Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Read her VIS. She portrays herself as being much older than the other attendees of the party.
"I had nothing better to do, so why not, there’s a dumb party ten minutes from my house, I would go, dance like a fool, and embarrass my younger sister. On the way there, I joked that undergrad guys would have braces. My sister teased me for wearing a beige cardigan to a frat party like a librarian. I called myself “big mama”, because I knew I’d be the oldest one there."
Any reasonable person reading that statement would assume this woman to be at least 25 years old. She's "big mama", going to this "dumb" party, only because she had nothing better to do, embarrassing her little sister, making fun of the undergrads with braces. The truth is, this was a young woman who was just 22 years old, recently graduated from college herself. That's dishonest.
Second, she mentions that she was wearing a "beige cardigan...like a librarian", leading us all to believe she was dressed like a schoolmarm. She doesn't mention the fact that she was wearing a skin-tight dress underneath. That's dishonest.
"I made silly faces, let my guard down, and drank liquor too fast not factoring in that my tolerance had significantly lowered since college."
That's her explanation for her drunken state that night. "My tolerance had significantly lowered 'since college'. Again, any reasonable person reading that would think this woman was at least 25 years old and well out of college. She doesn't mention the fact that she had drunk 4 shots of liquor 30 minutes before leaving for the party. She doesn't mention downing two shots of vodka immediately prior to going out to the patio, where she met Brock.That's dishonest. Lies of omission are still lies.
Read her VIS. She portrays herself as being much older than the other attendees of the party.
"I had nothing better to do, so why not, there’s a dumb party ten minutes from my house, I would go, dance like a fool, and embarrass my younger sister. On the way there, I joked that undergrad guys would have braces. My sister teased me for wearing a beige cardigan to a frat party like a librarian. I called myself “big mama”, because I knew I’d be the oldest one there."
Any reasonable person reading that statement would assume this woman to be at least 25 years old. She's "big mama", going to this "dumb" party, only because she had nothing better to do, embarrassing her little sister, making fun of the undergrads with braces. The truth is, this was a young woman who was just 22 years old, recently graduated from college herself. That's dishonest.
Second, she mentions that she was wearing a "beige cardigan...like a librarian", leading us all to believe she was dressed like a schoolmarm. She doesn't mention the fact that she was wearing a skin-tight dress underneath. That's dishonest.
"I made silly faces, let my guard down, and drank liquor too fast not factoring in that my tolerance had significantly lowered since college."
That's her explanation for her drunken state that night. "My tolerance had significantly lowered 'since college'. Again, any reasonable person reading that would think this woman was at least 25 years old and well out of college. She doesn't mention the fact that she had drunk 4 shots of liquor 30 minutes before leaving for the party. She doesn't mention downing two shots of vodka immediately prior to going out to the patio, where she met Brock.That's dishonest. Lies of omission are still lies.
Read about the shots at home and later free style vodka pouring. Overall, thought her letter to Brock was longer than needed. Imagine proof reading and editing were done. "Tolerance" touches on the subject and all that's necessary. Take a look at Brocks letter to the court where he blames the swim team.
I think you're offering a poor analogy. A crime is a crime, of course. But if I leave my keys in my car with the windows down in a bad neighborhood, I have to accept some responsibility for that. That doesn't absolve/justify a criminal taking advantage of me and stealing my car, and they should be punished. At the same time, I can't drink 4 shots of liquor, go to a frat party, continue drinking until I'm beyond capacity and memory, and then later claim that I was sexually assaulted because someone told me I was. That's what happened here. That's what we're talking about. This young woman has no idea what happened that night. Yet, she's willing to accuse another person of sexually assaulting her and claiming the role of victim. It's truly sick.
Not really...while the victim of theft may accept some responsibility, that never impacts the degree of guilt or sentencing of the thief...whereas if the rape victim accepts some responsibility the first thing we do is try to get the rapist's sentence reduced and shield them from "ruining their life" over "20 minutes of action".
She may be somewhat responsible for having been the "chosen victim of the moment" but the other women around were also at risk...there's a good chance that ONE of them would have been the victim...now let's just make the one who was actually chosen be at fault. That's the whole point - WHOEVER was the victim, the RAPIST is the CRIMINAL...now we judge the woman that he CHOSE as being the bad one?
Not really...while the victim of theft may accept some responsibility, that never impacts the degree of guilt or sentencing of the thief...whereas if the rape victim accepts some responsibility the first thing we do is try to get the rapist's sentence reduced and shield them from "ruining their life" over "20 minutes of action".?
True. What I've seen is that rape has traditionally been the only crime where the victim was expected to accept some responsibility (based on what they wore, how they acted, etc). Victims of other types of crimes, such as theft, don't have their personal lives being dragged into the courtroom.
Emily was presumed to be a victim, and treated as such, simply because she said so. You don't see anything wrong with all of this?
Emily was presumed to be a victim not because of what she said but rather because of what witnesses testified to seeing when they happened upon Turner and Doe outside, on the ground.
Read her VIS. She portrays herself as being much older than the other attendees of the party.
"I had nothing better to do, so why not, there’s a dumb party ten minutes from my house, I would go, dance like a fool, and embarrass my younger sister. On the way there, I joked that undergrad guys would have braces. My sister teased me for wearing a beige cardigan to a frat party like a librarian. I called myself “big mama”, because I knew I’d be the oldest one there."
Any reasonable person reading that statement would assume this woman to be at least 25 years old. She's "big mama", going to this "dumb" party, only because she had nothing better to do, embarrassing her little sister, making fun of the undergrads with braces. The truth is, this was a young woman who was just 22 years old, recently graduated from college herself. That's dishonest.
Second, she mentions that she was wearing a "beige cardigan...like a librarian", leading us all to believe she was dressed like a schoolmarm. She doesn't mention the fact that she was wearing a skin-tight dress underneath. That's dishonest.
"I made silly faces, let my guard down, and drank liquor too fast not factoring in that my tolerance had significantly lowered since college."
That's her explanation for her drunken state that night. "My tolerance had significantly lowered 'since college'. Again, any reasonable person reading that would think this woman was at least 25 years old and well out of college. She doesn't mention the fact that she had drunk 4 shots of liquor 30 minutes before leaving for the party. She doesn't mention downing two shots of vodka immediately prior to going out to the patio, where she met Brock.That's dishonest. Lies of omission are still lies.
I agree with you on this. Her VIS was dramatic and exaggerated. I also agree that drinking excessively opens one up to risk that they would not face when sober and people do need to take some responsibility in those types of situations. That said, Brock's sentence took into account the fact that he was in an altered state as well and was what led to a lighter sentence then what people expected.
Actually, yeah it is how the system works. On TV, cops catch the rapist off the street randomly after obtaining DNA from the victim's body. Case closed, solid evidence. In real life, there is often no physical evidence in sexual assault cases. Or it is a he said, she said by two people who knew each other prior to the assault;
I was responding to this by Priscilla Vanilla:
Quote:
There doesn't need to be medical evidence. There were two eyewitnesses, total strangers, who gave an account of what they saw and they said the girl was being raped by Brock Turner.
And it was really more about addressing the wanton disregard for due process by people like her. What they supposedly said (and I have seen nothing of the sort) and what the medical evidence offered are two very different things. Sure, it's a he said/she said, until medical or other evidence proves otherwise. But, absent medical or other evidence, it's usually what "she said" that matters.
Quote:
not the actually rare but somehow stereotypical "I was raped and beaten randomly after being dragged into an alley" (though that's slightly more like it in this case) type of story.
How so?
Quote:
The prosecutors presented the evidence they had in this case, which was obviously competent enough to make it to court, and the jury convicted on whatever charges they did based on that evidence. The jury heard two stories, with whatever evidence was offered by both sides, and believed one more than the other. The system worked exactly how it was supposed to.
The system doesn't always work how it's supposed to. Jurors don't come from a special pool of objective and critical thinking people. And there was an entire year of press on this case before the trial started, where he was named "The Stanford Rapist" before he even went to trial.
And if it worked exactly as it was supposed to, why are people petitioning to have judge Persky removed?
Quote:
Good news - evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution on appeal.
Evidence that serves to help the defense is favorable to the prosecution? How is that good news?
Quote:
If this does get overturned, it'll likely be on some technicalities unrelated to competency of the evidence/prosecutions story.
Did you read the appeal?
Quote:
Which wouldn't then question the evidence or the truth of the victim's and witnesses' story
The victim doesn't have a story. And there are no witnesses to anything other than a few seconds "behind a dumpster".
Quote:
So someone whose conviction is overturned can still be actually, factually guilty (though no longer in the eyes of the law).
Well, of course. But she decided he was guilty "from the moment I woke up" on a gurney, in a hospital she mistook for a college office, of an assault she doesn't actually remember. When did you decide he was guilty? Serious question.
Last edited by PassTheChocolate; 01-11-2018 at 12:15 PM..
So, we are to believe Turner's version because he said so? What about the inconsistencies of his statements? Forget that she was unconscious? Forget the Swedes' observations? Forget the fact that she had abrasions and lacerations to her neck and bottom? Forget that she had dirt, debris, and pine needles shoved in her vagina? Forget that her hair contained so much debris that several people helped her remove it? Forget that he ran off?
I'm pretty sure I read a heck of a lot more than you did based on our previous discussions. I haven't forgotten anything. I am considering everything.
Quote:
The victim is not the one who accused Brock Turner. By her own admission, she does not know what occurred.
Correct.
Quote:
It was the police on the scene who determined an assault occurred based on the evidence at hand. Evidence which was used to convict him.
They didn't know any more than she did. He was held on suspicion of attempted rape, not a determination. He was indicted 11 days later with rape of an intoxicated person, rape of an unconscious person, assault with intent to rape an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating an intoxicated person with a foreign object, sexually penetrating an unconscious person with a foreign object. The first two charges were dismissed. The remaining are being appealed. And, based on the info available, it's reasonable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
