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.
- A few days later medical results begin to arrive and rape kit is "negative" (i.e. no evidence of penetration). Jane's blood alcohol content is >0.24 and Brock's is 0.16. Because Jane blood was not taken until several hours post event, and she was on an IV drip, she very likely had a BAC of >0.3 at the time of the event through retrograde extrapolation. (As an aside, this is an astonishing feat! She had a BAC >0.3, which for normal people is in the 'death zone', yet never vomited. A normal person will vomit at a BAC of 0.12-0.15. To achieve what Jane did take years of heavy drinking to tolerize the body to high BACs.)
.
Actually, this is incorrect as she did vomit.
If you read the appeal that the OP posted, the EMT testified that when they moved her to the board to put her in the ambulance he saw that she had vomited.
I also hope this kid gets another chance, but the media probably destroyed any chance of that. Two kids were drunk and did something stupid. She passed out and now she is somehow the only victim. Her drunken state is excused, but his drunken state is attacked because he didn't pass out. I don't think this should be "rape", I think it is stupid. He had no intercourse either.
Let's get one thing straight, neither Brock nor his victim were kids, they were legal adults. Our society needs to stop infantilizing college students and giving them a free pass for things that anyone else would be charged with a crime for.
A person who is passed out can not "do" anything so why are you blaming the woman? What would she need to be excused for, simply getting drunk? That's not a crime in itself. You are talking as though she did something criminal and she didn't.
No, that is not what it means -- that is what you want it to mean. I will add that it is not uncommon to find unidentified secondary DNA on sexual assault victims. Depending on the quality of the sample, it is also not uncommon not to be able to identify a single source DNA sample.
My bona fides are: trained sexual assault investigator, certified evidence technician, and, as far as I know, the only police office in my part of the state who has attended the training given to our Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners.
I make no comment on Turner's guilt or innocence.
I appreciate your input, but this isn't about what I want, though I most certainly would love it if a sexual assault didn't take place. The appeal addresses the "evidence that is probative as to Ms. Doe’s capacity to consent and appellant’s awareness of that capacity at the time of the sexual activity". From the documents:
"This evidence is very important in the sufficiency of evidence review for several reasons. First, Mr. Lee elected to test the waistband of the underwear 'to see if someone had pulled [the underwear] down,' which indicates his belief that there would likely have been a transfer of DNA in the course of putting on/taking off one’s underwear. Mr. Lee’s belief was born out by his detection of Ms. Doe’s DNA on the underwear waistband.
The clearly exculpatory implication from the absence of appellant’s DNA is that Ms. Doe cooperated in his removal of her underwear. If appellant had wrestled the underwear off an inert and/or uncooperative person, the likelihood of a DNA transfer from appellant to the underwear would be much higher due to the greater friction involved in pulling underwear off someone who is lying flat on the ground.
Appellant testified that Ms. Doe lifted her hips to assist him in removing her underwear. The jury did not have to credit that testimony, but this Court must acknowledge the exculpatory implication of the DNA evidence, and recognize its particular importance as the only physical evidence relevant to the consent issue.
The prosecutor certainly recognized that exculpatory inference, and did her best to do damage control with her follow-up question to Mr. Lee as to whether the absence of DNA conclusively established that appellant did not touch the underwear. His answer implied that the result did not conclusively establish that appellant had never touched the underwear, but that did not rebut the exculpatory inference that the absence of appellant’s DNA supports an inference that Ms. Doe cooperated in the removal of her underwear."
My take on it, and has always been from the moment I read her VIS, that this was a case of two drunk people who didn't quite make it to a bedroom.
Here you go. Facts. Read the police report. There was most certainly "behind a dumpster" humping. The police report includes the description of the location and the policeman noting Turner's pants were disheveled.
My point is not that there wasn't a dumpster, but that "behind a dumpster" was a mischaracterization that served to establish depravity and intent to victimize her. You do know that prosecutors are often fine with putting innocent people in jail to keep their wins up, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla
Let's get one thing straight, neither Brock nor his victim were kids, they were legal adults. Our society needs to stop infantilizing college students and giving them a free pass for things that anyone else would be charged with a crime for.
Legal adults who were drunk. How old they were doesn't matter, because drunk people can't be expected to make good decisions. It's the reason we take their car keys from them when they drink.
And we sure do give free victim passes to women. In fact, they get far more passes on college campuses than anywhere else.
A person who is passed out can not "do" anything so why are you blaming the woman? What would she need to be excused for, simply getting drunk? That's not a crime in itself. You are talking as though she did something criminal and she didn't.
Actually, it is a crime. California Penal Code Section 647 (f) PC - Public Intoxication. Still gg didn't accuse her of a crime.
And no one has disputed that she passed out. But you have to determine when she passed out, that he knew she was passed out, that he assaulted her knowing she was passed out and that his intent was to assault her.
The Turners are affluent but they did not run with the truly wealthy of Oakwood. Brock's father is a civil servant at WPAFB and his mother is a nurse, so I'm not sure I would say that the standard rich, white kid narrative applies. In fact, the Turners are not terribly different from the family into which I was born. But there is a sense throughout the community of Oakwood that these kids are destined for great things and nothing should stand in their way, which leads to saving kids from their mistakes such that some of them internalize the belief that they are untouchable. As I stated earlier, it's that the rules don't apply, that the standards are malleable, that other people can be used, and that someone else will pick up the pieces. And it's a sickness. My current community struggles with it, too, although where I live now is more diverse and less insulated. It's a constant topic of discussion in our household because I know where that entitlement can lead. While my children have had the great fortune to grow up with resources others do not have at their fingertips, I've made it my mission to engender gratitude and to inoculate them from the poison of entitlement. I hope it's been enough.
Chocolate: the defense attorney is saying what I would expect him to say; that's his job. Writing it down doesn't make it a fact. He is making the lack of DNA on the underwear more substantive than it actually is. We will just have to agree to disagree. Have a good day.
I'll send you a message when I get a chance.
Last edited by joe from dayton; 01-06-2018 at 02:26 PM..
Again, they came upon this sex, but how the heck do they know she wasn't willing in her drunk state and then she passed out and the two eyewitnesses came upon this? That is reasonable doubt and you must acquit if that exists. How drunk was Brock himself? I would bet this is a drunk college sex thing gone wrong, not some premeditated rape. Brock sure is the poster boy for what many people love to hate. White swim team member in Stanford. People live to hate those that look like Brock these days. Gone are the days of admiring hard working kids like him. Anyway, this could easily be a drunk college mistake not rape.
Ugh, there seems to be a distressing correlation with this kid's case and how you think you should be permitted to act. Scary. Please do not ever go near women, ever ever.
. And, because of the state he was in, he couldn't discern that she couldn't legally consent.
It's incredible how many times I have been blind drunk in my life yet managed to not rape or sexually assault anyone.
There is no level of drunkenness that would convince a person that assaulting another person is wrong. None. None at all.
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.
