# Woman caught watching porn...lied about being raped as an excuse...MAN DOES 4 Years



## Black Superman (Nov 21, 2012)

> Montgomery released from prison after Gov. McDonnell issues pardon
> Innocent man released from prison after four years
> 
> JARRATT — Johnathon Montgomery said the first hint of freedom came late Tuesday afternoon.
> ...




[/QUOTE]


----------



## eHav (Nov 21, 2012)

well, will she be punished? 

also, how hte fuck do they arrest him with no proof whatsoever?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 21, 2012)

Good that she'll be punished, but something tells me that he won't get shit from the state, despite the fact that it stole 4 years of his life for nothing.


----------



## Wolfarus (Nov 21, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Good that she'll be punished, but something tells me that he won't get shit from the state, despite the fact that it stole 4 years of his life for nothing.



Unfortunately, this. Unless he actively takes them to court, he wont see a dime in restitution.

@Ehav

Most likely it was because she was under-aged AND female. Because, you know, kids and women dont lie about  adults/men to get them into trouble


----------



## Linkdarkside (Nov 21, 2012)

Lol blaming some one on sexual asault for waching porn.


----------



## drache (Nov 21, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Good that she'll be punished, but something tells me that he won't get shit from the state, despite the fact that it stole 4 years of his life for nothing.


 
why should he? This 'stealing' meme always bothers me, he was put on trial and convicted by a jury of his peers. Unless the state is guilty of misconduct the state owes him nothing.

That said I am glad he is being released immediately


----------



## ShadowReij (Nov 21, 2012)

Linkdarkside said:


> Lol blaming some one on sexual asault for waching porn.



Exactly, are you kidding me? The majority of people do or have seen porn, what's the point of saving face?


----------



## Patchouli (Nov 21, 2012)

Must have been some pretty hardcore porn.


----------



## Enclave (Nov 21, 2012)

What the hell, a conditional release?!  Give him a full pardon, get his ass off the sex offenders list and finally sue the government and the womans family for ruining his life.


----------



## g_core18 (Nov 21, 2012)

Sue the fuck out of that cunt.


----------



## drache (Nov 21, 2012)

Enclave said:


> What the hell, a conditional release?! Give him a full pardon, get his ass off the sex offenders list and finally sue the government and the womans family for ruining his life.


 
all that takes *time* Enclave not to mention the proscution has the right to fight this if they choose. Given that the facts are what they appear to be I doubt any of that is more then a formality hence being conditionally pardoned now instead of having to wait another month or 2 in prison for it all to be processed


----------



## Soca (Nov 21, 2012)

Fuck the dumb shit, sue and get it over with.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 21, 2012)

drache said:


> why should he? This 'stealing' meme always bothers me, he was put on trial and convicted by a jury of his peers. Unless the state is guilty of misconduct the state owes him nothing.
> 
> That said I am glad he is being released immediately



So the whole jury system takes away responsibility from the state? The state consists of the people. "The people" have wrongfully convicted him, so they should compensate him.


----------



## Draffut (Nov 21, 2012)

drache said:


> why should he? This 'stealing' meme always bothers me, he was put on trial and convicted by a jury of his peers. Unless the state is guilty of misconduct the state owes him nothing.
> 
> That said I am glad he is being released immediately



Are you serious?  He lost 4 years of his life for absolutely no reason.  The girl needs to be put in jail and the state owes him for destroying his life.


----------



## Coteaz (Nov 21, 2012)

Lock that bitch away and give this man some cash.

Also, posting in another passive-aggressive misogynistic Zero thread.


----------



## drache (Nov 21, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> So the whole jury system takes away responsibility from the state? The state consists of the people. "The people" have wrongfully convicted him, so they should compensate him.


 


Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Are you serious? He lost 4 years of his life for absolutely no reason. The girl needs to be put in jail and the state owes him for destroying his life.


 
Consider this my reply to you both

If the man recieved a fair trial
If there was no misconduct by the state

Then no he shouldn't recieve money from the state at least not guilt money. The system is not perfect but if he recieved a fair trial then that is all that he is guranteed.

I do think and hope that he recieves help either from family or the state getting his life back on track.

As to the girl, she techinically is guilty of a false police report that said I think it's incredibly vindictive if she was as young as the article makes her out to be to put her in jail. Obviously something should happen but to treat this as a zero sum equation is foolish. Those years are gone and nothing will bring them back.


----------



## Sanity Check (Nov 21, 2012)

> State officials are considering a plan that would allow him to travel to his father’s home in North Carolina for Thanksgivng.
> 
> “My dad has a cute little dog, and I can’t wait to get to his house and hold that dog,” he said. “I have a cat that I haven’t seen in four years.” He plans to go to Best Buy and purchase a Bluetooth device, and to see the new “Twilight” movie.



Can't wait to get out of prison to see his dog and cat and watch the new twilight movie?  :WOW

Who would ever mistake this guy for a rapist?  

He sounds like the nicest guy ever......


----------



## αce (Nov 21, 2012)

lock her up
problem solved


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 21, 2012)

People love to act like false rape accusations never happen. He was also probably raped for real in prison. Sad story.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Nov 21, 2012)

drache said:


> Consider this my reply to you both
> 
> *If the man recieved a fair trial...*



If he was convicted of a crime that can be ABSOLUTELY proven to have not happened through basic DNA and gynecological evidence, then no, he absolutely DID NOT receive a fair trial.


----------



## drache (Nov 21, 2012)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> If he was convicted of a crime that can be ABSOLUTELY proven to have not happened through basic DNA and gynecological evidence, then no, he absolutely DID NOT receive a fair trial.


 
if you think 'fair' means infailable then you're at best naive


----------



## kazuri (Nov 21, 2012)

If you think a man put in jail unjustly for 4 years deserves no compensation from the people who put them there, you are naive. No, wait, stupid, the word is stupid.


----------



## monafifia (Nov 21, 2012)

It's horrible she made him go through that


----------



## drache (Nov 21, 2012)

kazuri said:


> If you think a man put in jail unjustly for 4 years deserves no compensation from the people who put them there, you are naive. No, wait, stupid, the word is stupid.


 
irony: being called stupid by someone who apparently can not grasp the totality of my argument


----------



## Draffut (Nov 21, 2012)

drache said:


> Consider this my reply to you both
> 
> If the man recieved a fair trial
> If there was no misconduct by the state
> ...



Not at all.  The trial and especially the prosecutor are representative of us all, and they did not do us justice in trying him.  Considering this was entirely false, he either pushed forward with essentially no evidence outside of her testimony, or used false/fabricated evidence.  In either case this is despicable for the ones who are to represent us to do.  This man should be compensated for time and life lost.

I sincerely hope, with all my being, that you are thrown in jail for a decade or more under false allegations and are eventually set free.  When they do let you out  they shrug their shoulders and say "Well, you got a fair trial at least, good luck in life buddy."  Because only direct experience can amend stupidity of your extreme level.

I mean, honestly.  He got a fair trial that deemed him guilty, why ever let him out?

Sure all the real evidence was dropped, but he did have a trial after all, right?  We should make sure he rots in there for ever just because; we don't owe him freedom after an entire trial!


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 21, 2012)

So Drache if you were convicted of a crime that you didn't commit, and they were unable to prove without a reason of a doubt that you did it you would be content with not having any reparation for the 4 years you lost?


----------



## Gunners (Nov 21, 2012)

Why do people bother arguing with Drache? The man is as a thick as shit and is unwilling to learn.


----------



## drache (Nov 21, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Not at all. The trial and especially the prosecutor are representative of us all, and they did not do us justice in trying him. Considering this was entirely false, he either pushed forward with essentially no evidence outside of her testimony, or used false/fabricated evidence. In either case this is despicable for the ones who are to represent us to do. This man should be compensated for time and life lost.
> 
> I sincerely hope, with all my being, that you are thrown in jail for a decade or more under false allegations and are eventually set free. When they do let you out they shrug their shoulders and say "Well, you got a fair trial at least, good luck in life buddy." Because only direct experience can amend stupidity of your extreme level.


 
And I sincerely hope you sit on a tack but I doubt either of us will get our wishes.

We're human and mistakes will be made despite the fact that everything in our judical system is set up to minimize this. Sometimes it's teh innocent being sent to jail, sometimes it's the guilty going free.

But you're emotional, hyperbolic rants are absurd not to mention you've demonstrated like the above poster that you truly don't understand what I've said. So why don't you go reread what I wrote (or look below at my comments to ET) and then apologize for being an idiot.



Erio Touwa said:


> So Drache if you were convicted of a crime that you didn't commit, and they were unable to prove without a reason of a doubt that you did it you would be content with not having any reparation for the 4 years you lost?


 
Once again I think he is owed helped getting his life back on track whether that comes from the state or not it matters not. That said in terms of actual legal culpiblity if there was no misconduct then I fail to see how one can make an actual case that the state should give him money.

As to myself, well see above, all the money in the world won't give him back those 4 years



Gunners said:


> Why do people bother arguing with Drache? The man is as a thick as shit and is unwilling to learn.


 
no I merely have my opinions and they are not lightly made if you have a rational not emotional argument make it. But emotionally ladened hyperbolic rants don't sway me

And by the by, I'm not the one that apparently is incapable of basic reading comphrension. I've made my point either rebute on the merits of it or not

edit:



Deputy Myself said:


> makes you wonder why that woman didn't just you know
> admit it was all a lie the moment the cops arrested him


 
people get scared, lies build up  and then you're suddenly stuck 

which is one of many reasons to not lie in the first place and come what may


----------



## The Great Oneddd (Nov 21, 2012)

This is a sad injustice. It also goes to proven that women do claim rape in order to avoid issues where they made stupid choices.  I personally believe that women claim rape more often then what actually happens (as far as reported rapes go, unreported is a different story).


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Nov 21, 2012)

Lol drache shut up.

1. Lock up this woman.

2. Give this man some cash.

3. Someone actually rape that women.


----------



## drache (Nov 21, 2012)

^

well I see as usual you're being a sexist pig why not go for some variety and claim it's all a socialist plot? or that Obama did it?


----------



## Harard (Nov 21, 2012)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> If he was convicted of a crime that can be ABSOLUTELY proven to have not happened through basic DNA and gynecological evidence, then no, he absolutely DID NOT receive a fair trial.



Basically this...


----------



## Draxo (Nov 21, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> Are you serious?  He lost 4 years of his life for absolutely no reason.  The girl needs to be put in jail and the state owes him for destroying his life.



I'm with this guy.

This is an absolute sham.


----------



## Cupcake Witch (Nov 21, 2012)

That man should be compensated for all this
They really should wait for actual evidence before putting a man in prison -.-


----------



## Skywalker (Nov 21, 2012)

He better get something back for this, fuck that shit.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Nov 21, 2012)

Donquixote Doflamingo said:


> Lol drache shut up.
> 
> 1. Lock up this woman.
> 
> ...



this needs to happen x10. lock that bitch up for double the time the man got.


----------



## T7 Bateman (Nov 21, 2012)

Glad he got out but he still lost 4 years of his life. She does need to pay for the lie. I think if he sued he would get something.


----------



## Enclave (Nov 21, 2012)

drache said:


> all that takes *time* Enclave not to mention the proscution has the right to fight this if they choose. Given that the facts are what they appear to be I doubt any of that is more then a formality hence being conditionally pardoned now instead of having to wait another month or 2 in prison for it all to be processed



Oh I'm aware it does, however it took way too long for him to be released and when they finally did release him it was a conditional release.  It shouldn't take that long to exonerate an innocent man after the true facts come out.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Nov 21, 2012)

I really think the penalty for making a false accusation (not merely being confused but cases like this where you blatantly accused someone to cover your own ass) should be penalized criminally by the maximum sentence one could get from what you accused the innocent person of.

In addition to civil penalties for reparations.


----------



## drache (Nov 21, 2012)

Enclave said:


> Oh I'm aware it does, however it took way too long for him to be released and when they finally did release him it was a conditional release. It shouldn't take that long to exonerate an innocent man after the true facts come out.


 
well it did take the woman in question admitting she lied but I am confused as to what you think took too long....


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 21, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> I really think the penalty for making a false accusation (not merely being confused but cases like this where you blatantly accused someone to cover your own ass) should be penalized criminally by the maximum sentence one could get from what you accused the innocent person of.
> 
> In addition to civil penalties for reparations.



Off topic, but if you say Kupo I will love you forever.


----------



## Enclave (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> well it did take the woman in question admitting she lied but I am confused as to what you think took too long....



Ah, I take it you have difficulty reading.  Here, I'll quote the portion.



> The pardon, granted less than 24 hours after it was filed, allowed for Montgomery?s immediate release about a month after his accuser admitted she lied in 2008 when she claimed Montgomery sexually assaulted her eight years earlier.



So it took 1 month before he was released after she admitted that she had lied.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

^

ah I see well without being involved in the case all I can is that obviously they had to follow though with her change of heart, you simply don't release someone because a witness recanted. This isn't some tv show


----------



## Mikaveli (Nov 22, 2012)

I fucking hate people.


----------



## Nikushimi (Nov 22, 2012)

"Lol our bad. She said you did it, though."


----------



## Euraj (Nov 22, 2012)

Good grief! Is your damn rep with your folks that important?

Doesn't look like she could ever tell a lie, eh?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 22, 2012)

stab-o-tron5000 said:


> If he was convicted of a crime that can be ABSOLUTELY proven to have not happened through basic DNA and gynecological evidence, then no, he absolutely DID NOT receive a fair trial.


The point Drache is making is a jury convicted him. Not the state, the trial would still be considered fair. I mean we don't do the anything when someone everyone knows did it gets off.


----------



## dream (Nov 22, 2012)

I'm glad that he's out now but those four years in prison are something that he should never have gotten.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Nov 22, 2012)

heylove said:


> I'm glad that he's out now but those four years in prison are something that he should never have gotten.


Welcome to being black or poor in America where this kind of thing happens for all kinds of crimes and evidence is never introduced into death penalty trials.


----------



## trollface (Nov 22, 2012)

Normally I would say lynch the bitch but ffs, she was 10 at the time. She couldnt have any clue what she was doing. This scenario leaves me baffled.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The point Drache is making is a jury convicted him. Not the state, the trial would still be considered fair. I mean we don't do the anything when someone everyone knows did it gets off.


 
thank you, sometimes I wonder if I'm speaking another language to some of the people here


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 22, 2012)

No matter who convicted him there shouldn't had even been a trial.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Erio Touwa said:


> No matter who convicted him there shouldn't had even been a trial.


 
and just why?

Cases go to court all the time with the exact amount of evidence they had

I really don't get why people are acting like those invovled should have had the power of hindsight


----------



## Chappz316 (Nov 22, 2012)

I hope prison went easy on that guy, and he should never have to pay for anything in his life again.


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (Nov 22, 2012)

trollface said:


> Normally I would say lynch the bitch but ffs, she was 10 at the time. She couldnt have any clue what she was doing. This scenario leaves me baffled.



Not exactly. She claimed she was raped at the age of 10. But when the man went to prison, she was 18 and still kept repeating the lie and an 18 year old would definitely have a clue what she was doing. It took her another 4 years to finally come clean, after he had already served more than half his sentence. Lynch the bitch.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> and just why?
> 
> Cases go to court all the time with the exact amount of evidence they had
> 
> I really don't get why people are acting like those invovled should have had the power of hindsight



Power of hindsight wouldn't be needed if someone actually used their brain beforehand. How can you try and convict someone of such a crime without damning evidence?


----------



## Daxter (Nov 22, 2012)

I hope she is punished. This is totally... ridiculous, and it's sad that it's not the first of its kind, and it won't be the last. But the twilight film...?  You get out of jail and the first thing you want to watch is _Twilight_? Now I'm suspicious.

At another time I might say society's attitude toward women who want/look at porn potentially has a part to play in all this. One could consider just why this woman felt the need to justify this act with a story so extreme. Not that that excuses her in any way, it's just a curious thing...

Also, I wonder why it took her so long to retract the accusation?  Way to ruin a guy's life.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

^

You realize she was 10 when this started right? And I am guessing you've never told a lie before and then struggled to figure out a way to make it alright while trying to not have to say 'I lied'?

Lots of people here want to throw stones at this girl while ignoring the amount of personal courage and intergrity she had to have to even do this in the first place.

It's rather disturbing how borderline misogynistic some of the comments have been (and that's a general comment not directed at you in particular Doom)



Erio Touwa said:


> Power of hindsight wouldn't be needed if someone actually used their brain beforehand. How can you try and convict someone of such a crime without damning evidence?


 
ET real life isn't CSI, the bad guys don't always confess (in fact most don't) and many times the evidence is far from conclusive. That's why we have trial by a jury of our peers, that's why you are innocent till proven guilty (as opposed to other systems where you are required to prove you are innocent)

This case is frankly far from unsual in terms of what evidence was avialible (especially in terms of crimes against kids)


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> ET real life isn't CSI, the bad guys don't always confess and many times the evidence is far from conclusive. That's why we have trial by a jury of our peers, that's why you are innocent till proven guilty (as opposed to other systems where you are required to prove you are innocent)
> 
> This case is frankly far from unsual in terms of what evidence was avialible (especially in terms of crimes against kids)



Unless they had evidence it is still unjust. They should have done a rape kit among other things. Far from conclusive? if they would have done a proper investigation they would have easily found that she was not raped. Whatever happened to innocent until _proven_ guilty? The flaws in jury by our peers is that they'll buy any sob story, and take it upon themselves to be caught up in emotion instead of giving the defendant a fair trial. No matter how you slice it this was unjust and someone should have to pay for an innocent man being put through this, because people wanted to listen to a  kid and didn't bother investigating what really happened. It's not as if children don't lie all the time... Oh wait.


----------



## bingvhui (Nov 22, 2012)

Hopefully someone will get it pretty soon.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Erio Touwa said:


> Unless they had evidence it is still unjust. They should have done a rape kit among other things. Far from conclusive? if they would have done a proper investigation they would have easily found that she was not raped. Whatever happened to innocent until _proven_ guilty? The flaws in jury by our peers is that they'll buy any sob story, and take it upon themselves to be caught up in emotion instead of giving the defendant a fair trial. No matter how you slice it this was unjust and someone should have to pay for an innocent man being put through this, because people wanted to listen to a kid and didn't bother investigating what really happened. It's not as if children don't lie all the time... Oh wait.


 
You are assuming a lot there and there's not a single shred of evidence for your assumptions. As I said back in the real world evidence is not conclusive, criminals don't tend to wear one in a million shoes or walk though distinctive soil only found in one place or whatever other fantasy you have.

The police did a proper investigation, the proscution did it's job and then a jury of his peer *unanimously* returned a verdict of guilty.

Was it all in error? Yes but this is fucking absurd ET. And I am getting sick of you assuming when it helps you and pretending you know the facts of the case when you don't. Without a doubt the credibilty of the *both* the accused and the accuser were central to this case but I am sick of the arm chair analyst.

I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason this case was brought to trial was because it was an alleged crime against a child but you are really naive if you think this case is different then the dozens of others in which people are both convicted of and found innocent of.


Welcome to real life ET where despite doing everything we can the guilty can still go free and the innocent can still be found guilty of a crime they never comitted. If you can do anything to fix that please do because I personally would be all for it

PS I find the irony of you complaining about being caught up in emotion when your entire argument is being made from emotion absolutely hilarious


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 22, 2012)

They did a proper investigation? I highly doubt it. If they did so they would have easily been able to find she wasn't raped.


----------



## stream (Nov 22, 2012)

So an 18-year-old girl got caught watching porn by her parents, and to get out of it, she had to claim she had been raped when she was 10 years old? She must have nice parents.


Erio Touwa said:


> They did a proper investigation? I highly doubt it. If they did so they would have easily been able to find she wasn't raped.


Something that happened 8 years before? At that point, there's nothing that can be proved; it's purely her word against his. Still, it's surprising that he got convicted. Innocent until proven guilty my ass.


----------



## Daxter (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> ^
> 
> You realize she was 10 when this started right? And I am guessing you've never told a lie before and then struggled to figure out a way to make it alright while trying to not have to say 'I lied'?
> 
> ...



I'm replying this under the impression I'm _Doom_. 

I understand where you are coming from but did she not tell this lie at the ripe age of 18, not 10? It 'd be hard to believe that a 10 year old would come up with such a story. At 18, you're an adult, and perfectly responsible for the things that come out of your mouth, no matter how under pressure you seem to be.

As I said, she might have felt more at ease justifying her actions to others with the backward reasoning some men people come up with for why women would ever want to watch pornography, but that doesn't excuse her from ruining a guy's life for four years, if not completely (being associated with such an act) because she wanted to avoid embarrassment.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 22, 2012)

Almost positive when rape is the case they do a rape kit to try and find the attacker so they can make and ID.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Erio Touwa said:


> They did a proper investigation? I highly doubt it. If they did so they would have easily been able to find she wasn't raped.


 
I don't know if I should be annoyed at the sheer innocent naviety in such a statement or take solace that there are still people that think that 



stream said:


> So an 18-year-old girl got caught watching porn by her parents, and to get out of it, she had to claim she had been raped when she was 10 years old? She must have nice parents.


 
no the events happened when she was 10, she recanted when just recently when she turn 18, 8 years after the man was convicted


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 22, 2012)

I wanted to honestly say I tried, but your rationality gives me a headache. I personally know rape victims and when they reported rape they had to come in for tests. I don't know you could possibly call it naive when they could have determined if she was  assaulted or not. You don't just take someone's word for it when there are serious allegations like rape. There is no way they did a full and thorough investigation, and tried a innocent man of rape.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 22, 2012)

Drache, if they did nothing wrong at the trial, then that means any girl can just accuse a man of rape and have him imprisoned until she recants her statement.


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> no the events happened when she was 10, she recanted when just recently when she turn 18, 8 years after the man was convicted



What the actual fuck?

First of all, the event never happened. *She was not raped.*

Secondly, you have the timeline all messed up. Here's what happened:

1. Girl claims she was raped at age 10. But the lie was told in in 2008, so girl is 18.

2. Guy goes to jail. Girl is still 18 at this time.

3. Girl admits she lied and guy gets out of jail. Girl is 22 at this time.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Cryppled Dogma said:


> I'm replying this under the impression I'm _Doom_.
> 
> I understand where you are coming from but did she not tell this lie at the ripe age of 18, not 10? It 'd be hard to believe that a 10 year old would come up with such a story. At 18, you're an adult, and perfectly responsible for the things that come out of your mouth, no matter how under pressure you seem to be.
> 
> As I said, she might have felt more at ease justifying her actions to others with the backward reasoning some men people come up with for why women would ever want to watch pornography, but that doesn't excuse her from ruining a guy's life for four years, if not completely (being associated with such an act) because she wanted to avoid embarrassment.


 
sorry juggling multiple things and misread your name

Yes she told this lie at 10 as to why well that's pure conjecture and as to how? Well the truth is that this is not the first time it's happened. One theory I've read suggests that children become adept at reading the body language of adults and often feel compelled to say what it is they think people want them to say rather then the truth. It's also possible that the investigators or more likely the parents pushed her towards saying this. There's just not enough information to deduce anything concrete.

And as I said I think it speaks to her character that she did recant and yes it's tragic that this man spent 8 years in prison and shouldn't have but I think people miss the very obvious here in that she didn't have to say anything but did.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> sorry juggling multiple things and misread your name
> 
> Yes she told this lie at 10 as to why well that's pure conjecture and as to how? Well the truth is that this is not the first time it's happened. One theory I've read suggests that children become adept at reading the body language of adults and often feel compelled to say what it is they think people want them to say rather then the truth. It's also possible that the investigators or more likely the parents pushed her towards saying this. There's just not enough information to deduce anything concrete.
> 
> And as I said I think it speaks to her character that she did recant and yes it's tragic that this man spent 8 years in prison and shouldn't have but I think people miss the very obvious here in that she didn't have to say anything but did.



She's the cause he went to jail, but she came forward so he was finally released. She's admirable alright.


----------



## Gino (Nov 22, 2012)

never change Drache there is no argument of any kind it's really simple this man should sue and get the gwap for false imprisonment.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Erio Touwa said:


> I wanted to honestly say I tried, but your rationality gives me a headache. I personally know rape victims and when they reported rape they had to come in for tests. I don't know you could possibly call it naive when they could have determined if she was assaulted or not. You don't just take someone's word for it when there are serious allegations like rape. There is no way they did a full and thorough investigation, and tried a innocent man of rape.


 
And I want to honestly say I tried. Your lack of rationality is giving me a headache. Yes rape kits can help but if you are reporting a rape older then really the last 36 hours (and that's pushing it) it won't matter because statistically at that point most if not all semen would biologically have decomposed and that's assuming there was no condemn.

And of course they didn't just take her word for it, of course there was an investigation. I highly suggest you go educate yourself on aqutials after the fact and the error rate in the justic system because right now you're talking out of your rear. Innocent people can and do get convicted of crimes they never comitted, even rape.



Saufsoldat said:


> Drache, if they did nothing wrong at the trial, then that means any girl can just accuse a man of rape and have him imprisoned until she recants her statement.


 
really sauf? That's a nice strawman but it's so absurdly fucking ridiculous I'm not even going to bother to burn it to the ground. 

Come back when you have an actual point 



Unicornsilovethem said:


> What the actual fuck?
> 
> First of all, the event never happened. *She was not raped.*
> 
> ...


 


'the events' refering to her accusing the guy, the guy being proscuted and convincted

Good mother fucking gods could you take your head out of your ass, stop and *THINK* for a second? Not to mention assume a little less?


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 22, 2012)

I stick by the argument that there is no way this was investigated properly and and an innocent man was imprisoned. Unless the police are incompetent.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> really sauf? That's a nice strawman but it's so absurdly fucking ridiculous I'm not even going to bother to burn it to the ground.
> 
> Come back when you have an actual point



Explain please. She made up a rape accusation out of thin air and he got imprisoned until she recanted her statement. If everything that happened in the court was fair and good, then how can we protect other innocent people from meeting the same fate...?


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Nov 22, 2012)

While drache on the surface has some logical reasoning. For criminal trials the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Considering the alleged rape was 8 years in the past, never happened so there wouldn't be any evidence anyway, I do not see any evidence that could be presented beyond testimony of the accuser. You keep talking about your opponents making assumptions, but I want to hear from you a semi plausible theory on how the prosecutor could convict the man on something that didn't happen, eight years after the fact that it did not happen. Remember the evidence would have to show he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Also your use of fair is far from correct considering how much gaming goes on in trials with just the jury alone. Lets just put it this way, the jury selected honestly are not always qualified to make the call, often times they inherently favor one side or the other.

Also drache you say she made the lie at 10, no she made the lie at 18, and alleged that it happened 8 years prior. At least that was my understanding of the article.


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> 'the events' refering to her accusing the guy, the guy being proscuted and convincted
> 
> Good mother fucking gods could you take your head out of your ass, stop and *THINK* for a second? Not to mention assume a little less?



It's really hard to keep up with your expert misinterpretation of the timeline. You're still a misandrist douchebag for defending her. She has done absolutely nothing worthy of praise.


----------



## Chuck (Nov 22, 2012)

$80 for an undeserved 4 year sentence? 

That girl better be punished.


----------



## Daxter (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> sorry juggling multiple things and misread your name
> 
> Yes she told this lie at 10 as to why well that's pure conjecture and as to how? Well the truth is that this is not the first time it's happened. One theory I've read suggests that children become adept at reading the body language of adults and often feel compelled to say what it is they think people want them to say rather then the truth. It's also possible that the investigators or more likely the parents pushed her towards saying this. There's just not enough information to deduce anything concrete.
> 
> And as I said I think it speaks to her character that she did recant and yes it's tragic that this man spent 8 years in prison and shouldn't have but I think people miss the very obvious here in that she didn't have to say anything but did.



No harm done~



			
				OP said:
			
		

> *In 2008*, Montgomery was convicted of the sexual assault eight years earlier of a 10-year-old girl. Montgomery was 14 at the time the assault was supposed to have occurred. His accuser, Elizabeth Coast, now 22, recanted her testimony last month.
> 
> 
> Coast said she made up the story as a way to deflect her parents' anger after she was caught searching for sexually explicit websites online. She explained that she picked Montgomery as her attacker because she knew his family had moved away to Florida and she didn't think police would be able to find him. Instead, police tracked him down in Florida and arrested him.
> ...



Still, I think you misread the OP; it seems she _did_ tell this lie at _18_, and also, he only served 4 years of his 7 1/2 year sentence.

I believe the OP only explains that at the time of the accusation, the attack was [supposed have happened] 8 years earlier - not the accusation itself.

So, at 10 it's debatable but at 18? She's responsible, no doubt.


----------



## Zhariel (Nov 22, 2012)

If only these cunts realized how they are damaging their entire gender by doing this. How many stories have we read like this?


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

Enclave said:


> What the hell, a conditional release?!  Give him a full pardon, get his ass off the sex offenders list and finally sue the government and the womans family for ruining his life.



This. The guy never did A THING yet he's being made to remain a sex-offender? They should give him a complete pardon since he's innocent beyond reasonable doubt. She lied about the rape, and no one had any conclusive evidence. I'm surprised they even tried to track him down, much less arrest him.



drache said:


> You are assuming a lot there and there's not a single shred of evidence for your assumptions. As I said back in the real world evidence is not conclusive, criminals don't tend to wear one in a million shoes or walk though distinctive soil only found in one place or whatever other fantasy you have.



So because evidence is not conclusive, it's better to arrest criminals purely on suspicion and circumstantial evidence? You really don't need hard evidence? No wonder you're defending the *in*justice system. When you don't need hard evidence to convict a criminal, of course he was put on fair trial 



drache said:


> The police did a proper investigation, the proscution did it's job and then a jury of his peer *unanimously* returned a verdict of guilty.





If the police did a proper investigation, they would have found nothing. He was not guilty beyond a doubt, and I'd have thought it was only when the man was found guilty with absolute certainty that he would be charged with the crime appropriately (rather than simply being detained on suspicion). But the guy was charged as tho he was in fact guilty without any hard evidence to support the charge. That's NOT a proper investigation. The jury was unanimous in its decision, but you're making the mistake that a jury is infallible in its decision. I'm not being illogical when I say this as there is historical evidence that in some cases (not all, but enough) where the jury made a wrong decision. In some of these cases, innocent people were given the death sentence and died.



drache said:


> Welcome to real life ET where despite doing everything we can the guilty can still go free and the innocent can still be found guilty of a crime they never comitted. If you can do anything to fix that please do because I personally would be all for it



Why don't you try thinking of something to change it instead of defending the procedure which is so obviously wrong? Something even you're admitting here, it seems.


----------



## Kitsune (Nov 22, 2012)

Sad story, but the girl was only 10 and probably didn't realize the seriousness of what she'd done.

Kind of reminds me of that book/movie _Atonement_.

Edit: I see the timeline now.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Erio Touwa said:


> I stick by the argument that there is no way this was investigated properly and and an innocent man was imprisoned. Unless the police are incompetent.


 
And I stick by my point that the system is not infailible and to expect to be is either annoying naive or absurdly optimisitic 



Saufsoldat said:


> Explain please. She made up a rape accusation out of thin air and he got imprisoned until she recanted her statement. If everything that happened in the court was fair and good, then how can we protect other innocent people from meeting the same fate...?


 
You made a dumb ass claim that all people need to do is say something happened and then bam to jail they go. But that's not what happened there was a trial so why did *TWELEVE* other nonrelated people convict him? And least you make a mistake let me amend that to *wrongly *convict him? I don't have an answer for you but let's not pretend he was not processed by the justice system the same as you or me. Frankly _if_ all the proscution had was her accusation I'm rather surprised it went to court and that his defense attroney didn't rip that to shreds which makes me question if anything the competency of his defense.

As to your question, :shrug: I have no clue sauf. I'd stack the US legal system against anyone else' but it's not foolproof, it's not infailible and I won't pretend otherwise. Maybe one day 'lie detector' machines will actually work well enough to be viable evidence till then the best I got is we do what we've done which is muddle along



Kira U. Masaki said:


> While drache on the surface has some logical reasoning. For criminal trials the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Considering the alleged rape was 8 years in the past, never happened so there wouldn't be any evidence anyway, I do not see any evidence that could be presented beyond testimony of the accuser. You keep talking about your opponents making assumptions, but I want to hear from you a semi plausible theory on how the prosecutor could convict the man on something that didn't happen, eight years after the fact that it did not happen. Remember the evidence would have to show he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Also your use of fair is far from correct considering how much gaming goes on in trials with just the jury alone. Lets just put it this way, the jury selected honestly are not always qualified to make the call, often times they inherently favor one side or the other.
> 
> Also drache you say she made the lie at 10, no she made the lie at 18, and alleged that it happened 8 years prior. At least that was my understanding of the article.


 
You're right I did get the time line wrong which is my bad that said see what I said to sauf. _If_ all the proscution was her word and accusation I'm amazed this went to court (as many procutors would not think the odds good enough to even try) let alone that he was actually convicted. It makes me wonder just how comptent his defense was.

And I never claimed the jury or justice system is infailible, just that so far nothing improper has alleged to have been done by the proscution or police. Which suggests he got the same process you or me would face which is about the best we can offer.

Also let's be clear here it's 'beyond reasonable doubt of the entire jury', not your definition of that or ET's or anyone else' here 



Unicornsilovethem said:


> It's really hard to keep up with your expert misinterpretation of the timeline. You're still a misandrist douchebag for defending her. She has done absolutely nothing worthy of praise.


 
1. You're right I did get the time line slightly wrong

2. You a misogynstic ************* accusing me of being a 'misandrsit douchebag' is hilarious. 

3. Reread what I've posted moron, I'm not defending her actions, she *lied under oath* that's wrong  and I've never said different. But then you having reading comphrension issues is nothign new


----------



## Kitsune (Nov 22, 2012)

I'm kind of shocked by the level of spite this thread has brought.

It's truly awful and that girl should feel ashamed for the rest of her life, but it's not really anything compared to the millions of cases of sexual abuse towards women that go unpunished every day in the world.


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> 1. You're right I did get the time line slightly wrong
> 
> 2. You a misogynstic ************* accusing me of being a 'misandrsit douchebag' is hilarious.
> 
> 3. Reread what I've posted moron, I'm not defending her actions, she *lied under oath* that's wrong  and I've never said different. But then you having reading comphrension issues is nothign new



1. You didn't get it "slightly" wrong. You got it completely wrong.

2. I don't know what a ************* is, but there is nothing misogynistic about me. However, misandrist douchebag is a factual description of you.

3. You're right, me having reading comprehension issues is nothing new. It's nothing old either. The only thing it is, is false. You have been constantly defending her for doing the right thing in the end, and saying she isn't to blame for the original lie.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Cryppled Dogma said:


> No harm done~
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
read below, sorry I missed it but I think I've mostly covered this already 



Kitsune said:


> I'm kind of shocked by the level of spite this thread has brought.
> 
> It's truly awful and that girl should feel ashamed for the rest of her life, but it's not really anything compared to the millions of cases of sexual abuse towards women that go unpunished every day in the world.


 
eh the funny thing is people like to pretend the cafe is all one big happy group think, it's not it's a bunch of individuals and we all don't always agree

That said I personally wouldn't call any of this spite yet, frustation sure but not spite really (well okay I have some spite for that unicorn person but he/she earned that when they started calling for lynching)



Freedan said:


> So because evidence is not conclusive, it's better to arrest criminals purely on suspicion and circumstantial evidence? You really don't need hard evidence? No wonder you're defending the *in*justice system. When you don't need hard evidence to convict a criminal, of course he was put on fair trial


 
since your civics classes apparently failed you, let's review how the justice system works.

A crime is alleged to have occur
The police respond
The police investigate
The police hand over the results of that investigation to the proscution
The proscution chooses whether to file charges and continue the matter
At this point a grand jury is formed if the proscution chooses to file charges 
The grand jury decides whether there is sufficent evidence to take the matter to court
If the grand jury says yes, the case goes to court
The case goes to court where each side gets to make an opening statement, present their case and make a closing statement (and crucially the defense always goes last at each step)
The jury then decides on the guilt of the accused

That's what happens and unless you have evidence to the countary that's what happened here. That's a fair trial.

Now it's true that cases go to court with what could be best called sparse evidence that's why there are so many fucking checks dan. If this case passed them all then obviously a multiitude of people thought that a case could be made and that he was actually convicted suggests the same.

Maybe you should just stick to the imaginary world of CBS where everything is resloved in 50 minutes with a nice confession at the end since the real world is apparently not black and white enough for you?




Freedan said:


> If the police did a proper investigation, they would have found nothing. He was not guilty beyond a doubt, and I'd have thought it was only when the man was found guilty with absolute certainty that he would be charged with the crime appropriately (rather than simply being detained on suspicion). But the guy was charged as tho he was in fact guilty without any hard evidence to support the charge. That's NOT a proper investigation. The jury was unanimous in its decision, but you're making the mistake that a jury is infallible in its decision. I'm not being illogical when I say this as there is historical evidence that in some cases (not all, but enough) where the jury made a wrong decision. In some of these cases, innocent people were given the death sentence and died.


 
I love the fallacy here when you understand how momentually silly what you just did was, let's talk till then I'm not wasting my time on this stupidity any longer.



Freedan said:


> Why don't you try thinking of something to change it instead of defending the procedure which is so obviously wrong? Something even you're admitting here, it seems.


 
I've already said, I got nothing. If you, ET or anyone else have a better system then speak up please by all means. 




Unicornsilovethem said:


> 1. You didn't get it "slightly" wrong. You got it completely wrong.
> 
> 2. I don't know what a ************* is, but there is nothing misogynistic about me. However, misandrist douchebag is a factual description of you.
> 
> 3. You're right, me having reading comprehension issues is nothing new. It's nothing old either. The only thing it is, is false. You have been constantly defending her for doing the right thing in the end, and saying she isn't to blame for the original lie.


 
I'm not going to split hairs with you

************** is my way of saying that saying what I actually want to say would almost certainly be flaming and you are a misogynistic piece of slime becuase you called for her to be lynched among many other things. 

And no I have not and you are a bloody liar for claiming that. I'd demand an apology but we both know that you're so utterly devoid of honor that that won't happen


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> since your civics classes apparently failed you, let's review how the justice system works.
> 
> A crime is alleged to have occur
> The police respond
> ...


 
So it dumbs down to the opinion of the people checking over the evidence. But you're still ignoring the fact that *there was no evidence* he raped her. That and the fact that *he did not rape her to begin with*. They followed the procedure yes, but despite the many fucking checks, the evidence was still not enough yet the jury decided that it was and arrested him. I suppose the lawyer defending the victim made a damn good speech if it convinced the jury.

Also, stop talking to me like I'm in the US or have lived there fore a considerable amount of time. I don't know how court-procedures work in exhaustive detail there but I do know that what happened here was not justice. It was her word against his.


----------



## Jαmes (Nov 22, 2012)

it's a bittersweet story definitely. 

i do wonder what on earth went on in the trial.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Freedan said:


> So it dumbs down to the opinion of the people checking over the evidence. But you're still ignoring the fact that *there was no evidence* he raped her. That and the fact that *he did not rape her to begin with*. They followed the procedure yes, but despite the many fucking checks, the evidence was still not enough yet the jury decided that it was and arrested him. I suppose the lawyer defending the victim made a damn good speech if it convinced the jury.
> 
> Also, stop talking to me like I'm in the US or have lived there fore a considerable amount of time. I don't know how court-procedures work in exhaustive detail there but I do know that what happened here was not justice. It was her word against his.


 
if you do not live in the US or do not know how our criminal justice system works why the fuck are you pretending you do?

And I'm not pretending this was justice but you need to stop pretending that 'actually investigating' means that people get the right answer. They sometimes don't despite their best efforts and some people despite their best efforts miss things.


----------



## PDQ (Nov 22, 2012)

I think this is an example of why all court cases where it's discovered an innocent person is sent to prison should have all trial transcripts publicly available so juries can learn how *not* to send innocent people to prison.

What possible types of evidence can a prosecution make for a completely fabricated charge that could convince a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt"? 

If we truly believe in a system where people are innocent until proven guilty, this should be virtually impossible unless the the person is at least partially involved in the crime, let alone a case where an event didn't even occur.  It doesn't matter if "the real world isn't like CSI", the real world also has to prove something occurred, otherwise it's guilty until proven innocent.  That means we should be more willing to let a guilty man go free on insufficient evidence than put an innocent man in jail because "expecting more is unrealistic".
"It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer" - Ben Franklin


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> if you do not live in the US or do not know how our criminal justice system works why the fuck are you pretending you do?
> 
> And I'm not pretending this was justice but you need to stop pretending that 'actually investigating' means that people get the right answer. They sometimes don't despite their best efforts and some people despite their best efforts miss things.



It's perfectly fine to make mistakes even if an innocent person has to suffer a punishment he didn't deserve for four years. Gotcha.

Look, I'm not expecting the justice system to be perfect. I'm just saying that if there's no concrete evidence that he's guilty, a decision to throw him in jail shouldn't have been made in the first place. Just because the trial followed the right procedures doesn't mean the evidence they found was spot on 9something even you admitted) and therefore justifies the decision to charge him.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

PDQ said:


> I think this is an example of why all court cases where it's discovered an innocent person is sent to prison should have all trial transcripts publicly available so juries can learn how *not* to send innocent people to prison.
> 
> What possible types of evidence can a prosecution make for a completely fabricated charge that could convince a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
> 
> ...



I think that's a great idea both as a teaching aide and as a way to make sure things were handled as best as they could



Freedan said:


> It's perfectly fine to make mistakes even if an innocent person has to suffer a punishment he didn't deserve for four years. Gotcha.
> 
> Look, I'm not expecting the justice system to be perfect. I'm just saying that if there's no concrete evidence that he's guilty, a decision to throw him in jail shouldn't have been made in the first place. Just because the trial followed the right procedures doesn't mean the evidence they found was spot on 9something even you admitted) and therefore justifies the decision to charge him.



no you don't get to act like a pompous, stuck up, self righteous asshole if you don't even know what the fuck you are talking about

You act like you know what you're talking about but really you don't have a flying clue do you? You just admitted you don't even really know how the US legal system works so why don't you just shut up before you embarrass yourself further?


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> no you don't get to act like a pompous, stuck up, self righteous asshole if you don't even know what the fuck you are talking about
> 
> You act like you know what you're talking about but really you don't have a flying clue do you? You just admitted you don't even really know how the US legal system works so why don't you just shut up before you embarrass yourself further?



Because at least I use common sense and see injustice where it is and not simply shrug it off because the justice system is imperfect.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Because at least I use common sense and see injustice where it is and not simply shrug it off because the justice system is imperfect.



oh I see the imperfections but unlike you I actually bothered to educate myself about the justice system. You should try it, you might even like it


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> oh I see the imperfections but unlike you I actually bothered to educate myself about the justice system. You should try it, you might even like it



I may do that. But since you know more about it than I do, I'm surprised that you simply accept what happened to the guy and expect the girl to have no consequence as a result of ruining the man's life, nvm that you think it's ok for the guy to still be deemed a sex-offender because _that's how the system works_.

It's like you're saying you know it's not fair, but since there's no better alternative, you have no choice but to accept it.


----------



## eHav (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> oh I see the imperfections but unlike you I actually bothered to educate myself about the justice system. You should try it, you might even like it



how is this relevant?

anyone that can put 2 and 2 together knows that whatever the fuck the US justice system did on this case was wrong. 

all that crap you said about the process is pointless, since there was no evidence whatsoever. it doesnt matter that they thought it should go to court, that only means anything can go to court unless the innocent carries around prof of innocence for everything.

otherwise, it seems like its guilty until proven innocent, which is simply wrong.

all there is to this is that a lie, based on 0 evidence, got through all those footsteps on the "system" and still got a man convicted. which is bullshit. which imo enables the guy to sue whoever the fuck let all this happen.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I may do that. But since you know more about it than I do, I'm surprised that you simply accept what happened to the guy and expect the girl to have no consequence as a result of ruining the man's life, nvm that you think it's ok for the guy to still be deemed a sex-offender because _that's how the system works_.
> 
> It's like you're saying you know it's not fair, but since there's no better alternative, you have no choice but to accept it.



And here we come to probably the centeral issue between me and you

You think simply because I'm not jumping up and down screaming that I 'simply accept it'. I don't, what happened as whenever an innocent man is convicted was and is a travesty. But that doesn't change what happened. Nothing will and frankly if this man does have to register as a sex offender (and I'm not sure where you are getting that) then I hope something is done to fix that.

As to the girl, I simply don't know. I don't agree with the absurdly over the top nature of unicorn. I think that the state likely is still within it's rights to charge her for filing a false police report among maybe many other things. That said even if they don't, everyone knows what she did and she'll have to live with that.

I don't think you understand that to me what I can not change, I accept. Even if it's not fair, not right or anything else. I'd rather spend my energy productively then not



eHav said:


> how is this relevant?
> 
> anyone that can put 2 and 2 together knows that whatever the fuck the US justice system did on this case was wrong.
> 
> ...



if you don't even understand the basic principles of the US system and the steps taken to insure that the innocent are not wrongly convicted then you have no room to talk.

It's like someone that doesn't even understand algebra trying to lecture me about calculus. You might have an intitutive grasp to an extent but it doesn't compare to a full understanding.


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

Radical acceptance. It's exactly why nothing never get done in the larger scheme of things.


----------



## James Bond (Nov 22, 2012)

I wouldnt sue the court, I'd sue the lying bitch


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (Nov 22, 2012)

This shit has happened so many times. Only in America could men get jail time for NOT raping women. Solution: rape them anyways.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Radical acceptance. It's exactly why nothing never get done in the larger scheme of things.



not true at all, it's just more productive then your strategy

As my sig used to say

give me the strength to change the things I can
give me the courage to accept the things I can not change
and the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I killed that pissed me off today (the last one being tongue in cheek as I am not sure I agree with the last part of the actual quote)


----------



## eHav (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> if you don't even understand the basic principles of the US system and the steps taken to insure that the innocent are not wrongly convicted then you have no room to talk.
> 
> It's like someone that doesn't even understand algebra trying to lecture me about calculus. You might have an intitutive grasp to an extent but it doesn't compare to a full understanding.



this is still irrelevant.

was what happened right? no

was it wrong? yes

if it was wrong, hes entitled to a compensation.

if it was right, then anyone can be convicted of stuff based on nothing but a lie.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

eHav said:


> this is still irrelevant.
> 
> was what happened right? no
> 
> ...



that's nice back in grown up world life is rarely so simple though zealots like you always are amusing


----------



## eHav (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> that's nice back in grown up world life is rarely so simple though zealots like you always are amusing



so in the "grown up world" people arent deserving of compensation when the errors of others cause them problems? ok


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

eHav said:


> so in the "grown up world" people arent deserving of compensation when the errors of others cause them problems? ok



compensation in what form? the man doesn't deserve a pay out from the state simply because he was innocent so long as he got a fair trial. That said the state does have an obligation to annul his conviction and make sure he's not subject to any consequences for something he is not longer convicted of. Further I would say that it would be nice (but mandated) if the state made sure to help him get back on his feet. But then again I would say the same of anyone coming from prison.


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> compensation in what form? the man doesn't deserve a pay out from the state simply because he was innocent so long as he got a fair trial. That said the state does have an obligation to annul his conviction and make sure he's not subject to any consequences for something he is not longer convicted of. Further I would say that it would be nice (but mandated) if the state made sure to help him get back on his feet. But then again I would say the same of anyone coming from prison.



Again with the fair trial bullshit. Let me emphasize this real nicely for you.

*There was no evidence he committed rape. He never committed rape.*

Under those circumstances, the jury decided to charge him based on *no information whatsoever*. How does that make a fair trial?


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Again with the fair trial bullshit. Let me emphasize this real nicely for you.
> 
> *There was no evidence he committed rape. He never committed rape.*
> 
> Under those circumstances, the jury decided to charge him based on *no information whatsoever*. How does that make a fair trial?



Let me emphasis this to you

*To the best of my knowledge the man recieved no different treatment then you or I, that's the definition of FAIR*

You seem to think 'fair' means 'infailible' which frankly is laughable. The only bullshit here is you


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> Let me emphasis this to you
> 
> *To the best of my knowledge the man recieved no different treatment then you or I, that's the definition of FAIR*
> 
> You seem to think 'fair' means 'infailible' which frankly is laughable. The only bullshit here is you



No different treatment?

Well at this point I know that you're just talking a lot of BS to justify the injustice system purely because you accept it. He received a trial and was judged based on the evidence that was gathered by the jury. That would be fair if there was evidence indicating with certainty that he did was he was accused of. But here's the crux of the issue:

*There was no evidence.*

So again I ask: how was it a fair trial? Simply being put on trial and that the process of the trial is followed to the letter doesn't automatically make it a fair trial, and what I mean by fair is not simply that the correct process is followed. Fair means that the process which is followed allows the jury to pass judgement which is appropriate and proportioned to the weight of the evidence pointing at the degree of his guilt. As there was not just a lack of sufficient evidence, but a COMPLETE lack of evidence, clearly the trial did not work correctly, and the man was judged unfairly because he was sentenced to prison despite nothing indicating he was guilty.


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> you really are an idiot because you keep repeating this ASSUMPTION of yours because it fits with your childish world view.
> 
> How do you no there was a COMPLETE lack of evidence? Are you seriously suggesting this went though multiple checks with absolutely nothing?
> 
> As I said all you got is bullshit and pompous arrognance. Why don't you go educate yourself child because this is tiresome.



Believe what you want then. I'm just disappointed at how anyone could think he was judged fairly and correctly despite the fact that he did NOT commit the crime to begin with. Let me just ask you this then:

If the court gathered sufficient evidence to deem him guilty of raping her and confirming he committed the crime, how is it that he didn't rape her?


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Believe what you want then. I'm just disappointed at how anyone could think he was judged fairly and correctly despite the fact that he did NOT commit the crime to begin with. Let me just ask you this then:
> 
> If the court gathered sufficient evidence to deem him guilty of raping her, how is it that he didn't rape her?



And I'm disappointed you that you have the actual gall to act as you do while being utterly ignorant of the US justice system.

I'm disappointed you don't seem to understand what a 'fair trial' really is.

I'm disappointed that I've had to repeat the actual facts of the intent of the US justice system to you.

I have no clue how this man was convicted but obvious it was enough for the police to pass it on to the prosecutors, obviously it was enough for the prosecutors to convene a grand jury and for the grand jury to send the case to trial and for the man to be convicted. 

When you understand that the legal system isn't about 'truth' but is instead about what you can and can not prove maybe you'll be worth talking to. Till then I frankly feel like I could have more productive conversations with my cat over calculus.


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> And I'm disappointed you that you have the actual gall to act as you do while being utterly ignorant of the US justice system.
> 
> I'm disappointed you don't seem to understand what a 'fair trial' really is.
> 
> I'm disappointed that I've had to repeat the actual facts of the intent of the US justice system to you.



Dude, I'm not COMPLETELY ignorant. I said I don't know THE SPECIFICS. There's a difference between knowing absolutely nothing and knowing how it works in simple terms. Stop pretending you're on the fucking high ground here.



drache said:


> I have no clue how this man was convicted but obvious it was enough for the police to pass it on to the prosecutors, obviously it was enough for the prosecutors to convene a grand jury and for the grand jury to send the case to trial and for the man to be convicted.



So you're saying that if it's enough evidence for the police to pass to the courts, it's sufficient enough to deem him guilty? That's a load of BS and you ought to know that, particularly when IT DID NOT HAPPEN. So far as I know, there's only a few ways in which rape charges can be confirmed, and that is a physical examination of the victim. Apparently, she did not go through said examination. Add to the fact the crime supposedly happened 8 years before charges were pressed, I can't imagine whatever evidence was collected could possibly be enough for ANYONE to conclude it happened at all, much less convict him. So please, don't assume the police is always right whenever judging the evidence is sufficient.



drache said:


> When you understand that the legal system isn't about 'truth' but is instead about what you can and can not prove maybe you'll be worth talking to. Till then I frankly feel like I could have more productive conversations with my cat over calculus.



I understand the legal system is about what you can and can't prove. And I believe that's wrong. When the justice system is not based on truth, then practically anyone can be arrested even if there's not enough evidence to absolutely confirm anyone's guilt. Thus, I am contesting you.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Dude, I'm not COMPLETELY ignorant. I said I don't know THE SPECIFICS. There's a difference between knowing absolutely nothing and knowing how it works in simple terms. Stop pretending you're on the fucking high ground here.



right I should believe someone who has been lying for months



Freedan said:


> So you're saying that if it's enough evidence for the police to pass to the courts, it's sufficient enough to deem him guilty? That's a load of BS and you ought to know that, particularly when IT DID NOT HAPPEN. So far as I know, there's only a few ways in which rape charges can be confirmed, and that is a physical examination of the victim. Apparently, she did not go through said examination. Add to the fact the crime supposedly happened 8 years before charges were pressed, I can't imagine whatever evidence was collected could possibly be enough for ANYONE to conclude it happened at all, much less convict him. So please, don't assume the police is always right whenever judging the evidence is sufficient.



you really can not read can you? each 'check' is an independent event and you know it

gods the straw man are so stupid can't you do better?




Freedan said:


> I understand the legal system is about what you can and can't prove. And I believe that's wrong. When the justice system is not based on truth, then practically anyone can be arrested even if there's not enough evidence to absolutely confirm anyone's guilt. Thus, I am contesting you.



that's incredibly childish and naive of you and if I was more feeling more charitable  I'd perhaps be more tactful about this but I'm not. The truth according to whom? This isn't math or science, this isn't a tv show where the villian is going to give a monologue just in time to be stopped and the criminals don't all wear top hats and black mustaches

Grow up for pete's sake any justice system based on 'truth' is destined to fail. At the end of the day it's about proof and that's the only way to be rational and objective about matters

You can contest me all you want, I regard it in the same way I regard a fly 'contesting' me for my drink.


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> you really can not read can you? each 'check' is an independent event and you know it
> 
> gods the straw man are so stupid can't you do better?



Right. So everyone believes he raped her despite the fact there was at best no significant evidence to support the belief. And that's all that's required to arrest someone. Wonderful system you have there.



drache said:


> that's incredibly childish and naive of you and if I was more feeling more charitable  I'd perhaps be more tactful about this but I'm not. The truth according to whom? This isn't math or science, this isn't a tv show where the villian is going to give a monologue just in time to be stopped and the criminals don't all wear top hats and black mustaches
> 
> Grow up for pete's sake any justice system based on 'truth' is destined to fail. At the end of the day it's about proof and that's the only way to be rational and objective about matters



A justice system based on discovering the truth, where those who are accused of being guilty are innocent until proven guilty, is what I believe is a fair justice system. One where all you need is however much can be gathered in order to indicate there's even been the slightest chance that it happened is an incomplete system. It shouldn't be surprising so many innocent people were accused of a crime they didn't commit and even paid the full consequences of it. And as long as there are people like you who radically accept a system like this because they believe there's nothing better, innocent people WILL continue to be punished unfairly (and I reiterate that unfairly means being punished for a crime they didn't commit whether or not the process was followed to the letter).

If you seriously think the truth of this case is relative, are you then suggesting there's still the possibility that she was in fact raped? Because as I gather, he did not rape her and she admitted she LIED that he did. So obviously, it goes to show how a system where circumstantial evidence is enough to send a man to jail is, in and of itself, UNFAIR.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> You made a dumb ass claim that all people need to do is say something happened and then bam to jail they go. But that's not what happened there was a trial so why did *TWELEVE* other nonrelated people convict him? And least you make a mistake let me amend that to *wrongly *convict him? I don't have an answer for you but let's not pretend he was not processed by the justice system the same as you or me. Frankly _if_ all the proscution had was her accusation I'm rather surprised it went to court and that his defense attroney didn't rip that to shreds which makes me question if anything the competency of his defense.
> 
> As to your question, :shrug: I have no clue sauf. I'd stack the US legal system against anyone else' but it's not foolproof, it's not infailible and I won't pretend otherwise. Maybe one day 'lie detector' machines will actually work well enough to be viable evidence till then the best I got is we do what we've done which is muddle along


 
If that is your position, I don't know why you complained about my post. You're saying that no innocent person in the US is safe from being accused of rape and falsely sent to jail.

There's a reason "innocent until proven guilty" is a thing in all developed countries. It means that every person must be considered innocent until it is proven *beyond reasonable doubt* that he's guilty.

If you maintain your position that nobody except the woman acted wrong in this entire scenario, then how can we feel safe under the constant threat of being falsely imprisoned?


----------



## Unimportant (Nov 22, 2012)

I couldn't find any court details since this is a sexual case, but I did find this other article with quotation from Montgomery,




> Instead, he said, *the judiciary system that believes one credible  person's word over another's — with no supporting evidence *— needs  reform.
> Though Montgomery voices displeasure with the lead police  investigator and the trial prosecutor, he said he appreciated Circuit  Court Judge Randolph T. West's heartfelt apology from the bench last  week for getting the verdict wrong.
> "A judge can only do so much," he said. "He can't read everybody's  mind." Though West "made some wrong decisions," Montgomery said, "he's  now trying to get me out of prison, and I have to respect him for that."



So there you have it drache. Guilty based on word-against-word.
You may want to check out how the presumption of innocence [innocent until proven guilty] applies to the United States, here is a famous case:


Also, many people who are convicted as guilty, and then later found innocent, are given monetary compensation here in the states once freed.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Nov 22, 2012)

In the criminal court system the burden of proof is supposed to be upon the prosecution to prove that the crime did happen beyond a reasonable doubt.

Imagine the following:
John Doe calls the police and accuses his neighbor Jeff Roe of stealing his big-screen TV.  He provides the correct model/description of the TV that's currently in the neighbor's living room.

When questioned by the police the neighbor says "what are you talking about, this is - and always has been - my TV.

Neither Doe nor Roe can provide any evidence of the purchase of the TV.  There is no evidence of a break-in at Doe's home.​Should Roe be found guilty of theft?  No as there is reasonable doubt that he stole the TV.   Essentially if a case comes down to he-said-she-said it should be a not-guilty verdict.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 22, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> In the criminal court system the burden of proof is supposed to be upon the prosecution to prove that the crime did happen beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Imagine the following:
> John Doe calls the police and accuses his neighbor Jeff Roe of stealing his big-screen TV.  He provides the correct model/description of the TV that's currently in the neighbor's living room.
> ...


I believe you miss the point of reality. Though it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, in most cases it doesn't happen. The jury of 12 makes the final decision no matter what evidence was or was not submitted.

The truth is that women and children as looked upon as innocent being incapable of telling lies; only men can do that. This boy was charged with raping a girl, the odds were against him just starting off, the lack of proof means nothing. 

I know many of you are blaming the state and or the court, but both followed procedure; only the jury can answer for this, along with the woman.

FYI, this is the third case where this happened this year. We had the Black football star who went to jail because a girl lied and even got over a million from the city; she has no punishment and doesn't have to pay back anything. Then we had the guy in Mississippi who did time in jail because a white gal said he raped her (even though he wasn't in the same town at the time), she got some money from the school district and does have to pay back anything nor get any punishment. And now we have this; you can bet your ass she will have no punishment.


----------



## EJ (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> you really are an idiot because you keep repeating this ASSUMPTION of yours because it fits with your childish world view.
> 
> How do you no there was a COMPLETE lack of evidence? Are you seriously suggesting this went though multiple checks with absolutely nothing?
> 
> As I said all you got is bullshit and pompous arrognance. Why don't you go educate yourself child because this is tiresome.



drache, there really isn't a reason to call someone an idiot. So far he has been posting legit reasoning within his post. Though I can understand your frustration due to the post you got earlier in this thread, I can see where Freedan is coming from due to there not being any proof.


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I believe you miss the point of reality. Though it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, in most cases it doesn't happen. The jury of 12 makes the final decision no matter what evidence was or was not submitted.
> 
> The truth is that women and children as looked upon as innocent being incapable of telling lies; only men can do that. This boy was charged with raping a girl, the odds were against him just starting off, the lack of proof means nothing.
> 
> ...



Yet all three will have to live with the stigma of being sex offenders despite being completely innocent. I'm glad for the first case you referred to since the guy was welcomed into a pro American Football team not too long after he regained his freedom.

Anyways, just because that's how it works in reality doesn't make it a fair trial at all purely on the grounds that everything was done in the correct process as per court terms. Something needs to be changed because this and two other cases of innocent people being jailed because of a lie should be a shocking eye-opener to everyone.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Nov 22, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I know many of you are blaming the state and or the court, but both followed procedure; only the jury can answer for this, along with the woman.


While the jury certainly deserves a share of the blame there's plenty to go around.

1) The police arrested a man when there was no evidence a _crime_ had been committed.  The police absolutely have the power and obligation to take the report and perform the investigation before making an arrest.  If there's insufficient evidence for the arrest then they shouldn't make one.

2) The prosecution went through with a case when there was no evidence to support prosecution.  The prosecutor absolutely has the power and obligation to dismiss a case if they do not have sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.  In fact failing to do so may lead to them finding evidence later and not being able to press charges then because of double jeopardy.

3) The Jury, quite obviously, convicted a man that did not have any evidence against him.  They failed in their duty as citizens and put an innocent man behind bars because of it.

4) The Judge failed in his job as he allowed the Jury to make a conviction without any evidence.  The Judge absolutely has the power and obligation to overturn a jury's decision when they are blatantly wrong (such as convicting a man that has not had any evidence presented against him).  Granted the Judge overturning the decision would just result in another trial but it would give another chance to the prosecutor and jury to get it right this time.

(And yes obviously the woman is criminally liable for her false accusation and perjury which as I've already said I think she should be essentially burned at the stake for it)


----------



## Bishop (Nov 22, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> While the jury certainly deserves a share of the blame there's plenty to go around.
> 
> 1) The police arrested a man when there was no evidence a _crime_ had been committed.  The police absolutely have the power and obligation to take the report and perform the investigation before making an arrest.  If there's insufficient evidence for the arrest then they shouldn't make one.


Police can do this when there is suspicion, can detain for 24 hours (was 48 hours back then) and charge within a week; they followed procedure.



> 2) The prosecution went through with a case when there was no evidence to support prosecution.  The prosecutor absolutely has the power and obligation to dismiss a case if they do not have sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.  In fact failing to do so may lead to them finding evidence later and not being able to press charges then because of double jeopardy.


Inocrrect. The prosecution has a duty to seek dismissal of a case if evidence proves the defendant is innocent, not if there is no evidence. The prosecution's job is to prosecute with whatever evidence was given. They could place the boy there at the time, that's what they went off of; they followed procedure. 


> 3) The Jury, quite obviously, convicted a man that did not have any evidence against him.  They failed in their duty as citizens and put an innocent man behind bars because of it.


Most cases are decided on emotion and probability of acts, not solid evidence. It is a rare day when the prosecution has the evidence to put a suspect behind bars, thus they appeal to emotion and probable cause. The jury is made up of 12 everyday people who are easily swayed and, in the end, know less than the prosecutor. They made the decision they thought was right.

They were wrong, but this does not make them bad people.


> 4) The Judge failed in his job as he allowed the Jury to make a conviction without any evidence.  The Judge absolutely has the power and obligation to overturn a jury's decision when they are blatantly wrong (such as convicting a man that has not had any evidence presented against him).  Granted the Judge overturning the decision would just result in another trial but it would give another chance to the prosecutor and jury to get it right this time.


Yes, but HOW does the judge know? I believe you have this picture in your head that the prosecutor just went up and said, "We have nothing, but she said he did it so...he must have did it."

In truth, the prosecution could place the boy there. That's ALL they need. Rarely does the prosecution have more than 1 or 2 points. The judge had no way of knowing 100% that the boy was innocent. The judge can only overturn when he or she is affirmatively sure without a doubt that the jury is wrong. 



> (And yes obviously the woman is criminally liable for her false accusation and perjury which as I've already said I think she should be essentially burned at the stake for it)


Incorrect. She has no perjury because of the statue of limitations (5 years from first accusation). She has nothing coming.



The real bad guys here are who ever took the girl's test to 'confirm' she was raped when she wasn't. I know this turned out bad, but not really because of blatant negligence.


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Inocrrect. The prosecution has a duty to seek dismissal of a case if evidence proves the defendant is innocent, not if there is no evidence. The prosecution's job is to prosecute with whatever evidence was given. They could place the boy there at the time, that's what they went off of; they followed procedure.



Wow, seriously??? You need evidence to prove the guy is INNOCENT in a case like this? It's basically like saying there's no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" in the US court system. Besides, if there's no evidence that leads to conclude the man is guilty or innocent beyond reasonable doubt, how can a conclusion be made either way? That's just ridiculous.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 22, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Wow, seriously??? You need evidence to prove the guy is INNOCENT in a case like this? It's basically like saying there's no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" in the US court system. Besides, if there's no evidence that leads to conclude the man is guilty or innocent beyond reasonable doubt, how can a conclusion be made either way? That's just ridiculous.



No, you have misinterpreted what I meant. The prosecution's duty to dismiss a case is only when they have evidence that the defendant is innocent. This means, if they know the defendant is innocent, they MUST dismiss it or face the board. This is NOT saying that the defendant must be proven innocent for the prosecution to dismiss; they reach deals all the time.

I was referring to a duty/obligation of the prosecutor.


----------



## Roman (Nov 22, 2012)

Bishop said:


> No, you have misinterpreted what I meant. The prosecution's duty to dismiss a case is only when they have evidence that the defendant is innocent. This means, if they know the defendant is innocent, they MUST dismiss it or face the board. This is NOT saying that the defendant must be proven innocent for the prosecution to dismiss; they reach deals all the time.
> 
> I was referring to a duty/obligation of the prosecutor.



I don't get it. How is it the defendant doesn't have to be proven innocent for the prosecution to be dismissed when evidence is required to prove his innocence? Besides, what I mean is that evidence is needed to prove his innocence to begin with, implying that in a court system, he's not innocent until proven guilty as for the case to be dismissed, this fact needs to be proven.


----------



## eHav (Nov 22, 2012)

Bishop said:


> No, you have misinterpreted what I meant. The prosecution's duty to dismiss a case is only when they have evidence that the defendant is innocent. This means, if they know the defendant is innocent, they MUST dismiss it or face the board. This is NOT saying that the defendant must be proven innocent for the prosecution to dismiss; they reach deals all the time.
> 
> I was referring to a duty/obligation of the prosecutor.



so anyone in the US can take someone on trial based on a lie. as long as it was someone that cant prove they werent present in whatever they are being accused of.

Land of the free alright 



Freedan said:


> I don't get it. How is it the defendant doesn't have to be proven innocent for the prosecution to be dismissed when evidence is required to prove his innocence? Besides, what I mean is that evidence is needed to prove his innocence to begin with, implying that in a court system, he's not innocent until proven guilty as for the case to be dismissed, this fact needs to be proven.



seems quite a bullshit double standard


----------



## Jinnai (Nov 22, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Incorrect. She has no perjury because of the statue of limitations (5 years from first accusation). She has nothing coming.



From the article:

_Coast, who until earlier this month worked as a civilian information clerk for the Hampton Police Division, is being charged with _*perjury*.

Unfortunately for her she made her accusation only 4 years ago.  She deserves to serve time for this.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 22, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I don't get it. How is it the defendant doesn't have to be proven innocent for the prosecution to be dismissed when evidence is required to prove his innocence? Besides, what I mean is that evidence is needed to prove his innocence to begin with, implying that in a court system, he's not innocent until proven guilty as for the case to be dismissed, this fact needs to be proven.





eHav said:


> so anyone in the US can take someone on trial based on a lie. as long as it was someone that cant prove they werent present in whatever they are being accused of.


No you two. I guess I am not explaining this well enough.

The prosecution has no idea that the defendant is innocent; so they prosecute. If they DO have evidence that the defendant is innocent, then they must seek dismissal.


Jinnai said:


> From the article:
> 
> _Coast, who until earlier this month worked as a civilian information clerk for the Hampton Police Division, is being charged with _*perjury*.
> 
> Unfortunately for her she made her accusation only 4 years ago.  She deserves to serve time for this.




Welp, guess she's getting fined.


----------



## eHav (Nov 22, 2012)

Bishop said:


> No you two. I guess I am not explaining this well enough.
> 
> The prosecution has no idea that the defendant is innocent; so they prosecute. If they DO have evidence that the defendant is innocent, then they must seek dismissal.



yeah but what i meant is they can prosecute without having proof, and they can only dismiss it with proof. it doesnt seem very fair thats all


----------



## Bishop (Nov 22, 2012)

eHav said:


> yeah but what i meant is they can prosecute without having proof, and they can only dismiss it with proof. it doesnt seem very fair thats all



They had proof; they put him there at the time of the crime and they had the test for the girl as well as her testimony.

And no, prosecutions dismiss all the time, just in deals with the defense or because of other reasons. What I am saying is that the only time MUST DISMISS is when they have evidence that the defendant is innocent; leading back to Evil's quip.

Make no mistake, the same goes in most western countries where the prosecution only has a few points. Please don't attack Amurricuh unless you wanna be bombed.


----------



## PDQ (Nov 22, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I don't get it. How is it the defendant doesn't have to be proven innocent for the prosecution to be dismissed when evidence is required to prove his innocence? Besides, what I mean is that evidence is needed to prove his innocence to begin with, implying that in a court system, he's not innocent until proven guilty as for the case to be dismissed, this fact needs to be proven.



Bishop's only talking about the prosecution, and from that perspective, it does make sense.  It's not the prosecution's job to decide if there's insufficient evidence, that's the job of the jury/court.  The prosecution's job is to present what evidence there is, unless something explicitly proving otherwise, insufficient evidence doesn't matter.
The idea of "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the judge/jury, not the prosecution.  They might refuse to work for them since a failure could affect their reputation, but that's all.

I agree that if "the procedures were followed correctly" can lead to this, that means the procedures could use some fixing.  There should be multiple levels of safeguards against this sort of thing no matter how stupid or irrational a jury is.  The problem is that when I went to jury duty, there was nobody around to really explain "beyond a reasonable doubt" and I'd be willing to bet most people wouldn't know the difference between that and guilty by preponderance of the evidence.



			
				Bishop said:
			
		

> They were wrong, but this does not make them bad people.


Bad as in Malicious? No, but Negligent, yes.


> The real bad guys here are who ever took the girl's test to 'confirm' she was raped when she wasn't.


Did they even do that much?



> In truth, the prosecution could place the boy there.


Wouldn't that apply to pretty much anyone who isn't a complete stranger to the accuser?  As long as you don't have to prove an event occurred then you can arbitrarily pick any convenient time where it could apply.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Nov 22, 2012)

|)/-\\/\/|\| said:


> This shit has happened so many times. Only in America could men get jail time for NOT raping women. Solution: rape them anyways.



Well you can't be tried for the same crime twice.


----------



## eHav (Nov 22, 2012)

Erio Touwa said:


> Well you can't be tried for the same crime twice.



i guess we found just how the guy can take his revenge then 


erm... this doesnt make sense.


----------



## Unicornsilovethem (Nov 22, 2012)

Kitsune said:


> I'm kind of shocked by the level of spite this thread has brought.
> 
> It's truly awful and that girl should feel ashamed for the rest of her life, but it's not really anything compared to the millions of cases of sexual abuse towards women that go unpunished every day in the world.



You know. Attitudes, not to mention gross exaggerations, like these are a large part of the reason why feminism is experiencing a lot of backlash today. Enjoy.


----------



## dummy plug (Nov 22, 2012)

that little cunt, watching porn at such a young age and then making the man go to jail and she gets perjury for it...how did he go to jail with that confession alone in the first place? dont they examine the victim physically or something?


----------



## eHav (Nov 22, 2012)

dummy plug said:


> that little cunt, watching porn at such a young age and then making the man go to jail and she gets perjury for it...how did he go to jail with that confession alone in the first place? dont they examine the victim physically or something?



8 years had passed tho


----------



## Huey Freeman (Nov 22, 2012)

The irony of this is the stupid bitch is being lock away where chances of being rape is high.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 22, 2012)

As fat and ugly as she is....I doubt it...


----------



## neko-sennin (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> why should he? This 'stealing' meme always bothers me, he was put on trial and convicted by a jury of his peers. Unless the state is guilty of misconduct the state owes him nothing.
> 
> That said I am glad he is being released immediately



I daresay they owe him 4 years of his life he'll never have back. How the fuck do you convict someone of _felony-level_ charges on testimony alone, especially from only one witness? 

I could just as easily accuse you of robbing my house, and then just making shit up, and if you had no alibi the day I alleged it happened... 

WTF happened to Innocent Until *Proven* Guilty? 

Realworld rape and child molestation are horrible, but letting prosecution turn into persecution turns investigations into witch-hunts. There is a dangerous precedent with child victims of starting with assumptions. While I believe all accusations should be taken seriously, that means they should be _investigated_, not taken at face value.

I don't know who I'm more pissed at, the jury that convicted without a scrap of evidence, or the judge that sat there and watched.


----------



## Kitsune (Nov 22, 2012)

I think a lot of you are missing the major issue here.

Poorly written article aside, the woman is obviously a terrible person for her false accusation.

That said, the real problem in this thread is the psychotic responses from certain posters with severe castration anxiety.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 22, 2012)

Kitsune said:


> That said, the real problem in this thread is the psychotic responses from certain posters with severe castration anxiety.



Can you post a few examples please


----------



## kazuri (Nov 22, 2012)

> why should he? This 'stealing' meme always bothers me, he was put on trial and convicted by a jury of his peers. Unless the state is guilty of misconduct the state owes him nothing.
> 
> That said I am glad he is being released immediately



It is not a meme(wow). It doesn't matter if he was convicted by a jury of his peers, he was wrongfully convicted. The state is guilty of instituting a system with flaws, therefor they are guilty of neglect. Just like if you build a product and it hurts someone, you are guilty, so should the government be.

You have a serious appeal to authority complex.


----------



## Kitsune (Nov 22, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Can you post a few examples please



Just at a quick glance. 



g_core18 said:


> Sue the fuck out of that cunt.





Coteaz said:


> Lock that bitch away





Donquixote Doflamingo said:


> 3. Someone actually rape that women.





Unicornsilovethem said:


> Lynch the bitch.





Graeme said:


> If only these cunts realized how they are damaging their entire gender by doing this.





James Bond said:


> I wouldnt sue the court, I'd sue the lying bitch





|)/-\\/\/|\| said:


> Only in America could men get jail time for NOT raping women. Solution: rape them anyways.



Not defending her in the slightest, but the underlying hatred and anger paired with misogynist language is disturbing.

Not that we all need to be super PC or anything, but a normal response not fearing emasculation would go more like this:



monafifia said:


> It's horrible she made him go through that


----------



## kazuri (Nov 22, 2012)

^^If a man lied about a woman raping him and she went to jail then women on here called him a dick would that be feministic language? Or do people just use words to describe SPECIFIC people..?

Its wrong to call every man a dick. It is not wrong to call men who act like jerks dicks.

Its wrong to call every woman a bitch. It is not wrong to call women who act like jerks a bitch.

Nothing to do with sexism.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 22, 2012)

Kitsune said:


> Just at a quick glance.
> 
> Not defending her in the slightest, but the underlying hatred and anger paired with misogynist language is disturbing.
> 
> Not that we all need to be super PC or anything, but a normal response not fearing emasculation would go more like this:



No None of that was misogynist; it was* anger* guided at *one woman* for an action she did that caused pain to another for years. Understand this would have had the same reaction if it was a man sending a woman to prison for four years. You would see, "Lynch the Bastard, rape him, ect." 

Don't confuse justified anger for misogyny nor hatred. Hatred would cause action, and energy that no one on here would invest.


----------



## Mochi (Nov 22, 2012)

Dat bitch


----------



## Kitsune (Nov 22, 2012)

It's disproportionate spite stemming from obvious cultural undercurrents.

But I'll listen to my own public service announcement that persuading you to be wiser people will not enrich my own life.


----------



## kazuri (Nov 22, 2012)

persuading to be wiser? How about you work on not being arrogant.

Labeling things based on what they do is not unwise.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 22, 2012)

Kitsune said:


> It's disproportionate spite stemming from obvious cultural undercurrents.
> 
> But I'll listen to my own public service announcement that persuading you to be wiser people will not enrich my own life.



That's rather condescending saying all the others are wrong on this and you are the wise one. In anycase, it doesn't matter, as long as no one gets hurt.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Nov 22, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Police can do this when there is suspicion, can detain for 24 hours (was 48 hours back then) and charge within a week; they followed procedure.


Sure, they can detain him for 24/48 hours based on the accusation from someone.

They're not supposed to file charges though unless their investigation comes up with some evidence.  There's a difference between "detained as a suspect/person of interest in a crime" and being charged.  Being charged should never happen without some sort of evidence to support a conviction.



Bishop said:


> Inocrrect. The prosecution has a duty to seek dismissal of a case if evidence proves the defendant is innocent, not if there is no evidence. The prosecution's job is to prosecute with whatever evidence was given. They could place the boy there at the time, that's what they went off of; they followed procedure.


If the police come to the DA with a case of "yeah, this guy was accused of a crime" the DA absolutely has the job of saying "so what evidence did you come up with?"

And when the police say "well, nothing, we can't even tell that a crime occurred" the DA absolutely should say "well go find some or I'm not going to file the case against him.  And if he's in prison for gods sake let him out before he sues us and ends up owning the city."

A prosecutor that says "oh, a witness statement from the accuser is our only evidence?  That sounds good, lets press ahead" is a bad prosecutor.



Bishop said:


> Most cases are decided on emotion and probability of acts, not solid evidence. It is a rare day when the prosecution has the evidence to put a suspect behind bars, thus they appeal to emotion and probable cause. The jury is made up of 12 everyday people who are easily swayed and, in the end, know less than the prosecutor. They made the decision they thought was right.
> 
> They were wrong, but this does not make them bad people.


I get that ultimately most cases come down to a judgement call.  Which witnesses were telling the truth, which were lying.  Which evidence is solid evidence, what's just coincidental.  I don't blame a jury for sometimes getting it wrong there (incidentally you're the one that said the Jury's the only one to blame).

But at the same time that isn't what happened in this case.  I'll say it again for you.  There was no evidence presented in this case other than the testimony of the accuser.  In the US Criminal Court when it comes down to he-said-she-said the jury is supposed to find for the defense.  Thus they blatantly got it wrong in this case.

Either they were poorly instructed or they outright ignored their instructions in favor of "punishing" someone they felt needed punishment.  The former is a failing of the Judge and lawyers.  The latter is borderline criminal.




Bishop said:


> Yes, but HOW does the judge know? I believe you have this picture in your head that the prosecutor just went up and said, "We have nothing, but she said he did it so...he must have did it."


I assume the judge attended some sort of law school where they might have mentioned how court works once or twice 

You had a case where the woman got up on the stand and gave her passionate emotional testimony where she _lied_ (the Judge doesn't know she lied but that doesn't matter at this point).  Then the defense puts the guy on the stand and he says "uh none of that happened."  That's the extent of the evidence of substance in this case.

This is an open and shut case constitutionally.  No evidence was provided thus the case should be either dismissed our outright ruled not guilty.  The jury got it wrong (see above) so the Judge has a duty to say "uh, weren't you guys paying attention when I told you about reasonable doubt?  I'm calling this a mistrial we'll try again with a new pool of jurors (and new judge)."



Bishop said:


> In truth, the prosecution could place the boy there. That's ALL they need.


And, maybe, to prove that a crime actually took place?

To go back to my earlier example, assuming Doe and Roe are semi-social neighbors it's easy for Doe to provide "evidence" that Roe had the opportunity to break in and steal the TV.  The fact that there's no evidence of a break in and no evidence that Doe even owned the TV in the first place doesn't matter?

You're insane.




Bishop said:


> Rarely does the prosecution have more than 1 or 2 points. The judge had no way of knowing 100% that the boy was innocent. The judge can only overturn when he or she is affirmatively sure without a doubt that the jury is wrong.


The judge doesn't need to know "100% that the boy was innocent."  Frankly that's not his job.

But he absolutely can rule that the Jury didn't pay attention to the case or their instructions and that it should be redone with a different Jury.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 22, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Sure, they can detain him for 24/48 hours based on the accusation from someone.
> 
> They're not supposed to file charges though unless their investigation comes up with some evidence.  There's a difference between "detained as a suspect/person of interest in a crime" and being charged.  Being charged should never happen without some sort of evidence to support a conviction.
> 
> ...


I don't think you read my post or the article in entirety..they had more than just n accusation 



> I get that ultimately most cases come down to a judgement call.  Which witnesses were telling the truth, which were lying.  Which evidence is solid evidence, what's just coincidental.  I don't blame a jury for sometimes getting it wrong there (incidentally you're the one that said the Jury's the only one to blame).
> 
> But at the same time that isn't what happened in this case.  I'll say it again for you.  There was no evidence presented in this case other than the testimony of the accuser.  In the US Criminal Court when it comes down to he-said-she-said the jury is supposed to find for the defense.  Thus they blatantly got it wrong in this case.


Read above statement 


> Either they were poorly instructed or they outright ignored their instructions in favor of "punishing" someone they felt needed punishment.  The former is a failing of the Judge and lawyers.  The latter is borderline criminal.


This is possibly true, but neither of us were there. What we know now was not known then, until we know what the prosecution said and delivered, it's all assumption.




			
				Evil Furry said:
			
		

> I assume the judge attended some sort of law school where they might have mentioned how court works once or twice


That was a good one,  I can't even debunk it 


> You had a case where the woman got up on the stand and gave her passionate emotional testimony where she _lied_ (the Judge doesn't know she lied but that doesn't matter at this point).  Then the defense puts the guy on the stand and he says "uh none of that happened."  That's the extent of the evidence of substance in this case.


No, read the first response I made.


> This is an open and shut case constitutionally.  No evidence was provided thus the case should be either dismissed our outright ruled not guilty.  The jury got it wrong (see above) so the Judge has a duty to say "uh, weren't you guys paying attention when I told you about reasonable doubt?  I'm calling this a mistrial we'll try again with a new pool of jurors (and new judge)."


If no evidence besides the testimony was offered, it literally couldn't have been a trial. Simple as that; they just haven't released the evidence they had yet.




> And, maybe, to prove that a crime actually took place?
> 
> To go back to my earlier example, assuming Doe and Roe are semi-social neighbors it's easy for Doe to provide "evidence" that Roe had the opportunity to break in and steal the TV.  The fact that there's no evidence of a break in and no evidence that Doe even owned the TV in the first place doesn't matter?
> 
> You're insane.



Read above.



> The judge doesn't need to know "100% that the boy was innocent."  Frankly that's not his job.
> 
> But he absolutely can rule that the Jury didn't pay attention to the case or their instructions and that it should be redone with a different Jury.


Read above again. 

You are under this assumption that there was absolutely no evidence; if that were true, the DA could not go to trial...


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Right. So everyone believes he raped her despite the fact there was at best no significant evidence to support the belief. And that's all that's required to arrest someone. Wonderful system you have there.



As a sexual case me and you will likely never know what the evidence was and was not. Please stop assuming it's tiresome, stupid and annoying



Freedan said:


> A justice system based on discovering the truth, where those who are accused of being guilty are innocent until proven guilty, is what I believe is a fair justice system. One where all you need is however much can be gathered in order to indicate there's even been the slightest chance that it happened is an incomplete system. It shouldn't be surprising so many innocent people were accused of a crime they didn't commit and even paid the full consequences of it. And as long as there are people like you who radically accept a system like this because they believe there's nothing better, innocent people WILL continue to be punished unfairly (and I reiterate that unfairly means being punished for a crime they didn't commit whether or not the process was followed to the letter).



ha!

you should really do some research because justice have tried that, it doesn't work, 'truth' because 'truth that the cops want' or 'truth you can buy' or something else

Your innocence is touching but wrong



Freedan said:


> If you seriously think the truth of this case is relative, are you then suggesting there's still the possibility that she was in fact raped? Because as I gather, he did not rape her and she admitted she LIED that he did. So obviously, it goes to show how a system where circumstantial evidence is enough to send a man to jail is, in and of itself, UNFAIR.



no I think that what we can KNOW is relative. Do either you or me really know if he rapped that girl? No we don't, we were not there. Niether did anyone else, hence it's about what you can PROVE



Saufsoldat said:


> If that is your position, I don't know why you complained about my post. You're saying that no innocent person in the US is safe from being accused of rape and falsely sent to jail.
> 
> There's a reason "innocent until proven guilty" is a thing in all developed countries. It means that every person must be considered innocent until it is proven *beyond reasonable doubt* that he's guilty.
> 
> If you maintain your position that nobody except the woman acted wrong in this entire scenario, then how can we feel safe under the constant threat of being falsely imprisoned?



Acted wrong how? Becuase it's one thing to do your job but get the wrong man (which I have no problem with outside of the obvious) and another thing to twist the evidence to find your 'truth'



Flow said:


> drache, there really isn't a reason to call someone an idiot. So far he has been posting legit reasoning within his post. Though I can understand your frustration due to the post you got earlier in this thread, I can see where Freedan is coming from due to there not being any proof.



I disagree, he is acting like an idiot



neko-sennin said:


> I daresay they owe him 4 years of his life he'll never have back. How the fuck do you convict someone of _felony-level_ charges on testimony alone, especially from only one witness?
> 
> I could just as easily accuse you of robbing my house, and then just making shit up, and if you had no alibi the day I alleged it happened...
> 
> ...



These things do happen though, we try our best and do the best we can but sometimes it does happen.




Kitsune said:


> I think a lot of you are missing the major issue here.
> 
> Poorly written article aside, the woman is obviously a terrible person for her false accusation.
> 
> That said, the real problem in this thread is the psychotic responses from certain posters with severe castration anxiety.



I completely agree with this and the irony is one of them actually trying to redirect that hate at me



kazuri said:


> It is not a meme(wow). It doesn't matter if he was convicted by a jury of his peers, he was wrongfully convicted. The state is guilty of instituting a system with flaws, therefor they are guilty of neglect. Just like if you build a product and it hurts someone, you are guilty, so should the government be.
> 
> You have a serious appeal to authority complex.



lol I really don't give a damn what you think I have

and it is a meme because if the state did it's job it did nothing wrong.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> Acted wrong how? Becuase it's one thing to do your job but get the wrong man (which I have no problem with outside of the obvious) and another thing to twist the evidence to find your 'truth'



How are you doing your job if you get the wrong guy? If I say some dude raped me, the prosecutor charges him with rape and a judge convicts him, neither of them have done anything wrong? That's ludicrous.

If a cop is looking for a missing child and takes some random kid from his home, has he not acted wrong? After all he did his job, he just got the wrong guy.

If a demolition company blows up the wrong house, they'll have to compensate the person whose house they destroyed even if they "did their job and just got the wrong guy". But somehow, if the state falsely imprisons a man for four years, it's the man's own problem that he now lost four years of his life?


----------



## Amatérasu’s Son (Nov 22, 2012)

eHav said:


> well, will she be punished?
> 
> also, how hte fuck do they arrest him with no proof whatsoever?


He was convicted four years ago. The article is light on details but if I'm reading this right, she was eighteen when she testified, therefore eight years prior was when the crime was supposed to take place.

If there is opportunity and the witness is consistent and doesn't recant...then usually the criminal justice system will err on the side of the victim, crazy as that sounds.

Sexual assault cases are like that.

But yes, they tend to get real agitated when you commit perjury on that high a level. This isn't lying about a parking ticket. I think she can get two years, but I'm not sure. She also embarrassed the state regardless of whether or not they could've proven anything or not...they don't like that.


Linkdarkside said:


> Lol blaming some one on sexual asault for waching porn.


That is the absolute craziest damn thing I ever heard, especially since she was what? Seventeen, eighteen? Were her parents ultra-prudes?

And what's up with this girl that she's checking out porn anyway? Curious much?


Saufsoldat said:


> So the whole jury system takes away responsibility from the state? The state consists of the people. "The people" have wrongfully convicted him, so they should compensate him.


The very word people automatically means not infallible. 

The failing of any criminal justice system is that it has people involved. Even if it was all computers it's only as good as the evidence...they could never be certain, a machine would only give a percentage of probability.

Apparently the woman is a convincing liar.

And also she greatly underestimated the tenacity of the modern criminal justice system.

But the system shouldn't be held responsible. She should, she not only made the accusation, but she pressed it, the state wouldn't have had a case if she hadn't actually testified.

On the positive side for her, at least she finally recanted. Four years late, but better late than never. More important than getting him out of prison a few years early, THIS will enable him to escape a far worse fate. He should with little problem get his name removed from the Sex Offender Registry, which in my opinion is a fate worse than death, the Scarlet letter of our time.


1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Can't wait to get out of prison to see his dog and cat and watch the new twilight movie?  :WOW
> 
> Who would ever mistake this guy for a rapist?
> 
> He sounds like the nicest guy ever......





And this is AFTER four years in prison with the reputation of a child rapist.

The guy is some kind fucking saint.


----------



## Sayuki (Nov 22, 2012)

That's juch a shame :\ He lost four years of his life just because a girl didn't want her parents to know she was searching for porn :\

Those are four years he'll never get  back.. The state should at least try to do something for him.

Was there any details on her so called "assault" o.o? I mean, it would have had to be actual rape for four or so years, right? Did they not go through rape kit test (or w/e) for the girl? Isn't that what they usually do in rape cases?


----------



## Sablés (Nov 22, 2012)

That whore.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Nov 22, 2012)

Amat?rasu?s Son said:


> The very word people automatically means not infallible.



And apparently the are people in this thread who for whatever reason think "not infallible" means "not liable".



> The failing of any criminal justice system is that it has people involved. Even if it was all computers it's only as good as the evidence...they could never be certain, a machine would only give a percentage of probability.
> 
> Apparently the woman is a convincing liar.
> 
> ...



He was still convicted based on her testimony alone. Obviously there's something wrong with the system if the word of one person can get an innocent person thrown in jail until the accuser finally recants his lie.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> How are you doing your job if you get the wrong guy? If I say some dude raped me, the prosecutor charges him with rape and a judge convicts him, neither of them have done anything wrong? That's ludicrous.
> 
> If a cop is looking for a missing child and takes some random kid from his home, has he not acted wrong? After all he did his job, he just got the wrong guy.
> 
> If a demolition company blows up the wrong house, they'll have to compensate the person whose house they destroyed even if they "did their job and just got the wrong guy". But somehow, if the state falsely imprisons a man for four years, it's the man's own problem that he now lost four years of his life?





Saufsoldat said:


> And apparently the are people in this thread who for whatever reason think "not infallible" means "not liable".
> 
> 
> 
> He was still convicted based on her testimony alone. Obviously there's something wrong with the system if the word of one person can get an innocent person thrown in jail until the accuser finally recants his lie.



You and Dan have been making utter fools out of yourselves with this assumption. 

No one here knows what the evidence was, it could have been just her word it could have been more

Stop saying 'just her word' like that's an actually factual statement because it's not.

Also it is the state's job to proscute to the best of their ability and the defense well defends. The jury then decides and if all that functioned then there's no liablity period end of discussion.

Yes sometimes the system gets it wrong but the system isn't unfailable


----------



## eHav (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> You and Dan have been making utter fools out of yourselves with this assumption.
> 
> No one here knows what the evidence was, it could have been just her word it could have been more
> 
> ...



but you see, if he didnt do it, how would there be evidence of it?


----------



## Bishop (Nov 22, 2012)

I think many of you in here misunderstand the system. Proper procedure =/= getting the right guy; this is the same in all countries. I see people in here pointing to USA when it happens in UK, Gaza, China and everywhere else.

The reason you can follow procedures perfectly and still end up with the wrong guy is because of people. People always screw things up from being perfect. 

Take this case for instance. The trial and arrest was 4 years after the "rape". The police believe she came out then because she was too scared as a kid. With cases like this (in many countries) credence is given to the accuser in rape cases and the suspect is taken in. 

The next step is to compile ,not evidence, but probable cause. The probable cause was deemed sufficient enough for the District Attorney's office to give the go ahead on an arrest and a trial. As of right now NO ONE knows what the evidence was that was used against him; it has not been released yet. However, we do know that there WAS evidence, because without credible evidence the DA cannot go to trial.

Many people in here assume that the prosecutor stood up with nothing, called the defendant a rapist and relied solely on the victim's testimony; that's impossible. Witnesses are the least reliable source and are only used to re-enforce the evidence. Thus, we can bet there was some evidence (of some level) provided to the jury.

Lastly, the jury were most likely swayed by emotion; given the fact that a poor crying girl was 'raped' and gave a heartfelt testimony, their logical minds were overruled by their emotions.

Were the people in the Jury wrong? Perhaps.

Was the procedure that involves 4 levels of government and over 100 people wrong? Most likely not. To be sure though, the Governor has launched an investigation. 


Once again, many people seem to believe there was NO evidence; understand there would have been NO trial if thus was the case.

Is this still fcuked up? Yes.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

eHav said:


> but you see, if he didnt do it, how would there be evidence of it?



well that's pure supposition but the guy could have had a reccord or he had the oppurtunity etc etc


----------



## Enclave (Nov 22, 2012)

drache said:


> ^
> 
> ah I see well without being involved in the case all I can is that obviously they had to follow though with her change of heart, you simply don't release someone because a witness recanted. This isn't some tv show



You do when the witness is the only piece of evidence of his guilt.


----------



## God (Nov 22, 2012)

that bitch deserves ACTUAL rape for this shit
this is how cunts start getting knocked out on buses

FOUR FUCKIN YEAARS
not even a second thought for this guy's freedom, and she was fuckin 18, she should have known what she was doing to this poor man's life
and over PORN? not to mention if you dont know how to get away with rubbing ur clit, you're probably a dumbfuck from the get-go

should've thrown the state's $80 in their face


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Enclave said:


> You do when the witness is the only piece of evidence of his guilt.



No that's not why he's being released good fucking gods could you all stop pretending you know the facts of the case, please?


----------



## Enclave (Nov 22, 2012)

No, you're right Drache.  They obviously convicted him based on all that DNA evidence he left behind when he didn't rape her.  Or the eye witnesses who watched as he brutally didn't rape her.


----------



## drache (Nov 22, 2012)

Enclave said:


> No, you're right Drache.  They obviously convicted him based on all that DNA evidence he left behind when he didn't rape her.  Or the eye witnesses who watched as he brutally didn't rape her.



You lose that part of the argument, grow up and get over it and stop throwing hissy fits


----------



## Enclave (Nov 23, 2012)

No Drache, I'm trying to show how stupid your argument is and you seem to be missing it.  I said he should have been released as soon as the only bit of evidence against him was gone, that being the word of the person who claimed he raped her.  You said that wasn't the only reason he was convicted.  Well then tell me, what other evidence could there possibly have been other than her word?  There couldn't have been DNA evidence, there couldn't have been eye witnesses, both of those things only could happen if he actually fucking did it.  The ONLY bit of evidence that makes any sense in the least is the testimony of the person who made the claim.

Tell me, what other possible evidence could there be to support the rape claim other than eye witness testimony and DNA evidence?


----------



## drache (Nov 23, 2012)

Enclave said:


> No Drache, I'm trying to show how stupid your argument is and you seem to be missing it.  I said he should have been released as soon as the only bit of evidence against him was gone, that being the word of the person who claimed he raped her.  You said that wasn't the only reason he was convicted.  Well then tell me, what other evidence could there possibly have been other than her word?  There couldn't have been DNA evidence, there couldn't have been eye witnesses, both of those things only could happen if he actually fucking did it.  The ONLY bit of evidence that makes any sense in the least is the testimony of the person who made the claim.
> 
> Tell me, what other possible evidence could there be to support the rape claim other than eye witness testimony and DNA evidence?



:sigh:

No you have moved this from 'why wasn't he released sooner'  which the answer to was 'this was the fastest he could be released' to buying into the absurd stupidity being peddled by some here that it was 'only' her word.

We don't know that and likely never will because sexual crimes are generally sealed. Now that he's being pardoned that might change but I doubt it. But UNTIL that happens we all have absolutely no clue what evidence the state had. Given that the crime was over 8 years old I'd be surprised if it was just her word, especially to get past the grand jury stage. I'm not saying it didn't happen like that but for you and all the rest to act as you are is sure arrogance and pompousness.

I have no clue what the state had and I refuse to guess and I'll keep saying that till it pentrates.


----------



## Bill G (Nov 23, 2012)

$80? Ha!

She should seriously get raped.


----------



## Roman (Nov 23, 2012)

drache said:


> As a sexual case me and you will likely never know what the evidence was and was not. Please stop assuming it's tiresome, stupid and annoying



You're the one who's been assuming he's been getting a fair trial because the jury and judge deemed the evidence satisfactory all along. Who do you think you are?





drache said:


> ha!
> 
> you should really do some research because justice have tried that, it doesn't work, 'truth' because 'truth that the cops want' or 'truth you can buy' or something else
> 
> Your innocence is touching but wrong



You should really stop twisting my words because what I mean by "truth" is very clearly finding evidence that proves *beyond reasonable doubt* that the defendant is guilty. The fact you're indicating such a system doesn't work implies one of two things:

1. You're possibly thinking *ALL* court cases need to end with someone in prison.

2. There is never enough evidence to prove anyone's guilty under any circumstances.

Obviously, neither is true and I think you can agree with the second. But with what you've been saying all this time by defending the jury's decision is telling that you only need whatever evidence can be gathered to cast suspicion, tho not necessarily indicating with certainty, that anyone is guilty of the crime they're accused of. What should happen is that if there's only so much evidence, the most that can be done is that he should be detained on suspicion for a time until evidence can be gathered which proves *beyond reasonable doubt* that he is guilty. If there is nothing, it's impossible that he cannot be innocent.



drache said:


> no I think that what we can KNOW is relative. Do either you or me really know if he rapped that girl? No we don't, we were not there. Niether did anyone else, hence it's about what you can PROVE



But we do know what happened to the girl: she wasn't raped. So how was there evidence that she was raped when she wasn't and even admitted it?



drache said:


> well that's pure supposition but the guy could have had a reccord or he had the oppurtunity etc etc



The fuck? And you're saying I'm the one making assumptions?


----------



## drache (Nov 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> You're the one who's been assuming he's been getting a fair trial because the jury and judge deemed the evidence satisfactory all along. Who do you think you are?



no all I have *EVER* said is that 'to my knowledge he received a fair trial'. If there was misconduct by the state then of course that changes things but if you're going to assume the state is guilty till they are proven innocent then we have nothing more to discuss becuase that is such a dishonest bullshit argument that I'm not even going to bother engaging it.

I really don't get how you and the 5 or so others here can so utterly fail to read what I write even when I repeat myself. You are either utterly bankrupt in terms of honesty or so utterly blinded by your views that you walk into walls.

I frankly don't know which is worse



Freedan said:


> You should really stop twisting my words because what I mean by "truth" is very clearly finding evidence that proves *beyond reasonable doubt* that the defendant is guilty. The fact you're indicating such a system doesn't work implies one of two things:



except that's not what 'truth' means, if you want to redefine 'truth' fine I'll try and make allowances but truth has nothing to do with reasonable doubt.



Freedan said:


> 1. You're possibly thinking *ALL* court cases need to end with someone in prison.



wtf? 

I would seriously love to know the thought process that delivered this absolutely mind blowingly stupid 'conclusion'.



Freedan said:


> 2. There is never enough evidence to prove anyone's guilty under any circumstances.



Again I'd love to know how the hell you arrived at this 'conculsion'

Let me tell you what I think and I'll even help by bolding it so if nothing else read what follows then reread it and then just for the hell of it read it one last time and then comment on it

*Truth in the legal system is rare, even a confession is not always the same as truth. That is why the legal system is about what you can PROVE. Because that is the best we got and after several hundred years no one has found a better system. Of course because what you can PROVE is often not what is TRUE this creates unforunately situations where the innocent can go to jail and the guilty go free. The US system is set up in theory to minimize the first even at the cost of the second. That said this is not how it always works. I am sorry the man went to jail, I am not sure what should happen to the girl but the calls for guilt money from the state are utterly silly PROVIDED the man got a fair trial. That may strike you as harsh, I really don't give a darn. I hope this man gets help getting his life back on track and I hope that his status as a sex offender is struck once his conviction is pardoned.*



Freedan said:


> Obviously, neither is true and I think you can agree with the second. But with what you've been saying all this time by defending the jury's decision is telling that you only need whatever evidence can be gathered to cast suspicion, tho not necessarily indicating with certainty, that anyone is guilty of the crime they're accused of. What should happen is that if there's only so much evidence, the most that can be done is that he should be detained on suspicion for a time until evidence can be gathered which proves *beyond reasonable doubt* that he is guilty. If there is nothing, it's impossible that he cannot be innocent.



and thus you show your utter lack of nuance

I defend the process not this specific instance




Freedan said:


> But we do know what happened to the girl: she wasn't raped. So how was there evidence that she was raped when she wasn't and even admitted it?



for the millionith fucking time dan we will never know more likely then not what the procustion had but if it was enough to bring to grand jury, if it was enough for the grand jury to bring to trial and then enough for him to have been convicted then either that girl was one of the most persuasive witnesses ever and his attroney utterly failed him or the state had more then just her testimony. Either way if he faced the same process as you or I then it was fair.



Freedan said:


> The fuck? And you're saying I'm the one making assumptions?



do you not understand the phrase 'well this is pure supposition' or are you just an idiot?


----------



## Roman (Nov 23, 2012)

drache said:


> no all I have *EVER* said is that 'to my knowledge he received a fair trial'. If there was misconduct by the state then of course that changes things but if you're going to assume the state is guilty till they are proven innocent then we have nothing more to discuss becuase that is such a dishonest bullshit argument that I'm not even going to bother engaging it.
> 
> I really don't get how you and the 5 or so others here can so utterly fail to read what I write even when I repeat myself. You are either utterly bankrupt in terms of honesty or so utterly blinded by your views that you walk into walls.
> 
> I frankly don't know which is worse



For the record, I never even said the state is guilty of not following the correct process. If you look back, I've stated repeatedly that they did and at no point did I blame them for convicting him. The only reason, heavy as it is, I said it's unfair is because he was judged on a "he-sad-she-said" basis for a crime that supposedly happened EIGHT YEARS before the accusation. To the best of my knowledge, there's only so many ways to determine how a rape occurred: a physical test for the victim, something she did not do. That's not an assumption on my part, that is FACT. The only misconduct is really a failing on the jury's part to actually judge the evidence and rely almost completely (if not completely) on emotion. This is something I can understand to an extent, but it should never precede over judging things based on what really happened. What is unfair is the fact he was arrested based on little to no evidence. That's all.



drache said:


> except that's not what 'truth' means, if you want to redefine 'truth' fine I'll try and make allowances but truth has nothing to do with reasonable doubt.



What is truth then? You seem to know more about that than I do so I'll be very happy to hear your interpretation of it.



drache said:


> wtf?
> 
> I would seriously love to know the thought process that delivered this absolutely mind blowingly stupid 'conclusion'.



It's rather simple. Since court systems work on the basis on "what can be proved" rather than "real evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt" leads me to think that if suggestive evidence is all the evidence that can be gathered, then that's the only thing that needs to be worked with to determine if a guy is innocent or guilty. If we pair that with the concept that a man is guilty until proven innocent, then court cases must end with someone in jail.



drache said:


> Again I'd love to know how the hell you arrived at this 'conculsion'



A conclusion I need to remind you even I said I don't believe is the case. I specified it's a *possibility* based on what you've been saying. Not a fact.



drache said:


> *Truth in the legal system is rare, even a confession is not always the same as truth. That is why the legal system is about what you can PROVE. Because that is the best we got and after several hundred years no one has found a better system. Of course because what you can PROVE is often not what is TRUE this creates unforunately situations where the innocent can go to jail and the guilty go free. The US system is set up in theory to minimize the first even at the cost of the second. That said this is not how it always works. I am sorry the man went to jail, I am not sure what should happen to the girl but the calls for guilt money from the state are utterly silly PROVIDED the man got a fair trial. That may strike you as harsh, I really don't give a darn. I hope this man gets help getting his life back on track and I hope that his status as a sex offender is struck once his conviction is pardoned.*



And that's the problem. It should not be based on what you can prove to determine if someone is guilty. It should be based on what you can prove to determine if someone is guilty *beyond reasonable doubt*. In this case, there was reasonable doubt (or should have been at any rate) considering it was most likely a "he-said-she-said" as the fact he did not rape her means there could not possibly have been enough evidence to suggest that he did.



drache said:


> and thus you show your utter lack of nuance
> 
> I defend the process not this specific instance



And I'm not attacking the process. I'm attacking the fact that he was judged wrongly.



drache said:


> for the millionith fucking time dan we will never know more likely then not what the procustion had but if it was enough to bring to grand jury, if it was enough for the grand jury to bring to trial and then enough for him to have been convicted then either that girl was one of the most persuasive witnesses ever and his attroney utterly failed him or the state had more then just her testimony. Either way if he faced the same process as you or I then it was fair.



How could there have been enough evidence for the jury to determine he raped her when he didn't rape her? Me, eHav and Sauf have all asked you this multiple times and all you said is "I don't know, all I know is there was enough for the jury to tell" and leave it at that as tho it whatever they decided based on the evidence they had was fair. The problem is, because *he did not rape her*, how can there be evidence?


----------



## Unimportant (Nov 23, 2012)

drache said:


> for the millionith fucking time dan we will never know more likely then not what the procustion had but if it was enough to bring to grand jury, if it was enough for the grand jury to bring to trial and then enough for him to have been convicted then either that girl was one of the most persuasive witnesses ever and his attroney utterly failed him or the state had more then just her testimony. *Either way if he faced the same process as you or I then it was fair.*



Unless Jonathan Montgomery lied, he flat out stated that during the trial, the only evidence was testimony.

Funny you should say that [bolded], since I'm quite sure you're female.


----------



## chikmagnet7 (Nov 23, 2012)

My initial thought was that 

1. This girl should be jailed

2. The man should be issued an apology by the state (which it seems he was)

3. The state should launch a full investigation into the trial to determine whether it was fair

But then I thought about #1 again, and I realized the girl was only 10 at the time. Even though she's 22 now, we ought to punish her for the crime she committed as a 10 year old, not for telling the truth now. 

So my solution is this:

girl gets put on probation/community service duty (for perjury). In addition, she and/or her family must pay a massive fine. That money + money from the state should go directly in Montgomery's pocket.


----------



## drache (Nov 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> For the record, I never even said the state is guilty of not following the correct process. If you look back, I've stated repeatedly that they did and at no point did I blame them for convicting him. The only reason, heavy as it is, I said it's unfair is because he was judged on a "he-sad-she-said" basis for a crime that supposedly happened EIGHT YEARS before the accusation. To the best of my knowledge, there's only so many ways to determine how a rape occurred: a physical test for the victim, something she did not do. That's not an assumption on my part, that is FACT. The only misconduct is really a failing on the jury's part to actually judge the evidence and rely almost completely (if not completely) on emotion. This is something I can understand to an extent, but it should never precede over judging things based on what really happened. What is unfair is the fact he was arrested based on little to no evidence. That's all.



oh it's a fact?

then source it or admit you are wrong




Freedan said:


> What is truth then? You seem to know more about that than I do so I'll be very happy to hear your interpretation of it.



truth is absolute, it simply IS, truth is knowing something not just beyond reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt.



Freedan said:


> It's rather simple. Since court systems work on the basis on "what can be proved" rather than "real evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt" leads me to think that if suggestive evidence is all the evidence that can be gathered, then that's the only thing that needs to be worked with to determine if a guy is innocent or guilty. If we pair that with the concept that a man is guilty until proven innocent, then court cases must end with someone in jail.



I want to know just who do you think decides what is and is not reasonable doubt?





Freedan said:


> A conclusion I need to remind you even I said I don't believe is the case. I specified it's a *possibility* based on what you've been saying. Not a fact.



so in other words throw enough bullshit up and eventually we lose track of the topic, nice dan real nice




Freedan said:


> And that's the problem. It should not be based on what you can prove to determine if someone is guilty. It should be based on what you can prove to determine if someone is guilty *beyond reasonable doubt*. In this case, there was reasonable doubt (or should have been at any rate) considering it was most likely a "he-said-she-said" as the fact he did not rape her means there could not possibly have been enough evidence to suggest that he did.



I repeat my question, just who do you think decides what is and is not 'beyond reasonable doubt'?



Freedan said:


> And I'm not attacking the process. I'm attacking the fact that he was judged wrongly.



bullshit you are you've said more then once you want to make this about 'truth' as if crime investigation is some mystical process where in we can divine past all doubt what happened.

Well we can't




Freedan said:


> How could there have been enough evidence for the jury to determine he raped her when he didn't rape her? Me, eHav and Sauf have all asked you this multiple times and all you said is "I don't know, all I know is there was enough for the jury to tell" and leave it at that as tho it whatever they decided based on the evidence they had was fair. The problem is, because *he did not rape her*, how can there be evidence?




*I DO NOT FUCKING KNOW!*

And that has been my answer every single time because *I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE STATE'S CASE* and without that access there's absolutely no way to know if yours, Sauf's and eHav's assumption that this was 'he said she said' or not.

The difference between me and you all is I'm staying rational while you all are letting your outrage dictate your thinking then getting more outraged that I simply don't hop on the group rage train.


----------



## Roman (Nov 23, 2012)

drache said:


> oh it's a fact?
> 
> then source it or admit you are wrong



If I say I don't actually have a source, does that mean she did the test and they proved she was raped? From my understanding, there's no other way to determine that it happened at all 8 years after the supposed event. Even that is questionable.



drache said:


> truth is absolute, it simply IS, truth is knowing something not just beyond reasonable doubt but beyond all doubt.



I've been saying "beyond reasonable doubt" all this time. It's almost like we're agreeing on something here except you would draw the line on when evidence is enough to prove something long before I would.

That, or you're just being a douchebag about it.



drache said:


> I want to know just who do you think decides what is and is not reasonable doubt?



The jury. And am I wrong to think they made an incorrect call? Particularly when there cannot be discernible evidence to support their decision?



drache said:


> bullshit you are you've said more then once you want to make this about 'truth' as if crime investigation is some mystical process where in we can divine past all doubt what happened.



I'll reiterate. I've been saying "beyond reasonable doubt" the entire time. Perhaps our definitions differ. What I would consider beyond reasonable doubt is, for instance, when clear evidence is found to show someone is in fact guilty of the crime they're accused of. For example. The fact that the victim knew the criminal, and that the criminal was nowhere to be found at the time of the crime is enough to cast suspicion, but does not prove he's responsible. If fingerprints are found on the murder weapon, that's strong evidence. Is it enough? I'll admit I wouldn't know, but the doubt is greatly reduced as a result.

Beyond this, I cannot say, not knowing *THE SPECIFICS* of how court-cases decide these things.

On a side note, I really think the jury, a bunch of regular people, shouldn't be the ones making judgements but people who're actually experts in investigative fields. To me it seems a bit ridiculous to let people's destinies be left to regulars who could even be as unknowing about court systems as I am. Godforbid someone says this is a bad idea because I'm a fake person.



drache said:


> *I DO NOT FUCKING KNOW!*
> 
> And that has been my answer every single time because *I DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE STATE'S CASE* and without that access there's absolutely no way to know if yours, Sauf's and eHav's assumption that this was 'he said she said' or not.
> 
> The difference between me and you all is I'm staying rational while you all are letting your outrage dictate your thinking then getting more outraged that I simply don't hop on the group rage train.



Yes. You don't know. I don't know. But the difference is, you just accept it whereas I find it very suspicious that they had gathered enough evidence to say the guy was guilty for a crime that never happened.


----------



## God (Nov 23, 2012)

Understand that to convict, you need to have proven your case beyond any reasonable doubt that could exist in a "reasonable person's" mind that defendant is guilty. That's a high standard, and since the rape in question never occurs, there was no actual evidence beyond the defendant and witness' conflicting statements, there was nothing but reasonable doubt.

A bunch of fuckers heard rape and pushed the convict button. Trial shouldn't have gotten a jury, let alone a conviction.

Since they didnt follow the system in this case, yes they owe him reparations.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Nov 23, 2012)

The USA and South Africa are the countries with most female rapes in the world


----------



## Daxter (Nov 23, 2012)

Bill G said:


> $80? Ha!
> 
> She should seriously get raped.



What a horrid thing to even joke about.


----------



## Roman (Nov 23, 2012)

Anyways, I'm done here. Multiple people have shown why there could not have been enough evidence to prove his guilt. I rest my case.


----------



## drache (Nov 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> If I say I don't actually have a source, does that mean she did the test and they proved she was raped? From my understanding, there's no other way to determine that it happened at all 8 years after the supposed event. Even that is questionable.



no it would mean you can't prove that all the state had was the alleged victim's testimony



Freedan said:


> I've been saying "beyond reasonable doubt" all this time. It's almost like we're agreeing on something here except you would draw the line on when evidence is enough to prove something long before I would.
> 
> That, or you're just being a douchebag about it.



no you have only adopted that recently and then you conflated that with 'truth' which was incredibly confusing



Freedan said:


> The jury. And am I wrong to think they made an incorrect call? Particularly when there cannot be discernible evidence to support their decision?



well that's a relief at least that you know that




Freedan said:


> I'll reiterate. I've been saying "beyond reasonable doubt" the entire time. Perhaps our definitions differ. What I would consider beyond reasonable doubt is, for instance, when clear evidence is found to show someone is in fact guilty of the crime they're accused of. For example. The fact that the victim knew the criminal, and that the criminal was nowhere to be found at the time of the crime is enough to cast suspicion, but does not prove he's responsible. If fingerprints are found on the murder weapon, that's strong evidence. Is it enough? I'll admit I wouldn't know, but the doubt is greatly reduced as a result.



The entire point of my question was to point out that the jury is the one that has to decide what 'beyond reasonable doubt' means.

Have you ever been on a jury? Had to make that call? I have, it's not easy or done lightly



Freedan said:


> Beyond this, I cannot say, not knowing *THE SPECIFICS* of how court-cases decide these things.
> 
> On a side note, I really think the jury, a bunch of regular people, shouldn't be the ones making judgements but people who're actually experts in investigative fields. To me it seems a bit ridiculous to let people's destinies be left to regulars who could even be as unknowing about court systems as I am. Godforbid someone says this is a bad idea because I'm a fake person.



that's wonderful but that's not how the system works and what are you going to do? round up experts for each trial? I hope you're paying well because they will be in absurd demand



Freedan said:


> Yes. You don't know. I don't know. But the difference is, you just accept it whereas I find it very suspicious that they had gathered enough evidence to say the guy was guilty for a crime that never happened.



no the difference is I don't pretend supposition is fact, the difference is that I don't invent evidence to make the conclusion I want more likely

THAT is the difference between us



Blue_Panter_Ninja said:


> The USA and South Africa are the countries with most female rapes in the world



how are we defining that?

because according to  Sweden once again more then doubles the USA dispite having a fraction of the population

In fact the USA has the 5th highest (which isn't good true but not what you seem to be suggesting)


----------



## Roman (Nov 23, 2012)

drache said:


> that's wonderful but that's not how the system works and what are you going to do? round up experts for each trial? I hope you're paying well because they will be in absurd demand



That's why I said "on a side note" and did not say that's how the system works. I said that's how the system SHOULD work. More triping to make me look like an idiot.



drache said:


> no the difference is I don't pretend supposition is fact, the difference is that I don't invent evidence to make the conclusion I want more likely
> 
> THAT is the difference between us



You're assuming the jury had enough evidence to say the man was guilty without realizing there was no possible way there was enough evidence to prove anything. You're supposing the jury is right in whatever decision they made because you say you have no way of knowing if there was enough (even when it's blatantly obvious there was not).

Good job ignoring Cubey's link too.


----------



## drache (Nov 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> That's why I said "on a side note" and did not say that's how the system works. I said that's how the system SHOULD work. More triping to make me look like an idiot.



great you suggest a way to make that happen then



Freedan said:


> You're assuming the jury had enough evidence to say the man was guilty without realizing there was no possible way there was enough evidence to prove anything. You're supposing the jury is right in whatever decision they made because you say you have no way of knowing if there was enough (even when it's blatantly obvious there was not).



as opposed to what exactly dan? The jury divided into teams and had competitive tic tack toe till one side lost and the side that lost was the team for guilty?

Legally the jury IS right in whatever decesion they make. I get you and your naive idealism find this intolerable and I'll admit that I wish the system was better. But there is no better way, at least none I see

And when you can admit that, let's talk




Freedan said:


> Good job ignoring Cubey's link too.



I'm not going to 'debate' with some nobody I've never met before especially given how he choose to enter this debate 

He frankly has no clue what he's talking about and I have nothing further to say to him (well nothing further that wouldn't get me in trouble at least)


----------



## Roman (Nov 23, 2012)

drache said:


> great you suggest a way to make that happen then



Hold that thought.



drache said:


> as opposed to what exactly dan? The jury divided into teams and had competitive tic tack toe till one side lost and the side that lost was the team for guilty?



Are you seriously asking this? Should it be opposed to something? If there's not enough evidence to prove his guilt, shouldn't that mean he's innocent? That's the basis of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" which is what I thought US court systems operated on.



drache said:


> Legally the jury IS right in whatever decesion they make. I get you and your naive idealism find this intolerable and I'll admit that I wish the system was better. But there is no better way, at least none I see
> 
> And when you can admit that, let's talk



I admit it from a legal perspective. HOWEVER, the legality of their right doesn't make it right. Just because the jury decided he raped her doesn't make it true. That should be blatantly obvious given the turn of events. How you can still say they were right when they were clearly wrong is astounding.

As for a better system, it's funny you should ask me to suggest a better system because when I do, you say this:



drache said:


> great you suggest a way to make that happen then



So let's begin this charade. Tell me how members of the jury are chosen.



drache said:


> I'm not going to 'debate' with some nobody I've never met before especially given how he choose to enter this debate
> 
> He frankly has no clue what he's talking about and I have nothing further to say to him (well nothing further that wouldn't get me in trouble at least)



No. You're not arguing with him because you branded him misogynistic filth for claiming the guy needs restitution (something I'm not taking a stance on before you jump on me yet again) in your VMs with him. Nice try.


----------



## Gino (Nov 23, 2012)

Let's all hope she suffers for what's she's done.


----------



## drache (Nov 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Hold that thought.



when ever you're ready



Freedan said:


> Are you seriously asking this? Should it be opposed to something? If there's not enough evidence to prove his guilt, shouldn't that mean he's innocent? That's the basis of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" which is what I thought US court systems operated on.



no I'm ridiculing your idea because it is ridiculus



Freedan said:


> I admit it from a legal perspective. HOWEVER, the legality of their right doesn't make it right. Just because the jury decided he raped her doesn't make it true. That should be blatantly obvious given the turn of events. How you can still say they were right when they were clearly wrong is astounding.



and this is why we had that whole discussion about PROVE vs TRUTH

Juries and trials DO NOT decide truth, that's why terms like 'alleged' and 'convicted' are used. Though admittedly some people take the shortcut and confuse the 2, a jury verdict is never a verdict on 'truth' but what can be proved.

And once again because it's either not pentrated or because you're being dishonest I'm not defending that decesion. The jury got it wrong, I am defending the PROCESS



Freedan said:


> As for a better system, it's funny you should ask me to suggest a better system because when I do, you say this:



I say that because I have no better ideas and it the height of insanity to destroy a system simply because it's not perfect enough. So if you want to get rid of it, you had better have something better



Freedan said:


> So let's begin this charade. Tell me how members of the jury are chosen.



it varies, but how about you do your own research then come back with a fully formed idea? Because to play question and answer is a charade. There's nothing I can't tell you that you can't learn on your own.



Freedan said:


> No. You're not arguing with him because you branded him misogynistic filth for claiming the guy needs restitution (something I'm not taking a stance on before you jump on me yet again) in your VMs with him. Nice try.



right this is offered in whole from the child that called me 'fucking retarded'



Cubey said:


> that bitch deserves ACTUAL rape for this shit
> this is how cunts start getting knocked out on buses
> 
> FOUR FUCKIN YEAARS
> ...



I am sure he's not misogynistic at all, I'm sure it's just a big misunderstanding what with him threatening to rape people, beat up women etc etc

If you want to ignore the absolutely disturbing misogyny being demonstrated by that one, Gino, and a host of others that's up to you.


----------



## Gino (Nov 23, 2012)

douche said:


> when ever you're ready
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Something Something Misogyny Something Something I'm always right and I'll never try to look at the other side of arguments too easy stay classy chump.


----------



## drache (Nov 23, 2012)

I'm sorry you had an argument? Perhaps you could post a link to this scintillating piece of posting?


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Nov 23, 2012)

I don't time time to read ten pages but what has* drache *done to make you guys dislike him so much?


----------



## Gino (Nov 23, 2012)

drache said:


> I'm sorry you had an argument? Perhaps you could post a link to this scintillating piece of posting?




When did I say I had an argument?You know for someone all knowing you sure fail at reading comprehension a lot.


----------



## drache (Nov 23, 2012)

all knowing? ha! hardly there's lots I don't know (especailly about taxes but that's what my brother is for lol)

you are the one suggesting that I'm not listening, that means you have something to say or an argument

I know you don't come to the cafe a lot but generally if you're going to speak up, you'd better be able to back up what you say

If it makes you feel bad Gino just neg me again, I'm sure that will help you feel better about your inadequacies


----------



## Roman (Nov 23, 2012)

drache said:


> and this is why we had that whole discussion about PROVE vs TRUTH
> 
> Juries and trials DO NOT decide truth, that's why terms like 'alleged' and 'convicted' are used. Though admittedly some people take the shortcut and confuse the 2, a jury verdict is never a verdict on 'truth' but what can be proved.
> 
> And once again because it's either not pentrated or because you're being dishonest I'm not defending that decesion. The jury got it wrong, I am defending the PROCESS



So, since the jury's is the only decision that can be accepted, that's all that anyone can rely on. The problem therefore isn't in the way in which evidence is collected (something I never contested anyways), but in the jury in and of itself. Hence my suggestion for a better jury.



drache said:


> I say that because I have no better ideas and it the height of insanity to destroy a system simply because it's not perfect enough. So if you want to get rid of it, you had better have something better



When did I ever say the system should be disbanded? I'm suggesting REFORM, not destruction.



drache said:


> it varies, but how about you do your own research then come back with a fully formed idea? Because to play question and answer is a charade. There's nothing I can't tell you that you can't learn on your own.



Read: I don't know either.


----------



## Mr. sickVisionz (Nov 23, 2012)

Cryppled Dogma said:


> What a horrid thing to even joke about.



Nah, she's a horrid person.  They should throw her in jail for 4 years and let her see how fun it is.


----------



## drache (Nov 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> So, since the jury's is the only decision that can be accepted, that's all that anyone can rely on. The problem therefore isn't in the way in which evidence is collected (something I never contested anyways), but in the jury in and of itself. Hence my suggestion for a better jury.



again, how?



Freedan said:


> When did I ever say the system should be disbanded? I'm suggesting REFORM, not destruction.



it applies either way




Freedan said:


> Read: I don't know either.



well till you do you have nothing


----------



## Gino (Nov 23, 2012)

drache said:


> all knowing? ha! hardly there's lots I don't know (especailly about taxes but that's what my brother is for lol)
> 
> you are the one suggesting that I'm not listening, that means you have something to say or an argument
> 
> ...


@ you trying to tell me what I should do.

Your saying all that yet your not saying anything trying to become me are you? I simply come into the cafe to say what the fuck I wanna say and leave or come back as I see fit it's really that simple.


----------



## drache (Nov 23, 2012)

^

ah I get it now, you're here to troll well knowing that I have nothing more to say to you and frankly I hope on the whole the cafe ignores you


----------



## Gino (Nov 23, 2012)

drache said:


> ^
> 
> ah I get it now, you're here to troll well knowing that I have nothing more to say to you and frankly I hope on the whole the cafe ignores you




That's more like it even though you're fucking wrong.


----------



## Roman (Nov 23, 2012)

drache said:


> well till you do you have nothing



I was talking about you


----------



## Unimportant (Nov 23, 2012)

I found this interesting to read.
Essentially, the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to rape trials in the US.


----------



## Roman (Nov 23, 2012)

Unimportant said:


> I found this interesting to read.
> Essentially, the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to rape trials in the US.



From the article:



> “The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual intercourse was consensual.”



In other words, rape trials don't even consider the possibility that there was no sexual intercourse in the first place. Wow. I guess I understand where drache is coming from a bit more now. Defendants really are guilty until proven innocent. Talk about fair (read: unbiased) trials.


----------



## Gino (Nov 23, 2012)

The word rape can destroy lives.


----------



## Unimportant (Nov 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> In other words, rape trials don't even consider the possibility that there was no sexual intercourse in the first place. Wow. I guess I understand where drache is coming from a bit more now. Defendants really are guilty until proven innocent. Talk about fair (read: unbiased) trials.


False accusations will lead to women suffering, by being stripped of a scared right to protection.

Imagine if your girlfriend was raped, and the attacker told the court it was consensual and she was actually cheating on you. How is this proved in one way or the other? Who's really right?


----------



## eHav (Nov 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, rape trials don't even consider the possibility that there was no sexual intercourse in the first place. Wow. I guess I understand where drache is coming from a bit more now. Defendants really are guilty until proven innocent. Talk about fair (read: unbiased) trials.



lol so this is why he got convicted?

he couldnt provide evidence that something that didnt happen was consensual? lol

what a load of bullshit. how the fuck is this fair? how the fuck is this a fair trial? straight away its biased towards the victim.

hey drache werent you saying it was fair because its the same for everyone? doesnt look like that anymore now does it?


----------



## Roman (Nov 23, 2012)

Unimportant said:


> False accusations will lead to women suffering, by being stripped of a scared right to protection.
> 
> Imagine if your girlfriend was raped, and the attacker told the court it was consensual and she was actually cheating on you. How is this proved in one way or the other? Who's really right?



Admittedly there's no real way to prove whether it was consensual or not which is why I suppose rape cases are really difficult to handle. But does that really justify that the defendant ought to be deemed guilty unless evidence is shown? Evidence that can't be produced particularly if there is no sign of a struggle? This is assuming the defendant is indeed innocent. Normally rape victims exhibit symptoms like the following:

- Extragenital injury
- Genital injury
- Psychologic symptoms
- Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs—eg, hepatitis, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydial infection, trichomoniasis, HIV infection [rarely])

When it's evident that the first three are not present (given that the fourth can occur between normal couples as well), I would say it's circumstantial evidence that the victim was indeed raped. It would be harder (and less likely) to prove that the rape actually happened if it was consensual.

i.e. I still don't think it's right to act under the pretense the defendant is guilty until proven innocent.


----------



## God (Nov 23, 2012)

no freedan, it was easy for her to fake a rape because her premise was it happened 8 years ago

all this because she couldn't let her parents find out she was a little porn freak?
can you imagine the little cunt sitting on that bench, looking at the guy she's about to lock away and continue without any afterthought? the fucking psychopath, i truly and sincerely hope she gets some straight shit in her life

and no it isn't mysoginy. she's sick and not representative of women, however she is a cunt and needs to get knocked the fuck out. idgaf.


----------



## Unimportant (Nov 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Admittedly there's no real way to prove whether it was consensual or not which is why I suppose rape cases are really difficult to handle. But does that really justify that the defendant ought to be deemed guilty unless evidence is shown? Evidence that can't be produced particularly if there is no sign of a struggle? This is assuming the defendant is indeed innocent.


That's kind of the problem, does a physical fight have to occur in order for it to be rape? What if she didn't want to be physically harmed, and submitted to the rapist? Is the rapist innocent then?



> Normally rape victims exhibit symptoms like the following:
> 
> - Extragenital injury
> - Genital injury
> ...


Surely if there was a fight, it was probably rape...



> i.e. I still don't think it's right to act under the pretense the defendant is guilty until proven innocent.


You're right, but it's also unfair that women should have to be allowed to be raped because it's impossible to prove if something was consensual or not.

In the case of this trial, it wasn't even proved that there was a sexual act in the first place, which is why it's particularly nasty... The reason is that many women are afraid of their attackers, and don't come forward for a long time. That is to say, a rape kit only works for what, the 72 following hours? So after 72 hours the victim shouldn't be able to press charges?

It's really a delicate balance, and women who abuse the protection given by strict law are truly doing a disservice to all women of the future.


----------



## Roman (Nov 23, 2012)

Cubey said:


> no freedan, it was easy for her to fake a rape because her premise was it happened 8 years ago
> 
> all this because she couldn't let her parents find out she was a little porn freak?
> can you imagine the little cunt sitting on that bench, looking at the guy she's about to lock away and continue without any afterthought? the fucking psychopath, i truly and sincerely hope she gets some straight shit in her life
> ...



I know. I'm talking about general rape cases. In this case particularly, the point still stands where little if not any evidence could be gathered to the point in which a decision could be made that the man is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. One could still argue it was possible to tell the testimony was fake if the victim is not shown to have suffered any psychological trauma (something which I believe is quite common among rape victims). That should've already served as an indication that the testimony was a lie AND why I believe it's best to have a jury formed of experts in relevant fields rather than just anyone.



Unimportant said:


> That's kind of the problem, does a physical fight have to occur in order for it to be rape? What if she didn't want to be physically harmed, and submitted to the rapist? Is the rapist innocent then?



More than physical damage, there's the psychological aspect which needs examining. Often, that has a much more lasting effect on rape victims (not to mention it's the reason the vast majority of victims fail to report it right away). And no, it doesn't mean the rapist is innocent if there's no evidence of physical harm. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?



Unimportant said:


> You're right, but it's also unfair that women should have to be allowed to be raped because it's impossible to prove if something was consensual or not.
> 
> In the case of this trial, it wasn't even proved that there was a sexual act in the first place, which is why it's particularly nasty... The reason is that many women are afraid of their attackers, and don't come forward for a long time. That is to say, a rape kit only works for what, the 72 following hours? So after 72 hours the victim shouldn't be able to press charges?
> 
> *It's really a delicate balance, and women who abuse the protection given by strict law are truly doing a disservice to all women of the future*.



That's why there needs to be more strict procedures and give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant in such cases. If the rape was reported immediately (something which is often recommended but understandably not followed in every case due to the psychological damage), it would be a lot easier to tell. If it was done after a long while, such as in this case, then background checks should also be considered to see whether or not the victim did certain things (such as visit a psychiatrist) and also if the defendant has a history of sexual abuse done toward others. 

All of this is circumstantial evidence and yes drache, I'll be the first to admit the full truth cannot be discovered in this instance and I understand that such cases can take a while to come to fruition. If it were up to me, I'm willing to do that rather than throw the defendant in jail the moment even the slightest suggestive evidence arises.


----------



## God (Nov 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I know. I'm talking about general rape cases. In this case particularly, *the point still stands where little if not any evidence could be gathered to the point in which a decision could be made that the man is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.* One could still argue it was possible to tell the testimony was fake if the victim is not shown to have suffered any psychological trauma (something which I believe is quite common among rape victims). That should've already served as an indication that the testimony was a lie AND why I believe it's best to have a jury formed of experts in relevant fields rather than just anyone.



indeed. btw where did you get this info that rape trials operate under the assumption the rape took place? i'm wondering because i've never heard anything like this before and because if this truly were the case, then there would be no need for a prosecution, the burden of proof would lie on the defendant to prove it didn't happen.


----------



## Roman (Nov 23, 2012)

Cubey said:


> indeed. btw where did you get this info that rape trials operate under the assumption the rape took place? i'm wondering because i've never heard anything like this before and because if this truly were the case, then there would be no need for a prosecution, the burden of proof would lie on the defendant to prove it didn't happen.



Unimportant posted a link earlier in this page showing that rape trials are an exception to the "innocent until proven guilty" rule which applies to all other cases. As you say, there would be no need for a prosecution if this was the case which is why I find it odd, if not unfair.


----------



## Blue (Nov 23, 2012)

drache said:


> why should he? This 'stealing' meme always bothers me, he was put on trial and convicted by a jury of his peers. Unless the state is guilty of misconduct the state owes him nothing.


lol drache

can't tell if trolling or just really sad



♠Ace♠ said:


> lock her up
> problem solved


----------



## Bishop (Nov 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> Unimportant posted a link earlier in this page showing that rape trials are an exception to the "innocent until proven guilty" rule which applies to all other cases. As you say, there would be no need for a prosecution if this was the case which is why I find it odd, if not unfair.



Hey Freedan, 


You may want to re-read that again. That does not fall in line with this case. 

It says the defendant must prove the sex was consensual, otherwise he/she is guilty. This case is different because they never had sex. The burden was not on Johnathan to prove he had consensual sex; the burden was on the state to prove he had sex to begin with and that he raped her. He was innocent until he was proven guilty.

As stated before, the evidence used by the prosecution has not yet been released. But we do know there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial as that is one of the qualifications. If they had no evidence, there could be no trial; thus we know they had something else besides her testimony.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Nov 23, 2012)

Bishop said:


> But we do know there was sufficient evidence to warrant a trial as that is one of the qualifications. If they had no evidence, there could be no trial; thus we know they had something else besides her testimony.


We don't "know" this, you assume this because it's crucial to your argument.

You can indeed have a trial without evidence.  It willshould be dismissed by the judge along with (at least) a stern talking-to to the prosecutor.

But if it's a highly emotional rape trial where the state doesn't want to look soft-on-rape it might be allowed to go on so that the jury gets to play the role of the "bad guys" that let the rapist out.

And if the jury makes the wrong call then perhaps an innocent man might go to prison.

But we know that would never happen.  They probably had DNA evidence from the sex that didn't happen


----------



## Bishop (Nov 23, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> We don't "know" this, you assume this because it's crucial to your argument.
> 
> You can indeed have a trial without evidence.  It willshould be dismissed by the judge along with (at least) a stern talking-to to the prosecutor.
> 
> ...



I understand your point Moogle. I am not, however, claiming sufficient evidence for an argument. I am claiming it because it is the requirement for there to be a trial. In order for the District Attorney's office to take a person to trial, they must file with the courts. One of the things the courts demands is a certain amount of evidence that can be leveraged and displayed to the jury; otherwise there would be no point in structure and order. That is why I said we know there is evidence at some level.


We do not, however, know what that evidence is because it has not been released yet for us to know. I read yesterday that the governor has/will start an investigation on the case. 

To reiterate, there was some evidence, or the DA wouldn't have asked the Courts, even if they did the courts would not have said yes, even if they did the judge would not have said yes, even if he did the board that files the motions and cases would not have said yes. If so, that means that four levels of authority screwed up, which is highly unlikely.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Nov 23, 2012)

Well, the trial's been over for 4 years now, if there is evidence that they were going to release they would have, go find it.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Nov 23, 2012)

Not trying to be funny, but how specifically do you invent a story about being sexually assaulted to get yourself off the hook from watching porn?  And how did he catch a *7 & 1/2 year sentence* for whatever the fuck he was supposed to have done, aged _14_?


----------



## Bishop (Nov 23, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Well, the trial's been over for 4 years now, if there is evidence that they were going to release they would have, go find it.



​


----------



## drache (Nov 23, 2012)

Freedan said:


> I was talking about you


 
I love how you utterly ignore everything and go for the cheap shot

Which frankly I take as a concession that I was right in general and about the misogynistic comments. I get that you're not capable yet of saying that outloud but that's okay.



Unimportant said:


> I found this interesting to read.
> Essentially, the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to rape trials in the US.


 
that is interesting however I take issue with some of it



> 5. Shielding the Identify of the Accuser: Our system of justice requires that the court process be open to the public, and the First Amendment allows the press to report the names of parties to a case. But many states now have statutes that specifically prohibit the identification of a woman alleging rape.
> 6. Right to Confront One’s Accuser: In the past, defense attorneys were allowed to ask detailed, often intrusive questions about the accuser’s prior sexual history. Now under Federal Rules of Evidence 412, such questions generally may not be posed.


 
the fact is that these laws are necessary, before they were introduced rape cases often become a referundumn on the victim with the defense trying often to paint her as a slut or 'asking for it'.



> 4. Courtroom Terminology: During courtroom trials, it is not uncommon for the complainant to be referred to as the “victim,” even though that fact has not been established.


 
This is not unique to rape cases, the proscution always talks this way



> 7. Guilty Mind (“mens rea”): Criminal law has long held that if a man believed in good faith that the woman was consenting to intercourse, then he could not be found to have committed rape. Now, that requirement has been largely removed.


 
1. appeal to tradition is dumb
2. mens rea was a dumb law left over from a time when a married man could force his wife to have sex among many other things. It's really simple, if you're not sure ask and if she asks you to stop then fucking stop



> 8. Affirmative Consent: In the past, a man could reasonably infer that a woman was consenting to intercourse based on her behavior. Now, the woman must give affirmative permission through “words or overt actions” – although there is a lack of consensus regarding which specific overt actions constitute consent.


 
see above, affirmative consent is in many ways a dumb law and reason



> 10. Reasonable Resistance: In 1951 the Oregon Supreme Court ruled, “The woman must resist by more than mere words. Her resistance must be reasonable proportionate to her strength and her opportunities.” Now, only half of all states require there to have been physical resistance.


 
seriously? so women should not only be raped but they should resist even if it risks thier health and phyisical well being? this is really starting to sound less objective and more apologetic for would be rapists



> 11. Admission of Evidence of Prior Sexual Assaults: A basic tenet of our criminal justice system is that jurors generally are not informed of any prior criminal record of the defendant in order to preclude bias. But under Federal Rule of Evidence 413, in a “criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of sexual assault, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible.” Note that the rule allows admission not only of prior convictions, but of any evidence including arrests or mere allegations. Evidence of the complainant’s prior false allegations may not be introduced as evidence, however.


 
this is only half right, previous bad acts can only be admitted if it has bearing on the case, past sexual assualts obviously have a bearing on a case involving sexual assualt.



> 12. Rape Trauma Syndrome: In some states, the prosecutor may have an expert witness testify that the alleged victim is suffering from “rape trauma syndrome” — even though the validity of the syndrome has been questioned and the expert witness may have never spoken with the alleged victim to evaluate her mental state.


 
actually PTSD is a very real thing, that said sure the defense can counter this especially if the expert in question never spoke with the victim



> 13. Civil Commitment of Offender After Penal Release: In the past, society believed that once a man served his sentence and paid his debt to society, he should be allowed to re-integrate into the community and pursue a reasonably normal existence. But as of 2007, 19 states passed civil detention statutes for sexual offenders that may have the effect of keeping a man in prison-like conditions for the rest of his life.


 
it is a proven fact that many if not most sexual offenders will recommite thus the good and safety of the public far outwieghs any loss of rights of the individual. That said I do wish such laws were more selective as it hardly seems right in all cases


----------

