When does no, mean no?

[Bells]

The problem is that he is not explicitly detailing what happened. She cannot explicitly detail what happened because she admits to being unconscious. These are bad witnesses to have and unfortunately hard cases to prove.

Did they both go into the house and take their clothes off?

The links are quite detailed John. Please read them.

I am sorry, are you telling me that a person saying that he fingered her after she had said no, and then touched and fingered her again and then had sex with her while she lapsed in and out of consciousness is not explicit enough for you?

Having dealt with countless of rape cases in my time, this one would be like a gold case to be honest. He said that she was drunk and he recognised and knew she was drunk. Here:

I [the police officer] then asked [redacted] if he realized that the victim was intoxicated prior to coming to her house. He stated 10-15 minutes after he arrived, he knew the victim was drunk. He stated his only intention originally was to lay next to the victim. He did state that he realized the victim was drunk prior to him having sex with her. He stated he has known the victim for 4-5 years and has seen her drunk many times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html

Another part of the incident report. He also states that they'd had sex in the past when only one person was drunk. But he also states that she had said no and then he goes on to detail the exact moments she had said no. One was prior to his having sex with her when he was touching her vagina and he admitted that she then rolled away from him. And he advised that she also said no after he had climaxed. He also advised that she was in and out of consciousness during the whole event, so much so that he had to actually work at getting her to regain consciousness so that he could apologise for what he had done.

The transcripts also has the victim saying that she recalls coming to at one point while he was violating her and attempted to not only push him away from her, but also told him no. This on top of his confessing in the incident report.

This is like a dream case for a prosecutor. He confessed and even showed remorse and regret for what he had done to her. He knew she was drunk and he knew he was taking advantage of her and felt bad for it afterward.

So how exactly is this a difficult case for you John?

Do you think that if she's unconscious, then she wasn't raped? I am sorry to have to tell you this, but the opposite is actually true. If someone is unconscious, it means they cannot consent. In this instance, she not only explicitly told him "no", which he admitted to the police, she also turned her back on him and he then continued to rape her, ignoring her attempts to push him off and ignoring her "no" again in the moments she was conscious.

 

[Lori_7]

Oh, a rash of shit doesn't even come close to it Lori.

Tell me, where was his sense of responsibility when he jammed his finger into her vagina and she said no and then decided to do it again and then rape her when she was unconscious?

he's responsible for that, admittedly. what he did was absolutely wrong.

So because you, it seems, were raped when you were 30 something, it gives you the right to blame her for her own rape, a rape that even the rapist confessed to and admitted to?

i'm not blaming her for the rape. i'm blaming her for being negligent. contributory negligence.

She's at fault because he decided to take advantage of her being drunk and not conscious half the time? She's at fault that she said no and turned her back on him and he then resumed to rape her after she'd lost consciousness?

no. she's at fault for knowingly and voluntarily consuming so much alcohol that she was rendered unconscious, and for inviting a man into her home while in that state. do you not agree that was completely irresponsible of her?

What if she'd been drunk in a bar and he'd met her there and taken her outside and raped her against her explicit consent and while she was unconscious? Would she have also been at fault then?

Tell me Lori, when is a woman not to blame for her own rape?

i'm not blaming her for the rape. i'm blaming her for being entirely irresponsible with her own body.

So your sex was consentual? You'd said "no"? You'd tried to shove the man away and he ignored you and kept on going?

i wasn't sober enough to say no. i blacked out, came to, said no, and he left.

You're telling me that if you'd said no and tried to push him away and then lost consciousness, it is still your fault because you were drunk in your own home with a man you'd been involved with and thought you knew him enough to trust him to be in your house with you while you were that drunk? Tell me Lori, I take it you are never drunk in the presence of your husband? What about male relatives and friends?

no one has said that was the case with her or myself. i knew that guy was a scumbag, and i thought it was funny that he wanted to have sex with me and wasn't ever gonna get it. and if i really wanted to make sure of that, i shouldn't have consumed an enormous amount of beer and then said sure when he invited himself over to my place (alone) to have yet another.

 

[Lori_7]

I'm sorry, but where does it say that she knew he wanted to have sex with her in her home at that time? Remember, this is not about you. So can you show me where it says she knew he wanted to have sex with her? Have a link?

And that still does not mean that it is not rape or "date rape". She said no. She was that intoxicated that she could not have consented anyway. That right there says rape.

But please, link where she said she knew he came to her house wanting to have sex with her... especially in light of the fact that they had not spoken for a year prior to the assault..

how about instead of a link, we consider some common sense?

it WAS rape. i'm not arguing that. i'm arguing how a prosecutor would have to consider her contributory behavior.

she didn't know that her ex would want to have sex with her? really? i don't believe that for one second.

 

[John99]

Having dealt with countless of rape cases in my time, this one would be like a gold case to be honest. He said that she was drunk and he recognised and knew she was drunk. Here:

Bell, you are going to prosecute people for being drunk? Just goes to show the trouble you can get into from being intoxicated.

 

[Bells]

Well then you should have made that point clear in your intro. In any case, their previous consenual relations and her self description of being "bedfellows" was going to be real problematic to winning the case

As to the rest of your BS insinuations, I said NOTHING at all about whether he was guilty or not, only on the likelihood of a conviction.

What "BS insinuation" Arthur?

His confession? You don't believe that he did it, even though he admitted to the whole thing?

They had been in a relationship. So yes, they had been bedfellows. Just as I was a bedfellow to my ex. That, however, does not imply or state consent. In fact, in this instance, we have the alleged accused saying that she said no and that he continued to sexually assualt her and then rape her, regardless of her saying no, regardless of her turning her back on him after rejecting his advances, regardless of the fact that she was so drunk that she then lost consciousness.

Everything we have points to no consent being given. Even Buck admits that at no time she says yes.

So can you please tell me Arthur, why do you think Buck refused to acknowledge or recognise the alleged accused's confession and statement to the police? Can you tell me why he instead decided to concentrate on the accused saying that she had had an abortion and then accusing the victim that she was using that as a motive for the accusation, when he had no proof whatsoever of his accusation? Which again shows that he had completely disregarded the incident report taken by the police which shows fairly extensive questioning of the accused and his admitting to all of it? Why do you think he disregarded that, Arthur?

 

[adoucette]

I'm sorry, but where does it say that she knew he wanted to have sex with her in her home at that time? Remember, this is not about you. So can you show me where it says she knew he wanted to have sex with her? Have a link?

And that still does not mean that it is not rape or "date rape". She said no. She was that intoxicated that she could not have consented anyway. That right there says rape.

But please, link where she said she knew he came to her house wanting to have sex with her... especially in light of the fact that they had not spoken for a year prior to the assault..

The DA didn't say she wasn't raped, he said he didn't think he could win the case.

So the issue is not about this being a rape, it's about whether the DA was justified in not taking her case to trial.

Arthur

 

[John99]

Not only that but you are also prosecuting via the internet. This is not ideal and never heard of this happening.

 

[Bells]

The DA didn't say she wasn't raped, he said he didn't think he could win the case.

So the issue is not about this being a rape, it's about whether the DA was justified in not taking her case to trial.

Arthur

Which again, does not answer why he disregarded the accused's confession and admittance to the whole thing.

Is he justified in ignoring the accused's confession in rejecting the case entirely?

 

[adoucette]

What "BS insinuation" Arthur?

All of the following.

Do you think that date rape is not rape?

Do you think that when a woman is semi-conscious to unconscious, that she is fair game for sex and it means she has consented?

What if she turns to you and says no? Does no not really mean no when a guy is about to have sex with a woman?

What other criteria should this case have met exactly?

We know that women are most often raped by men they know (spouse, relative, boyfriend, ex spouse/boyfriends, or just men they know in general). So your personal criteria that because she had sex with him in the past when they were in a relationship seems to indicate that it is not rape, amongst other things, is not a valid point in proving she was not raped.

I'll put it this way. Once she says no, then that is when it is meant to stop. If it continues after that point where she has said no, then it is rape. Pure and simple. Plus, if she is not conscious enough or coherent enough to consent, which she was not, then it is also rape. HIs having had sex with her a year before that night is irrelevant. He could have had sex with her 10 minutes before and it would still be rape. Do you know why?

1) She said no.

2) She was so drunk that she was semi-conscious to unconscious.

Totally uncalled for since I never said ANYTHING about what is or isn't date rape, what is or isn't rape, was or wasn't she raped etc etc.

ALL I discussed was issues related to likelihood of a conviction and the issue of was it correct for the DA to have such a high chance of success in order to bring a case to trial.

Arthur

 

[John99]

Bell, what we are saying is that you cannot be judge, jury and executioner all via the internet no less. Not that there definitely was no crime committed. We are not even getting the full story, how do you want us to render a decision?

 

[adoucette]

Which again, does not answer why he disregarded the accused's confession and admittance to the whole thing.

Is he justified in ignoring the accused's confession in rejecting the case entirely?

Don't know, what you posted doesn't seem to answer that question, I'm sure there might be some reason he felt it wouldn't stand up to cross examination though.

Indeed, in reading the original link, there is this quote about that police report that you omitted:

The report itself was detailed and graphic. And while the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout,

So, since we have not seen any of these "NOTES THROUGHOUT" it would appear that we have not seen the entire report.


Arthur

 

[Bells]

The DA didn't say she wasn't raped, he said he didn't think he could win the case.

Are you sure about that? To quote Mr Buck about whether she had been raped or not:

(153) KB: I’m telling you that’s what the circumstances suggest, to people, including myself, who have looked at it. Although, you never said the word yes, but the appearance is of consent.​

Now, if there is an "appearance of consent" in his opinion, it basically means that he does not think she has really been raped. When it is actually quite clear that she was raped. She knew it, the police knew it and so did the alleged perpetrator, when he admitted to police that she had said no more than once before and during sex, when he admitted to police that she was too drunk to consent and when he admitted to police that she was not really conscious during quite a bit of his assault on her. And most importantly, he admitted it to the police and to her when he managed to bring her to consciousness afterwards and said he was sorry for what he had done to her.

So how does Mr Buck think that she had consented? As a solicitor who has actually prosecuted more rapists than I wish to count, this is a cut and dried case of date rape. He even confessed to all of it. There is no grey area regarding consent. We have the alleged rapist admitting himself that not only did she say no more than once, we also have him admitting that she was so drunk that she was semi-conscious and at times unconscious. I have gotten convictions with much much less.

Having read that transcript, do you know what stands out the most? The fact that he accuses her of aborting the accused's baby.

But one of the biggest reasons why he did not think that she was raped? When he later referred it to "buyer's remorse".

Indeed, in reading the original link, there is this quote about that police report that you omitted:

The link was there and I encouraged people to read it. However, the sentence you quoted actually continues. Here is the sentence in full:

And while the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout, there also were aspects of the file that seemed to invite further legal probing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/ken-buck-refused-rape-victim-case-audio_n_758890.html

Funny that, huh?

Do you know what is one of the most despicable things about this whole thing?

The fact that he seems to threaten her if she decided to pursue this by seeking other legal means to prosecute her rapist.

However, it seems that more information has come to light about this, which makes it seem even more interesting to determine why Mr Buck decided to not take this case.

In establishing whether there were grounds to arrest the suspect, Greeley police had the victim phone the suspect from the police station. That call was recorded and entered into evidence.

In the call, this exchange takes place:

Victim: “You do realize that … it’s rape.”

Suspect: “Yeah, I do.”

Victim: “Like in a number of different ways, because I didn’t want to do it and because I was intoxicated and because I was afraid.”

Suspect: “Yes I do. I know.”​

http://coloradoindependent.com/63925/suspect-in-troubling-05-buck-case-said-he-knew-it-was-rape

You can also download a full transcript of the phone call that the victim made at the request of the police at that link.

So, yet another confession (granted, not one that can be used in court), aside from the incident report itself. In the transcript, he also pleads with her to not report the rape to the police. She already had and that call is called a pretext call and one she did when asked by the police to do so. Based on this, the police then decided to take it further and we then have his confession and detail of events which all indicate that she was raped, by his own confession.

In the transcript of that pretext call, the victim asks him how he got into her house? She questions his reasons for coming to her house knowing that she was that drunk and that she was going to bed. She even tells him that she could not understand how or why he had raped her as they had discussed rape before as he knew that she was a rape advocate and he admits it also. He also tells her over and over again how sorry he was. She asks him what made him drive to her house that night and he says, he cannot remember. It seems from the call that she had previously told him how to get into her house, and she questions him about it and he admits that he knew she was very drunk and was going to bed, so he drove to her house, jimmied the door to get in because he wanted to lie down in bed next to her, where the rape then occured.

Again, how is this not rape? How can he think that she consented? In the transcript of the conversation between Mr Buck and the victim, he accuses her as not having her top on when he came over. Now we know, from that phone call, that she was already in bed when he arrived and that he decided to drive over there of his own volition, knowing that she was drunk and about to go to bed and knowing how to get into the house. He admitted to her in that call that he knew at the time that it was rape. He admitted this to the police later as well.

And how can he possibly say that he would not get a conviction?

 

[pjdude1219]

i don't think this had anything to do with what she was wearing. i'm not condoning what the man did at all. i'm just saying that her actions contributed to the crime. it seems clear that if she had been responsible, and not put herself at risk, this would have never happened.

do you not agree that getting shitfaced drunk and inviting a man who you know damn well wants to have sex with you into your home while alone is completely irresponsible and contributory? i think prosecutors have to consider these things.

i considered those things in my own experience.

Congrats you get the Stephanie Meyer award for destroying femonism and woman's rights

 

[adoucette]

how can he possibly say that he would not get a conviction?

Well as you point out, that call is not going to get into the trial, as for the question, well we don't know, because your link does NOT include the complete police report.
You know the one with "the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout".

Show us the notes, because without them how can you possibly question the prosecuter without knowing what these were?

You know the defense is going to get them during discovery, and then what?

As you've seen on this board, even the edited info you've provided hasn't convinced all of us, now has it? If just one of those questioning this was on the jury then he'd lose. Which is probably the same thing the prosecuter was seeing, that he couldn't convince 12 people either, and we haven't even seen all of what he had to work with.

Your continuing claim that it was rape is rather pointless, since that isn't the question at all. It's only what the prosecuter felt he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that counts.

Arthur

 

[pjdude1219]

i'm not blaming her for the rape. i'm blaming her for being negligent. contributory negligence.

inother wordws your blaming her

no. she's at fault for knowingly and voluntarily consuming so much alcohol that she was rendered unconscious, and for inviting a man into her home while in that state. do you not agree that was completely irresponsible of her?

this may come as a shock to you but its not what she did in no way shape or form make her culpable

i'm not blaming her for the rape. i'm blaming her for being entirely irresponsible with her own body.

yes you are whether your intelectually capable of admiting that to yourself or not is irrelevant the fact you feel the need to keep saying your not means you recognize that for all intents and purposes that what it looks like you doing(which is true because you are in fact doing it)

 

[Bells]

Well as you point out, that call is not going to get into the trial, as for the question, well we don't know, because your link does NOT include the complete police report.
You know the one with "the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout".

Show us the notes, because without them how can you possibly question the prosecuter without knowing what these were?

You know the defense is going to get them during discovery, and then what?

As you've seen on this board, even the edited info you've provided hasn't convinced all of us, now has it? If just one of those questioning this was on the jury then he'd lose. Which is probably the same thing the prosecuter was seeing, that he couldn't convince 12 people either, and we haven't even seen all of what he had to work with.

Your continuing claim that it was rape is rather pointless, since that isn't the question at all. It's only what the prosecuter felt he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that counts.

Arthur

Believe me Arthur, if I had a link to the whole incident report, I would have linked it.

But he clearly states that he thinks she consented. How can she have consented if she was so drunk that she passed out? How can she have consented if she actually said no (by the rapists own admittance) in the few moments of lucidity?

From what I have read thus far, I see nothing that would indicate that this case was not winnable. Quite the contrary. This would have been a guarranteed conviction. The man had forced his way into her home while she was asleep, and it was something he admitted to doing. He admitted that he knew about what constituted rape, as they had spoken of it when they were together. He admitted he knew he was raping her as he did it. He then went on to admit to her not only being too drunk to consent, but also admitted that she had said no at least twice.. to the police. Again, how can Buck then turn around and say that he did not think he would get a conviction?

The jury would have been made aware that they had been in a sexual relationship in the past. Again, moot point in this instance since they had been separated for over a year and they had not even spoken for a year until that night. And again, their having had sex in the past does not amount to consent that night, more than a year after they had separated and a year since they'd even spoken to each other. Then we have the fact that he accused her in the transcript to having been in a state of undress when he walked into her bedroom. But we now know, and he would have been made aware of this also, that he knew she was that drunk and going to bed when he decided to go to her house, jimmy the door open and then go into her bedroom to lie down next to her as she slept when he then decided to start touching her. Does Mr Buck think that she should have been more appropriately dressed when going to bed? Who here does not sleep naked in case someone breaks into their house while they are asleep and rapes them?

But according to Mr Buck in his conversation with the victim, this was an important factor in refusing the case.

As you've seen on this board, even the edited info you've provided hasn't convinced all of us, now has it? If just one of those questioning this was on the jury then he'd lose. Which is probably the same thing the prosecuter was seeing, that he couldn't convince 12 people either, and we haven't even seen all of what he had to work with.

Could it be because in the past, when we have discussed rape cases before, many on this forum have issues even understanding the basics of consent and when consent can be given, regardless of what the law states?

And I am sure that Mr Buck will feel vilified that a religious nutbag, forum troll and you seem to agree with him.

 

[adoucette]

this may come as a shock to you but its not what she did in no way shape or form make her culpable

Maybe, but that's not the way everyone in the jury is likely to see it.

As Lori has said, she thinks the woman's behavior was contributory.

Guess what, it only takes one person who feels the same as Lori to derail the conviction.

Which is the issue here. The prosecuter did not think, based on the facts of the case that he could prevail in court.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Believe me Arthur, if I had a link to the whole incident report, I would have linked it.

Which is the point, you don't have all the evidence and yet you are ready to render a verdict?

From what I have read thus far, I see nothing that would indicate that this case was not winnable. Quite the contrary. This would have been a guarranteed conviction.

Key word in that is SO FAR.
Buck on the other hand had the ability to read the ENTIRE report and also meet with the actual people and see how they would appear to the jury.
BIG DIFFERENCE
Given that the links provide so much info, why do you think that the parts of the report that included: "the circumstances that made Buck doubt the case's viability were noted throughout", wasn't provided to us?

The man had forced his way into her home while she was asleep, and it was something he admitted to doing. He admitted that he knew about what constituted rape, as they had spoken of it when they were together. He admitted he knew he was raping her as he did it. He then went on to admit to her not only being too drunk to consent, but also admitted that she had said no at least twice.. to the police. Again, how can Buck then turn around and say that he did not think he would get a conviction?

Maybe because he had the ENTIRE police report?

Could it be because in the past, when we have discussed rape cases before, many on this forum have issues even understanding the basics of consent and when consent can be given, regardless of what the law states?

What does what you discussed before I joined the forum have to do with my comments?
I'm guessing that if you did as poor a job of presenting your case as you have done in the threads that I've debated with you that you blew those as well.
And indeed it wasn't really an issue with this case either as far as we know, I'm reasonably convinced Buck understands the law, the issue had to do with what he felt he could convince a jury of.

And I am sure that Mr Buck will feel vilified that a religious nutbag, forum troll and you seem to agree with him.

And so since you can't make your case you descend into personal attacks.

Guess I should of seen that coming.

I argue about merits of the case and you can't see past your anger.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

The DA didn't say she wasn't raped, he said he didn't think he could win the case.

Are you sure about that? To quote Mr Buck about whether she had been raped or not:

(153) KB: I’m telling you that’s what the circumstances suggest, to people, including myself, who have looked at it. Although, you never said the word yes, but the appearance is of consent.​

Now, if there is an "appearance of consent" in his opinion, it basically means that he does not think she has really been raped.

Seems like you aren't against doing a little "quote mining" to make your case.

Let's look at that statement in context of what he says before:

First he gives an analogy to the Ramsey case:

We have looked at this from a lot of different angles. We have to fulfill our ethical obligation that this case would have an expectation of proof beyond reasonable doubt before a jury. That is in conflict with the law. “We may think we know who killed the Ramsey girl, but if we can’t prove it, we can’t bring a case forward.” … And that’s where we’re coming from with this decision.

So the analogy is quite clear, he thinks a crime has been committed, but if he can't prove it he can't bring a case forward.

And then he brings a very interesting set of info, that is missing from ALL your snippets, about WHY he has concerns that it will have the "appearance of consent":

(139) KB: Because when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances, based on his statements and some of your statements, indicate that you invited him to come to your apartment… that you told him how to get in …. It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him

Or when he points out to her what she told the first police officer:

KB: Do you recall your answer to police officer in your first interview, the police officer asked if you said no, you said I don’t recall.

For a prosecuter, that's a big hurdle to get over.

Arthur

 

[pjdude1219]

Maybe, but that's not the way everyone in the jury is likely to see it.

As Lori has said, she thinks the woman's behavior was contributory.

Guess what, it only takes one person who feels the same as Lori to derail the conviction.

Which is the issue here. The prosecuter did not think, based on the facts of the case that he could prevail in court.

Arthur

probably but that is because juries are filled with people like you and Lori rather than people like Bells and I.