It was even dumber in this case, because they had video of him actively encouraging the rape of his girlfriend. Hard to argue that you are too drunk for intent when you are actively recruiting participants

Minor point. I’m a guy and was called whip smart by my mom like a million times as a kid. Of course that was my mom. I am not sure that expression is very gendered. I could be wrong. I do think that is generally directed at the young though. Thoughts internet?

Hmmm. Just a thought I am throwing out there. Could we use the money to form a team with a plucky hacker, a ninja, a reformed con artist and a driver to just go get her and take her someplace not evil?

Question for the attorneys out there. In the event that Washington has no rape by fraud like laws, Are there civil options for these women. I mean can they sue him for damages of some kind? Breach of contract at least. Its a lot less than what he actually did, but he did promise some kind of promotion that I presume…

So it appears the rapist was surrounded by people who do not know what rape is. No real surprise there. It is just so sad that this girl legitimately seems to only think that rape is only the stranger jumping from the bushes variety. She also buys into the whole “alcohol is to blame” idea. I hope that she never meets…

It at least warrants a call to the BPR

I can think of at least one “going down on a girl in a hot tub” incident where this would have been quite useful.

Parent’s can drive their kids to the next state without violating a law.

again. I doubt the Dad even thought about it as Rape. It was obviously, but I am betting he just thought his daughter was loose and got knocked up, then decided to make her “honest.” It’s a big sad mess of ignorance all around.

The father in this story obviously did not think of it as rape. He seemed to view his child as capable of consent, which is crazy medieval but in his mind, his daughter had fooled around and the rapist needed to make an honest woman out of her. He probably did not think of it as rape until the police came knocking.

The McDonald’s case was a correct finding. And the public perception is the result of real efforts to mislead the public. It resulted in some u unfortunate changes to tort laws. Re: your comment about what wasn’t seen; I will grant that there could have been something I did not see on TV or read in the books…

I think a lot of the holes have to do with the timing of the interview. He is just some guy who got assaulted and then asked questions about it by a reporter. There was probably an understandable reason that he didn’t get into

It’s my honest evaluation that what was presented was more than convincing. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Still disagree. Let’s just say we eliminated the forensic evidence related to air sampling which was admittedly totally new. All the remaining evidence still constituted a very strong circumstantial case. I am sticking with stupid jury.

Still beg to disagree. The evidence was mostly circumstantial, but there was so much that any doubt to the contrary was not reasonable. I first thought that it was another instance of the CSI effect, where juries demand impractical amounts of forensics, but based on post trial interviews it seems like they were…

Oh there was plenty of evidence. Just a pretty stupid jury.

He had help from a respectable atty

Hell I watched the trial everyday and assumed they were.

I think guys like these lie more readily than telling the truth, even to themselves. Even though he knows that he raped these women, he will fight tooth and nail to avoid admitting anything. He is compelled to just call his women liars, because to do otherwise would be to acknowledge them as human beings. That is not…

Hey if you cant make misogynist jokes while trying to protect women’s safety when can you do it?