Rape of a 38 year old on Tengstrasse in Schwabing

Maybe he was forcing her to say what he wanted to hear..

Maybe...

We'll never know.

No - we probably won't ever know. However he could also be innocent...

Maybe she is reporting it with a heavy heart not because the guy was declared innocent but because that means that the claim of rape is deemed to be false. If so, then the actions of that girl make it harder for genuine victims.

Agreed. Either way, if a guilty man was let go or if an innocent man was falsely accused it is a sad case.

I wonder if this will act as a base for a lawsuit against the woman for a false accusation. I'd be interested to see how this proceeds if it does.

Extremely unlikely. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power. The rapist doesn't give a shit about his own sexual performance; all he cares about is demonstrating who's in charge. With her BAC at almost 0.2% it's not unlikely that she changed her mind about whether she wanted to or not, and whether that lack of desire came before or after consent.

On the other hand, a woman might make sounds implying her enjoyment if she was scared for her life and thought that might appease the attacker. However most women who are stone-cold sober have trouble keeping that much presence of mind during the attack.

qoof.

That's certainly true about rapes where the victim knows the rapist. Its about power/revenge. But this was an unusual rape where the parties did not know each other. It could still have been a power thing, but could instead have been a sexual gratification thing?

The parties were acquainted, read sarabyrd's post

I don't know where you come up with that. Rape is about power, not sex. Period. A former girlfriend (and my underling who took over my position as chief copy editor at the newspaper) was brutally raped and left for dead during a home invasion. They didn't know her. That's not the exception, that's the rule.

From "The Causes of Criminal Behaviour - why do they do it?", Criminal Justice Quarterly, Department of Justice, New Zealand, 1993, Issue 3, pages 5-7:


Of course, Rape Crisis Online goes too far in their claims:


The previously cited article provides research showing that there is a sexual component to rape, one which may not be explored enough in rehabilitation that primarily focuses on anger management and similar therapies.

woof.

??


Again?? Isn't it the other way around?

As I pointed out earlier, in 80% of reported cases of rape the victim knew their assailant. So what you described is an exception.

I have been following the case in the media since it happened.

Read the last paragraph of the SZ article (quoted).

Working in a legal profession I am not happy with the verdict. The guy was not proven innocent, the woman was not proven wrong. There was enough doubt caused by the independent witness's evidence to justify in dubio pro reo but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of everyone involved, see their comments.
What bugs me is that the witness did not pipe up straight away when the case was in the newspapers and tell the investigating police about what he had observed. Instead he waited until the public trial to divulge his knowledge, and even then not to the authorities but to the defendant's lawyer. Who says he wasn't in the courtroom on the first day of the trial listening to the case as it presented itself? Who says he isn't a red-hot supporter of the "Any woman who gets raped deserves it" faction? Who says he didn't pipe up and protect the guy out of male solidarity?
Hence the heavy heart. Although I really don't think that I have to justify my emotions.

so the court has to prove innocence? I thought they were required to prove guilt. I think it is best to say, no one will ever know, but if you walk in a graveyard at night with all the skeletons around you could get boned.

He was not proven innocent by the witness's evidence, there was enough doubt cast to not convict him. I know how difficult it is for laymen to make such a distinction, that's why I mentioned the in-dubio-decision.

Yeah, so they could not prove him guilty either.

Maybe he will sue her now and be able to afford somewhere to live

But do you go to court to be proved innocent? Explain that to a layman. I know in the US system it is guilty or not-guilty, not guilty or innocent. The German ausmangel anbeweisen seems similar to not guilty as well. Hence the burden of proof is to prove guilt not to declare innocence. And my limited Latin seems to hve the same meaning with in dubio pro reo, which I would (maybe incorrectly) translate as when in doubt decide for...which is based on ROman law where in doubt let the fucker go

@Sarabyrd. I know its awful when a genuine rape perpetator goes unpunished, but the witness did inject sufficient doubt to make it impossible to convict him, and for better or for worse, thats the way the justice system works. Innocent until proven guilty.

You have obviously judged him to be guilty, and the witness to be a liar.

But whats wrong with what the witness did. Maybe he saw a trial report 2 days into the trial, and remembered what he heard, and immedietely came forward. And what's wrong with contacting the defense lawyer. I'd say that's a fairly obvious party to contact. Contact the police, and find your statement never reaches the relevant parties in time. Try and contact the judge?

If I was in his position I would also have contacted the defense lawyer.

This just makes me sick. We -- thankfully -- don't live under an inquisitorial system of justice which accepts all accusations and forces the defendant to prove that which he often can't.


You work in the legal profession and use such an incredibly ignorant phrase and concept as that? It is almost impossible to ever prove innocence.

the woman was not proven wrong.
She made allegations which didn't stand up to scrutiny. Just because she says something happens doesn't make them so. Go back and read through the whole religion and massage threads.

There was enough doubt caused by the independent witness's evidence
And there you have it. An independent witness cast doubt on the claim. Therefore the claim isn't strong enough to send some guy to jail.

but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of everyone involved
So you're saying they should've locked the guy up based on the subjective statements of someone who was drunk off her ass at the time over the objective statements of an uninvolved witness.

Of course it left a bad taste in their mouths: they think the guy did it and want "justice". Luckily, he got some. There was case in NYC which was constantly on the news. The accused rapist couldn't prove where he was and wasn't lucky enough to have some newspaper seller walking by. DNA evidence showed no sign of him; she'd had sex earlier that day with someone no longer around. That and her constant sobbing (and the defendant's cheap-ass attorney) was good enough to send him to Riker's for 14 years. It was a few years of appeals and a whistleblower in the DA's office (which wanted to keep the case shut) which turned up source of the DNA found in her: a rapist already doing time on Riker's. With the support of an appeals group which works on clear miscarriages of justice the guy got an appeal, the actual rapist had confirmed having done the victim, and he was freed. The woman in an interview made the following chilling statement: "I know, in my heart, he did it. I'll saw his face and I'll see it every day for the rest of my life. They let the rapist go free." Or words to that effect.

Why was she so sure it was him? Because her memory was hardly clear. Alcohol, trauma, humans' memories are poor and spotty. We make shit witnesses, especially with respect to anything we're personally involved in. She'd been shown his face by the cops. They'd arrested him. He was there in court. Her memory of his face is crystal clear to her but completely fabricated. It's very easy to induce fabricated memories in people.

What bugs me is that the witness did not pipe up straight away when the case was in the newspapers
Maybe he didn't realise that the couple he saw fucking were the same as the people involved with the rape. Or maybe he tried to go to the cops and was ignored. Or maybe the cops knowingly sent him away hoping to get an easy conviction and up their stats.

Instead he waited until the public trial to divulge his knowledge, and even then not to the authorities but to the defendant's lawyer.
Good. We require the prosecution turn over all information to the defense. We do not require the defense to turn over a shred of evidence to the prosecution. There are reasons for this, not the least of which is forcing the prosecution to have a damned good case before arresting someone and bringing him to court.

Who says he wasn't in the courtroom on the first day of the trial listening to the case as it presented itself? Who says he isn't a red-hot supporter of the "Any woman who gets raped deserves it" faction? Who says he didn't pipe up and protect the guy out of male solidarity?
Apparently the prosecution, upon cross-examination, was unable to prove any of those points or even use them to make the witness seem less credible. They're certainly easy enough claims to make that you couldn't possibly have been the first to think of them. And yet the witness' testimony was accepted.

Although I really don't think that I have to justify my emotions.
Your emotions, no, but perhaps the reasoning behind them in this case.

woof.

OR what Nifong did in the Duke rape case, he knowingly lied when asked by the courts if any new dna evidence came up which would exonerate the accused or convict them. He lied and asked the DNA lab to also lie about not having any matches. I also would call the defence lawyer. I also do not think there are people in the world who think that every women wants sex so much that they would lie about a raoe they saw and claim the woman was yelling, "oh that is good". However, I wouldn't trust any witness, as I believe most people see what they want to see. But in a case like this when it is built on proving guilt, the balance for a witness should always be for their benefit.

With regard to your first sentence, you make a very valid point; Innocence is a presumption and guilt must be proven. Hence, the guy is innocent.

With regard to the second sentence, study up on this definition : tact

quoting words that are based on the sense of touch. Are you saying bones can't touch ya?

I have decided that the proof in the matter can point either way and that someone who didn't come forward until the trial eight months later in spite of the extensive media coverage at the time of the incident is a pretty rotten person, considering what both the victim and the acquitted defendant have been through.
Read the papers yourselves and form your opinion based on that information.
[/flouncette over]

In defense, I have only heard of this through TT and my Girlfriend who reads the Sueddeutsche everyday was not aware of it. Some stories have more of a preference for certain readers, he may not have known for a while, unless he reads TT.

It was on the front page of the tabloids, the guy is a paper carrier.

Newspapers are a commodity. How many carriers do you think actually read them or give a damn? I know a couple carriers who have no clue what's in there. If it's busy in the bar I might ask Lal what's news when he brings our papers. He doesn't know; his job is to sell them, not read them.


And therefore you MUST accept acquittal without any heavy heart. In fact, you should rejoice that a person brought up on questionable charges made by an unreliable accuser was not found guilty and deprived of his freedom just because some people felt he should've been convicted based on personal beliefs and prejudices.

woof.

Y'know, this is one of the reasons I have turned to Coprorate Law. Justice and fairness are not synonomous when you're talking Legal. The guy is still under a shadow of unproven guilt, there will be enough people willing to point that out, the woman has to live with the memory and may feel she did not get justice, she may also be pointed out as a drunken slut. Another good reason for a heavy heart.
Isn't giving a reason for something justifying it?

So let me try and understand this Sarabyrd; you are saying that you would have prefered the accused to go to jail anyway even though there is a reasonable doubt. How would that constitute justice or fairness?

I never said that. I said I have a heavy heart and the people involved all have a bad taste in their mouths. And I am very sceptical about the witness's behavior. But since when did this develop into a whack the messenger thread? I gave you the facts as printed in the Süddeutsche Zeitung and gave a personal evaluation. Discuss the verdict, won't you? If you are ok with it, don't discuss it but don't whack me for not being ok with it but not saying it's wrong.

The witness statements suggest the girl was lying and I think the state should consider pressing charges against her.

Me wonders how in the world can someone prove without doubt that he has not raped someone he had sex with.

Message to the world: sex is bad, refrain from having any.

Umm...

Right about there. Yep, that would be it. That's where it became "whack the illogical, biased, and from a legal standpoint, incorrect opinion.

Y'know, this is one of the reasons I have turned to Coprorate Law.
Stay there. You clearly don't understand (or at least don't agree with) some key principles of criminal law.

Justice and fairness are not synonomous when you're talking Legal.
So would locking up a guy who you couldn't prove within reasonable doubt, much less "beyond a shadow of a doubt", have been fair or would it have been just? A woman made an accusation. Even with the assistance of determined prosecutors and police, she couldn't prove it. On the contrary, her claim was refuted by an independent third party.

The guy is still under a shadow of unproven guilt
There is NO SUCH THING.

Let's try this.

BD: SB's a crack whore. I saw her blowing some guy in an alley and he handed her a packet when she was done.
SB: It was my husband and what he handed me wa a packet of Tempo afterwards.
BD: Well, maybe that's the case, but it was dark and you can't prove it was your husband.

ERGO, there is this "shadow of guilt" that you are indeed a crack whore.

Preposterous? No more than what you keep going on about. She made a claim. It not only didn't hold up, it was refuted by a disinterested party.

the woman has to live with the memory
An invented memory, perhaps from the booze or perhaps from the regret later, but she was seen and quoted enjoying herself.

and may feel she did not get justice
So the guy who wasn't guilty should go to jail anyway so that she can FEEL like she got justice?

Remember when Mike Tyson went to jail for rape? All the bruthas were up in arms and screaming about how "a brutha cain't get no justice". They got real quiet about that when you'd point out how two sistahs did.

woof.

You can not prove a negative. AKA Negative Proof

For example, say I suspect my husband of having an affair. I can look at his emails and find no evidence. I can look at his phone records and find no evidence. This doesn't prove he is not cheating, it just means I've found no proof he is cheating.

_{ftr: i don't suspect my husband of cheating}

But then again, you can find the answer right here in this thread. Assuming you have had sex with your husband, just take him to court for rape, and since he can't prove that he didn't rape you, you will at least get him to be outcast from society, according to the way some people in this thread think. I think that constitutes sufficient revenge for him having an affair, oder?

I mean, apparently, dragging someone you had sex with to court for rape is half-way proving he raped you already, as far as I read here.

ftr: I don't suspect that either

I' rather read the court transcript and the real evidence than some newspaper hack's interpretation. Same goes for various opinions of guilt or innocence on this thread.

I'd rather put my trust in the judge and the system around him for nailing it right most of the time, which is far better than a lot of other people I know would have done.

Edit: for reasons of time and such, if I'd have extra on my hands I'd do what OG said, but still probably give enough respect to what the court decided.

yep, agreed. the ONLY person in full possession of the all the facts and the legal knowledge is the judge (or the judges). Until an appeal shows they have made an incorrect decision, we, who know little or nothing about the case, can only respect this decision.

Well sarabyrd I am not whacking the messenger I am just wondering how you came to your personal evaluation based on the facts and how you cannot be ok with it and not say it is wrong. Maybe I am just a little bit confused and I am certainly no legal expert but I believe that the in-dubio-principle is not just applicable to isolated elements of the evidence but requires all the evidence has been scrutinised in its entirety before a judgement is reached.

From that perspective, I cannot find anything wrong with the verdict and it certainly does not leave a bad taste in my mouth. I do not think there is anything to discuss about the verdict because it seems fairly open and shut. I just do not see how it is possible to draw any other conclusion, but as ever you are entitled to your own opinion.

I wouldn't whack you anyway Sara, you just might whack me back

Actually, what you are pretty much implying is that if the guy did go to jail then your heart would not have been as heavy, regardless of whether the witness was creditable or not and regardless of whether he was innocent or not. There are lots of unanswered questions but you are, of course, siding with the female in this case - that is natural. But better to have a potential rapist off the streets eh? This is a never-ending argument where the two arguing sides will never find middle ground. Round and round it will go with no resolve.

Lock up every man. You can't be too safe.

woof.

Man aquitted of alleged rape after serving 21 years for it:


The innocence project. When your judge thinks that doubt is not doubt.

Innocent people get convicted all the time and it should be enough to make everyone ill that this is happening.

I didn't want to start a new thread for this, but it's worth a mention. An artist's project called Points with a Purpose: http://www.pointswithpurpose.com/component...tpage/Itemid,1/