man charged with "rape" 32 years latter *** case dropped!

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: waggy
and as i have said there is no way i would convict him based on a repressed memory.

Ya, seriously. I have lots of repressed memories that I can dig up! Can I be rich too please?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: waggy
and as i have said there is no way i would convict him based on a repressed memory.

Ya, seriously. I have lots of repressed memories that I can dig up! Can I be rich too please?

As I pointed out above, there is no way she can recover any money in this case - the statute of limitations for a civil suit ran out 29 years ago.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: waggy
and as i have said there is no way i would convict him based on a repressed memory.

Ya, seriously. I have lots of repressed memories that I can dig up! Can I be rich too please?

As I pointed out above, there is no way she can recover any money in this case - the statute of limitations for a civil suit ran out 29 years ago.

Is it really impossible that she could sue? Two things that could halt the statute of limitations are the person being a minor, and the person having a disability. If she really wanted to pursue this, she could claim the statute was halted until she hit 18 because she was still a minor. Then she could get her psychiatrist to testify that she had been traumatized by the rape and unable to remember it until 2006. I'm not a doctor or a lawyer, but there has to be some legal mental illness that it can be claimed she had.

If the court bought that, the statute would only have started on the day that the memories became unrepressed, that is, the day she recovered from her disability. I agree that there are too many hurdles for money to be her likely goal, but I just don't think it's impossible she would attempt to get some. I would assume that she really believes she was raped 32 years ago... though that doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: DonVito
As I pointed out above, there is no way she can recover any money in this case - the statute of limitations for a civil suit ran out 29 years ago.

Ya I know. This sort of stuff can still potentially put huge black marks on your reputation depending on what kind of work you do even if you are not convicted. Sadly, people are not always innocent until proven guilty in today's world.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: waggy
and as i have said there is no way i would convict him based on a repressed memory.

Ya, seriously. I have lots of repressed memories that I can dig up! Can I be rich too please?

As I pointed out above, there is no way she can recover any money in this case - the statute of limitations for a civil suit ran out 29 years ago.

Is it really impossible that she could sue? Two things that could halt the statute of limitations are the person being a minor, and the person having a disability. If she really wanted to pursue this, she could claim the statute was halted until she hit 18 because she was still a minor. Then she could get her psychiatrist to testify that she had been traumatized by the rape and unable to remember it until 2006. I'm not a doctor or a lawyer, but there has to be some legal mental illness that it can be claimed she had.

If the court bought that, the statute would only have started on the day that the memories became unrepressed, that is, the day she recovered from her disability. I agree that there are too many hurdles for money to be her likely goal, but I just don't think it's impossible she would attempt to get some. I would assume that she really believes she was raped 32 years ago... though that doesn't mean it's true.

It's hypothetically possible she could argue that the SoL was tolled because she didn't discover her damages until now, but IMO that is a tough row to hoe given that she was 16 at the time of the crime (as opposed to being an infant, where her tender age might actually mean she couldn't remember the assault).

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: waggy
and as i have said there is no way i would convict him based on a repressed memory.

Ya, seriously. I have lots of repressed memories that I can dig up! Can I be rich too please?

As I pointed out above, there is no way she can recover any money in this case - the statute of limitations for a civil suit ran out 29 years ago.

Is it really impossible that she could sue? Two things that could halt the statute of limitations are the person being a minor, and the person having a disability. If she really wanted to pursue this, she could claim the statute was halted until she hit 18 because she was still a minor. Then she could get her psychiatrist to testify that she had been traumatized by the rape and unable to remember it until 2006. I'm not a doctor or a lawyer, but there has to be some legal mental illness that it can be claimed she had.

If the court bought that, the statute would only have started on the day that the memories became unrepressed, that is, the day she recovered from her disability. I agree that there are too many hurdles for money to be her likely goal, but I just don't think it's impossible she would attempt to get some. I would assume that she really believes she was raped 32 years ago... though that doesn't mean it's true.

It's hypothetically possible she could argue that the SoL was tolled because she didn't discover her damages until now, but IMO that is a tough row to hoe given that she was 16 at the time of the crime (as opposed to being an infant, where her tender age might actually mean she couldn't remember the assault).

The only reason I brought up the age defense is that I assume that memories don't get repressed immediately. I thought that it could be argued that in the years it took for her to reach the age of majority, it did become repressed.

Again, I don't necessarily believe she will do this. I just know that if I was her lawyer I would attempt it, and it seems like there's a decent chance it could work. If she was really just after money, a slip and fall at the local supermarket would be a higher percentage play.

 

[IEC]

I smell a rat.

I'm definitely biased because I had a buddy in college who was accused of rape by his ex-gf because she's psycho and couldn't take the breakup. After pretty much wrecking his life for a semester he was acquitted due to lack of evidence. Rape-shield laws and such are horribly biased against men and make life miserable for the accused. It doesn't help that every female automatically sided with the girl. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the idea these days...

Always remember - to convict, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did the deed. In a case that the rape supposedly happened 32 years ago, there ain't no friggin' way the accused could be convicted. There's no hard evidence and any testimony is as bad as hearsay. Even if the woman had a kid that wouldn't prove anything, just that they'd had intercourse. Kid = intercourse != rape.

 

[theeedude]

Suppressed memory my @ss.
She had her chance to go after him when there was evidence that he could actually confront. Now it's he said she said.
Certainly any reasonable juror would be right to doubt his guilt.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: child of wonder
Seems like an easy dismissal.

There could not possibly be any physical evidence unless this woman held onto the clothes from the night of the alleged act for 32 years. Even then, all that would prove is that they had sex -- nothing more.

Yeah right... 80% of all rape cases in the US are successfully prosecuted with no physical evidence whatsoever.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

32 years ago this wouldn't have been prosecuted...they were both 16. If anything he should be charged as such.

That same issue arose in the context of the trial of Michael Skakel, the Kennedy cousin who was convicted a couple of years ago of murder in Connecticut. The CT Supreme Court found that the juvenile system wasn't equipped to deal with a 42-year-old man.

Frankly, in many, perhaps most instances, a 16-year-old charged with rape would be prosecuted as an adult, and so I am not offended by the man in the OP being prosecuted this way. I don't know RI law at all, but it's quite possible that convicting a 48-year-old man as a juvenile would mean he couldn't be imprisoned at all, since in most instances juvenile courts retain no jurisdiction over offenders once they reach the age of majority.

But what were the laws 32 years ago? Were they trying 16 year olds as adults? Not likely. Thats Neoliberalcon way of thinking...they didnt thnink that way back then.

That I don't honestly know, particularly when it comes to Rhode Island, but it has certainly been commonplace in the last 20 years, when I have been old enough to be cognizant of these kinds of things. I think there's a legitimate argument that when it comes to procedural issues like this, the current circumstances are more relevant than what was occurring 32 years ago (this was largely the basis for the way the Skakel case was handled). It seems to me that IF this guy is guilty (let's just hypothetically assume he is, and there is ample corroborating evidence), it hardly makes sense to let him walk without punishment just because he committed the crime as a teenager and wasn't discovered until later.

Again, what were the laws and practices of 1975? I don't get how if you commit a crime as a juvenile, and if it would have been prosecuted then as a juvenile, how you can try someone as an adult only because the crime wasn't charged until later. Heck you would have prosecutors waiting to file criminal charges on the youth if that were the case.

Imagine being 18 back in the day when it was legal to drink, then after they changed the laws go back and charge you with underage drinking...I know its not quite the same, but the legal principle still applies.

Take away the emotional aspect of these crimes and you realize that there is a huge imbalance in our legal system.

17 year old guy gets o/s from a 15 year old girl and faces 10 years in prison and has to register as a sex offender.

Female teacher sleeps with her CLEARLY underage male student and gets nothing...

The feminist movement clearly controls the courts. From matters of Rape to Child Custody. Men are at a clear disadvantage.

 

[Kadarin]

Well, at least Nifong can't prosecute this one...

 

[FallenHero]

?first thing we do, let?s kill all the lawyers"

 

[Kelemvor]

Allen is accused of raping the girl in North Kingstown between April 1 and Oct. 31, 1975, the records show.

Is she saying it happened multiple times or that she can't remember when it was but she's sure it was somewhere in those 7 months.

 

[0roo0roo]

no way this meets the better let off a few murderers than to convict an innocent man standard.

 

[Majunior]

Originally posted by: Vic


Yeah right... 80% of all rape cases in the US are successfully prosecuted with no physical evidence whatsoever.

This is an interesting statistic. Where did it come from? Seems pretty unbelievable.

 

[Spineshank]

Her and the DA should be shot to rid us of their stupidity.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: Majunior

Originally posted by: Vic


Yeah right... 80% of all rape cases in the US are successfully prosecuted with no physical evidence whatsoever.

This is an interesting statistic. Where did it come from? Seems pretty unbelievable.

I'm fairly sure it came right out of his ass.

 

[BrokenVisage]

This is INSANELY ridiculous and sets a very bad precedent.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Majunior

Originally posted by: Vic

Yeah right... 80% of all rape cases in the US are successfully prosecuted with no physical evidence whatsoever.

This is an interesting statistic. Where did it come from? Seems pretty unbelievable.

I'm fairly sure it came right out of his ass.

Text

After the first round of tests came back from a state crime lab without a match, Nifong said that in 75 to 80 percent of all sexual assault cases, there is no DNA evidence. In those cases, prosecutors had to proceed "the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them," he said last month.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Majunior

Originally posted by: Vic

Yeah right... 80% of all rape cases in the US are successfully prosecuted with no physical evidence whatsoever.

This is an interesting statistic. Where did it come from? Seems pretty unbelievable.

I'm fairly sure it came right out of his ass.

Text

After the first round of tests came back from a state crime lab without a match, Nifong said that in 75 to 80 percent of all sexual assault cases, there is no DNA evidence. In those cases, prosecutors had to proceed "the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them," he said last month.

You are useing something Nifong said in the duke case as fact?


but i beleive it is a decent number. BUT not in a case that is 32 years old.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Vic
Text

After the first round of tests came back from a state crime lab without a match, Nifong said that in 75 to 80 percent of all sexual assault cases, there is no DNA evidence. In those cases, prosecutors had to proceed "the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them," he said last month.

And this is why more cases are successfully prosecuted than there should be. I don't know about 80% or any kind of numbers, but I do know that a jury will side with a woman more because the idea of rape is so horrible and it is easier to feel remorse. I guess that is better than the flip side of things though. I don't know..

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Vic
Text

After the first round of tests came back from a state crime lab without a match, Nifong said that in 75 to 80 percent of all sexual assault cases, there is no DNA evidence. In those cases, prosecutors had to proceed "the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them," he said last month.

And this is why more cases are successfully prosecuted than there should be. I don't know about 80% or any kind of numbers, but I do know that a jury will side with a woman more because the idea of rape is so horrible and it is easier to feel remorse. I guess that is better than the flip side of things though. I don't know..

That all depends. Curiously (and contrary to most laypeople's common-sense belief), most defense attorneys will tell you that they prefer female jurors on a rape jury, because women are more comfortable than men with the idea of assigning some of the blame for a "rape" on the victim's conduct. Men tend to be very paternalistic toward women, especially younger ones, and aren't comfortable thinking, much less saying to strangers, that a woman might be partially responsible by putting herself in a high-risk situation. This is the same reason it is usually wise to have at least one female attorney defending a litigated rape case.

I don't agree, by the way, that there is some kind of crisis related to prosecutors bringing charges against innocent men for rape - this does occur from time to time (as it apparently did with the Duke lacrosse players), but this is self-punishing behavior, and most prosecutors aren't looking to be humiliated (or worse, being disbarred and fired like Nifong) by losing high-vis trials based on weak evidence.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Majunior

Originally posted by: Vic

Yeah right... 80% of all rape cases in the US are successfully prosecuted with no physical evidence whatsoever.

This is an interesting statistic. Where did it come from? Seems pretty unbelievable.

I'm fairly sure it came right out of his ass.

Text

After the first round of tests came back from a state crime lab without a match, Nifong said that in 75 to 80 percent of all sexual assault cases, there is no DNA evidence. In those cases, prosecutors had to proceed "the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them," he said last month.

And where does it say successfully prosecuted in there?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

there should be. The human memory is not accurate enough to be the only source of evidence.......30 years after the fact.

human memory is hardly accurate enough to be the only source of evidence even 5 minutes after the fact!

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: DonVito

That all depends. Curiously (and contrary to most laypeople's common-sense belief), most defense attorneys will tell you that they prefer female jurors on a rape jury, because women are more comfortable than men with the idea of assigning some of the blame for a "rape" on the victim's conduct. Men tend to be very paternalistic toward women, especially younger ones, and aren't comfortable thinking, much less saying to strangers, that a woman might be partially responsible by putting herself in a high-risk situation. This is the same reason it is usually wise to have at least one female attorney defending a litigated rape case.

I don't agree, by the way, that there is some kind of crisis related to prosecutors bringing charges against innocent men for rape - this does occur from time to time (as it apparently did with the Duke lacrosse players), but this is self-punishing behavior, and most prosecutors aren't looking to be humiliated (or worse, being disbarred and fired like Nifong) by losing high-vis trials based on weak evidence.

Interesting details about picking a female jury. It's simple and makes a lot of sense.

I don't believe that there is a "crisis" either. Like you said, it happens but it probably isn't often. It just really sucks that this sort of thing happens at all in cases so severe.