May 14, 2024

"How do we in New York reconcile the decisions of law by members of our highest court that seem disconnected with the factual realities around rape and power differentials..."

"... that lead to sexual abuse in the workplace? After this Weinstein decision, how do we give faith to victims that the system can work to hold sexual abusers like Weinstein accountable?"

Asks Cyrus R. Vance Jr. in "What It Takes to Keep Harvey Weinstein, and Men Like Him, Behind Bars" (NYT)(free access link). Vance was the Manhattan D.A. who prosecuted Weinstein.
The dissenting judges, represented most forcefully by Judge Madeline Singas, a former elected district attorney from Nassau County, looked at the same facts as the majority and admissibility under Molineux, but they did so through a modern lens and understood the reality accepted by sexual assault experts that the majority refused to acknowledge. 
In the contemporary understanding of sexual assault cases involving “acquaintance rape,” it is often relevant and necessary to introduce testimony of other survivors who experienced the same behavior to rebut the defense that the sex was consensual — or, quoting from an earlier opinion by the Court of Appeals involving a Molineux analysis, a “repetition, duplication and similarity of defendant’s acts” that has “a direct bearing on the question of premeditated intent.” The defense at trial capitalized on what Judge Singas called “rape myths, and rape culture at large, asking the jury to believe that, despite their words and actions, the victims were consenting.”

The Court of Appeals decision does not change the law under Molineux. But in cases of sexual violence, going forward — absent legislation like California’s or that proposed now but not yet passed in New York — it will tend to prevent relevant and important evidence of uncharged criminal acts to be admitted in acquaintance rape cases. Such evidence could give the jury, with appropriate limiting instructions by the trial judge, a more fair, complete and balanced understanding of a defendant’s motive and intent....

Vance, asking for the New York state legislature to change the law and wanting to note the legislature's power to supervene the highest state court's decision, writes: "Statutory authority eats common law authority for lunch every day." That sentence jumps out, but it's stating something obvious, that everyone knows: Statutory law trumps common law. The ordinary locution uses a distracting word, trump, and impels the writer to that murderous metaphor.

65 comments:

rhhardin said...

From the title I assumed he was complaining about bogus charges by women breaking old deals they had made winning in court.

Jupiter said...

"Vance was the Manhattan D.A. who prosecuted Weinstein."

As I recall, Vance was also the walking piece of shit who arranged the "exoneration" of the Central Park Five, despite the fact that they nearly killed the woman they were raping by bashing her head in with a cinderblock. He should shut his filthy hole.

Achilles said...

The Uniparty people want the government to have the power to put their enemies in jail.

They know this will never be used on known rapists like Bill Clinton or Joe Biden. This will only be used on Political enemies and the inconvenient.

This way they will be able to accuse people of rape no matter how obviously dishonest the accuser is because all they have to do is hire a few more of their harem girls to make up stories and introduce them in court.

This is all about empowering dishonest single women to take down enemy men who oppose the regime.

And just say it out loud. This is about getting Trump. Full stop. They will use E Jean Carroll and their army of daddy issue harem girls to falsely accuse men that oppose them.

gilbar said...

you KNOW what would have worked?
IF they'd had starlets that said: "i let him f*ck me, and THAT is WHY i'm a star"

Isn't it Weird? that he (apparently) did this to SO MANY girls.. And They ALL Said NO! ??

Hassayamper said...

They will use E Jean Carroll and their army of daddy issue harem girls to falsely accuse men that oppose them.

That's not just speculation or hyperbole. During or shortly after the Kavanagh confirmation, I saw a news story that stated that over 2500 women had called the FBI to report that Kavanagh had raped them.

MadisonMan said...

I didn't see the 'Jr' at first. And was thinking: Holy Cow! Is he still alive and working?

Dave Begley said...

After just losing a case in the NE Court of Appeals, I can tell you that sometimes judges get it wrong. And really wrong. My case was a negligence case against a title company. Four issues completely wrong. Some judges (and their law clerks) aren’t very smart and some are biased.

I’ve petitioned the Nebraska Supreme Court for further review.

Joe Smith said...

...how do we give faith to victims that the system can work to hold sexual abusers like Weinstein accountable?"

By having members of the court (the prosecutors) not fuck up the trial by presenting evidence that a first-year law student would know would be basis to overturn the conviction!!!!!

n.n said...

Friendship with "benefits", rent-a-wombs, abortion and sequestration of the "burden" of evidence, etc to keep women, and with social progress, and nondiscrimination of diverse sexual orientations (e.g. Respect For Marriage Act) #GirlsToo, keep the feminine gender affordable, available, reusable, and taxable. Men who identify as feminine gender in women's spaces. Excess murder, rape, and rape-rape through immigration reform in sanctuary jurisdictions. That said, take a knee, beg, VP. Good girl.

tommyesq said...

"Power differentials" - you mean like the power differential of the state, the police, the prosecutors and the judges versus individuals who only have the rights set forth in the Constitution to protect themselves (yes, even Weinstein) from governmental abuse?

n.n said...

Losing your Pro-Choice ethical religion.

Ralph L said...

You might get better results, and real deterrence, if you don't wait ten years to cry "rape!"

ga6 said...

what office is Cy Jr planning to run for?

Aggie said...

..."they did so through a modern lens and understood the reality accepted by sexual assault experts that the majority refused to acknowledge. "

Wait... you mean the majority is in error? You mean we shouldn't be governed by the majority, because as a group, they are flawed? You mean we shouldn't have Democracy??

Now do 'the popular vote' and tell us about your position on the Electoral College.

Static Ping said...

Another classic "I didn't get what I want so let's change the rules so I get what I want, damn the consequences" argument.

In other news, the house needs no support beams to remain standing.

Achilles said...

" The 18-year-old allegedly peppered a street with 26 rounds while targeting a car of four people at 2:30am on April 22, with Ring doorbell footage capturing a suspect shooting wildly from the hip with the assault rifle.

Nobody was injured or killed in the shooting spree, which unfolded just over a mile from the US Capitol. Despite the chaos he allegedly caused, Nolan granted Moody pre-trial release and home arrest. "

Guess which party the Judge and the Shooter are a part of.

Mikey NTH said...

Maybe try following the law, Cyrus.

Interested Bystander said...

"MadisonMan said...
I didn't see the 'Jr' at first. And was thinking: Holy Cow! Is he still alive and working?

5/14/24, 11:33 AM"


I believe the tradition is that once the senior is dead the son can drop the jr.


I have to admit I was confused by that too a while back. Wasn't Cyrus Vance senior in the Carter administration?

Joe Smith said...

Btw, I'm not convinced Harvey was guilty of anything.

It was a transaction between two adults.

These aspiring actresses didn't work for him, but they wanted to.

If I fuck this fat old guy I might make it to the silver screen.

All of them were legal age so I don't see the issue...

Dogma and Pony Show said...

It used to be fairly widely accepted that it was better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted. Based on what Vance is saying, that idea seems to be a thing of the past. He's basically arguing that, in order to ensure that "people like Weinstein" remain in jail, we need to give prosecutors wide berth to present evidence of other, uncharged crimes. IOW, the goal of imprisoning a few really bad guys necessitates making it easier to convict ALL guys of sex crimes. Sounds reasonable, until it's your son or brother who's life and liberty are at stake.

wendybar said...

Dexter Taylor is asking the same thing about the rapists and murderers lurking on the subways and in the streets.... https://twitchy.com/amy-curtis/2024/05/14/dexter-taylor-sentenced-n2396176

Hodgetwins
@hodgetwins

Replying to @jeffcharlesjr
Notice how the system destroys the life of an innocent black man for exercising his constitutional rights

While the system ignores violent criminals and puts them back on the street

All by design
1:10 PM · May 13, 2024

Yancey Ward said...

You shouldn't be able to bring into court bad behavior testimony unsupported by anything other than the witness' testimony if that bad behavior isn't directly charged by the prosecution.

If Vance wanted to use that testimony, he should have asked the grand jury to charge Weinstein with those crimes, too. The incentive for the witnesses is too possibly corrupt to trust this way.

rehajm said...

how do we give faith to victims that the system can work to hold sexual abusers like Weinstein accountable

Tell them not to get raped by a friend of bill…

hstad said...

Vance a former Prosecutor in Manhattan - who cares - just another corrupt Politico and Grifter using taxpayer money to enrich himself. These "holier than thou" people believe in the law when they win. However, reversed by a higher court, due to errors committed during trial, they cry we must protect 'Rape Victims'.

retail lawyer said...

Dave Begley said...
After just losing a case in the NE Court of Appeals, I can tell you that sometimes judges get it wrong. And really wrong.

I lost a motion to dismiss because plaintiff's action was barred by the statute of limitations. I was clearly correct on the dates and arithmetic. But I, and my corporate client, were the only white people involved . . .

MOfarmer said...

"a modern lens".That's the lens Bobby, jr. uses to approve of infanticide. As just one example.

lamech said...

Cyrus R. Vance Jr. writes:
"The appeals court decision surprised me because I had been to the trial and witnessed the honesty, raw pain and power of the survivors’ testimonies on the witness stand."

This is an extremely naive or dishonest view. Vance should not be surprised as he knows or should know that the "honesty, raw pain and power of the survivors’ testimonies" was not the issue for the New York Court of Appeals consideration.


"It troubled me because with no deference provided to the lower court, the Court of Appeals, in a 4-to-3 decision, had reversed a lengthy, objectively thoughtful, well considered and, importantly, unanimous opinion by a panel of the distinguished intermediate appeals court that sustained every single aspect of the jury’s verdict and evidentiary rulings by the trial judge at the Weinstein trial."

This is an extremely naive or dishonest view. Vance should not be troubled by the New York Court of Appeals de novo review the presented issues of law, without showing deference to the lower courts consideration of the question of law.

On these points, it seems Vance is simply lying to the reader.

PDF of the decision https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/1c6111b72cf84b89/c2523c29-full.pdf

retail lawyer said...

So Vance (and the judge) blew the prosecution.

mindnumbrobot said...

Wasn't this overturned because the prosecution called a bunch of victims, unrelated to the case, to testify and the judge allowed it? This was at the peak of #METOO, correct?

Lucien said...

How is "bring your suit within the period of limitations" disconnected from reality (and Weinstein IS behind bars)?

pacwest said...

This is about getting Trump.

Yep. Poor Harv. Collateral damage. Tit for tat so to speak. You gotta break a few eggs if you want to get Trump.

Tina Trent said...

Real anti-rape activists spent decades in Atlanta changing the minds of judges, DAs, and jurors about real rape, especially in child rape cases.

Then the campus activists came along, demanding that we expand the definition of rape/SA so broadly that we lost decades of convincing the public and judiciary to even bother to prosecute real, unambiguous rape cases. These bitches actually made the number of prosecutions of real rape cases drop, and they never gave a fuck about anything but purported rapes by white frat brothers and the tiny (how tiny? A few a year, nationally) white on minority cases. And themselves.

At the same time, academia (what other hellmouth?) began to hold unfair and extralegal hearings that belied every legal precedent, protection, and protocol. That further eroded the public's understanding of and faith in the real law in real courts with real lawyers and judges.

Every time a child rape goes unprosecuted, I blame them. Or a "woman snatched off the streets" rapes. Or the serial rapists crawling through windows and torturing strangers in their beds.

Like me. I never had a day in court. Not enough resources for us little people. My rapist probably raped at the very, very least 100 mostly elderly women and killed unknown numbers of them, and prostitutes.

And he got out of prison at least five times.

And he will get out again.

I cannot describe the damage these campus activists and starlets have done to the prosecution of unambiguous and life-threatening rapes by going too far. New York has a law already allowing prior proven acts and evidence such as modus operandi for rape and other crimes. But they want more -- for them, and damn the child victims who are raped every night, and the naive gay youth raped over and over by adult men, and the elderly women torn to pieces inside because they haven't had sex in decades, and their bodies have changed.

Damn to hell every starlet who knew perfectly well what she was doing -- advancing her career. Weinstein's behavior wasn't an unknown. Now they advance their careers by lying they were naifs walking into Weinstein's den. Not that this excuses him.

All at the cost of all that work we did to put away the really dangerous men, and the molesters, and show jjrors what real rape is. Damn them all to hell.

n.n said...

Also, neighbors and underage girls, grooming in schools, Planned Parenthood where demos-cracy dies in darkness, gender corruption therapy, other public spaces, etc.

Goldenpause said...

Vance’s prosecutors screwed up big time. So what does he do? He criticizes the appellate court for reversing a conviction due to the prosecutorial screw up. The guy is incapable of accepting responsibility. In other words, he’s a politician.

West TX Intermediate Crude said...

Vance forgot what this non-lawyer knows. Once a crook, always a crook may be useful in everyday life, but is not a recognized prosecutorial strategy.
Apparently, the judge in Weinstein's trial forgot this also (maybe there was legal malpractice if HW's lawyer did not file an timely objection; I'll leave that to people who actually know about the trial).
Vance tried to pull a legal fast one. It worked until it didn't.
Sux to be the one whose mistake put HW back on the street.

Lawrence Person said...

"How do we reconcile the rule of law with the desires of the Democratic Party? Obviously, the desires of the Democratic Party trump all other considerations..."

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Vance was the Manhattan D.A. who prosecuted Weinstein yet passed on prosecuting Trump because he didn't see a crime there. He's one of the "conservative" (not politically, mind you, but as a stickler for the law) old guard there that the cabal getting Trump had to "overcome" to succeed.

Fred Drinkwater said...

It's the difference between "is not a nice person" and "is guilty of the crime charged".

Anyone who prefers the former as a standard for imprisonment is evil.

tim maguire said...

Joe Smith said...Btw, I'm not convinced Harvey was guilty of anything.

It was a transaction between two adults.

These aspiring actresses didn't work for him, but they wanted to.


As the story goes, it was more than just he'll give you the part of you blow him (which would be enough--soliciting prostitution is illegal). There was a flip side--he will destroy your career if you don't. Just ask Minnie Driver.

Leland said...

Maybe New York could be humble enough to ask Los Angeles, which managed to prosecute Weinstein without violating his constitutional rights. I’d say that suggests it is Vance’s lack of ethics that are the problem.

Richard Dolan said...

In the Weinstein case, the evidence about uncharged crimes was supposed to be proof bearing on his intent in the interactions with the complainants in that case. But if the jury accepted the complainant's version of events, there was no question about intent. What you end up with, if the uncharged crime evidence is admitted, is a series of mini-trials about whether the prior incident(s) occurred as those witnesses claimed, which (if resolved against the defendant) are then supposed to be cosidere3d by the jury as evidence about what the defendant intended in the case actually on trial.

Note that the 'uncharged crime' evidence can work in almost any criminal case -- a guy on trial for murder, where the prosecution wants to introduce evidence about the defendant's propensity to get into fights that occurred long before the alleged murder, or a guy on trial for DUI where the prosecutor wants to introduce evidence that the guy was drunk on other occasions, etc. It's really about the defendant's character to support an argument that, on the occasion at issue in the trial, the defendant acted in accordance with it. Evidence of that sort is inadmissible under the federal rules (FRE Rule 404). That has also been the law in NY for many years.

Putting aside the specific limitations on character evidence, the general test for the admissibility of relevant evidence (any evidence, in civil or criminal cases, not just this stuff) is whether the probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusing the issues or misleading the jury. It's unfair in this context because the defendant is only on trial for the crime charged in the indictment, not anything else he may (or may not) have done. Same with why its potentially confusing about the issues or misleading the jury. And a jury can easily be swayed by evidence that, on other occasions, the defendant behaved badly (or so these witnesses say).

Note, also, that if character evidence is admissible against the defendant in a rape case, there is an argument for admitting the same kind of evidence against the complainant. NY and many other states adopted rape shield laws that limited the ability of defendants to introduce evidence of the complainant's sexual history. Perhaps those laws (adopted 40--50 years ago) are now outdated, but if a trial is to become a free-for-all unmoored to the specific charges, that's going to work in both directions.

Vance is pushing a very bad idea, and one that anyone interested in the fairness of the criminal justice system should oppose.

BTW, all seven judges on the NY Court of Appeals were appointed by Democratic governors. Not a single conservative in the bunch. Hasn't been a Republican appointee in a long time.

n.n said...

Stop the witch hunts. Stop political prosecutions. Stop selective prosecutions. Close the border and/or send the illegal aliens to Martha's Vineyard. End diversity, equivocation, and indoctrination (DEI) and other hate crimes. Don't trust your socially progressive Polish neighbor. Momma, don't let your daughters grow up to be social liberals.

Real American said...

Isn't it patently unfair that if we get to hear all about Weinstein's history of alleged uncharged rapes as proof that he did a rape this other time, then we ought to be able to hear about the accuser's history of consenting to casual sex also as proof that she did this other time? Or rather, neither are relevant and both are prejudicial.

But hey. If experts know better....

Dave Begley said...

Well said Richard Dolan!

Joe Smith said...

'As the story goes, it was more than just he'll give you the part of you blow him (which would be enough--soliciting prostitution is illegal). There was a flip side--he will destroy your career if you don't. Just ask Minnie Driver.'

“In light of the revelations about Harvey Weinstein in the past few days, I feel it necessary to add my support for the women who have been victimized and have been brave enough to talk about it,” Driver said in a statement released exclusively to Variety. “While I never experienced any abuse while working with Harvey, I think it’s important to add my voice to those of women everywhere who have experienced abuse at the hands of powerful men.”

Also from 'Variety':

Minnie Driver was only 26 years old when she auditioned for the role of Skylar in Gus Van Sant’s “Good Will Hunting.” It’s a performance that would earn Driver an Oscar nomination for best supporting actress, but it’s one she recently told The Telegraph almost never happened because producer Harvey Weinstein believed “nobody would want to fuck her.” Driver said Weinstein sent a sexist note along to the film’s casting director.

I often wonder how actors go so deep into the skin of someone else and manage to emerge unscathed at the end of the day. “Yeah, I mean, for the most part we are fragile nutters,” says Driver. “You have to be staunch and also fragile.”

-- 'Independant' (UK)

Hollywood's a shitty place. Women are often hired for roles because they are considered to be conventionally beautiful, which is why you have cop movies with women cops looking like runway models. I happen to think Driver is quite a cutie, but I'm not a movie producer who knows the business better than I do.

She got her feelings hurt. She should cry to her therapist.

As for your legal analysis, I have my doubts, and it's clear you didn't do a basic Google search.

But they're both ultra-left liberals so I really don't care what bad thing happens to either of them...

Achilles said...

Tina Trent said...

Damn to hell every starlet who knew perfectly well what she was doing -- advancing her career. Weinstein's behavior wasn't an unknown. Now they advance their careers by lying they were naifs walking into Weinstein's den. Not that this excuses him.

All at the cost of all that work we did to put away the really dangerous men, and the molesters, and show jjrors what real rape is. Damn them all to hell.


The collateral damage of the attempt to get Trump.

Also they need to make sure men like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden are safe.

The Godfather said...

Please read Richard Dolan (3:25). He's knowledgeable and correct. What else can you ask for?

Butkus51 said...

NYC let a kid out who sprayed a neighborhood with an AR-15.

The judge said he was no threat to the community.

Avoid New York.

Rusty said...

Ladies. Learn to throw a straight jab. Right at the button. Next a left cross to the jaw hinge. That will put him down. While he's down and you're stepping on his nuts you'll have time to fish that .38 out of your purse and give him a couple of pops. That will remind him to be a gentleman.

lonejustice said...

I spent most of my professional career as a criminal prosecutor trial lawyer, and before that, a few years as a criminal trial defense attorney. The reason most states have these rules about the illegal use of prior bad acts is that the introduction of prior bad acts is prejudicial to the defendant. You and I know, as humans, that evidence of prior bad acts is probative evidence that an individual did the criminal act that he is on trial for, because, obviously, he has committed the same criminal acts previously, either by being charged with the same crime, or being convicted of the same crime. However, in our criminal justice system you can only be convicted of the crime you are charged with, not because of the crimes you have previously been charged with or convicted of. A prosecutor really, really, wants to introduce evidence of prior bad acts, but in my state, if you did that, you were looking at a mistrial, or a definite reversal on appeal. So as much as you and I think that prior bad acts are important in determining the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, most states don't allow that evidence to be introduced during the trial. However, if you get a conviction at trial, then at sentencing you can bring up every single bad act the defendant ever committed in his whole life, speeding tickets and everything else. I think the reason is that a prison sentence is such a deprivation of human rights that you only want the defendant to be convicted of the crime he was charged with, not on his criminal history and reputation. Prison psychologists have told me that after serving 5 years in prison, you become "institutionalized," like Brooks and Red in the Shawshank Redemption. You are told when to sleep and when to wake up, you have no choice of what you eat or what you wear, or when you even go to take a piss or a shit. You are a like a caged animal enclosed with barbed wire and armed guards with sentries ordered to shoot you if you try to escape. So yes, prior bad acts should not be the basis of your criminal conviction.

Tina Trent said...

Jupiter: wasn't that Morgenthal? You know, the great civil rights crusader. Those five thugs are guilty as hell. And earlier in the night, they so brutally assaulted two men who could identify them as well that they should still be rotting in prison for one of those attacks, and they walked on those charges.

Because, no matter how hard you try, most violent crimes, with cooperating witnesses, and with powerful evidence, don't get prosecuted because we don't fully fund courts or police or DAs. So they pick one case and shelve all the rest after each spree. Because violent criminals are highly prolific and spree-oriented, people like me live on the margins of society, denied justice, denied existence. Denied humanity. Denied Constitutional citizenship. Denied the right to pursue happiness. Denied the truth. Denied the right to serve on juries.

Protected only by big dogs and guns. Which is how I live. Unlike that hag who went after Roberts, I actually take all the windows out of every house I renovate and live in. I install the smallest windows allowed by code, and I hang them as high as legally possible.

They'll meet Rocco before they meet me. Cattledogs can take a bullet and keep on coming. The nightmares never go away. We need laws to require DAs to try every case with overwhelming evidence. And half the judges and DAs is this country should be shot in the head for treason.

Jake said...

Weinstein can eat a fat one. But Vance can too.

Oligonicella said...

Rusty:
Learn to throw a straight jab. Right at the button. Next a left cross to the jaw hinge. That will put him down.

I have seen that done to a grown man by a grown man and the receiver do no more than take a step back.

Paddy O said...

"Damn to hell every starlet who knew perfectly well what she was doing -- advancing her career."

Why should Hollywood get a pass that no other industry does? The law is the law and someone seeking an acting job or someone hiring for that job shouldn't be given a wink and nod excuse because we think they deserve it or people have taken advantage of it.

Paddy O said...

That kind of "laws don't apply to us because we're Hollywood powers" is what gives us Alec Baldwin and all the others who think their opinions or desires are above the rest of us.

Leland said...

You and I know, as humans, that evidence of prior bad acts is probative evidence that an individual did the criminal act that he is on trial for, because, obviously, he has committed the same criminal acts previously, either by being charged with the same crime, or being convicted of the same crime.

You believe fantasies. Don’t accuse others of believing them too.

In the New York case against Weinstein, evidence of prior acts was presented, but it wasn’t at all obvious that Weinstein committed the same criminal acts. Specifically, Weinstein was never charged for those acts and therefore obviously was never convicted of the same* crime. The fact you gloss over these critical points of law makes me wonder about the validity of anything you write.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

So typical. He screwed up and now wants to pass responsibility for that screw-up to the justices who said no, you screwed up.

Joe Bar said...

So, he wants to change the law, so this one particular circumstance will not be overturned, in The future. In my opinion, these types of changes are almost always disastrous.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

What it takes to keep those criminals behind bars?

Oh, I don't know, how about prosecuting them without violating the law yourself?

Narayanan said...

Joe Smith said...
...how do we give faith to victims that the system can work to hold sexual abusers like Weinstein accountable?"

By having members of the court (the prosecutors) not fuck up the trial by presenting evidence that a first-year law student would know would be basis to overturn the conviction!!!!!
==============
if I gander at this cock-eyed == could this be pre-planted collusion? / getting both slices of bread buttered? conviction points when it counted; reversal when who cares!

Joe Smith said...

'if I gander at this cock-eyed == could this be pre-planted collusion? / getting both slices of bread buttered? conviction points when it counted; reversal when who cares!'

Nice! I like the cut of your jib : )

rehajm said...

If I gander at this cock-eyed == could this be pre-planted collusion? / getting both slices of bread buttered? conviction points when it counted; reversal when who cares!

First- props…and two: if you had to play If You Had To Arguethey planned it, imagine what it would look like. You would need to overturn multiple convictions and one might believe the same cock up in multiple cases appears not on the up and up. You’d get one dismissed and use some wave or California trend in ‘too many people in jail’. Of course he did spend time in jail…didn’t he? Right? Somewhere? Haha…

Tina Trent said...

Hey, Lone Justice.

My rapist told me his first name. We tried to arrange a phone call, as I cooperated with him when I wasn't trying to save my life, because what choice did I have? I had read about that solving a crime somewhere.

He lived a mile from my house.

He wore distinctive sneakers, with rainbow laces, and made me tie them for him, a definite modus operandi if one ever existed. Ditto the kitchen tools he used on me.

Do you think that's enough? Plus ruining a perfectly good Bob Dylan song for me forever?

I had 20/2000 vision then. He took away my glasses.

This was at the cusp of using DNA. Of which he left in every orifice of my body, including my ears, another modus operandi.

But my case was never tried because I couldn't pick himn out of a line-up because without my glasses I'm legally blind, and one of your scum-sucking compatriots was whispering how I like it in my ear during the line-ups, and the men masturbated and mouthed slurs at the two-way mirror.

I totally understood why the failure of Sarasota County to at least try my case on this evidence -- and the DNA available before he was released again, before the clock ran -- was why I couldn't be used as a witness in his subsequent early releases and trials.

That's what happens when you deny justice to victims.

What I don't understand is how people like you sleep at night.

Joe Smith said...

@Tina Trent 11:29...

What a horrific story.

Why is this man still alive?

Had this happened to any relative or friend of mine I would have taken care of it.

Whether by myself or with 'people.'

robother said...

Tina Trent: " But my case was never tried because I couldn't pick himn out of a line-up because without my glasses I'm legally blind, and one of your scum-sucking compatriots was whispering how I like it in my ear during the line-ups, and the men masturbated and mouthed slurs at the two-way mirror."

Recovered memory?