Alleged Rape Victim Refuses Questioning By Alleged Rapist; Charges Dismissed

I have a feeling that he will soon "accidentally" walk into a bat, a bus would be better though.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Yes, I say innocent til proven guilty, are you saying the opposite?

reply to post by hotbakedtater


The only real news article I could find about the case is here:
seattletimes.nwsource.com...
From what I can tell, it is an ex girlfreind, and her two daughters bringing these charges up. As far as I can tell either he did it, or they are lieing. Suicide attempts are made by people that feel guilty, so it is a possibility, no? Some people assume the reason is that he did it, and she is just scared because of trauma, and that could be true as well. I don't know any of these people, so I don't assume the guy is guilty.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


other accusers, are they all related? I cant get the article to come up for me, i keep getting a timeout

yes all related......

reply to post by TKDRL


On Oprah, her 200 molested men show, over 80 prcent said they had contemplated suicide. I believe it is a fairly common urge in sexually abused persons in general.

Directly from seattletimes.nwsource.com...

With hundreds looking on from below, the distraught woman dangled her legs from the courthouse, leaning precariously toward the crowd that shouted for her not to jump. At one point, the woman leapt several feet down to the top of a skybridge that links the courthouse with the King County Jail..

The woman text-messaged Senior Deputy Prosecutor Val Richey, who is assigned to the case, from the roof, McGuire said.

Yeah, sounds like she REALLY wanted to take her life...

I wish some of the people who replied so ignorantly have at least some kind of insight on C-PTSD.

I know a lot of people cry rape, but child molestation is not a light issue at all!

It is very common for victims of child abuse and molestation being terrified to the point of attempting suicide... who would ever want to relive the experience? Especially if she was never able to confront him for at least 10 years because of his immigration status.

I think the case was thrown out because it was a huge waste of time and money... he had no lawyer, needed translators and he didn't know what he was doing. They will just end up deporting him and *hopefully* the authorities won't let him back into the U.S.

Sad to hear such a story... but if such allegations are true, karma will balance the scales of justice...

reply to post by hotbakedtater


I am sure that is true, but that still doesn't mean anything really. No one molested or raped me, and I have attemped suicide a few times. Being molested or raped isn't the only reason to contemplate suicide, I would bet that more than 50% of any demographic has contemplated suicide.

reply to post by hotbakedtater

Explanation: Yep, you are correct. I just finished reading the fourth article! Are the translations verbatim???

The reason I ask is...

Judging by Cruz' performance in court this morning, that may take a while. Holding a huge sheaf of papers, and using two Spanish-language interpreters to help him ask questions, the 40-year-old defendant made slow progress. (Cruz is a Mexican native who returned to his homeland for 10 years before reentering this country in 2008 and landing in police custody.) He went line by line through the transcript of an interview the mother, V.C., gave to police. His questions made so little sense that prosecutor Val Richey frequently objected and King County Superior Court Judge Douglass North took to giving Cruz lectures on how to proceed.

"You have to ask a question the witness can understand, not just read long sections of the transcript," North admonished. Even reading the transcript, Cruz made mistakes, telling the witness she said something that was not on the page, as the prosecutor pointed out.

Personal Disclosure: If such questions were being asked by the court about his competentency then why wasn't that resolved before he was allowed to crossexamine them??? If I was the Judge I might have held him [the defendant] in contempt of court for such repeated actions! Again this goes to article 10 on the issue of fairness for ALL involved!

reply to post by MGriff


It is funny that you talk about the cornerstone of our justice system..while at the same time already convicting him.

Originally posted by The Sword
Wait a minute, since when does a rapist have a right to question the person he/she raped?

What country do we live in again?

Since December 15, 1791, when the Sixth Amendment to the U S Constitution was ratified. Yeah, that damned inconvenient Constitution thing. You know, that thing that says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

If he did in fact rape this woman, justice will prevail eventually. He will get what he deserves.

reply to post by v3_exceed


Lol seriously what do you know, did ya ever get rapped, how would you know how someone feels about someone else, lol seriosly im trying to be civil, do you relly believe because she didint want to face the person that abused her, seriously lol, that he was innocent, wow stop watching CSI and those great tv shows rofl.

Id watch wat i write cause dang that was just ugly

I thought in canada that anybody that had trauma induced by someone else, rape, abuse, had the right to not have to see there purp involved, and now they where slowly talking about changiung the law so, the victim would have to face the culprit, wow i dont get the world anymore.

And to those that say , women accuse men of rape all the time to get what they want, im sure it exist but heck it aint a drop of water compared to all the real victims out there, going through this sometimes daily.

Its tough to be civil, but heck its better that name calling

Originally posted by The Sword
Wait a minute, since when does a rapist have a right to question the person he/she raped?

What country do we live in again?

We live in a country where criminals have more rights than victims! A country where we are more concerned about hurting someones feelings lest it lead to racial profiling! A country where our political correctness is costing us our everyday freedoms.

Welcome to America!!! I don't recognize her anymore either!

Originally posted by The Sword
Wait a minute, since when does a rapist have a right to question the person he/she raped?

What country do we live in again?

Since we ratified a document called the Constitution that contains a "confrontation clause." A person has a right to face their accuser.

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

Originally posted by paxnatus

Originally posted by The Sword
Wait a minute, since when does a rapist have a right to question the person he/she raped?

What country do we live in again?

We live in a country where criminals have more rights than victims! A country where we are more concerned about hurting someones feelings lest it lead to racial profiling! A country where our political correctness is costing us our everyday freedoms.

Welcome to America!!! I don't recognize her anymore either!

Wrong. We live in a country where a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. We live in a country founded on the ideal that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free then to imprison an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit. You seem to be implying that basic civil liberties are a reflection of modern "political correctness." The Bill of Rights is as old as this country.

If you don't believe in basic due process, you apparently could care less about "everyday freedoms." If you're interested in arrests and executions based on an anonymous witness without a trial, go to China. You must be very old if you don't recognize America with civil liberties, considering we have had them since the beginning.

I recommend you educate yourself. Ignorance is the real threat to this country.

Originally posted by Aeons
It is an interesting statement by those who claim to be working on behalf of the downtrodden, that they claim that people are innocent in both reality and in the law until found guilty, but that accusers are always found by them to be guilty and liars until their accusations are found true by a court of law.

An interesting take I have to say - always assuming that the accuser is a liar until they met a legal burden. Fascinating commentary on these people.

You're speaking incoherently. No one in here has ever stated that the accuser is presumed to be a liar. The fact is that there is NO PRESUMPTION because the accuser is not on trial. In fact, if you took the time to review your state's rules of evidence, you'd see that special rape shield rules are applicable, preventing the Defendant from bringing up the alleged rape victim's sexual history.

Once again so we are clear - the accuser has NO LEGAL BURDEN. The burden in a rape case is carried by the state. The state cannot put people in jail without proving to a jury that they broke the law. Since rape necessarily requires intercourse without permission, why don't you explain to me how the State can meet its burden of proof if the victim is unwilling to testify that they refused consent? The reason the victim has to testify in court is so the jury can judge her credibility - something you can't get from a written statement.

If you don't like the confrontation clause or that the prosecution has to prove the elements of any particular crime are satisfied, lobby for constitutional amendment that puts people in jail for rape based on a comment card dropped off at the police station. You pass judgment on the current system but have no alternative except to deny everyone trials. Poetic justice would see you jailed at Gitmo for 10 years. No trial. No appeals. Routine torture. You sound like you'd be happy in such an environment.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Conviction doesn't determine REALITY. It only determines adjudicated guilt. Reality remains what it is. The law doesn't make reality - it blindly tries to fairly judge it.

So, what is your alternative? You sound like you'd sit through a trial until it reached an outcome you didn't like and then just pick up a gun and resolve it your way. Your system sounds like mob justice and anarchy. I certainly wouldn't want to live in your ideal world.

reply to post by andrewh7


Aeons is speaking incoherently? No, Aeons is making valid points, it is called on topic discussion and debate here at ATS.