Discussion for article #239896
1 Like
call it whatever you like…intuition…vibe…whatever but it does seem this puke is guilty.
4 Likes
Owen Labrie?
1 Like
I’ve been on two juries that acquitted people generally believed to be guilty, because of a lack of sufficient evidence to convict them. Aside from the fact that this is an 18 or 19 year old kid whose whole adult life will be shaped by the outcome of this trial, in my opinion, gut feeling is a totally inadequate bases on which to convict someone. If intuition were a valid basis for jury decisions, every defendant would be subject to the luck of the draw in jury selection.
And by the way, I’m not sure I’d characterize this verdict as a “win” for the defendant, who faces up to 11 years in prison, and lifetime inclusion on the sex offender registry.
8 Likes
The prosecution also managed to blame the culture of the school. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t understand how the argument was allowed in a trial.
A culture can be blamed for crimes in aggregate–St. Paul’s has a shitty culture and so has lots of rapes–but individuals are still individually responsible for their actions.
3 Likes
Thank you for writing this piece, Amanda. I was getting more than a little disgusted by the assertion in another thread that a victim being friendly to a man who assaulted her is somehow proof of something. It isn’t. There are numerous reasons why a victim might feel compelled to be nice to a man who raped her. Maybe they work together and she’s afraid she’ll lose her job. Or maybe she thinks if she’s nice to him, he won’t hurt her again. Or, maybe he’s just a very popular older boy at a new school and she’s afraid everyone is going to hate her and blame her if she turns him in.
21 Likes
Richard is speaking of his own intuition and it’s important to be aware that he was not on the jury. It’s also important to be aware that his intuition is in accord with the jury’s verdict and that nobody has accused thr jury of deciding upon their verdict as a result of their intuitive skills. The jury was not charged with deciding the perp’s future as it pertains to sentencing, sex offender’s club or any of that. They were charged with deciding whether there was evidence to convict him. And they did that.
It’s interesting to see how the perp completely changed his looks for trial. He looks like Casper Milquetoast for the trial --before, not so much.
God article, Ms. Marcotte. Thank you.
11 Likes
A rape story from Ms. Marcotte. What a surprise!
2 Likes
"But it’s also completely wrong. As RAINN’s page on rape trauma explains, while some victims do immediately label what happened to them as “rape” and try to bring attention to what happened, it’s also incredibly normal for rape victims to downplay what happened to them, even to the point of being friendly to their attacker. "
Absolutely true. There are studies out there showing it can, in fact, go both ways and both are normal responses. Some people freak out instantly, while others turn inward and do not bring any attention to any of it for several days or longer because they are in shock, denial, feel shame, etc. It depends on all kinds of factors…individual psychology, family dynamic, peer pressure, cultural factors, etc. However, it is important to note that because it CAN and DOES go both ways, i.e., there is no hard and fast rule that it ALWAYS goes one way or the other, that it leaves the question open for a jury to decide. We can vilify an accused all we want, calling it “tapping into” a “myth” because something about it is morally repugnant to us or abhorrent on a gut level, but how is it really some evil ploy if the data shows that it actually goes both ways? Don’t we have to decide each case based on which way we think it went? We say “tapping into a myth” as if he shouldn’t be allowed to present that evidence of delay in reporting or make that argument. However, if data shows it breaks in both directions…instant freak out v. shock/shame/denial/internalization…would it be even remotely fair to exclude such evidence and argument based on the idea that it’s “incredibly normal for rape victims to downplay what happened to them, even to the point of being friendly to their attacker”? No, it wouldn’t be.
In the end, these are all individuals, both victims and accused, with their own idiosyncratic stories, situations, manner of presentation, sets of facts and credibility issues to be determined, etc. The last is for the jury to decide, and both parties are entitled to make their case to that effect or it’s not justice. One side cross examines the alleged victim in an attempt to undermine credibility and test the story. The other side can put on an expert to talk about the studies. The fact remains though…like it or not, unfortunate reality or not…delay in reporting a crime goes straight to the credibility of the person reporting it and the veracity of what they are reporting, not least of all because delay raises serious questions about memory. I mean, as long as we’re citing studies, would we like to cite all the cognitive psychology studies showing all the different things that can take place in a person’s mind that can effect the accuracy of someone’s reporting, such as confirmation bias or confabulation to fill in gaps where trauma has blocked a memory?
While I’m incredibly supportive of the idea that our laws and systems could do a better job of protecting the victims of these crimes, there really is a line…as unfortunate as its location may be in terms of further traumatizing the victim…that we can’t cross lest accusations simply equate to convictions and we flip innocent until proven guilty on its head. It’s incredibly convenient to go on our gut feeling that this kid did it (I feel that way too) and to express our disgust with the jury by dismissing their analysis and saying “they bought into that myth” or “he tapped into that myth,” but that’s the same kind of cop-out as conservatives dismissing recent SCOTUS decisions out of hand. We weren’t there in deliberations. We weren’t there at the trial. We weren’t privy to everything upon which the jury made its determinations of credibility, etc. We weren’t there to hear their discussion of how the totality of the circumstances added up in their minds. There’s a difference between raising an issue like these “myths” as something that the courts and systems must take into account, be aware of and sensitive to versus simply assuming that it directly caused an entire trial result and jury verdict because you disagree with it. And as for treating it as though it’s evidence and argument that shouldn’t even be allowed in the first place? That walks a fine line between an emotional reaction and injustice.
8 Likes
Semen in the underwear is no proof of anything save that this guy was very excited. It is distinctly not proof of rape. And since it seems that the girl did not have a physical examination afterwards, we are left with reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is what leads to “not guilty” verdicts.
2 Likes
Geez, where to begin? Are you aware that lawyers tell their clients what to wear, what to say, how to act? Are you aware that people actually try to not get convicted of serious crimes, especially if they are, in their own view, not guilty? I recently participated in a trial. Prior to my deposition (an interview by lawyers which establishes the main types of testimony that you will present at trial), I spent 48 hours with the lawyer. I wasn’t even an important witness. We went over all kinds of things. A very interesting experience. All I can say is that the court is no place to end up in.
It’s so nice to see that you maintain an objective, clear view of the “perp”, remembering always that in the US system, you are innocent until proven guilty. He’s not a perp.
2 Likes
I’d believe this one in a heartbeat. It’s so very 15 year old girl.
15 Likes
It is evidence supporting the conclusion of rape. It is only proof of rape if the jury decides it is. Arguably, under these circumstances, where no physical was conducted to determine if she also had semen inside, it likely could not serve as the only evidence and would not be sufficient by itself to support a guilty verdict. If a guilty verdict was based on that alone, the accused might well win a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
3 Likes
We need to be more accurate. Use the phrase “evidence of”, not “proof.” Delay in reporting and continued friendliness immediately after the alleged incident certainly is evidence that goes to credibility, etc. It’s for the jury to decide whether to believe it harms her credibility or whether there is another reasonable explanation that preserves her credibility despite seemingly incongruous behavior. When we jump to using the word “proof” in place of “evidence,” it treats the presentation of the evidence as though the mere act of being allowed to present it during trial seals the deal in terms of what it is intended to prove. It absolutely does not. I’ve seen juries believe batshit nonsense supported by scant and questionable evidence and reject completely reasonable and sane arguments well-supported with concrete backup. Is that to say it’s all a crapshoot? No. Those extremes happen rarely and juries are actually pretty good at what they do…but I do often find myself telling my clients that the wheels of justice are square.
And those are all matters for proof at trial through the presentation of evidence, including testimony from the victim/accuser or even an expert. The fact that it may be true does not make the presentation of evidence to the contrary (i.e., that there was no good reason in that particular case) unfair or unjust, etc., such that it shouldn’t be allowed.
4 Likes
I’m pretty sure he was convicted of a few crimes, and unless I’m getting the definition wrong, that makes him a perp.
8 Likes
He was convicted of 3 counts of misdemeanor sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child and a felony count of using a computer to seduce a minor under the age of 16.
9 Likes
Thanks for this article Amanda, especially about pointing out that not all people act the same after a rape. Many women default to “nice” after a conflict, no matter how scary or traumatizing.
7 Likes
I would, bet that because of his age and “potential” he’ll get at most 6 months in the county jail, out in 30 days with maybe a year probation. And maybe on a registry until 21. Privileged… complete ride scholarships and all… despite what he states are his parents fortunes…
1 Like
RichardinJax3h
call it whatever you like…intuition…vibe…whatever but it does seem this puke is guilty.
What the law requires is proof of all the rape elements beyond a reasonable doubt, not “Intuition…vibe…whatever” But what this familiar hatchet job of a women’s studies story fails to make at all clear is that Labrie was convicted on three counts of misdemeanor sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child and a felony count of using a computer to seduce a minor under 16, which requires him to register as a sex offender.
Oh, you didn’t realize he was convicted of a felony? Not surprising, as the purpose of writing this whiny lamentation was never at all to inform you. It beats journalism, which forces you to focus on the facts and consequences.
7 Likes
A hospital nurse who examined the girl two days after their encounter, administering the rape kit, testified that the girl had redness in her vagina that could be consistent with an assault, but could also be the result of non-sexual irritation.
4 Likes