So do you wonder if he was convicted of anything? The article didn’t dwell on that,did it?
1 Like
Defense lawyer Jay Carney said that the alleged victim never indicated
she felt violated in subsequent emails and messages with Labrie
following their encounter.
I’m going to guess that was a pretty compelling element for the jury.
1 Like
Is that him? Wow. His lawyer obviously gives better advice on how to look for trial than Jack Ambranoff’s did.
1 Like
Yes, fortunately, she kept it focused on this treasured polemic and disregarded the facts and outcome. It’s nice also how she ignored the distraction of the victim’s family expressing satisfaction over the triple conviction.
4 Likes
Just delete the last sentence and it will be a great comment.
Exactly. Some people act like they were never young and having to navigate high school culture.
4 Likes
He stands convicted of sexual assault and at least one other crime, Nickles. He’s a perp.
4 Likes
I love how he testified that he was going to have sexual intercourse with his victim, but at the last minute, he was stopped by “divine intervention.” Of course that “divine intervention” didn’t preclude him bragging to his boyfriends that he’d had sexual intercourse with his victim.
3 Likes
I am going to sound condescending right now, but this is the absolute proof that it is more likely than not, that this jury relied on “intuition” for its verdict, rather than using the actual proof introduced by the prosecution during the trial. If a jury is going to decide that someone committed rape because “he looked guilty”,(exactly what “kitty” indicates with the insertion of opinion in her defense of the indefensible statement added as an “afterthought,” the idea of non-evidence presented at trial as a legitimate basis for the determination of guilt or not guilty of a defendant) then the jury is out of control if it uses some flight of fancy rather than any kind of real proof God help anyone accused of rape any time from this trial’s conclusion forward. “kitty” uses an uncompromising view that appearance should be the sole and final arbiter of guilt, not real evidence presented to them. This is an introduction by simple implication, a standard not meeting the test for evidence sufficient to allow its introduction at trial find that a frightening assertion.
Now, before anyone (and I do mean anyone) decides that I am somehow a misogynist because of my position, my response is that I am not. Rape is the result of sex being force on someone who said “No!” when pressed for acts that go beyond any acts that the victim was not in agreement with. No means No…period. BUT…I believe in the rule of law far more than I believe in psycho-babble that “intuition” is an indicator of guilt or innocence. Someone is guilty of a crime when evidence, that a judge has decided meets the necessary tests for introduction into the courtroom, indicates that the defendant met all the necessary elements of a crime. AND…the PROSECUTION is REQUIRED to introduce the necessary proof that the defendant’s actions were such that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant committed those actions. Period. “kitty” introduces an element to the trial that, frankly, scares the Hell out of me.
“kitty” by using her afterthought and offhand assertion, contradicts exactly what she claims the jury did not do, that is, decide the case on the appearance of the defendant, not the evidence presented at trial.
“We all like to imagine we’d immediately be out for revenge and refusing to speak to the person who did this to us. We assume this is a “natural” reaction to being hurt.”
“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.”
Here again, the author indicates the same position of “kitty’s” assertion,that it is somehow within the bounds of jurisprudence that evidence (“intuition”) which does not meet the standards of introduction into a court of law, is a legitimate basis for assuming guilt of the person accused. If the evidence exists that meets the standard of proof necessary for introduction into the court as an indicator of guilt or not guilty, then please place the blame where it belongs…on the prosecutor who didn’t prepare properly for the trial. It is NOT a good idea to assert that a jury may use a study that says that a reasonable person is, beyond reasonable doubt, for a woman to go months before finding the courage to face the barrage of criticism and demeaning implications he/she is about to have hurled against her/him is a normal human reaction to an act that is illegal, part of the evidence indicating the guilt or no guilt of the person on trial, IF IT WERE LEGITIMATE FOR USE AS EVIDENCE IN THE OPINION OF THE JUDGE PRESIDING. then both the author and “kitty” advocate a position totally at odds with our system of jurisprudence and its predecessor, the English Common Law. It has, for time out of mind, always been necessary for the prosecution to introduce the basis of a conviction, only that which a magistrate has determined is acceptable under then existing jurisprudence and the jury relies ONLY on that evidence…This is clearly stated in the Magna Carta as the basis of a verdict to prevent the Queen/King from using intuition as a reason to throw someone in jail or execute them.
1 Like
What a pantload. I observed that the perp changed his appearance for trial, looking more like Casper Milquetoast for the trial than he did before. You have gone out of your way to put words and assumptions in my mouth. My statement is proof that I’m aware of the difference between the perp’s before and after appearances --only that and nothing else. You are extrapolating wildly and recklessly. Jeez.
Anyway, the jury found him guilty of sexual assault --not me. I had nothing to do with that. I can only assume that after hearing the evidence, the jury applied due diligence and convicted the perp.
And you’re second-guessing the jury’s verdict when you were not at the trial, did not hear the evidence and were not in the jury room.
And “condescending” doesn’t begin to cover it.
5 Likes
You are 100%. What we should do is to thank the jury for at least, based on the evidence, convicting him of the felony charges they did. Many times cases like this, essentially he said, she said, are determined to be not even worth taking to trial, let alone a conviction on any count being handed down.
Both the prosecutor and the jury deserve credit instead of second guessing by those not involved.
4 Likes
I very much hope I am never on a jury for this sort of case. Very likely, what happened to the girl was awful. But the bar for conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, and what happened between them boils down to conflicting (invariably imperfect) memories of the two young people–there is no objective physical evidence. I suspect the jury got it about right.
This is the central problem of rape cases, sure.
1 Like
Why didn’t the prosecutor point out these myths to the jury in his/her summation?
I know that he was convicted on lesser charges, but the focus of the article was on the arguments that can be made in a trial for rape, not so much on the outcome.
Edit: I’ve read your other posts and see better the point you are making, but I guess I’m surprised that you’re surprised that someone writing an opinion piece would be selective in her use of facts.
1 Like
You realize you’re bitching about an opinion piece, right?
3 Likes
Not sure being subject to 11 years in a state prison, having to register for life in most states, turning up at the State Police to tell them where you are living, and prohibited from loitering at schools (even watching a kids soccer game after hours) is a cake walk. Chances are he will not see the maximum as the judge might sentence some violations concurrently; however, he might see 3 to 8 years (speculating on guidelines for that state) which will land him in a level 2 prison. The other court (parole board) will make sure he serves the minimum.
Unless the law changes, his life will be controlled.
Scarlet:
I agree with your views. The court room is a funny place where a jury of 12 can make whatever choice they choose to make and where a good attorney or prosecutor can skew the reality of the situation to a jury. Was there a hint of a plea bargain ?
From (earlier) the article: “she explained that she kept the conversation light because she was trying to find out whether he had worn a condom.” So it’s not even really necessary to speculate.
3 Likes
Clearly the victim’s testimony that she was forced and never gave consent meant nothing to the morons on the jury. I guess it never occurred to them that a young teenager coming forward, submitting to the physical exam and following through to give testimony in court is not something a liar would go to all the trouble of doing. I hope I live long enough to see the day when a rape victim is automatically believed instead of automatically doubted.
3 Likes