Alleged Rape Victim Refuses Questioning By Alleged Rapist; Charges Dismissed

reply to post by SaturnFX


I find it funny how in EVERY single rape-related topic. There is always one person who claims to know someone who went down for rape, because the girl lied.

You know what? I don't believe your story a single bit. I think you made it up to bolster your point.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


This is dumb.

Of course the alleged rapist SHOULD be allowed to question the female.

Until proven guilty he is INNOCENT.

So if he can't afford a lawyer and defends himself then he CAN and SHOULD be able to question the "victim".

Anyway, what happened to the law that states you should be able to face your accuser?

This "victim" needs to grow up and get on with it and maybe then after this person is found guilty can get some closure. What i say sounds harsh but this is LIFE.

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by Brood

 

v3_exceed was excusing the alleged rapist by stating that the alleged victim was acting like a spurned lover, in complete contradiction to the actual article which states that she is alleging childhood abuses. v3_exceed is saying she is probably a liar who was "dumped" by a boyfriend, and stating that she should be tried for making false accusations. Proving that he didn't read the source material, and just likes to make excuses for alleged rapists, then attack the alleged victim.

My post isn't about whether or not she is lying or not, it's about addressing another posters obvious failure to read the article, that posters flawed conclusion, and my rebuttal to that flawed conclusion. This is the largest point that you missed. Maybe next time you will learn to thoroughly read what people post, instead of using your time to think of ways to call people brainwashed.

I am 100% confident in my determination that neither you or v3_exceed possess equal skill or resources. You've both certainly shown that you do not have a lawyers ability to study the issue at hand and debate that issue.

Still on the witch hunt eh....

You who are accusing others of not reading the artical have failed to derive the actual meaning of the previous posts. Which illustrates you as both lazy and poorly read. I am 100% sure that in a court of law you would be buried alive.

It it extremely plain that you are blinded by your perception of the crime and unable to rationally argue the points based on their own merit. Most white knight bleeding hearts are easily manipulated this way.

1) This woman is obviously psychologically unbalanced. Her attempt to sway the court with her pretend attempted suicide is testament to this.

2) Her failure to allow a cross examination. Puts her entire position at risk. Even if the crime was actually committed, she has put the whole thing at risk based on her refusal to be questioned.

3) The prosecutor can file charges based on her willingness to testify. This is all of the compelling evidence he needs in a child molestation case. If he believes her and feels he can get a judge/jury to believe her he can proceed at his discretion.

4) the Judge would not throw out any charges if there were additional evidence.Even if she refused to testify, had there been pictorail or video evidence the charges would not have been thrown out.

You really should spend more time comprehending what other people have written prior to your rebuttal. It will help you look less of a fool.

..Ex

reply to post by Byteman


Byteman I think you're taking the word liberal entirely out of context. It's not a word solely reserved for politics, though some wish it were. Liberal science in it's proper sense. That it's shrouded in emotions rather than a firm basis of verifiable evidence.

I'm stating that I feel rape doesn't make you anymore of a victim incapable of facing the act than a victim of any other violent crime. That just because it's sexual in nature, doesn't automatically make it a traumatic event impossible to deal with.

That the rape only exaggerated an already existing paranoia or fear of confrontation, solidifying the need to escape rather than confront.

I'm claiming that you're making more of an assumption in assuming that every incidence of rape is too traumatic to cope with than I am in stating not all events are too traumatic to deal with. And that even despite this trauma, victims of other forms of violent crime find the fortitude to testify.

But some people need clarification for some reason. I do empathize with the victim, please don't assume that I don't. But you must remove your emotions in order to eliminate bias to understand the full perspective of situation.

Everyone is so fixated on the emotional side and disgusted at the outcome, but they fail to realize the importance of allowing a defendant to cross examine their accuser. This is why I really S&F'ed the post, because the OP clearly states alleged rapist. Until he is proven guilty, he is allowed to face his accuser in order to defend his innocence.

I do concede that others have exploited this right to confront and terrify their victims in open court as it has been documented. But should you allow those incidents to triumph over legality and remove this right, then everyone suffers. It's not only the logical conclusion, but the natural one as well as witnessed through our own legal history.

But to quantify...

Child rape *can* cause trauma, it should not be assumed. Does this mean child rape *doesn't* cause trauma? No, so please don't construe my words in order to fit your assumption.

I hold this position not only on any form of sexual assault, but any form of victimization period.

I kindly reiterate to steps 1 and 2. Be a victim in silence, or "step up" (better than man up?) and seek justice.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by v3_exceed


You claimed that she was probably spurned by her boyfriend, and was lying about the rape to get back at him.

The reality is that if you had read the article, you would have known she was alleging childhood rape. This precludes the possibility that she was getting back at a spurned lover. Especially since she would have to show the prosecutors some kind of proof that the accused was around while she was a child.

Don't even try and imply that I think his rights should be stripped. Not once have I said, oh he got free that's wrong.

My issue with you is the obvious fact that you were just drawing conclusions from your biased preconceived notions, not the posted article. If you had actually read the article, you would have never said anything about her being "spurned by the guy", it would have been immediately obvious that they never dated.

You must have also missed the seven other rape and child-rape charges he's up against. I'm sure you'll claim they are all just spurned lovers. I'm not saying they make him guilty, I'm just saying that those details prove you didn't really know anything about the issues at hand when you made your first post in this topic.

All of these accusations against him are from 1992-1998. The woman in the article is 21. So, he had contact with her when she was under 13 years old. But I'm sure you'll claim that her accusation are just coincidental hate-filled claims that just happen to coincide with rape charges from 6 others. It couldn't possibly be because he raped 8 people, some of them while they were children.

I could care less about your links to what others have done. This topic is about this case, this article.
You want to call me a baby, LMAO. You are the one acting petulant, doing everything you can do avoid the fact that you didn't know what the article really said, before you started blaming the victim.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by stopthathurts
reply to post by MGriff

 

Isn't the questioning of your accuser usually done through a lawyer? If the substitution is available to CEOs who've presided over companies that commit atrocities against several individuals then I think there should be a provision for rape victims in cases such as these. There probably is a precedent for it already. There is nothing unconstitutional about protecting a victim from the accused. If you've ever been in a court of law you would, I'm sure you would see that proxies are used all of the time and to not use one in this case is despicable.

STH

The standards will be different when comparing Criminal Law (Rape) to Civil Law (Corporations causing issues with people).

Remedies are available. Also a Corporation can be sued as an entity, anf the CEO can be sued as the person who runs the entity.

The outcomes are going to be completely different (1 is fine, other is jail time).

reply to post by v3_exceed


You have no idea what your talking about when you say "real meaning of previous posts". You are just trying to sound cool by acting mysterious. If you had anything specific to point out, then why not just do that.

Poorly read is claiming that a case about childhood rape, is about two spurned lovers. That's you Buddy-boy.

I'm arguing against your own words. You can pretend that something else is going on, but that's all it is...pretend.
BTW, you are White Knighting for an alleged 7 times rapist. So that door swings both ways.

Also, you have no proof that she was faking suicide. You claim others are pre-judging the alleged rapist as guilty, but you've just judged the alleged victim guilty of faking suicide. That makes you a hypocrite.

I didn't say she didn't put anything at risk, so way to try and pull a strawman out of nowhere to knock down.

You are only arguing my case by stating that prosecutors go forward on their own discretion. In this case the prosecutor felt that she was telling the truth. I've never said otherwise, so that's strawman number two.

Actually a Judge can dismiss charges even if there is some kind of tangible proof. Proof without context is useless.

You can try and claim I'm misinformed, but you are the one who made the mistake of just assuming that it was a lovers spat. When really it was an accusation of childhood rape. No amount of weak insults or weak excuses on your part will change that fact.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Making the accusation and refusin to back it up does nothing but prove an accusation was made and nothing more. Making an accusation does not make it true, nor does it make it false. It creates a situation where Fact must be found and entered into evidence.

A female coming forard claiming she was raped is a serious accusation. It can end a persons life as they know it, on both sides of the coin.

Because a person is being accused, they are rpesumed innocent until proven guilty by their peers in a court of law (or by judge if thats what the defendant chose). As a defendnant, he/she is under no legal aobligation to speak in court. The burden falls onto the accuser and the Proesecution to make their case.

In matters of rape, if the person making the accusation refuses to cooperate with the prosecution, its game over. This is the price that is paid for having the legals system we have, innocent until proven guilty. The person who brought forth the accusations must have known what was going to be required of her, which is taking the stand and recounting the events that occured to support her side of the argument.

Defendants are under no obligation to take the stand, and they are under no obligation to cooperate in any type of investigation.

If this event occured, then she takes the stand. If she does not want to, thats her choice, but it ends the argument and the court case due to lack of evidence.

reply to post by mryanbrown


I never said the accused should have rights stripped. The rest of your post is obviously an excuse to throw out that bone.

reply to post by Byteman


Unless you are a witness to a crime, you cannot know if it really occured. It is either the girls are not truthful, or he is not truthful. All that is in this thread is speculation, none of us really know anything. It is possible she was raped as a kid, and that is what drove her to threaten to jump. It is possible that she lied, and that is what drove her to threaten to jump. I don't know, you don't know. Some people just refuse to jump on the emotional bias bandwagon, and think someone should be presumed guilty upon accusation. It is up to the court of law to decide, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution, to prove it. If there was physical evidence, then I would think that the DA would not have decided to drop that part of the case so fast, that seems logical to me. Especially since it seems the jurors were kept in the dark about the whole episode.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I never said that the accused persons rights should be stripped, nor did I ever say the accuser should be believed without question.

So, your childish and incorrect point is failed.

reply to post by v3_exceed


Well, you certainly can't debate like a grownup. You keep trying to hide the fact that you got caught making assumptions.

You aren't responding to my other relevant points, because you know I'm right and you can't prove otherwise. If you could, you would have.

You are only proving my point, you think rape is a joke.

reply to post by TKDRL


I never said she was telling the truth or not.

Nothing you said is relevant to me, I have not made any sort of emotional decision. BTW, you are the second person to accuse me of that, which makes me think you are just jumping on someone else' bandwagon.

If this thread gets any more personal, with any more sarcastic examples of false accusations, it gets closed permanently.

Comprende?

Harm NONE!
Peace

meh.

Thread closed for staff review.