The girl, having already been advised by [defense attorney J. W. Carney Jr.] to answer with only a yes or no, resisted. “I’m sorry, again,” she said, “a yes or no answer would not do that question justice.”
Mr. Carney then read from the girl’s interview with the police, quoting her saying: “He couldn’t know that I was uncomfortable because I was laughing,” and “I was trying to be cool.”
२२ ऑगस्ट, २०१५
"Did you ever tell Owen Labrie that if you were laughing during this encounter, it doesn’t mean what the rest of the world thinks laughing means?"
A question on cross-examination in the St. Paul's rape case.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१९ टिप्पण्या:
So much in that OP:
Defense counsel, doing his job, trying to completely alter the meaning of the witnesses responses by (seeking to) limit her to" yes or no" with no other explanation.
The victim, undoubtedly doing something she was conflicted about, because of peer pressure and social expectations.
The absolute difficulty in defining and proving a criminal charge of "rape" in one-on-one encounters, especially considering...
Is being a cad and probably a predator synonymous with being guilty of a crime?
Is the victim old enough to have made an informed choice?
If you've sworn to tell the whole truth and a Yes No answer doesn't tell the whole truth, aren't you perjuring yourself by only saying Yes or No?
The prosecutor can re-cross and allow her to expand on her answer.
Er, I mean re-direct. (It's been a while since I've watched Law and Order for my courtroom expertise.)
Another triumph for the Social Justice Warriors. Nobody believes these iffy consent accusations anymore. I sure don't. Why did she go into the building with him ? It's statutory rape but that's all.
REM did a song called "Laughing" I really liked.
That was before the intertubes and ready access to song lyrics.
It's a good thing for me that I'm mostly indifferent to song lyrics because I had no idea, back in those days, what the words were or what the song was about.
Still don't.
The girl was 15 years old and a freshman at the time of the sexual encounter with the 18 year old senior out to get a conquest so he might advance in the Senior Salute competition—a St Paul tradition whereby senior men have intercourse with virgin female freshmen. How unsuspecting was the freshman girl? Her sister was a senior at the same prep school and a classmate of the accused rapist. Owen Labrie is a cad creep predator but the young woman was stupid to agree to go with him expecting a different outcome. And the "elite" St. Paul's prep school is not the school where any parent should send his/her daughter.
Another white man bites dog case to drive the narrative. All the while, the NYT ignores the numerous uncounted and unprosecuted rapes and coerced sex of younger girls by inner city gangs as a part of initiation rites and general criminality and misbehavior. Because only #whitecrimesmatter.
How many times does the story have to emphasize that the girl cried? We get it. You think that the legal standard should be that if a girl tears up a little, a guy should be sent up the river for a few decades automatically. Never mind whether any crime was committed, that's not important.
Isn't this statutory rape regardless? The girl was under age. I have always thought consent had nothing to do with anything when it was a question of being too young. Help.
Owen Labrie: Does he remind you of another SPS alumni? I am thinking of John Kerry who still has that same privileged New England prep school look.
Eric the Fruit Bat wrote:
That was before the intertubes and ready access to song lyrics.
It's a good thing for me that I'm mostly indifferent to song lyrics because I had no idea, back in those days, what the words were or what the song was about.
That was off murmur, right? Very nice album sonically. Only, I wouldn't get hung up on the words on that one since no one really knows hwat they are. The album is often referred to as Mumble, because that's what Stipe does.
As best as I can make out its' "Lighting, lighting, laughing" whatever that means.
I am impressed that the girl - and she is a girl- is willing to go through the grilling that she is getting in court. She has both a lot of courage and a lot of righteous anger. As hard as it is on both parties, court is the right place to try these charges, not some administrative meeting at the school. We can be sure that both parties will receive a fair hearing.
I think it is wonderful that it we no longer raise our young men to respect women and that we no longer raise our young women to avoid compromising situations with young men they don't love.
But let's throw out 800 years of struggle for legal rights of the accused because we failed to understand the consequences of our policies. If anybody should go to prison for this rape, it should be the producers of "That '70s Show" where every episode was about teenagers getting laid and it being a big joke, and the other shows like it that are so freeing.
Really, with all the sexual license, what the hell is rape anyway? There's no need to say no anymore. What, is she stuck up or something? At least he's white, otherwise I guess she would be a racist.
And if she was at this special school she must be a very bright girl. Definitely more mature than some eighteen years old schlub without such access. So the age is all right. Minority kids are popping out babies at ten or twelve and nobody makes trouble for the sperm donors anyway.
Tim in Vermont nails it:
"I think it is wonderful that it we no longer raise our young men to respect women and that we no longer raise our young women to avoid compromising situations with young men they don't love."
When I was 15 years old and when I was a college student (1970 ish) we were warned not to put ourselves in a compromising situation because BINGO BANGO, sex happens. My nieces think they can dress however and engage in heavy petting but if they say NO the guy will instantly retreat. Getting out of a bad situation unscathed is not guaranteed.
I have to go with Tim in Vermont also. Back in the dark ages when I was in school girls were something special to be admired and sought after just for their company. Sure a hard-on was guaranteed with a little close contact, but most of us learned to deal with the frustration. First the pill and then rampant feminist "equality" have removed the danger of sex and the allure of women being "special". Lately I have been reminiscing about the girls I knew in my youth. The memories are about what nice ( or not) people they were, not about whether I scored on them or not. ( Yes, I am an old codger!)
I won't comment on the merits of this case, because I really don't know who did what to whom -- unlike some commenters who seem to have figured it all out already. But the "answer yes or no" tactic of cross-examination is something I am familiar with. If you're examining an evasive witness, then it's tempting to demand a yes or no answer. But the jury (or the judge in a bench trial) ought to be able to discern evasiveness and draw a negative conclusion about the witness. You don't want to appear to be bullying the witness in a way that justifies evasiveness. Sometimes you may be forced to demand a yes-or-no answer, but tread lightly.
When I prepare a witness for cross-examination (my practice has been almost exclusively civil) I explain that if the cross-examining lawyer demands a yes or no answer, and the witness doesn't think the question can be answered that way, then what the alleged victim said in this case is about right: I can't answer that question either yes or no, because there's more to it. If the questioner insists, and the judge doesn't sustain an objection, then I counsel witnesses to say, Yes [or no], but that's an incomplete answer, and I'd like to explain why. If this is done well, the cross-examiner ends up looking bad, not the witness.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा