|
Wayward5oul -> RE: Victim Statement from Stanford Rape Victim (6/13/2016 12:54:47 PM)
|
quote:
I'm basing most of my conclusions on this article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/us/brock-turner-stanford-rape.html
Your own source states many of the facts that have had to be pointed out to you already, such as information about the witnesses, whom you said did not make statements until later and were unreliable. Your own source shows that is clearly not the case.
It was here in January last year, an hour past midnight on a Saturday night, that a young woman lay on the ground, unresponsive, her hair disheveled and knotted, her body covered in dirt and pine needles, and her dress hitched up above her waist.
The assault of the 22-year-old woman — she is described as Jane Doe in court documents — has led to a firestorm of outrage for what many saw as her assailant’s light punishment, a six-month jail term with the possibility of parole after just three months.
In March, a jury convicted the assailant, Brock Turner, 20, a champion swimmer and Olympic hopeful who was a freshman at the time, of intent to commit rape of an intoxicated or unconscious person and two related sections of the law, all felonies.
The court papers, some of them released just last week, outline the complex and intense national debate over the sentence, and over sexual assaults on campus. Yet they also portray a case that legal experts say was unusual.
The assault was not hidden in a dorm room or clouded by the complex emotions of a college romance. Mr. Turner and his victim had met only minutes before their encounter. The assault was taking place beneath the tree when a pair of Swedish students passed by on bicycles.
The men stopped, and Mr. Turner began to run away. They chased him down and tackled him.
“It happened in full view,” said Shanlon Wu, a Washington-based lawyer who is a specialist in campus rape cases. “You had unimpeachable witnesses — someone was basically caught red-handed.”
Direct reporting on the witnesses:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-stanford-rape-witnesses-20160607-snap-htmlstory.html
quote:
That there's a Stanford law professor, Michelle Dauber, who's also friends with the victim- and has called her the next Rosa Parks, should alert people that there's a lot of undercurrents in this case that we don't know about, but should regard with suspicion.
What does this have to do with the facts of the case?
You have made several statements that are purely opinion on your part, making vague guesses about people’s motivations behind all of this. Not a single one of them is backed up by evidence.
You have also made several statements regarding the facts behind the case that are also factually incorrect. Yet you still cling to your assumptions that you developed based on the incorrect info.
You have yet to disprove a single thing any of us have said. Several of us, however, have shown your own statements to be factually inaccurate.
quote:
He was quite intoxicated- which really should make anyone wonder if he was really capable of doing what he's charged with
So the medical evidence found on his hands was faked? The hospital is lying? Brock Turner is lying? Because he admitted to groping her. So yes, he was quite capable of it.
quote:
or whether given the level of intoxication of both people- that the woman was of some assistance.
It was clear to the cyclists that she was unconscious. Are you saying that it wasn’t clear to Turner, who was lying on top of her, face to face? It wouldn’t have been clear to him when he jerked her dress up, removed her underwear, and pushed her legs apart to stick his fingers up in her?
Yet he was conscious enough to run?
Bullshit.
quote:
Ever see Risky Business?
Ever heard of fiction vs. non-fiction? Really, that’s the best you got?
quote:
Given the NY Times article- I'm not sure that there's even a charge of battery-
He was charged with assault. He physically violated her. If you cannot see that that is assault then you are an unreasonable person. Either that or mentally incompetent, which might get you off of a charge if you ever do this. Maybe that’s your plan?
quote:
the law in this case seems to revolve around the inability of a drunken woman to consent to sex.
Are you saying that that is unreasonable?
quote:
3) From my perspective-
Which has been shown to be based on misinformation and ignorance, so I give it no credence.
quote:
there seems to be a double standard here- if a woman is drunk and says- "have sex with me!" she doesn't really mean it because she's too drunk to give consent? How does that make the equally drunk male with her more culpable? Note that this was the prosecutor's argument in advising a shorter sentence. I'll admit, I don't get this....
WHERE is there any evidence that she asked to have sex? I have yet to see ANY mention of that, and I have looked at more than one article to make sure my facts were straight, unlike you.
quote:
If he's really a typical 18 y.o. kid- then the appellation of "monster" is wildly inappropriate. And having met my share of kids that age- I find a more likely explanation here is that two drunk young people had some kind of misunderstanding fueled by alcohol and poor judgement.
Like the other misunderstandings that the other women at the party in made statements about about, and statements made from other girls at prior parties as well? Girls who stated that he was aggressive towards them, acted inappropriately, made them uncomfortable with his sexual advances?
From your own source:
The woman’s sister told the police that they met several men at the party, but that “one of the guys was very aggressive and trying to kiss everyone,” according to a police report. She later identified that man as Mr. Turner and said she had twice repelled kissing and advances by him.
Detectives interviewed two women who had “an encounter” with Mr. Turner the weekend before the assault, the memo said. He was “touchy” and put his hands on one of the women’s upper thigh. Mr. Turner had “creeped” her out because of his persistence, the woman told the police.
quote:
- but the cry of rape sounds suspiciously politically motivated by a certain law professor.
You have no evidence whatsoever that she has anything to do with this. There is however, overwhelming evidence that the assault occurred. But you are willfully ignoring facts so that you can continue with your own conspiracy theories about the attacker being the victim, that the girl is a predator, and this is all a set-up.
And as far as Turner goes, he argued that he was an inexperienced drinker (had only been drunk once) and did not do drugs. Yet that has already proven to be patently false.
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29988209/excerpts-from-stanford-sex-offender-brock-turners-court?source=pkg
In addition to lots of evidence depicting a history of alcohol and drug usage, he was in fact questioned by the police on campus, when found drinking alcohol and carrying a false ID. After initially running away from the police. This was two months before the assault.
http://ktla.com/2016/06/11/court-documents-in-stanford-university-sexual-assault-case-shed-new-light-on-brock-turners-aggressive-behavior/
quote:
but I do see a lot of maneuvering to exploit the situation and the young people involved.
No, you read one article and based on your own assumptions from it you are making a lot of shit up is what you are doing. And ignoring undisputed facts to do so.
|
|
|
|
