The woman never lies about rape?

[Terrell]

“Everyone”? Does your local news routinely post pictures of every criminal arrested? Or is it just the occasional unusual or higher crime to fill the news cycle?



It would be. In court, where it belongs.

When did I lie about someone committing a crime?

You said she’s a liar and therefore you had some sort of right to see her photo or some such bullshit.

To argue that I'm not talking specifically about the false accusation of rape is intellectually dishonest.

To hide the true reason why you—or anyone—would want to post a picture of her is worse.

When you accuse a person of a crime you're turning the power of both society & the state against that person. (this exposes them of undue risk of harm by the state or by vigilantes.) If you're doing this to an innocent person, where it's a good chance their name & picture will be public, why should you get to hide behind anonymity?

You are confusing exculpatory evidence with malicious intent, but even if it were true and the woman in question had falsely accused the man of rape in order to seek some sort of vengeance or something, that still does not justify some sort of requirement by the press (or the State) to publish a photo of her.

You are arguing to publicly shame her, nothing more.

Using victims as human shields for liars means using victims, in any way shape or form, to oppose holding liars (deliberate false accusers) accountable for their actions.

What evidence do you have that she lied and/or deliberately falsely accused him? Again, you are confusing exculpatory evidence for intent. It is entirely possible that she believes she was in fact raped, even if subsequent messages suggest otherwise. Rape can happen at any point during an otherwise consensual act. It’s not a “once we start having consensual sex, then you can do anything you want to me after that initial condition has been met” kind of proposition.

Regardless, even if she were acting with malicious intent and deliberately falsely accused him, there could be other mitigating circumstances (such as she is mentally unstable or the like). The point being you don’t know shit about this case and are jumping to what certainly appear to be pre-conceived conclusions.

This accountability, IMO, should be criminal.

It is. Why do you keep thinking it isn’t?

Why should what my local news sources do matter in this? Do you think I agree with all the actions of The Orlando Sentinel, News 13, or any of the other channels?

It might, but then again it might not. Depends on what the local rape shield laws allow. I think it should be allowed in court should she make a future allegation. I think it should also be there for police in any investigation her accusations initiate, as well as public knowledge so people will view future allegations made by her with skepticism

Why should a deliberate false accuser have a right to anonymity? I don't think that someone who turns the power of the state on someone she knows is innocent should be allowed to remain anonymous? I oppose such policies of anonymity, media or government w/r/t this issue. Why do you think exposing her is bullshit? You keep saying B.S. what are your reasons for such? Can you do it without hiding her behind actual victims?

Really? You know my true reasons? Are you a telepath or are you just making shit up?

Why doesn't it? I don't care what her reasons are, I want all deliberate false accusers exposed for what they are. If it can be proven to probable cause I want them prosecuted, and if it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, imprisoned for a period of time comparable to what the person they accused would be given?

Tell me again why she altered her facebook page? Mentally unstable? Is she so mentally impaired that she doesn't know right from wrong? If so then confine her for the purpose of protecting society. If not hold her accountable.

What's the punishment? Are the Brits willing to prosecute it regularly? Is it comparable to the sentence for rape? If it's just a misdeameanor it's not a stiff enough penalty for deliberate false allegation of a felony IMO.

Oh and I forgot to mention. I don't have a problem with the idea of consent being withdrawn before or during the act, but I do expect the person withdrawing consent to give some overt indication of such. I don't think you should be able to withdraw consent after the fact for an act that occurred in the past.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

News usually posts photos and names of criminals.

Usually, but usually only those who commit more serious crimes like murder or deadly assault. Regardless, it’s not compulsory.

Why should she be an exception?

You’d have to ask local newspaper editors.

Also, it would be important to know who she is so men can stay away and not risk to be victims of her craziness.

Yeah, sure. That’s the reason. You need to carry a picture of her around with you in case you’re ever within a fifty yard radius of her and accidentally hit on her at a bar and fall victim to her “craziness.”

Btw, by labeling her crazy you just answered your own question as to why her photo should not be published. but of course you didn’t mean clinical insanity that would mean she needed to be protected by the State; you meant....what?

Except that Brits seem way too PC to prosecute her.

Is that how they seem to you? So you’re basing your entire argument on how Brits “seem” to you?

That’s not what false imprisonment entails, but even if it did the recourse would be against the State not the accuser.

The state's is a crime of negligence.

Actually, the negligence was his and his attorney’s for not arguing that fact that the Facebook messages that were presented were not complete. I’m not famiar with English rules of evidence, but I’m pretty sure they too require the State to turn over to the defense all of the evidence they have against the defendant for review.

All the defense needed to do was meet with the prosecutor and inform him or her that his client contends there were missing exchanges and that they needed to check her delete files or the like.

Hers is premeditated.

You don’t know that. It may appear that way, but it has not been established. Again, there could be many reasons behind the woman’s actions—“craziness” being a mitigating one, btw—but because the trial stage was over she hasn’t yet been able to have that legally determined.

I think she should go to prison for a long time and have to pay her victim restitution

“Victim” once again implies she has gone through her own trial and found to be of sound mind and acted maliciously, etc. Regardless, he was only sentenced to four and a half years and he was convicted of raping her. Are you seriously suggesting that false accusation is more serious than rape? That’s rhetorical. You clearly are suggesting precisely that.

The better question to ask is why didn’t the accused’s lawyer present the Facebook messages as evidence?

When did the lawyer find out about it?

That would be a great question for Danny Kay, as in “why didn’t you tell your attorney that she sent and then evidently deleted messages to you on Facebook that would help establish a consensual relationship?”

And because of her being a human being.

Because newspapers never print names and photos of human beings.

Not without there being a newsworthy reason. What you personally believe to be newsworthy not withstanding.

Based on what exactly?

Brits not prosecuting despite copious evidence of wrongdoing.

Based on what exactly? That means “prove it” not just give you inexpert opinion.

I don’t believe you are in any way qualified to start any such assertion that way.

I think I have a lot of experience in the matter.

Bully for you.

Wow, that brings me back to a time when I was a kid in the sixties in St. Louis and this racist p.o.s. I didn’t know said, “I guess you’re a nigger-lover” when I commented about how I admired Rev. King.

I did not know you were that old. In any case, King was admirable in many ways. This chick is pure piece of shit. Hardly comparable.

Yeah, that wasn’t what was comparable.

 

[Derec]

It is. Why do you keep thinking it isn’t?

The article says she is not being prosecuted. Were she prosecuted, that would certainly be newsworthy enough to publish her name and picture. You can't have it both ways.

Because no press outlet has yet to publish a photo of her in the town square so you can throw rotten vegetables and rocks at her in the docks?

It's not about throwing rotten vegetables at her, it's about blokes having a fair warning to keep their meat and two veg far away from her.

 

[Ford]

Serious question:

Can we have a sub-forum where Derec (and Loren, apparently) can debate whether or not women are really raped? Just wall that shit off and let them go at it?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why should what my local news sources do matter in this?

Becuase they are the ones who decide whether or not they are going to publish someone’s photo...? You do undesrstand that right? News outlets are private organizations, not arms of the State. If they think publishing a picture of this woman will sell their “papers” then they will probably do so, but there is nothing compulsory about it.

Why should a deliberate false accuser have a right to anonymity?

Once again, all people have a default right of anonymity. News organizations break that right routinely in order to sell their shit. Seriously, do you not understand how private ownership works?

I don't think that someone who turns the power of the state on someone she knows is innocent should be allowed to remain anonymous?

So what do you propose? That there be a government run news organization—like C-Span—that just publishes pictures of every single criminal across the country that commits a crime? After all, you need to know what every single mugger and drug dealer and petty criminal looks like in case you ever cross their paths, right?

Really? You know my true reasons? Are you a telepath or are you just making shit up?

It’s not hard to divine.

I want all deliberate false accusers exposed for what they are.

Aside from the fact that, once again, you are confusing exculpatory evidence for intent, what are you proposing? That the State forces all news organizations to publish photos of every single criminal that gets arrested every day in America? You would never be able to lift your newspaper. There are hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of crimes being committed every single day across America alone, let alone the entire world.

Or is it just women who falsely accuse that need to be photographed and published? And why would that be? So you can check the evening paper before hitting your local bar to make sure none of them are sitting in their honey traps?

If it can be proven to probable cause I want them prosecuted

Once again, making a false accusation is already a crime. What part of that do you still not understand?

imprisoned for a period of time comparable to what the person they accused would be given

So you are arguing that a false accusation is equivalent to being raped. Have you ever been raped? Has anyone ever suddenly pushed you to the ground, restrained you and then repeatedly shoved a broken bottle into your anus?

I’m not saying false accusation isn’t a serious crime, but is it equivalent as you are arguing?

Tell me again why she altered her facebook page?

Tell me again what due process means and how it is we legally determine someone is quilty of committing a crime.

Mentally unstable?

Well, Derec referred to her “craziness” but I’m sure it was meant colloquially. The more pertinent question is how do you know she isn’t mentally unstable? The point being, you don’t. You have absolutely no grounds to make any conclusions about her motives. That’s the whole point of due process. You remember the words you incorrectly used previously (like “probable cause” and the like)? That applies to her just as it applied to him.

Is she so mentally impaired that she doesn't know right from wrong?

Again, neither you nor I know the answer to that question. That’s what a court determines (or a psychologist).

If so then confine her for the purpose of protecting society. If not hold her accountable.

Yeah, again, for a court to decide.

What's the punishment? Are the Brits willing to prosecute it regularly?

You should ask them.

Is it comparable to the sentence for rape?

That’s the wrong question. The right question is, is a false accusation comparable to being raped? Both are crimes, so the punishment—generally—should fit the crime. You (and Derec evidently) are arguing that making a false accusation is equivalent to being raped, which betrays a shocking ignorance in regard to the harms of rape.

If it's just a misdeameanor it's not a stiff enough penalty for deliberate false allegation of a felony IMO.

Well, according to Wiki anyway, in the UK (which is the situs of this case):

Individuals suspected of making a false accusation of rape may be charged with the civil crime of "wasting police time" or the criminal charge of "Perverting the Course of Justice" with a maximum penalty of life in prison.[38][39]

Over a five-year period ending in 2014, a total of 109 women were prosecuted for crimes related to making false accusations of rape.[40] The report did not indicate the verdicts following prosecution. Another report identified 121 charging decisions involving allegations of false accusations of rape and an additional 11 false allegations of both domestic violence and rape between January 2011 and May 2012 and found of these cases, 35 were prosecuted based upon false accusations of rape. A further 3 were prosecuted based upon charges of false accusations of both rape and domestic abuse. The report did not indicate the verdicts following prosecution.[41]

So you’re going to have to look elsewhere.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It is. Why do you keep thinking it isn’t?

The article says she is not being prosecuted.

Then that was a determination made on the evidence and at the discretion of the State. How is it you are so remarkably ignorant of how the justice system works?

Were she prosecuted, that would certainly be newsworthy enough to publish her name and picture. You can't have it both ways.

WTF are you talking about? Are you a newspaper editor? Do you understand that it is entirely up to them whether or not to publish anything and everything?

Because no press outlet has yet to publish a photo of her in the town square so you can throw rotten vegetables and rocks at her in the docks?

It's not about throwing rotten vegetables at her, it's about blokes having a fair warning to keep their meat and two veg far away from her.

Oh don’t you worry your watery little head about that.

- - - Updated - - -

Serious question:

Can we have a sub-forum where Derec (and Loren, apparently) can debate whether or not women are really raped? Just wall that shit off and let them go at it?

Now there’s an excellent suggestion. Seconded.

 

[Terrell]

Becuase they are the ones who decide whether or not they are going to publish someone’s photo...? You do undesrstand that right? News outlets are private organizations, not arms of the State. If they think publishing a picture of this woman will sell their “papers” then they will probably do so, but there is nothing compulsory about it.



Once again, all people have a default right of anonymity. News organizations break that right routinely in order to sell their shit. Seriously, do you not understand how private ownership works?

I don't think that someone who turns the power of the state on someone she knows is innocent should be allowed to remain anonymous?

So what do you propose? That there be a government run news organization—like C-Span—that just publishes pictures of every single criminal across the country that commits a crime? After all, you need to know what every single mugger and drug dealer and petty criminal looks like in case you ever cross their paths, right?

Really? You know my true reasons? Are you a telepath or are you just making shit up?

It’s not hard to divine.

I want all deliberate false accusers exposed for what they are.

Aside from the fact that, once again, you are confusing exculpatory evidence for intent, what are you proposing? That the State forces all news organizations to publish photos of every single criminal that gets arrested every day in America? You would never be able to lift your newspaper. There are hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of crimes being committed every single day across America alone, let alone the entire world.

Or is it just women who falsely accuse that need to be photographed and published? And why would that be? So you can check the evening paper before hitting your local bar to make sure none of them are sitting in their honey traps?

If it can be proven to probable cause I want them prosecuted

Once again, making a false accusation is already a crime. What part of that do you still not understand?

imprisoned for a period of time comparable to what the person they accused would be given

So you are arguing that a false accusation is equivalent to being raped. Have you ever been raped? Has anyone ever suddenly pushed you to the ground, restrained you and then repeatedly shoved a broken bottle into your anus?

I’m not saying false accusation isn’t a serious crime, but is it equivalent as you are arguing?

Tell me again why she altered her facebook page?

Tell me again what due process means and how it is we legally determine someone is quilty of committing a crime.

Mentally unstable?

Well, Derec referred to her “craziness” but I’m sure it was meant colloquially. The more pertinent question is how do you know she isn’t mentally unstable? The point being, you don’t. You have absolutely no grounds to make any conclusions about her motives. That’s the whole point of due process. You remember the words you incorrectly used previously (like “probable cause” and the like)? That applies to her just as it applied to him.

Is she so mentally impaired that she doesn't know right from wrong?

Again, neither you nor I know the answer to that question. That’s what a court determines (or a psychologist).

If so then confine her for the purpose of protecting society. If not hold her accountable.

Yeah, again, for a court to decide.

What's the punishment? Are the Brits willing to prosecute it regularly?

You should ask them.

Is it comparable to the sentence for rape?

That’s the wrong question. The right question is, is a false accusation comparable to being raped? Both are crimes, so the punishment—generally—should fit the crime. You (and Derec evidently) are arguing that making a false accusation is equivalent to being raped, which betrays a shocking ignorance in regard to the harms of rape.

If it's just a misdeameanor it's not a stiff enough penalty for deliberate false allegation of a felony IMO.

Well, according to Wiki anyway, in the UK (which is the situs of this case):

Individuals suspected of making a false accusation of rape may be charged with the civil crime of "wasting police time" or the criminal charge of "Perverting the Course of Justice" with a maximum penalty of life in prison.[38][39]

Over a five-year period ending in 2014, a total of 109 women were prosecuted for crimes related to making false accusations of rape.[40] The report did not indicate the verdicts following prosecution. Another report identified 121 charging decisions involving allegations of false accusations of rape and an additional 11 false allegations of both domestic violence and rape between January 2011 and May 2012 and found of these cases, 35 were prosecuted based upon false accusations of rape. A further 3 were prosecuted based upon charges of false accusations of both rape and domestic abuse. The report did not indicate the verdicts following prosecution.[41]

So you’re going to have to look elsewhere.

I disagree with the local news. Whether they choose to publish something or not doesn't change my opinion on what they should do. I didn't claim that news outlets are public organizations but governments are. I'm aware that they are within their rights, but just because they are within their rights doesn't exempt them from criticism for their actions.

Why should they have such a right if they knowingly turn the power of the state against an innocent? Why shouldn't that be forfeited as such, since the innocent person's right to remain anonymous was taken away due to the actions of said false accuser?

Government prosecute when they have probable cause of deliberate false allegation of any criminal offense. Convict when there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt, sentence willful false accuser to the same penalty that the accused would have gotten. Governments should have a freedom of information act, which at least some do. FOIA laws should apply to all criminal cases, except where national security would be compromised. Such actions would be public record, and subject to public view under FOIA laws & evidence in any future allegation brought by false accuser. Any citizen should have access to said public records, upon request, via FOIA.

See previous paragraph w/r/t press. That takes them out of the equation as far as the law is concerned. It doesn't immunize them from criticism & distrust.

The accused sister in law had to find the evidence. Did the police even bother? How is the falsely accused supposed to receive justice; at the very least acquittal if he doesn't have access to all the evidence against him as well as all the evidence in his favor?

I don't claim to know whether or not she's mentally unstable. You don't know either. I set a standard of what I think the government should do with such claims. IMO Mental issues should not be a way to escape some form of accountability.

The criminal penalties vary by location. In some places it can be filing a false police report, especially if it doesn't go to trial. I think willful false allegation of a felony, should always be a felony. I'm talking more broadly than just the United Kingdom on that standard. I'd like to see it everywhere.

What crimes have, or have not been committed against me are irrelevant to my position. Asking amounts to a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. If a woman or man had received the treatment you mention, and made the same argument as me, word for word, does the validity of said argument suddenly change? Either my argument is right or it's wrong, that wouldn't change even if I was a space alien (the non abducting anal-probing kind ).

I disagree that it's the wrong question. Prison rape is a thing, just for starters, so is vigilante violence against the accused. Said vigilante violence has been things such as beatings, stabbings, mutilations, and even murder (as in lynching) over the course of human history. State violence has included punishments up to and including execution over human history. Even if not ultimately convicted, the accused may not have the money to make bail which means he has to wait in jail until trial (see possibility of prison rape). Such an accusation can also lead to professional consequences, loss of the ability to get an education, alienation of family & friends, marriages (if applicable) can be destroyed. Being falsely accused, especially of a sexual crime, can have serious consequences for the accused. Secondly in a deliberate false allegation the only person who is a victim here is the falsely accused.

Good on the U.K. for those cases where they prosecuted, provided the actual sentences handed down are comparable to what the accused would have received. The 50 States could learn from that. We'll see if they continue to enforce this policy consistently. If they stop following up on said policy then it may as well not be on the books. Saying she won't be prosecuted doesn't necessarily mean that the state bothered to investigate.

 

[RVonse]

Becuase they are the ones who decide whether or not they are going to publish someone’s photo...? You do undesrstand that right? News outlets are private organizations, not arms of the State. If they think publishing a picture of this woman will sell their “papers” then they will probably do so, but there is nothing compulsory about it.



Once again, all people have a default right of anonymity. News organizations break that right routinely in order to sell their shit. Seriously, do you not understand how private ownership works?



So what do you propose? That there be a government run news organization—like C-Span—that just publishes pictures of every single criminal across the country that commits a crime? After all, you need to know what every single mugger and drug dealer and petty criminal looks like in case you ever cross their paths, right?



It’s not hard to divine.

I want all deliberate false accusers exposed for what they are.

Aside from the fact that, once again, you are confusing exculpatory evidence for intent, what are you proposing? That the State forces all news organizations to publish photos of every single criminal that gets arrested every day in America? You would never be able to lift your newspaper. There are hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of crimes being committed every single day across America alone, let alone the entire world.

Or is it just women who falsely accuse that need to be photographed and published? And why would that be? So you can check the evening paper before hitting your local bar to make sure none of them are sitting in their honey traps?

If it can be proven to probable cause I want them prosecuted

Once again, making a false accusation is already a crime. What part of that do you still not understand?

imprisoned for a period of time comparable to what the person they accused would be given

So you are arguing that a false accusation is equivalent to being raped. Have you ever been raped? Has anyone ever suddenly pushed you to the ground, restrained you and then repeatedly shoved a broken bottle into your anus?

I’m not saying false accusation isn’t a serious crime, but is it equivalent as you are arguing?

Tell me again why she altered her facebook page?

Tell me again what due process means and how it is we legally determine someone is quilty of committing a crime.

Mentally unstable?

Well, Derec referred to her “craziness” but I’m sure it was meant colloquially. The more pertinent question is how do you know she isn’t mentally unstable? The point being, you don’t. You have absolutely no grounds to make any conclusions about her motives. That’s the whole point of due process. You remember the words you incorrectly used previously (like “probable cause” and the like)? That applies to her just as it applied to him.

Is she so mentally impaired that she doesn't know right from wrong?

Again, neither you nor I know the answer to that question. That’s what a court determines (or a psychologist).

If so then confine her for the purpose of protecting society. If not hold her accountable.

Yeah, again, for a court to decide.

What's the punishment? Are the Brits willing to prosecute it regularly?

You should ask them.

Is it comparable to the sentence for rape?

That’s the wrong question. The right question is, is a false accusation comparable to being raped? Both are crimes, so the punishment—generally—should fit the crime. You (and Derec evidently) are arguing that making a false accusation is equivalent to being raped, which betrays a shocking ignorance in regard to the harms of rape.

If it's just a misdeameanor it's not a stiff enough penalty for deliberate false allegation of a felony IMO.

Well, according to Wiki anyway, in the UK (which is the situs of this case):

Individuals suspected of making a false accusation of rape may be charged with the civil crime of "wasting police time" or the criminal charge of "Perverting the Course of Justice" with a maximum penalty of life in prison.[38][39]

Over a five-year period ending in 2014, a total of 109 women were prosecuted for crimes related to making false accusations of rape.[40] The report did not indicate the verdicts following prosecution. Another report identified 121 charging decisions involving allegations of false accusations of rape and an additional 11 false allegations of both domestic violence and rape between January 2011 and May 2012 and found of these cases, 35 were prosecuted based upon false accusations of rape. A further 3 were prosecuted based upon charges of false accusations of both rape and domestic abuse. The report did not indicate the verdicts following prosecution.[41]

So you’re going to have to look elsewhere.

I disagree with the local news. Whether they choose to publish something or not doesn't change my opinion on what they should do. I didn't claim that news outlets are public organizations but governments are. I'm aware that they are within their rights, but just because they are within their rights doesn't exempt them from criticism for their actions.

Why should they have such a right if they knowingly turn the power of the state against an innocent? Why shouldn't that be forfeited as such, since the innocent person's right to remain anonymous was taken away due to the actions of said false accuser?

Government prosecute when they have probable cause of deliberate false allegation of any criminal offense. Convict when there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt, sentence willful false accuser to the same penalty that the accused would have gotten. Governments should have a freedom of information act, which at least some do. FOIA laws should apply to all criminal cases, except where national security would be compromised. Such actions would be public record, and subject to public view under FOIA laws & evidence in any future allegation brought by false accuser. Any citizen should have access to said public records, upon request, via FOIA.

See previous paragraph w/r/t press. That takes them out of the equation as far as the law is concerned. It doesn't immunize them from criticism & distrust.

The accused sister in law had to find the evidence. Did the police even bother? How is the falsely accused supposed to receive justice; at the very least acquittal if he doesn't have access to all the evidence against him as well as all the evidence in his favor?

I don't claim to know whether or not she's mentally unstable. You don't know either. I set a standard of what I think the government should do with such claims. IMO Mental issues should not be a way to escape some form of accountability.

The criminal penalties vary by location. In some places it can be filing a false police report, especially if it doesn't go to trial. I think willful false allegation of a felony, should always be a felony. I'm talking more broadly than just the United Kingdom on that standard. I'd like to see it everywhere.

What crimes have, or have not been committed against me are irrelevant to my position. Asking amounts to a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. If a woman or man had received the treatment you mention, and made the same argument as me, word for word, does the validity of said argument suddenly change? Either my argument is right or it's wrong, that wouldn't change even if I was a space alien (the non abducting anal-probing kind ).

I disagree that it's the wrong question. Prison rape is a thing, just for starters, so is vigilante violence against the accused. Said vigilante violence has been things such as beatings, stabbings, mutilations, and even murder (as in lynching) over the course of human history. State violence has included punishments up to and including execution over human history. Even if not ultimately convicted, the accused may not have the money to make bail which means he has to wait in jail until trial (see possibility of prison rape). Such an accusation can also lead to professional consequences, loss of the ability to get an education, alienation of family & friends, marriages (if applicable) can be destroyed. Being falsely accused, especially of a sexual crime, can have serious consequences for the accused. Secondly in a deliberate false allegation the only person who is a victim here is the falsely accused.

Good on the U.K. for those cases where they prosecuted, provided the actual sentences handed down are comparable to what the accused would have received. The 50 States could learn from that. We'll see if they continue to enforce this policy consistently. If they stop following up on said policy then it may as well not be on the books. Saying she won't be prosecuted doesn't necessarily mean that the state bothered to investigate.

+1 Agree with this.

 

[laughing dog]

Utter BS. Even most radical feminists admit to a 2-8% false reporting rate.

And what do you think the rapists lying about their rape rate is? Because that is what my observation was about.

They still think men should be convicted based solely on a woman's say-so though. I.e. "women must always be believed" nonsense.

And then there are
1)the explicit rape apologists who think any rapist who is not caught on HD video from at least 4 angles is innocent,
2) the tacit rape apologists who refuse to fund or push for testing the backlog of 1000s of DNA kits from "alleged" rape victims,
3) the tacit rape apologists who smear the victims,
4) the tacit rape apologists in the police force who ignore victims or browbeat/intimidate them into recanting, and
5) the "civil libertarians" who bring up false rape allegations as reason to smear and dismiss rape allegations in the name of the presumption of innocence while ignoring and demeaning the plight of the victims of rape.

 

[Playball40]

I swear the ONLY thing that bothers me about this is WHY THE FUCK WOULD ANY WOMAN take "unknown pills" from anyone? I'm not saying Cosby is innocent; he's not. I'm not 'victim blaming'. But seriously, it rings strange to me that women would just accept Quaaludes (multiple ones) and NOT know it was going to knock them out. He didn't unknowingly 'spike their drink with roofies' - he OFFERED them the drugs - did they REALLY REALLY REALLY not know? I agree, that's not consent and sleeping with an unconscious or semi conscious person is deplorable. But that fact keeps nagging me (and not in all of his accusers, but in a couple).

*turning in my feminist card now....

Why in the world should there be a statute of limitations on reporting a rape? Cosby did worse than rape; he drugged women unconscious—an act that could have killed any of the numerous women he preyed upon—in order to rape their lifeless bodies. He should be put down like a dog for the betterment of the species and has finally—rightfully—met justice for his despicable crimes. It has nothing to do with “feminism.”

 

[ruby sparks]

Awful and shocking injustice. Imo she should be prosecuted and he should be compensated.

2-8% of rape accusations are deemed false, as I understand it. We could say 5%. 1 in every 20. Not insignificant.

Deemed false does not mean no rape, just as a not guilty verdict doesn't mean no rape. This case (one of a number highlighted in the media lately) seems to be more clear cut than some.

Apart from just bad policing & investigating, some of the problem may come down to police and public prosecutors being under much pressure to improve the conviction rate, and I think we would all generally agree that the % of rapes that end in a just result are a tiny minority and that most aren't even reported. I can see how there might be a greater good from not discouraging genuine victims (by for example not prosecuting liars) from reporting rape, but when it's this apparently clear cut, I would be ok with it and think it correct and justified.

Totally daft thread title though, imo.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/12/...book-messages-were-altered-by-alleged-victim/

How about fabricating the evidence to convict the "rapist"?

And the police failed to check what was going on, and aren't doing anything about her forgery.

Look Derec, this strawman is...

...

...

wait, huh?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's my two cents...

First thing. There were many failures here, not just one single failure point. Police can be technologically dumb, likewise for judges etc. That's a given. So they may think facebook is evidence of something without understanding edits and archives. AND, the guy seemed to know that there were edits. He gave his facebook credentials to his sister-in-law to look for issues. So wouldn't the proper course of events be to talk to his attorney during the course of the pre-trial as the facebook evidence is being considered and get a subpoena or whatever is necessary to get the archives/edits? And following that have the defense attorney make a case that the evidence is not actually evidence but instead that there was a consensual relationship at least at one point? Instead, somehow all the investigative work or lack of work by the sister-in-law took 4 years?

Second thing. We have very little information about this. We don't know what other evidence was presented at trial. There could have been other things. Also, we don't actually know he did not do something wrong in the relationship, like assault/rape. What we know is that this one or two bits of evidence out of a set of evidence was incorrectly used to add to a conclusion that was at best premature and at worst based on a deliberately false accusation.

Third thing. The young lady probably should be a suspect now as a false accuser and an investigation should be open. However, let's not rush to a conclusion for ideological reasons she is guilty of something here. The evidence indicates she deleted messages but there is no context as to why. So, she may have deleted all of her facebook messages. OR maybe they get archived once you message a million messages. OR maybe she deleted a select number of messages directly and indirectly about sex because she wanted to be private, not even knowing one day that his messages would be used as evidence of something. OR maybe he even did abuse her. And she was angry about the relationship and so she deleted all messages pertaining to him without a realization that it was potentially destruction of evidence. Clearly, the messages got deleted but we have to understand intent here without rushing to yell she's the guilty accuser.

Fourth thing. Since we don't know many things, imagine a scenario that is completely different from what some people are thinking about a vindictive bitch. Imagine she was 15 years old when this older man started grooming her as he knew age of consent was 16 in UK. Then, imagine he did convince her of a relationship when she was 16 and she realized at 17 she had been manipulated a bit. Imagine some of the relationship she agreed to but some was nonconsensual afterward. Now let's say she got pissed off and deleted all of her messages with him about sex. She then at 17 went to the incompetent bumbling police. Police went through all kinds of evidence for two years and made assumptions, not being tech savvy. So he couldn't make bail for two years, then he went to jail for another two years and 6 months later his appeal worked which is a total of 4.5 years later making her now 21.5 years of age. Considering she was a minor but of age of consent at the time, and considering statute of limitations, what charges should be brought against her in this scenario?

So, I have to say that these things obviously take time because there are lot of people who don't "get it," a lot of people who want to rush things due to ideology, and a lot of people who aren't imaginative enough about possibilities of a possibly innocent person: the DEFENDANT or the ACCUSER. Whether it's attorneys, sisters-in-law, police, judges, whoever, they can be technologically challenged. Now this includes understanding of how the messages ended up being deleted, whatever other evidence there was, as well as intent. But the larger picture of how things could have gone down is completely ignored for a very narrow bit of evidence.

I don't actually have a lot of faith in the justice system, but I am going to wait for more information to come out about this so I can understand that larger scenario of their relationship and what went down. I will be patient. In the meantime, I realize that the evidence presented at Kay's trial was insufficient and he did not get a fair trial. He should be compensated immensely, even if he's actually guilty because the system still wronged him. I have to wait and see what the deal is on the young lady and don't want to scream "burn her" (yet). She could be a "lying bitch" (Derec's favorite phrase) or a victim of not only that guy but also incompetent police not serving justice. I am setting my ideological biases aside to have an open mind prior to proper information.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

But that’s a mature, logical and reasonable response, Don. That clearly has no place in the he-man woman hater’s club.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I swear the ONLY thing that bothers me about this is WHY THE FUCK WOULD ANY WOMAN take "unknown pills" from anyone?

Well, first, it’s not just “anyone.” It’s Bill Cosby, aka Clifford Huxtable and for millions a beloved and trusted “father” figure who had presented himself as a moral authority for decades. Iow, someone people trusted, admired and looked up to. Here’s the account in regard to Constand:

Cosby and Constand first met in November 2002 when he attended a basketball game at his alma mater, Temple University, in Philadelphia. At the time, Constand, a former varsity basketball star in Canada, was the director of operations for the Temple women's team. Cosby has testified that he was instantly attracted to the "good-looking" six-foot athlete, who was at the time in her late 20s.

Constand, now 44, became like a mentee to him, Cosby has testified. In early 2004, the actor invited Constand to his home in nearby Cheltenham Township, where they chatted about her decision to move away from sports and pursue a career in massage, like her father. When she told him she felt emotionally drained from stress, Cosby went upstairs and returned with three pills, telling Constand they would help her relax. According to Constand’s account, he told her to take the pills with a few sips of wine, and approximately 20 to 30 minutes later, she recalls having difficulty speaking and "rubbery" legs. While she was frozen in her seat, she alleged, he fondled her breasts and her genital area and put her hand on his erect penis.

Constand's account of that evening conclude with her waking up around 4 a.m. to see Cosby appearing in the room with a muffin, which he gave to her with the words, "All right," before showing her out the front door.

In Cosby's recounting of the events that night, he said that after giving Constand the pills to relax, the pair "began to neck and we began to touch and we began to feel and kiss and kiss back." In his telling of the story, Cosby said that when he put his hand down her pants, Constand put her hand on top of his "to push it in further," suggesting consent. He, too, recalls a muffin, but said that he recalled giving her a blueberry muffin and Red Zinger tea, and that the two of them chatted for a while before she left.

Here’s more from the NYT (emphasis mine):

The prosecutors contend Mr. Cosby used quaaludes, or some similar drug, one night in 2004 to disable Ms. Constand, a former employee of Temple University whom Mr. Cosby is charged with sexually assaulting on a couch at his home near here.

Ms. Constand testified in court earlier in the week that the pills Mr. Cosby gave her put her “underwater,” slipping in and out of consciousness and unable to prevent his sexual advances. She said she couldn’t move her arms or legs or tell him to stop.

“I was frozen,” she said. “I just wanted it to stop.”

She said he had indicated they were herbal pills.

Mr. Cosby said in his deposition that the three pills he gave her were Benadryl, though he never told her what they were, and that the sex was consensual. He said he considered Benadryl a sleeping aid, one that he frequently used himself.

So break that down for a moment. She evidently mentioned—to her trusted mentor—that she was under a lot of stress. He says something along the lines of, “I’ve got some herbal pills that will help with that” and then instead gives her either Quaaludes or Benadryl with wine.

Let’s take him at his word and say they were Benadryl, something he stated he used frequently as a sleeping aid. If you’ve ever taken Benadryl, you know it’s not just a sleeping “aid” and you also know that three pills—with wine, no less—is a high dosage, but fine, she was highly stressed.

So where does the sex enter into any of that? She’s stressed; he gives her what he knows to be a powerful sleeping aid. So why doesn’t he let her go to sleep?

Let’s even say that the effects of the wine and the Benadryl make her lose her inhibitions and she comes onto him. He’s twenty years her senior and supposedly a morally upstanding grown-assed married man. Why doesn’t he simply immediately recognize her reaction as being nothing more than a drug-induced aberration? He is somehow powerless to stop what is evidently a “frozen” young woman on Benadryl and wine?

But seriously, it rings strange to me that women would just accept Quaaludes (multiple ones) and NOT know it was going to knock them out.

Quaaludes—like all drugs—are not monolithic agents that always have the same results every time no matter who takes them. Depending on dosage and purity and body type/body weight—again, just as with all drugs, legal and illegal—as wells as a host of other factors (a person’s tolerance; what they had to eat or drink; their current state of general health; etc; etc) they can and do cause a varying degree of reactions.

Hell, if you’ve ever gone out drinking on an empty stomach or abstained for a day or two and then had a glass you can see how radically different your own tolerance and reactions can be. In the 70’s, Qualuudes were a regular staple in most drug user circles—certainly out in Hollywood—along with cocaine, pot and booze (and heroin).

It would not be uncommon, either, for people within those circles back in the 70’s—or today for that matter—to take whatever drug was handed them, particularly from someone seen as trustworthy/prominent/etc. It may be stupid, but it was not uncommon and most definitely is victim blaming whether you intended it or not as the malicious intent was present.

If I give you a bouquet of hemlock because I think it’s pretty and feel you deserve such a gift because you’re an amazing person that’s obviously a very different set of circumstances than if I give you the same bouquet because I plan on taking some of it when you’re not looking, brewing it into a poisonous tea that I in turn tell you is an “herbal remedy” for your headache and then watch you drink it until you fall dead on the floor, yes?

He didn't unknowingly 'spike their drink with roofies' - he OFFERED them the drugs - did they REALLY REALLY REALLY not know?

Again, it is not on them to know somebody else’s malicious intent. Yes, arguably everyone should always approach life as if every single person they ever meet is out to murder or rape them, but that’s not generally how we navigate life. And predators like Cosby know this and clearly took full advantage of that fact.

Just look to the Constand situation. He openly admitted he was very familiar with the effects of Benadryl—noting specifically that it was something he frequently took in order to knock him unconscious (a “sleeping aid”)—but even if he had no malicious intent when first giving her the high dosage (with wine chaser), he should have immediately recognized that she was under the effect of the drugs, let alone the fact that he was a married man committing adultery.

Every step of the way proves his malicious intent, either toward his “mentee” or toward his wife at the very least.

I agree, that's not consent and sleeping with an unconscious or semi conscious person is deplorable. But that fact keeps nagging me (and not in all of his accusers, but in a couple).

Well, consider that then the next time a trusted member of your family or circle of friends or someone you have always admired and looked up to says something like, “Wait, I’ve got the perfect thing for your headache. It’s 100% herbal and I take it myself.”

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, we have some (reported) detail, such as her partially deleting messages, for example, there was a 'sorry' from him that appeared to have been alleged as an apology for the assault but it was sorry for something else entirely (not responding to her messages, I think).

From the OP article:
" The jury were shown a message where Kay appears to apologize for the rape. The response “sorry” in the message however was actually in response to the woman asking him why he was ignoring her. The question was deleted. Also deleted was her response: “Dnt [sic] be.” "

Sure, we should wait, but with what limited info we do have I'm happy to lean slightly and provisionally towards lying (perjury) in order to get a false conviction.

 

[Derec]

Well, first, it’s not just “anyone.” It’s Bill Cosby, aka Clifford Huxtable and for millions a beloved and trusted “father” figure who had presented himself as a moral authority for decades.

No. This thread is about some average bloke from England. The Cosby thread is here.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Frankly, I don't see how the jury concluded anything at all based on these texts. I also don't see a pattern by the alleged victim of deletion. There is no rhyme or reason I can see and really no making him look guilty either. I frankly don't get it at all. Also, I don't get how this somehow implicates her of faking something and that's because I don't see how it implicates him. If I were on his jury, I'd be like 'wtf.'

 

[Rhea]

Utter BS. Even most radical feminists admit to a 2-8% false reporting rate.

Bull Shit.
No “most radical feminists” absolutely do not.
Don’t you feel stupid being wrong about something so obvious?

That 8% is from a flawed, 40 year old FBI study. And it was bullshit then and it’s bullshit now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why in the world should there be a statute of limitations on reporting a rape? Cosby did worse than rape; he drugged women unconscious—an act that could have killed any of the numerous women he preyed upon—in order to rape their lifeless bodies. He should be put down like a dog for the betterment of the species and has finally—rightfully—met justice for his despicable crimes. It has nothing to do with “feminism.”

The longer it has been since a crime was committed the harder it is to defend oneself against the allegations. The statue of limitations is a reflection of this.

We have the same sort of thing with taxes--you can openly admit to having cheated on your taxes 10 years ago and the IRS can't touch you (although you're probably setting yourself up for being audited in more recent years) because you're only required to keep records for 7 years.

For an example of thing going wrong--there's been some trouble in recent years with states digging up old, incomplete financial data and billing people (since they're the state they aren't subject to the normal limits on debt collection) for ancient things that people no longer have the records around to show that they already paid.

(I used to have something of this sort of trouble with the local library. Just about every time they had a system crash it would manufacture a phantom overdue book--something I really had checked out, but it lost the information that it was returned. Generally a simple issue of confirming that the book really was on the shelf and a human would remove it from my account. Something of a hassle when the book really did disappear--in the end I was able to show that had I really not returned it there were a bunch of other books I had checked out that I wouldn't have been allowed to.)

- - - Updated - - -

Loren, can you provide a link to any post that anyone has ever written in which they expressed the opinion that women never lie?

Derec, you know how I like to track down the original context of sentence fragments posted online? You should try it. You'll find your understanding of the meaning of the fragment "women must always be believed" is off base. It's likely the person who mined that quote wanted you to misunderstand, but I'm still a bit surprised you fell for it.

Your side pretends you don't believe that but you consider any claim of rape to be automatically correct.