Skinny jeans means rape couldn't happen

Exactly.

 

Im totally convinced that everyone in this forum thinks about rape an awful lot.

 

Yes, they are. Once again, polygraph =/= lie detector - it's just one of them.

And I am "defensive" because this is a pointless hassle.

Not only does it have nothing to do with my main point, but so far you have been inaccurate in your 'corrections' as well.




But since you seem legitimately thrown-a-back by my reaction, let's take a look at this:

"You're wrong"

You are correcting me on something I wasn't talking about.

And your correction is once again wrong, because you didn't realize EEGs have been used as lie detectors (and, like all other forms, can only detect things that are brought on by nervousness as well)

I am "defensive" because:
1) You take a tone of an editor or some type of authority and tell me I'm wrong.

You don't talk to me like I'm a stranger, a fellow human, but some colleague -- and at that, an underling. You don't suggest that I could be wrong, you are damn absolute.

2) The correction was irrelevant to what I was actually saying - and your reply said nothing about my point.
You focus on one thing I said that was 'wrong' and completely ignore everything else I said.

3) It had nothing to do with my point.

 

It seems like Zorba is under the impression that there needed to be pictures of the woman beaten half to death for there to be any evidence of a rape having occurred, thats not the case, also as i've said before those pants did not have to come all the way off, getting them down over her hips would be enough, wonder what the make up of the jury was, what percentage was male, or were they all male ????

Well we'll never know..

 

she specifically is quoted by saying they were pulled off not pulled down.

 

Oooo, ok i must have missed that....

Was a rape kit used ??? How long before she reported the rape ???

 

Actually, like I suspected, the skinny jeans was only one piece of the defense's argument. And I quote:

"The counsel representing Mr Gonzalez, Paul Hogan, argued that she had not been a credible or reliable witness during the trial; that she had exaggerated the level of her studies and that she had made up the story about the drum to provide a reason for going up to his room that did not include her desire to have sex.
He argued the woman had been a "fantasist" who had lied about the alleged rape to explain why she had had sex with her friend's ex-boyfriend."

But, of course, WOMAN CLAIMS FRIEND'S EX-BOYFRIEND, AND ALLEGED RAPIST, PLAYED DRUMS, won't be as profitable a headline.

 

I still don't see how it matters what other evidence there was or wasn't... the fact that they used skinny jeans as any kind of evidence at all is still stupid. It shouldn't have been any piece of the defense. I'm not saying he is automatically guilty, but the issue of her clothing isn't anything that is relevant.

And someone could definitely pull off my skinny jeans even if I wasn't willing

 

I get the sentiment here but if the defense worked it was hardly stupid... it just effectively indicts the jury system as an avenue toward justice when a defense (or prosecution) can select a group of twelve idiots who can be easily swayed away from considering just the facts in a case.

 

Excellent point.

If you look even as a cross section of society as being something as basic as those of us who have even posted on this one thread, as a jury what would be the outcome.

 

Actually it was 6 men 6 women. I'm not sure of the differences but being both the US and Australia have a common law system dervived from Britain, and both the defense and prosecutor take part in jury selection and they're allowed to object to anyone without reason.(well stating the reason anyways) Statistically though women are more likely to place blame on another woman for rape happening, your best chance of conviction in rape trials is in fact a jury of men, or feminists. It's simple disassociating psychology, the only way one woman on the jury can tell herself that will never happen to her is to say the other woman was asking for it.

 

Yay now that every single one of sidney's claims and assumptions has been proven to be flat out wrong she can shut the f up....

She still is amazingly beautiful though.

 

If the guy was guilty ,I hope somehow he gets his just desserts. I don't give a shit if a women is in a suit of armor,if a man wants to rape and is prick enough--he's gonna' get her.

 

Well this is why I've suggested you learn to read properly.

Oh, and Heat (being that you have visitor messages disabled): The neg rep was for being a condescending prick, not for disagreeing with me. I can take disagreement fine if the person is reasonable about it. Criticizing someone's logical capacity like you're some damn psychiatrist is a low move. I've been a bit careless with words in this thread myself, but I try not to talk down to people.

 

i can read and thats what you said, no pics, GTFO, no marks = no rape to you..

 

And now that her 'all male or even mostly male' jury assumption has been discredited and the alleged victim's claim of her pants being all the way off remark read wrong, she results to extremely exaggerated claims.

 

i did nothing of the kind.. Have fun with yourself....

 

and apparently it's even turned to a personal vendetta against me now.

 

Quote?