Bogus Rape Accusation

[RjThoughts]

Well, yes, on the anyone can sue for anything. Which means when we discuss suing we're really talking about doing so with a likely expectation of success.

But I don't believe you on a newspaper being able to successfully sue anyone it gets bogus information from for an article it then publishes. We'll just have to see, I guess.

That's why I said civil, not criminal, in my original comment.

The paper CAN win, if they prove 50.1% in the judge or jury mind/minds that she willfully lied.

 

[sr71plt]

So, you have examples of anything like this even making it into a courtroom?

 

[Busybody]

no one will stand up against the RAPE SCREAMERS

they wont dare go against the LIB NARRATIVE

 

[RjThoughts]

So, you have examples of anything like this even making it into a courtroom?

Why would I need to show you anything? Are you seriously debating that the paper hasn't anything to stand on?

This is America. Who knows if the courts in VA or NYC will allow it to go forward. I am saying is that Rolling Stone CAN sue, it's their right. I am also saying is that they have to prove to a simple majority this woman did knowingly lie.

As to the legality to the claim, that's left to those with law degrees.

 

[sr71plt]

Apparently the Charlottesville police just did, as their investigation finding was that they couldn't substantiate that a rape had occurred in this instance.

It is "interesting" to note how quickly the university and others were to knee-jerk the validity of this case when it first surfaced, though. Almost no one said "whoa, let's check this out" before running to the streets to crucify the fraternity in question.

Sort of reminds me a lot of what happens right here on this forum--from both ends of the political spectrum--minute by minute.

 

[sr71plt]

Why would I need to show you anything? Are you seriously debating that the paper hasn't anything to stand on?

Yes, I'm seriously debating that a newspaper can sue a news source for giving it false information that led to a false article. I'm saying that a newspapers decision on what to publish rests entirely on its shoulders. I don't remember having ever seen such a suit, and it seems like you never have either. So, I don't see anything to debate until I see evidence of what you are claiming. (And, yes, I have journalism in my background.)

I'll keep my mind open on the possibility of it, though, pending seeing the evidence of it.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The paper used good faith in reporting this. Yes, they were burned, but they can still sue her. Most likely to happen, the frat and UVa will sue the paper for libel, with out-of-court settlements.

And yes, it CAN happen this way. This is the US, where you can sue for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.

I seriously doubt that either the university or the fraternity will sue the alleged victim. Rightly or wrongly, they will be pilloried as examples of "victim blaming".

The fraternity, in particular, would be open to discovery by the alleged victim's attorney, and a good attorney would put a number of fraternity members under oath about what goes on at fraternity functions. There is absolutely NO positive benefit to doing this.

The above is my personal opinion only.

 

[RjThoughts]

Yes, I'm seriously debating that a newspaper can sue a news source for giving it false information that led to a false article. I'm saying that a newspapers decision on what to publish rests entirely on its shoulders. I don't remember having ever seen such a suit, and it seems like you never have either. So, I don't see anything to debate until I see evidence of what you are claiming. (And, yes, I have journalism in my background.)

I'll keep my mind open on the possibility of it, though, pending seeing the evidence of it.

I was taught in high school and later in college to "ALWAYS QUESTION THE SOURCE," meaning check, recheck, double check the recheck, the person who's giving salacious information. It appears that Stone didn't. Though I don't think they could win a suit, they do have the right to sue her.

 

[sr71plt]

OK, so we're down to they don't really have the grounds to sue her or the expectation of success, which just sort of functionally tosses your original statement of the "major" problem she faces with the newspaper out the window. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

If you come up with any examples of this ever happening--even the going to court part--though, be sure to mention it. It might be there. I just don't believe it until I see evidence of it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101

A woman certainly knows when she is being or has been raped.

http://eaglerising.com/12731/democra...-media-silent/

Not if she's been drugged, dumbass.

When she wakes up, she'll know.

 

[sr71plt]

Not always then, either. You seem to know about as much about this, Box, as you do about so much else.

Just one for instance: She could have had consensual sex with a guy before she was drugged and gang banged. If they weren't rough in the gang bang, she might not know she'd been raped later. And this isn't a farfetched scenario at a frat party.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Not always then, either. You seem to know about as much about this, Box, as you do about so much else.

Just one for instance: She could have had consensual sex with a guy before she was drugged and gang banged. If they weren't rough in the gang bang, she might not know she'd been raped later. And this isn't a farfetched scenario at a frat party.

Perhaps not always, but usually.

You know, the link in the OP is about the one person expressing loony opinions, not necessarily any specific examples. Although she does single out the one incident, her words are meant to apply to all similar cases.

I wonder if she chimed in on the bogus Duke Lacrosse rape after it was proven to be phony.

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK at least, it is still very difficult for a woman to prove in a court that a rape took place. It can be her word against his, even if there is physical evidence that he penetrated her.

He can say it was consensual. If she denies that it was, and that it was rape, how does she prove it? Most sexual encounters take place with only two people present.

Although the percentage of alleged rapes that get to court is increasing slightly, successful prosecutions are still a small percentage of alleged rapes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27726280

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ntil-women-stop-getting-so-drunk-9691911.html

Some reports suggest that only 11% of UK rapes are actually reported to the Police, and only a small percentage of those get to to court.

 

[Boxlicker101]

In the UK at least, it is still very difficult for a woman to prove in a court that a rape took place. It can be her word against his, even if there is physical evidence that he penetrated her.

He can say it was consensual. If she denies that it was, and that it was rape, how does she prove it? Most sexual encounters take place with only two people present.

Although the percentage of alleged rapes that get to court is increasing slightly, successful prosecutions are still a small percentage of alleged rapes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27726280

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ntil-women-stop-getting-so-drunk-9691911.html

Some reports suggest that only 11% of UK rapes are actually reported to the Police, and only a small percentage of those get to to court.

In the US, rape might be the only accusation where the accused has to prove himself innocent rather than the prosecution proving him guilty.

 

[oggbashan]

In the US, rape might be the only accusation where the accused has to prove himself innocent rather than the prosecution proving him guilty.

That's the theory in the UK, but it doesn't work. If the accuser has no independent evidence, the case won't get to court.

But we have a disturbing trend - trial by media. The accused's name is leaked to the media who conduct a witch hunt e.g. the raid on Sir Cliff Richard's home which was leaked so strongly to the BBC that they had a helicopter to film the raid.

No charges have been brought against Sir Cliff, nor does it look as if there will be. But his reputation has been severely damaged by an accusation that might have been groundless.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

In the US, rape might be the only accusation where the accused has to prove himself innocent rather than the prosecution proving him guilty.

Jamies Winston would disagree with you.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Jamies Winston would disagree with you.

Winston was never formally charged with anything. Apparently, the state's attorney didn't believe the complainant or he believed the evidence was too skimpy to get a conviction.

Instead, I will ask Mike Tyson, who could not prove the sex was consensual or the Duke Lacrosse players who were able to prove their innocence.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Winston was never formally charged with anything. Apparently, the state's attorney didn't believe the complainant or he believed the evidence was too skimpy to get a conviction.

Instead, I will ask Mike Tyson, who could not prove the sex was consensual or the Duke Lacrosse players who were able to prove their innocence.

Why not ask the jury or judge?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Why not ask the jury or judge?

They have already given their opinion, at least in the case of Tyson. He continued to protest his innocence throughout his prison term, but he was unable to prove it in court.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

They have already given their opinion, at least in the case of Tyson. He continued to protest his innocence throughout his prison term, but he was unable to prove it in court.

So there was at least one jury & more than one judge who felt the state had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyson raped a girl.

Where's the problem?

 

[Boxlicker101]

So there was at least one jury & more than one judge who felt the state had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyson raped a girl.

Where's the problem?

The only evidence was the testimony of the alleged victim, and she had reason to lie. There was no physical evidence such as torn clothing or bruising. There was no disputing that sex happened, but he claimed it was consensual and she said otherwise.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The only evidence was the testimony of the alleged victim, and she had reason to lie. There was no physical evidence such as torn clothing or bruising. There was no disputing that sex happened, but he claimed it was consensual and she said otherwise.

Sounds like Tyson's attorney should have had no problem getting him off.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sounds like Tyson's attorney should have had no problem getting him off.

I think you're probably right.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The only evidence was the testimony of the alleged victim, and she had reason to lie. There was no physical evidence such as torn clothing or bruising. There was no disputing that sex happened, but he claimed it was consensual and she said otherwise.

Why is torn clothing or bruising even remotely necessary. Make no mistake if I run. . .say Disney and tell Scarlett Jo that she has two choices, anal and not working anymore, I raped her. Now you can attempt to argue that if she's that stupid she deserves but but. . .yeah.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Why is torn clothing or bruising even remotely necessary. Make no mistake if I run. . .say Disney and tell Scarlett Jo that she has two choices, anal and not working anymore, I raped her. Now you can attempt to argue that if she's that stupid she deserves but but. . .yeah.

Such things would be evidence of rape and lack of such things would be evidence there was no force used. Tyson had no authority of jurisdiction over the young woman involved. She was in his hotel room late at night by choice. In itself, that doesn't prove anything, but it could result in doubt that rape happened.