knew something big had happened. I didn’t know until this year with the publication of Rolling Stone’s article how bad that time was for her.

Sometime that year I remember her letting it slip to me that she had had a terrible experience at a party. I remember her telling me that multiple men had assaulted her at this party. She didn’t say anything more. It seemed that was all she’d allow herself to say. I wish I had done something sooner. I wish I had known how to help. But I applaud Jackie for telling her story, now two years later. It was a story that needed to be told.

However, the articles released in the past few days have been troubling to me, and the responses to them even more so. While I cannot say what happened that night, and I cannot prove the validity of every tiny aspect of her story to you, I can tell you that this story is not a hoax, a lie or a scheme. Something terrible happened to Jackie at the hands of several men who have yet to receive any repercussions.

Whether the details are correct or not, and whether the reporting was faulty, or the hazy memories of a traumatizing night got skewed…the blame should never fall on the victim’s shoulders. Jackie is a victim, as are so many others, men and women, young and old. So many stories have gone untold and so many perpetrators have been allowed to walk free.

There is fear among us, and there is pain after these past few weeks of turmoil. But there is also hope, which has been manifested in a multitude of protests, speeches, and groups formed. There is a support growing among students and faculty that has never been seen before. The number of conversations occurring about rape, rights, consent and justice is astounding and inspiring, but talking only goes so far.

As we approach this much-needed winter break I urge you to continue to support your fellow wahoos; do not let this issue die. Speak up when you see something happening that does not feel right; act when you have a chance to stop something terrible. Talk with your friends, let them know you support them, and that no reputation matters more than their own safety and basic human rights. Let them know you’ll stand by them and that their stories do matter. Walk your friends home, look out for one another, do not turn your back on a fellow student. Discourage those who have caved to peer pressure which encourages them to devalue another human being. Support the efforts of the groups leading change in the wake of this tough semester: One Less, Not on Our Grounds (#HoosGotYourBack), Help Save the Next Girl, and Buddies on Call. Let the nation know we are not a scandal school, but a school that does not tolerate injustice. We are in the public eye right now, and we can either let that cripple us, and shove us back into the mold of a perfect institution, or we can recognize that we have flaws, but that we work to reconcile them.

Sexual assault is not just a UVA issue, but UVA is where this issue has come to the forefront. The University of Virginia is a school historically known for its powerful student body. The Hoos of UVA have always rallied when a change was needed. We still stand as one of the top schools in the nation, and we can be the face of change. Let us be an example, and not a failure. Let us stand with survivors.

Emily Clark

CLAS '16
 
LOL, exactly as I predicted

"something to think about" = "but you were clinging to a letter" in DerecWorld.

Yah... no.
 
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.
 
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.

Cops get plenty of staged crime scenes--it's always on their radar no matter how much evidence there is for the crime.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom