Oh my God this is terrible. I'd better play angel's advocate now

dotadave · Dec 8, 2004

http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/04/35/moxley-exclusive.php

At the May 3 start of the Orange County trial of three teenage boys accused of gang-raping an unconscious minor, a defense attorney made a startling assertion: the alleged victim enticed the "sweet," "caring," "kind" defendants into a sexual frenzy and then, while faking unconsciousness, sexually assaulted them. At one point, the attorney, an incredulous Joseph G. Cavallo, blurted out to the jury, "Why isn’t she being charged with this crime?"

"She knew how to use her body. She knew how to use sex," said Cavallo, one of at least nine defense lawyers (not including the publicist, a jury consultant and an army of private investigators) representing Gregory Scott Haidl, 18; Kyle Joseph Nachreiner, 19; and Keith James Spann, 19. They’ve pleaded not guilty to 24 felony counts for the July 2002 Newport Beach incident. Referring to a video they made of the incident, Cavallo said, "The boys had every reason to believe she consented: she orchestrated it."

It was just one of the defense’s many remarkable claims after apparently horrified jurors inspected prosecution-supplied photographs of the late night gang bang. The images (which I’ll describe momentarily) are so disturbing that the defense team wasted no time calling the filmed episode repugnant, but blamed it solely on the 16-year-old girl known in court only as Jane Doe.

"The things she wanted done were done," said John Barnett, counsel for Nachreiner. "It’s disgusting and it’s awful. Who would consent to this? Jane Doe. Nobody is going to argue this isn’t morally outrageous. It is, but it was a choice. . . . This is exactly what she wanted. They believed her when she says she wanted to be a porn star."

Peter Morreale, who represents Spann, claimed that Doe rarely wore panties and flirted, and that his client "was [then] 17 years old and tripping over himself" to have "consensual sex" with her. On the night of the alleged crime, Doe first rejected their invitation to come to their party.

"They were bummed that they’re not going to get any!" said Morreale. Later, Doe changed her mind and drove to Newport Beach. When she called to say she’d arrive soon the boys "high-fived" each other. He claims the girl promised Nachreiner that she wanted a gang bang. "I’m not advocating this girl wanted to be the next Marilyn Chambers or a deep-throat expert, but that was her mentality," said Morreale.

In just his opening statement, a pacing, finger-pointing Cavallo told the jury that the girl—next to the tape itself, the prosecution’s star witness--is "a nut," "a pathological liar," "a cheater," an "out-of-control girl," "the aggressor," a wanna-be "porn star," "a troubled young lady," "a tease--that’s what she is!" "a mess," a "master manipulator," a "little opportunist," "a compulsive liar," "a cheat--that’s what she is" and a "callous" drug addict and alcoholic who trimmed her pubic hair, bragged about liking group sex and once drank a beer in a car.

"Why was her vagina and anus completely shaved?" Cavallo asked jurors. "How many teenagers have a shaved vagina and anus? I don’t know, but I can think of a reason. Sex! She’s a sexual person!"

During preliminary hearings, Cavallo called Doe a "slut"; on this day, he stayed away from the word. However, he told the jury several times that everyone, including the girl’s parents, "knows what she is." Talk outside the courtroom was less coy. In the hallway just outside, a defense consultant openly and repeatedly called Jane Doe "a fucking whore."

On the second day of the trial, two boys connected to Nachreiner were reprimanded for mad-dogging Lindsay Picou, a key prosecution witness, before she could testify.

Defense frustration is understandable. It’s illegal in California to have sex with someone either unconscious or so intoxicated that they cannot resist or consent. Exhibit A for veteran Deputy District Attorney Dan Hess is the 21-minute video Haidl shot of the gang-bang with the unconscious girl. He then saved the tape as a souvenir for his high school friends.

Haidl, the son of a wealthy Orange County assistant sheriff, isn’t bright. He lost the video at a Newport beach rental. The people who found it thought the boys had had intercourse with a corpse. One of them, Fontana resident Picou, 20, testified that she "felt ill" after seeing the tape and decided to turn it over to police. Investigators eventually found Jane Doe, who said she recalled passing out, waking up and vomiting but none of the sex.

The opening of the trial was delayed more than 30 minutes when the defense team requested an in-chambers meeting with Superior Court Judge Francisco Briseno and Hess. It’s well-known around the courthouse that the defense would offer guilty pleas in exchange for maximum nine-month sentences. In Briseno’s chambers, they pressed the judge to make an offer. He refused. They pressed Hess, who suggested 27-year sentences. The defense gave up frustrated.

On Day 2, in a hushed courtroom, the jury of eight men and four women watched the infamous tape on three television monitors carefully angled to thwart public viewing. It was an eerie setting. Those of us in the public seating section could hear only the audio of the incident, but we could look into the strained faces of clearly troubled jurors.

Haidl had provided a soundtrack to the sex recorded by his Sony Hand-Held camcorder. It was bass-heavy hip-hop, with lyrics such as, "We like pussy. We like pussy. We like pussy . . . Fuck an asshole too . . . We just want to have sex!"

The girl is heard only at the beginning of the tape, after the boys had given her a Bud Lite, a couple of hits of marijuana and a mixed drink they claim was Bombay Gin and 7-Up. Police suspect the drink, made by Nachreiner, was laced with GHB, a fast-acting synthetic drug occasionally used by date rapists. The illegal substance can knock out unsuspecting victims for hours.

Hess had said the opening shot features Haidl on the garage sofa with Jane Doe, who is holding a beer. Haidl tries to lift her shirt.

"You’re trying to take my clothes off, huh, Greg?" she says, slurring her words. "I’m so fucked up."

The three defendants smile into the camera. One of the boys says, "Slick-ass me!" Later, someone yells, "******!"

The next scene shows a naked Doe on her knees in front of the couch. At first, it looks like she is orally copulating Nachreiner and is moving. But soon the viewer learns that a well-endowed Spann has entered the unconscious Doe doggy-style and Nachreiner is holding her head up, forcing her mouth up and down on his penis. Moans are heard. The boys mug happily for the camera.

Hess had earlier told the jury what comes next: "Haidl slaps Jane Doe hard on the buttock to which she doesn’t respond." Nachreiner can be seen looking at the girl’s unresponsive face, and says, "All right, she look pretty much good!"

The sex continues on the couch. The force of Spann’s intercourse constantly moves her body. Nachreiner, still seeking oral pleasure, complains, "You’re making her eat my fucking dick with her mouth. Come on!" He then lifts and holds Doe so that her body is on top of his. He enters her vagina. Spann tries to stick his penis in the girl's mouth, but her head swivels uncontrollably and he can't fit it in. Hess said Doe's body was "flopping like a rag doll." The defendants whisper and then point. "Pool table! Pool table!" they yell.

Moving the girl toward the pool table, they drop Doe on her face. According to prosecutors, she doesn’t flinch.

Once on the pool table, Doe is again visibly unconscious. Her legs are spread, and Haidl zooms in for a close-up of Doe’s genitals. He sticks his finger in and out of her vagina; she has no reaction. Wearing a red cap backwards, Spann mugs for the camera. Doe’s face is shown, her eyes shut. She is motionless. Haidl returns for more shots of Doe’s vagina. One of the defendants says, "Let me take your spot" and someone replies, "No. No. Fuck that! Fuck that!"

Hess said Spann next rapes Doe again. Haidl focuses the camera on Spann's penis entering Doe. From the public seating section, we can hear the sound of intercourse on something like a squeaky bed. "Oh, hell yeah! Oh, that feels great. That’s fantastic! That feels so good. That’s some fantastic shit. Oh yeah!" a boy says. Haidl takes shots of the girl’s expressionless face from multiple angles. The boys laugh. Spann eventually pulls his penis out, masturbates until he ejaculates on Doe's stomach, grabs her bra, uses it to wipe off his penis and then tosses it on the floor. Shaking his hand sideways—like a baseball umpire--Spann apparently signals to his buddies that Doe is still out.

But the video goes on.

Haidl grabs a Snapple bottle and laughs as he pushes it into Doe’s vagina. He then switches to a small aluminum fruit juice can, but has difficulty inserting it into Doe’s vagina along with the bottle. One of the defendants says helpfully, "Just spit on it and it will go in deep." The camera zooms to Doe’s unconscious face. Laughter. Haidl spits on her vagina and shoves the bottle in faster and harder and says, "Oh, yeah!" He alternates using the bottle and the can for penetration. More laughter. Nachreiner holds the bottle up to Doe’s face. Spann pulls and pushes on Doe’s nipple. Haidl puts a burning cigarette filter-first into Doe’s vagina and leaves it there. Laughter.

The last section of the video shows Haidl and Nachreiner penetrating Doe’s vagina with the large end of a regulation-sized pool stick. They shove it in repeatedly, dance, laugh and mug for the camera. Haidl slaps her stomach three times in rhythm with the blaring hip-hop music. One defendant asks—out of curiosity or perhaps as a challenge--how deeply they can force the pool stick. Spann and Haidl put their hands on Doe’s lower abdomen to see whether they can feel the penetrated stick. Nachreiner jams the pool stick into her vagina until Haidl holds Doe’s butt cheeks apart so Nachreiner can insert the stick into her anus. During penetration, Haidl slaps her butt hard. Doe lies seemingly lifeless. The boys toss Doe on her stomach. They use the pool stick on her vagina, anus and then on her vagina again. Doe does not so much as flinch, but begins peeing on herself; a puddle spreads on the pool table. There is laughter and giggling. Someone says, "Fuck, yeah!" Then another defendant yells, "Stop! Stop!"

Spann runs off-screen, into the Haidls’ house. Doe’s body looks as if it might fall off the pool table.

Haidl turns off the Sony Hand-Held camera at 2:10 am.

"She couldn’t fight back," Hess had said in his opening statement. "She couldn’t say ‘no.’ They took turns raping her and they danced with joy when they did it. . . . They danced, smiled and laughed."

During the viewing, the three defendants sat facing the jury. Nachreiner scribbled on a notepad and only rarely looked up and then away as if bored. Spann kept his eyes mostly on the table in front of him. Haidl watched occasionally and looked nauseated. The teens wore slacks and a white or blue button-down with a tie each day--no suits; apparently the defense is hoping to strike a prep-school look. When jurors watched the defendants insert the foreign objects, all three boys stared down. Morreale studied his notes. Barnett busied himself with paperwork. Cavallo’s eyes darted quizzically between the monitor and the jury box.

Jurors watched intensely. Many looked disgusted. A few took notes. During certain graphic moments on the video, heads jerked back and pained expressions formed. At the conclusion, several sighed. Two shook their heads. One female juror glared momentarily at the defendants, who seemed determined to avoid eye contact. In that instant, defense lawyers might have accepted Hess’s offer of 27-year terms.

The trial is expected to last until late June, but this defense team--which will parade numerous witnesses to destroy Jane Doe’s character--is resilient. Within minutes of the video viewing, they fired back. The videotape is "our best weapon," Morreale told the jury. "This case is not about what’s on the screen, but about what you can’t see."

It was a heavy television day for the jury, which wrapped up Day 2 with another video, this one of a July 9 post-incident medical exam of Doe’s mouth, vagina and anus. On the witness stand, nurse Patricia Young testified that Doe’s tongue and head were sore and that there were patches of redness in her throat. During a genital inspection, she said, "there were so many tears" that she could see many without the aid of a scope. She discovered 10 "jagged" tears in the rectum alone.

When it was Barnett’s turn to cross-examine Young, he pounced. He proposed that the injuries could be caused by either consensual or non-consensual sex.

"Right," said Young.
Click to expand...

But wait there is more

dotadave · Dec 8, 2004

The son of a wealthy Newport Beach businessman who until recently served as an Orange County assistant sheriff, rape suspect Greg Haidl is typically treated generously when he falls--as happens frequently--in the hands of cops. During a 2003 incident, when the 19-year-old was found with a stash of marijuana, officers refused to issue a citation, chauffeured Haidl home and then altered official reports to shield him from media scrutiny. A year later, facing new charges that he raped a second underaged girl while free on bail, Haidl--high on a massive dose of illegal drugs and booze--crashed his car, failed two alcohol tests and nevertheless was allowed to walk away from the scene.

But it’s not just cops who’ve been kind to Haidl, whose father amassed an estimated $90 million fortune selling used government vehicles. It’s doctors, too. In a trial that ended in deadlock in June, two physicians helped fight charges that Haidl videotaped himself and two buddies gang raping and molesting an unconscious minor on a pool table during a Newport Beach party. The Haidl-paid doctors were:

* Dr. H. Ronald Fisk, who claimed he had "medical" evidence that Jane Doe, the underaged girl, faked unconsciousness. His proof? 1) During the videotaping of the alleged rape, the drunken defendants barked a few short sentences at her. Although the girl--whom the defendants gave beer, alcohol and marijuana--never responded and later awoke to vomit profusely, Fisk reasoned that nobody would talk to an unconscious person. 2) Fisk also claimed Doe moved during filming, but he downplayed the fact that much of her movement was caused by the defendants, who held her up and entered her doggie-style.

* Dr. Marvin Corman testified it wasn’t the intoxicated defendant’s repeated use of a juice can, lit cigarette, Snapple bottle or pool cue that caused bruising and tears to Doe’s vagina and anus, but rather a Q-tip used by a nurse during a post-rape exam.

Now comes Irwin Ira Rosenfeld, the latest doctor to rescue Haidl from responsibility. After causing the Oct. 30 automobile accident in Santa Ana, facing revocation of his bail, he hired Rosenfeld to vouch for his claim he was too suicidal for jail. In court, the doctor told Superior Court Judge Francisco Briseño it would be "disastrous" to incarcerate the defendant until trial. Although he’d known the defendant for less than 10 hours, Rosenfeld insisted Haidl understands right and wrong behavior, feels guilty for his past behavior involving the videotaped gang bang, and isn’t a "sociopath" or--despite all the evidence to the contrary--someone "who tries to manipulate the system."

"Personally, I don’t think jail is the proper place for him," said the 53-year-old psychiatrist. "Other inmates don’t look kindly on others accused of committing sexual crimes."

Under questioning, Rosenfeld claimed he was certain Greg’s suicide threats were real because "[Haidl] said he’d rather kill himself than go to jail" and "he had a sad face."

Briseño, Orange County’s senior criminal judge and no fool, ignored Rosenfeld’s lobbying. Haidl now awaits trial in a 12-foot-by-six-foot mental-health-ward cell. In the cage next to him sits another defendant accused of sex crimes against a minor: Alejandro Avila. Prosecutors say Avila kidnapped, raped and murdered five-year-old Samantha Runnion before dumping her body near a Riverside County freeway in July 2002. Both trials--Haidl’s second, Avila’s first--are set to begin in January.

But before Rosenfeld fades back into obscurity, it’s fascinating to note similarities between the doctor and Haidl. Authorities have investigated Rosenfeld for alleged incidents involving coerced sex with a suicidal patient, overprescribing narcotics to a patient who was also the doctor’s secret business partner, and hiring a hit man. No criminal charges have been filed, but state authorities have suspended Rosenfeld’s medical license for unethical conduct. All of the allegations are maintained in files belonging to the Orange County district attorney’s office, the California attorney general and the state medical board.

Law-enforcement sources contacted by the Weekly confirmed Rosenfeld was the target of a 2002 sting operation. Earlier that year, Orange County sheriff’s detectives investigated the doctor for allegedly hiring a hit man to kill his second wife in Lake Forest and dump her body in Mexico. The investigation was deemed serious enough that deputies "submitted a request for a possible criminal complaint filing" with the DA’s office for "two counts of solicitation to commit murder and one count of dissuading a witness," according to a statement by prosecutors.

The case ended without a murder or an arrest.

"Deputy District Attorney Ray Armstrong did not file charges on Dr. Rosenfeld due to lack of sufficient evidence," said DA spokeswoman Susan Kang Schroeder. "Armstrong determined that victim and witness credibility issues made it impossible to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt."

Citing DA policy, Schroeder refused to discuss those credibility issues, but a law-enforcement source familiar with the sheriff’s department’s investigation said the case collapsed when the cover of the sting operation was prematurely blown.

Rosenfeld--a past president of the Orange County Psychiatric Society and a faculty member at UC Irvine College of Medicine from 1981 to 1985--could not be reached for comment at press time.

The 2002 case was not the doctor’s first brush with controversy. In 1999, the Medical Board of California gave Rosenfeld five years’ probation after the agency’s investigators filed a graphic 30-page complaint. The case involved allegations of gross and repeated negligence, incompetence, dishonesty, corruption, and sexual misconduct from 1992 to 1995.

Among the agency’s allegations:

* Rosenfeld overprescribed more than 664 doses of Demerol to a Laguna Beach addict already addicted to the powerful narcotic and entered into multiple, secret business relationships with the man.

* In part by using hypnosis, Rosenfeld coerced a suicidal 28-year-old female patient to perform oral sex on him and "used a foreign object (penis-shaped vibrator) to penetrate the vagina" of the patient. On another occasion, he fondled her "entire body, kissed her genitals, manipulated her genitals" and penetrated her again with a foreign object. Later, he directed the patient to shave off her pubic hair, engaged in intercourse with her and then paid $1,800 for her to undergo breast-enlargement surgery.

At the time of the investigation, Rosenfeld called the allegations false. In exchange for the dismissal of all other charges in 1999, the doctor admitted to the California attorney general’s office he’d been "grossly negligent" only in connection with the drug-addicted patient. The doctor told The Orange County Register late last month the Demerol addict had threatened his family so he’d overprescribed the narcotic while "under duress" for several years. Despite the explanation, state authorities suspended the doctor’s license for 30 days and placed him on five years’ probation. Rosenfeld was also forced to attend classes on the "maintenance of patient boundaries" as well as medical ethics, pay $7,500 for the agency’s investigative costs, and agree to "surveillance" of his practice. On Nov. 5, the medical board ended probation and cleared Rosenfeld’s record. Two weeks later, the doctor testified for Haidl at his bail-revocation hearing.
Click to expand...

Hey kids! Have money? Have a father with a mediocre level of importance and minimum level of contacts with the executores of justice? Feel free to rape a girl. Just make sure she's a little slutty first.

This is so disgusting, it sounds like somethin jjiimen or whatever his name is would be slow to defend.

Super_Grrl · Dec 8, 2004

Wow... I don't even know what to say right now. I feel sick after reading that. What kind of people do that kind of thing? And of course they blame it on the girl, that she has a slutty reputation... no matter what kind of reputation a girl has, she still has the right to say what happens to her body! 'Doesn't manipulate the system" my ass...

dotadave · Dec 8, 2004

Super_Grrl said:

Wow... I don't even know what to say right now. I feel sick after reading that. What kind of people do that kind of thing? And of course they blame it on the girl, that she has a slutty reputation... no matter what kind of reputation a girl has, she still has the right to say what happens to her body! 'Doesn't manipulate the system" my ass...
Click to expand...

I know! This outrageous that the jury was hung the first time, lack of consent is so cut and dry in this case, what with the idiots filming their terrible crime, that its almost a parody of the "she had it comming" defense.

Maggie Sugar · Dec 8, 2004

I almost threw up about half way through this. That girl will never recover from this. Those boys shouldn't be let out of prison until she is totally recovered, which will be never.

feministhippy · Dec 8, 2004

Jesus Christ, man... That's all I can say... I'm officially speechless...

NoRtHStAr · Dec 8, 2004

That's disgusting. I'm literally speechless. I can't even begin to imagine how the poor VICTIM (being the girl who was brutally raped) feels right now. I'm just praying that justice prevails, it's just sick.

Here, we are all being told to do what feels good, to feel more empowered, a girl shaves her pubic hair. and was obviously ASKING to be gang raped...come on! And that lawyer has no right to refer to her as anything other than her name!

ihmurria · Dec 8, 2004

and people wonder why so many rapes go unreported. The victim is treated like this so often - attacked, called a slut, they try to blame the rape on her. It's fucking ridiculous. I hope that lawyer gets fucking charged with contempt or something.... there's no reasoning behind abusing a person like that, especially after an incident like that rape.

superNova · Dec 8, 2004

that is so horrifying. people are sick. and that lawyer sounds like he needs his license REVOKED RIGHT THIS MINUTE for talking about a plaintiff that way, particularly a 16 year old little girl. that is just disgusting.

oh and i shaved EVERYTHING when i was 16, and hardly ever wore underwear, too. funny though, i was virgin until i was 19. amazing, someone who doesn't wear underwear who doesn't screw everything that moves! what will they think of next?

dotadave · Dec 8, 2004

superNova said:

that is so horrifying. people are sick. and that lawyer sounds like he needs his license REVOKED RIGHT THIS MINUTE for talking about a plaintiff that way, particularly a 16 year old little girl. that is just disgusting.

oh and i shaved EVERYTHING when i was 16, and hardly ever wore underwear, too. funny though, i was virgin until i was 19. amazing, someone who doesn't wear underwear who doesn't screw everything that moves! what will they think of next?
Click to expand...

To be fair to the lawyers, in general legal ethics COMPEL attorneys to zealously fight in their clients interest. Maybe this kid and his parents so sincerely believes he can get off he's forcing his lawyers to go to trial instead of settling on 29 years. I don't think the lawyer believes what he is saying, he is just doing his duty. There was an example my professor in my judicial processes class gave me of a lawyer who was told by his client of two people he killed in the past along with the location of where they were buried. Later, after the trial was over, the mother of one of the two victims asked him if he knew where the bodies were and all he could say, since it was privileged information was, "no."

Piper82 · Dec 8, 2004

This is pathetic, and unfortunately this is what happens in so many rape cases. THe victim is put on trial, though if I am not mistaken, it is now illegal to bring up a rape victims past sexual history. I don't see how that lawyer could live with himself. That girl already endured so much, and all he did was magnify the pain.

sugrmag · Dec 9, 2004

I saw I think 48 hours on this story. It is very disturbing. The trial is going back on in january or february, I think. Also, since then, the main boy (son of the sherrif) was arrested again for statutory rape and drug possession. There was the cop car footage of his possession arrest...it showed him saying to the cops "you know who my dad is?" Like, you better let me go!

The jury was pretty split. Some of them spoke on 48 hours and told why they voted the way they did. Some thought she was coherent, but others thought that she was definitely out of it.

superNova · Dec 9, 2004

stilanas said:

To be fair to the lawyers, in general legal ethics COMPEL attorneys to zealously fight in their clients interest. Maybe this kid and his parents so sincerely believes he can get off he's forcing his lawyers to go to trial instead of settling on 29 years. I don't think the lawyer believes what he is saying, he is just doing his duty. There was an example my professor in my judicial processes class gave me of a lawyer who was told by his client of two people he killed in the past along with the location of where they were buried. Later, after the trial was over, the mother of one of the two victims asked him if he knew where the bodies were and all he could say, since it was privileged information was, "no."
Click to expand...

lawyer-client confidentiality is one thing, calling a child a slut to newsreporters is a whole different thing. that is totally unethical, irresponsible, and is not condoned in the legal world.

being zealous is one thing. calling a mere child disgusting names that will be printed and distributed nationally is wrong and not legally ethical.

Maggie Sugar · Dec 9, 2004

A LOT of teenage girls shave their pubes. I don't know why they do it <shrug> I'm an old hippie and don't like to shave anything. But it does not make them sexually active or even a "slut." Again, this is just blaming the victim.

it is now illegal to bring up a rape victims past sexual history
Click to expand...

I wish it was, but in most states it is not. Even in places where it is officially not allowed, the lawyer can petition for a special circumstance to bring up the victims past. If a man gets mugged, does anyone look at the way HE was dressed, how he shaved, or how he behaved himself in the past? No, of course not.

Hanzo Sword · Dec 9, 2004

But mugging can't really be consensual. Sex can be. Hence the need for further analysis of each case and the motives and character of both plaintiff and defendant.

Piper82 · Dec 9, 2004

Maggie Sugar said:

I wish it was, but in most states it is not. Even in places where it is officially not allowed, the lawyer can petition for a special circumstance to bring up the victims past. If a man gets mugged, does anyone look at the way HE was dressed, how he shaved, or how he behaved himself in the past? No, of course not.
Click to expand...

What about the rape shield laws? Because of them, a lawyer cannot introduce irrelevant information about the victim's past sexual history. Every state and the District of Columbia have rape shield laws. I know these laws are not perfect, but they are a step in the right direction.

FreeBird1969 · Dec 9, 2004

I don't know how those boys, or for that matter the lawyers, can live with themselves. That girl will be scarred for life...

It's so sad that a woman can't get a fair trial nowadays. I guess some people really take "all men are created equal" to heart.

Maggie Sugar · Dec 10, 2004

But mugging can't really be consensual. Sex can be.
Click to expand...

Rape is NOT sex. It is power and control and dominance and humiliation, as soon as we stop thinking of rape as "sex" the easier this wll be to fight.

I WISH rape sheild laws were solid, but they aren't, In almost every state which has them, the lawyer can petition the judge to use past history as they tell the judge it is "relevent." I agree this is sick, but it is the way it is. If rape sheild laws were more stringent, we would have easiler times prosecuting rapists.

Hey, Stilanas, I am pretty sure that jiimman would have a reason to say that this crime was debatable. Luckily, we won't find out!

superNova · Dec 10, 2004

Maggie Sugar said:

Rape is NOT sex.
Click to expand...

so true... too bad more people don't understand that!

Hanzo Sword · Dec 11, 2004

No, rape is not sex. Rape is rape, but it DOES INVOLVE sexual acts in a DISPLAY of power and control and dominance and humiliation. Whether you want to believe it or acknowledge it or not, abuse of sex implies the use of sex.

IF a person consents to being placed under someone's power and control and being dominated and perhaps even humiliated, then it's not rape. Just sex. Consent is the key legal difference. All I was stating in my previous post is that it's not fair to compare rape cases to muggings because nobody consents to being mugged. People do consent to acts of a sexual nature, even ones that straddle the lines of abuse.

People DON'T consent to rape because rape by definition is nonconsensual or forced sex. Rape is not ABOUT sex per se, but that still doesn't make it NOT sex. It's not how we want to think about sex, but that doesn't negate the act ever having taken place.

As bad as I feel for this girl having her reputation tarnished by these lawyers (who are way out of line calling her a slut regardless of whether she acts like one), in this day and age unfortunately it is not beyond the realm of possibility for a person of her age to consent to group sex and being placed in degrading situations. Some people have their kinks, and more and more people are starting to experiment sexually at younger and younger ages. I direct your attention to the Love & Sex forum for proof of that.

I believe rape shield laws do some good, but there has to be a balance. I don't automatically believe every cry of rape anyone has ever brought forth (nor should anyone) because THAT is not fair and impartial justice. THAT is not a presumption of innocence before guilt has been proven. Sometimes the law requires further analysis of the people involved.

If a man is falsely accused of rape, he shouldn't just "take one for the team" and accept a prison term. He and the defense have the right to call the accuser's character into question.

We can't revert back to the mentality of the Salem Witch Trials. Accusation necessitates THOROUGH investigation in a court of law.

Log in or Sign up

Oh my God this is terrible. I'd better play angel's advocate now

dotadave Member

dotadave Member

Super_Grrl Crazy love

dotadave Member

Maggie Sugar Senior Member

feministhippy Member

NoRtHStAr Member

ihmurria fini

superNova Member

dotadave Member

Piper82 Member

sugrmag Uber Nerd

superNova Member

Maggie Sugar Senior Member

Hanzo Sword Member

Piper82 Member

FreeBird1969 Fleas on their paws.

Maggie Sugar Senior Member

superNova Member

Hanzo Sword Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Oh my God this is terrible. I'd better play angel's advocate now

dotadave Member

dotadave Member

Super_Grrl Crazy love

dotadave Member

Maggie Sugar Senior Member

feministhippy Member

NoRtHStAr Member

ihmurria fini

superNova Member

dotadave Member

Piper82 Member

sugrmag Uber Nerd

superNova Member

Maggie Sugar Senior Member

Hanzo Sword Member

Piper82 Member

FreeBird1969 Fleas on their paws.

Maggie Sugar Senior Member

superNova Member

Hanzo Sword Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches