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.
But to take the focus off of the absolute fact that she flat out lied, for the sake of highlighting the lowlife behavior of the boys (and her?) is so disingenuous to the integrity of the actual facts of the case IMO. The fact is that she lied. The rest, as to whether she is a s1ut, or these young men are creeps etc. is a debate which should be taken up by priests, nuns, monks, saints and the like.
Just because she recanted, does not mean that she lied. She's taking the accusation off the table, but it still could have happened.
There is very little integrity to any of the "facts" in this case...on BOTH sides.
Isn't it better to raise questions than to automatically join the lynch mob?
You know what scares me about this thread...that one day some of you people will actually sit on a jury and judge other people's pursuit of freedom and liberty based solely on your own Judeo-Christian values and biases.
answers.com/topic/freedom
Aaah, yes, of course. We always have to have the indignant post of the enlightened atheist in this matter.
I don't care about Judeo-Christian values and biases. I'm agnostic bordering on atheist myself. However, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and biases, so it's a little hypocritical to be crowing about it. We choose to live here, don't we? Besides, we have the most liberal justice system in the world, Judeo-Christian values and biases or not.
I'm not saying that we should punish these men for "deviant" behavior.
I'm saying that there are factors pointing to their guilt in a rape charge that should further be investigated.
From the beginning, Rondell Bedward and Jesus Ortiz both denied any sexual contact with Ndonye. Now, Stalin Felipe is also claiming that he did not have any sexual contact and did not so much as even "touch" her (see 1 and 2 above).
That leaves Kevin Taveras as the one and only person to have had sex with Ndonye (since we are lead to assume that the fifth man Arvin Rivera was supposedly there only to film the incident).
However, the men's own attorneys state that the tape shows "sexual acts between at least two people" (3), and the video is said to show "her involved in consensual sex with several men in a bathroom in the dorm" (1).
Plus, the NY Post article (4) says:
They went up to a bathroom on the 11th floor of Estabrook Hall, where she began having sex with each of them.
"Stalin said to her, 'Are you sure about this?' " Plasencia* said. "She said, 'Yeah, sure, I want to.' "
*(Nelly Plasencia, aunt of Kevin Taveras...is she saying that Stalin Felipe asked for Ndonye's consent to have sex?)
Additionally, they admit that the tape is only 5 minutes and 58 seconds long and "it wasn't the whole incident from start to finish".
The men's stories contradict each other and are inconsistent with police and news reports and even their own video proof. Their story is that only ONE of them had sex with Ndonye. That is a blatant LIE. It begs to be asked, what else are they lying about?
So now, this was never a consensual gang bang or an orgy at all? It was casual, consensual sex between Ndonye and only ONE of the five men? While the other four (two of whom are family members of the one man having the sexual encounter) stood and ogled? This story makes no sense. Why would you stand around just watching? I know voyeurism is an established and fairly common fetish, but these are hormonal college kids and boys will be boys, remember? Plus, who the hell wants to stand around watching their brother/cousin having sex? And who the hell wants to have sex with their brother and cousin standing there watching? The only pay off to having to watch your brother or cousin having sex is if you get a turn too.
I also want to point out that the Newsday article (3) states that the "beer flowed" at the frat party in question.
My last point: It would be very easy to pressure, threaten or scare an 18 year old into recanting her accusation. It is possible for her to have been telling the truth, and still recant. It is also possible for her to have fabricated SOME of the details (or maybe she was drunk enough during the incident that the facts got jumbled in her head), and STILL have been raped. Again, we've already established that the five men are lying about a very important factor in this case (that only one of them had sex with Ndonye, which is FALSE), so their credibility is just as shot. The one and only thing that set them free is that video, and that video not only contradicts their claims, but it only shows a fragment of the incident that took place.
As I've said before, the fifth man, Arvin Rivera, seemed to have been eluding authorities, despite having the exonerating video. All the articles say that police were "hunting" or "searching" for him while the other four suspects were already sitting in jail for 22 hours. That would have been enough time to erase a part of the video. Did anyone look into that angle? The Newsday article states that only the men's lawyers had viewed the tape, AND the tape they were given was not even the original...it was a copy on a flash drive. It also says that the chief sex crimes prosecutor told Ndonye of the possibility of its existence without ever having even seen it.
Just because she recanted, does not mean that she lied. She's taking the accusation off the table, but it still could have happened.
There is very little integrity to any of the "facts" in this case...on BOTH sides.
What is "it" that could have happened? According to the reports from the conclusions of investigators/interrogators, a rape did not occur.
Saying that it "still could have happened" at this point sounds as implausible as someone defending a confessed rapist by stating that: "well although the rapist outright confessed to the crime, it still may nothave happened. Just because he confessed to the accusations doesnt mean he's telling the truth."
Come on, no one would buy that, and our current justice system doesnt operate off of such hypothetical/speculative logic. So I personally choose to refrain from such logic when the roles are reversed. Especially, when evidence indicates the contrary. Which according to investigators, in the case of this young woman, the evidence and her retraction of accusations do not corroborate with her accusation of rape.
Therefore her recantation would, by default, categorize her initial accusation of rape as a falsehood (or lie). Now the degree to which she lied, or whether she simply embellished a little etc. is subjective. But the fact that there is evidence through both her own admission, as well as hard evidence contained in video footage, that no rape occurred, can only be interpreted by sane people that the allegations of rape were false.
Could the incident still have occurred? Most certainly. For all we know there may have been 4 MORE guys who participated. But her allegations of *rape* have yet to be substantiated, and by her own admission those allegations were false. Again, that doesnt mean that she wasnt gang banged. Nor that she wasnt drunk while being gang banged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seque5tra
Isn't it better to raise questions than to automatically join the lynch mob?
And to this I certainly agree...those police and the media definitely should have raise questions rather than automatically imprison and bring charges against these young men, and plaster their images across the globe.
Hypothetically, the sky could have fallen (sarcasm obviously), but if only one person accuses it of having done so, and then recants that same accusation, then that means that it couldnt have happened. That said, unless this young woman is literally mentally handicapped, she and virtually any other citizen of the U.S. is aware that rescinding one's account of being a victim of a crime, only after evidence concludes that his or her story doesnt add up, is grounds for being labeled yes, a liar.
What is "it" that could have happened? According to the reports from the conclusions of investigators/interrogators, a rape did not occur.
Saying that it "still could have happened" at this point sounds as implausible as someone defending a confessed rapist by stating that: "well although the rapist outright confessed to the crime, it still may nothave happened. Just because he confessed to the accusations doesnt mean he's telling the truth."
I admit that you have to look at someone with a LOT of skepticism when they recant an accusation. But even thought it seems implausible, the possibility does exist that accusers are pressured to recant.
It's just as possible as the converse example you gave of accused rapists (and other types of criminals) giving false confessions, and this does happen. One example that leaps to mind is the case of the 4 teens that confessed to rape in the Central Park Jogger case. They confessed to rape, but they weren't telling the truth even though it was to their own detriment.
As far as the video evidence that proves there was no rape...I'm not so sure what that video proves conclusively. Like I said in my previous post, it only documents 5 minutes and 58 minutes of what took place. And now, in addition to denying that there was any rape, they are one by one denying that there was any sex at all which contradicts their previous stories and what's on that tape.
Additionally, they admit that the tape is only 5 minutes and 58 seconds long and "it wasn't the whole incident from start to finish".
The men's stories contradict each other and are inconsistent with police and news reports and even their own video proof. Their story is that only ONE of them had sex with Ndonye. That is a blatant LIE. It begs to be asked, what else are they lying about?
My last point: It would be very easy to pressure, threaten or scare an 18 year old into recanting her accusation. It is possible for her to have been telling the truth, and still recant. It is also possible for her to have fabricated SOME of the details (or maybe she was drunk enough during the incident that the facts got jumbled in her head), and STILL have been raped. Again, we've already established that the five men are lying about a very important factor in this case (that only one of them had sex with Ndonye, which is FALSE), so their credibility is just as shot. The one and only thing that set them free is that video, and that video not only contradicts their claims, but it only shows a fragment of the incident that took place.
As I've said before, the fifth man, Arvin Rivera, seemed to have been eluding authorities, despite having the exonerating video. All the articles say that police were "hunting" or "searching" for him while the other four suspects were already sitting in jail for 22 hours. That would have been enough time to erase a part of the video. Did anyone look into that angle? The Newsday article states that only the men's lawyers had viewed the tape, AND the tape they were given was not even the original...it was a copy on a flash drive. It also says that the chief sex crimes prosecutor told Ndonye of the possibility of its existence without ever having even seen it.
Was she drunk or not? Some reports say she was, some reports say she wasn't.
I agree that rape could have occurred yet she still recanted so as to avoid the whole media/legal hassle and/or because she was afraid of the accuseds' and their families.
The videotape thing is entirely fishy to me and you make several excellent points as to how dubious it is. I am surprised the authorities did not demand to see it before taking action ... either arresting them, or if its existence was made known only after the arrests, before letting them off ... but if she recanted I guess they HAD to let them off at that point.
Too bad the authorities arrested the accuseds so quickly and got this ball rolling into the media. Maybe they should have waited a few days and just questioned people first.
Last edited by I_Love_LI_but; 09-19-2009 at 03:20 PM..
What is "it" that could have happened? According to the reports from the conclusions of investigators/interrogators, a rape did not occur.
Saying that it "still could have happened" at this point sounds as implausible as someone defending a confessed rapist by stating that: "well although the rapist outright confessed to the crime, it still may nothave happened. Just because he confessed to the accusations doesnt mean he's telling the truth."
That happens all the time. You really need to get out more. Remember the Central Park jogger case? Those kids ALL confessed to a heinous crime they didn't do and spent years in jail for it, and might still be in jail, if the real culprit was not made known.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
Come on, no one would buy that, and our current justice system doesnt operate off of such hypothetical/speculative logic. So I personally choose to refrain from such logic when the roles are reversed. Especially, when evidence indicates the contrary. Which according to investigators, in the case of this young woman, the evidence and her retraction of accusations do not corroborate with her accusation of rape.
Therefore her recantation would, by default, categorize her initial accusation of rape as a falsehood (or lie). Now the degree to which she lied, or whether she simply embellished a little etc. is subjective. But the fact that there is evidence through both her own admission, as well as hard evidence contained in video footage, that no rape occurred, can only be interpreted by sane people that the allegations of rape were false.
The video is NOT evidence of any kind. It was never submitted to the authorities, so how can it be called evidence. Also, if this evidence was so exonerating, why did the person holding this evidence hide it? The authorities still don't have it, so I guess you are not an attorney if you think that it is evidence of any kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
And to this I certainly agree...those police and the media definitely should have raise questions rather than automatically imprison and bring charges against these young men, and plaster their images across the globe.
I agree that the police jumped the gun making arrests. They should have continued the investigation longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
Hypothetically, the sky could have fallen (sarcasm obviously), but if only one person accuses it of having done so, and then recants that same accusation, then that means that it couldnt have happened. That said, unless this young woman is literally mentally handicapped, she and virtually any other citizen of the U.S. is aware that rescinding one's account of being a victim of a crime, only after evidence concludes that his or her story doesnt add up, is grounds for being labeled yes, a liar.
People do recant things that are true. People also confess to things they didn't do. If your simplistic view of truth, falsehood and justice is true, then riddle me this. Why did the Central Park jogger accuseds confess to what they didn't do and stay in jail for years? According to you, it's not even possible for that to happen as if it's an iron-clad law like the rules of physics. I guess you don't make your living arguing case law, hmm?
Was she drunk or not? Some reports say she was, some reports say she wasn't.
I agree that rape could have occurred yet she still recanted so as to avoid the whole media/legal hassle and/or because she was afraid of the accuseds' and their families.
The videotape thing is entirely fishy to me and you make several excellent points as to how dubious it is. I am surprised the authorities did not demand to see it before taking action ... either arresting them, or if it's existence was made known only after the arrests, before letting them off ... but if she recanted I guess they HAD to let them off at that point.
Too bad the authorities arrested the accuseds so quickly and got this ball rolling into the media. Maybe they should have waited a few days and just questioned people first.
Whether or not she was drunk is another question (which has inconsistent answers). We know that she reported "rape" almost immediately. I don't see any reports of a rape kit having been done, which I also think is sketchy. If they had done a rape kit, they could have determined BAC. But yeah, it's fishy that some reports say she was "dancing & drinking" and other reports leave "drinking" out of it altogether. It's like EVERYONE has a lie to tell and EVERYONE has a truth to hide.
I agree with you about the authorities and the media. They did a truly sloppy job.
Whether or not she was drunk is another question (which has inconsistent answers). We know that she reported "rape" almost immediately. I don't see any reports of a rape kit having been done, which I also think is sketchy. If they had done a rape kit, they could have determined BAC. But yeah, it's fishy that some reports say she was "dancing & drinking" and other reports leave "drinking" out of it altogether. It's like EVERYONE has a lie to tell and EVERYONE has a truth to hide.
I agree with you about the authorities and the media. They did a truly sloppy job.
Why do you think they didn't do a rape kit just because the media does not discuss anything about it? That is procedure when a rape is reported and the victim is taken in for medical examination. Rape kit details are transcripts of the findings are supposed to be private patient information and not given to the media. I doubt any arrests would have been made without one showing that there was sexual activity. However, it can only analyze the sexual activity, but cannot 100% determine whether that activity was consensual or not.
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.
