Friday, September 18, 2009

An Accidental Felony?

Stunning, Inexplicable Decision

When the Verdict was read in court today, it seemed the entire room gasped in astonishment. One juror later related to a mutual acquaintance that the defendant's mouth fell open in astonishment. So clear had the case been.
Three jurors were tearful or weeping as the verdict was read.  (?)
"not Guilty" verdict seems to indicate that here in manhattan, it will be 
            OK for a man to Force Himself on an
             intoxicated, disoriented, vomit-covered,
                  collapsing, (drugged?) woman

who does not want any part of him,
who had made official complaint against him, who had tried to avoid him for weeks.

The Law States
that in order to "have sex" with a woman, a man must get consent from that woman.
If   NOTHING  else was clear in this trial, it was that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES  (shall we say, beyond a reasonable doubt?) would, or could, the crime victim have given this man consent.
So seemed to feel the majority of spectators in the courtroom.

I humbly ask the jury to tell me how they did surmise that consent was given.

The Riley County Attorney's office put on a top-notch case.

The defense Attorney suggested Slyly that was this was was a "case of Regrettable Sex."

I say Slyly because
           a) there was no evidence Whatsoever presented to support this nasty, caddish accusation.

             b)   It is a grade-A Rape Myth. The FBI indicate that 96-98% of rapes are real reports. like robberies. like muggings. like Home Invasions. How many people lie about getting Mugged? The FBI state that more people Fake-report their own DEATH than fake report rape. I promise you, "those cases" are exposed early in the process. as any crime victim can tell you, these cases have a year or two years or three years of work, step after step of  legalities.
The chances that a personality-disturbed woman/man who might falsely report a rape can engage the Entire Legal System to pursue false charges is so unlikely-- that to bring up "The Regrettable Sex Theory" --particularly after the succinct, pertinent body of evidence from the Prosecution which specifically refutes the idea that this particular Crime Victim would have ever given consent in this case, to this defendant-- is the opposite of Decent.      
Department of Justice report:    

The defense attorney stated (shame!) that the victim gave Mixed Messages.   
(another rape myth- more on rape myths later)
even though
every shred
of reasonable evidence presented added to the SAME MESSAGE:
Leave Me Alone. No romance. Don't touch me. Don't talk to me. Leave me Alone.
The defense lawyer did not put on any witnesses
or a case per se,
but limited himself during cross examination to such tactics as to try to impugn witnesses or discuss/confuse  telephone records. The defense attorney's questioning seemed to bewilder the witnesses and he stated or apologized that he "misspoke" or corrected himself or was corrected by witnesses over and over and over again. rape myths:

From the beginning of these types of events, I know that parents on both sides are stricken.
(May grace be with you all.)
The parents
of the male perpetrators in these cases, 
even if loathe to admit the Felonious nature of the behavior, that their son might actually be a criminal worthy of legal consequences--
usually find themselves
shell-shocked at the end of testimony
by the descriptions of what is undeniably, at 
so boorish and unseemly
  so thuggish and brute
     so ungallant and dishonourable
        so low, mean and hurtful
          so Beastly
They might almost wish there HAD been a one-time slip, an Accidental Felony,
rather than confront the horrible possibility of the Character
The Character
their son's.

All i know for sure right now is that my office will do everything possible in the coming year to educate everyone who will listen about the Definition of Consent, the targeting of Innocents by the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, the Prevalence of Drug/Alcohol-Facilitated Rape here in Manhattan, and about what is HAPPENING to our unsuspecting youth.

All the young women/men/children who endure the long ordeal of trying to hold selfish Brutes accountable are Wonderful and Brave, and as a community we should stand and support them.

Are we going to abandon them to this thuggery? Will Manhattan citizens really allow this type of desecration as Lawful!?


  1. your office also needs to be educated in jury instruction and the burden of proof according to the letter of the law.

  2. We are always looking to increase our understanding. I am particularly interested in looking at the area of law which suggests that simply believing a witness is enough to convict or acquit a defendant. That is, the believability of a witness is itself evidence for any particular juror. Kansas or national? not sure.
    in this particular case,
    the introduction of smarmily worded theory/sentences (e.g., "Regrettable Sex" "Mixed Messages") which have no bearing on Rape Cases that have Gone to Trial -go only and directly to undermining the believability of the Crime Victim.
    A reasonable person can thoroughly believe the Crime Victim, thus removing reasonable doubt?

  3. Mr. Anonymous should be educated (again) on the definition of "consent."
    This victim did NOT consent. That's RAPE. Period.
    Now, she's labeled as a false accuser, while the rapist is free to prey on whomever he chooses... He took her innocence, her trust in men, a part of her soul.
    May God bless her, heal her wounds, and protect her.

  4. wouldn't it be lovely if folks understood what consent was and stopped acting so evil so this crime would stop and defense lawyers wouldn't rely on obfuscation of truth for acquittals?

  5. so many have experienced delayed justice
    so many have experienced social violence
    that soon, very few will think of these brave ones
    as "false accusers;" rather, as
    ones who must bear a heavy cross (as the effort continues)
    Thank you. I'm sorry.

  6. The instructions put to the jury were:
    to be able to prove beyond a resonable doubt that the victim, due to the effects of alcohol was unable to give valid consent. Unfortunately, with the evidence presented, the prosecution was unable to provide this. In light of her obvious condition when entering the building (or being taken in by the defendant) and her condition upon leaving the building, the evidence as to her ability was just not there. The cell phone evidence was difficult to use irrefutably because there is no way of knowing who made the calls/texts. This was a heartbreaking decision to be made. Just because the verdict was not guilty does not mean the defendant was innocent. It just means that legally, the evidence didn't support the claims beyond a reasonable doubt. I would not consider this young woman to be a liar or a false acccuser. I don't think she roped all of her friends into lying for her. Our system is a very flawed thing and the verdict rendered was heartbreaking for all who had to decide it. However, the jury did was what legally required.

  7. Is it not also in jury instruction that the believability of the witness is to be taken into account? the believability of all those witnesses? the testimony from a crime victim in a case is evidence?
    if decision was heartbreaking, it sounds like she was believed. if she was deceiving everyone all that time, why would the dicision be heartbreaking?
    if she was believed,
    he should be convicted.

  8. By the way, when a person "comes to" and finds that they are being RAPED, they will get a shot of adrenaline that might be able to propel them out the door. it does NOT mean that 20 minutes earlier they were of sound mind and body.