Where is justice?

E

Exploradora

Registered Senior Member
The alleged rape occurred March 3 at a wild, off-campus party hosted by a member of the DeAnza College men's baseball team in San Jose, California. Three partygoers, members of the school's women's soccer team, said they saw a young girl on a mattress on the floor, clothes around her ankles and vomit on her face, with one man on top of her and approximately 10 more looking on in a dark bedroom. Feeling "something wasn't right," the girls pushed their way into the room and rushed the victim the the hospital.

In the months since the contested rape, a grand jury has taken testimony in the case, DNA samples from some partygoers have been obtained, but an assistant district attorney cited "insufficient evidence" as the reason the DA would not prosecute.
...
Click to expand...
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/05/4482_das_office_refu.html

And from the prosecutor and sheriff...

"The credibility and memories of witnesses are easier to attack," wrote the newly elected district attorney of Santa Clara County. "Having more witnesses is not always an advantage if their recollections differ."
...
According to Carr, even the facts laid out by the three young women, commended in the column for their "honor and courage," would not have been enough to garner a conviction in the case.
...
"Is it sexual assault when a victim is too intoxicated to consent to sex?" wrote Carr. "Yes, but we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was so impaired that she could not understand what she was doing."
...
The column follows public backlash against Carr's decision on Monday to not file any criminal charges in the high-profile case. Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith said she believed that someone "got away with" sexual assault in the case.
Click to expand...
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_5996631

So, how much evidence is needed to prosecute a case? Are you restricted from prosecuting a case if there is "reasonable doubt" or is that a decision to be made by the jury? And, if you cannot prosecute a rape charge with an abundance of evidence (DNA, eyewitness testimony, etc), then when CAN you prosecute a rape charge?
 
um i'mpretty sure if you drank enough to vomit your judgement is going to be impaired
 
Exploradora said:
So, how much evidence is needed to prosecute a case? Are you restricted from prosecuting a case if there is "reasonable doubt" or is that a decision to be made by the jury? And, if you cannot prosecute a rape charge with an abundance of evidence (DNA, eyewitness testimony, etc), then when CAN you prosecute a rape charge?
Click to expand...

Well, wait a minute, don't go jumping to conclusions here! Did she consent to this gangbang prior to getting sick and puking? What were the conditions, the situation, prior to all of this "witnessed" account? If the girl gave her consent to be gangbanged (and don't think it doesn't happen!) then where's the rape?

You say "...an abundance of evidence...", but what? That she was fucked? Well, sure ...that's what a gangbang is, for god's sake!!

The eye-witnesses? Well, they only saw the girl being fucked and puking. they did NOT witness the consent to be gangbanged. So ...where's that leave us as far as legal evidence?

And if the girl later comes forward to say that she was raped, that's also not enough proof of rape. She could be changing her mind AFTER the fact, AFTER giving her consent ...and the publicity is making her retract that consent ...which is an injustice in itself.

Baron Max
 
I'm not sure what 'evidence' you're refering to, they saw a girl having sex, DNA backs that up - not whether or not she was raped. DNA evidence is only useful in cases of not knowing who the rapist was or when they deny they had sex and it goes towards the character assassination by proving they lied.
No doubt the witness testimonies all varied, especially with the discussion over if consent was given or not, and as some people would have missed that moment they're probably inadmissable.
Even the fact that she vomited doesn't prove a lot, anyone who has been that drunk will realise that doesn't necessarily mean you lose your ability to judge other situations, and to what degree? Everybody is different.
The reason the case is unlikely to go further is that it has more holes than a golf course.
You can be smart enough to realise the high probability she was probably raped, but that doesn't prove it as fact, which is rightly the requirement by law in all cases and the reason it isn't left solely up to the jury.
 
Anti-Flag said:
Even the fact that she vomited doesn't prove a lot, anyone who has been that drunk ....
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't see anything that said that she was drunk. He vomiting could have been from something she ate earlier in the day. Or maybe she was a little sick for some reason. Did they do a blood-alcohol test? I didn't see that in the post.

I've been involved in two gangbangs over the years, and in both cases, the girl was ready to do it ...even to the point of yelling happily, "Okay, c'mon, let's get this thing started!" There was no rape or even a hint of any force or rape. She was pretty tired after it all, however!

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Well, I didn't see anything that said that she was drunk. He vomiting could have been from something she ate earlier in the day. Or maybe she was a little sick for some reason. Did they do a blood-alcohol test? I didn't see that in the post.
Click to expand...
Good point, it was a natural assumption given the 'wild party' bit and the prosecutors comments about being 'too intoxicated', I had presumed alcohol level was a factor in this 'rape' and therefore the vomit. My bad however.:eek:

I've been involved in two gangbangs over the years, and in both cases, the girl was ready to do it ...even to the point of yelling happily, "Okay, c'mon, let's get this thing started!" There was no rape or even a hint of any force or rape. She was pretty tired after it all, however!

Baron Max
Click to expand...
Whatever floats your boat man.:)
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
innocent until proven guilty. or in this modern day and age, guilty until proven your either white a celeb or a woman.
Click to expand...

...LOL! No, no! These days, whites are taking it on the chin, not the blacks! Remember the Duke rape case? Don Imus?

If it keeps up, I'm going to dye my skin black and get a perm! :D

Baron Max
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top