The best way to think about a case like this is from the point of view of a potential juror. Ask yourself: what would you have done if you had been on that jury and had had all the evidence and testimony presented to you? How would you have adjudicated it?
I'll speak for myself. If I had been on that jury, there would have been no conviction, even if I had to remain in the jury room and argue for the rest of my life.
The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that high standard was not even remotely approached. The prosecution bears the burden of proof, not the defense. There are
many reasons to doubt, indeed to entirely discount, the idea that Turner "intended" to sexually assault the victim, and many reasons to suggest that his account was truthful, thus negating the other charges. I will review the case and my reasoning as if I were a juror, and these will be my final remarks on this case.
The charges proffered in the case are that Turner sexually assaulted the alleged "victim" ("Emily Doe") while she was unconscious. Specifically, the sexual assault allegedly involved digital penetration (putting his fingers in her vagina without her consent).
What is the evidence that this actually happened: that Turner committed such an act while Emily Doe was unconscious and clearly unable to consent?
The review of the case shows that there is no such evidence that meets the reasonable doubt threshold. There is no direct evidence at all, and the circumstantial evidence is weak and inconclusive, at best.
First, Emily Doe herself was drunk enough to be blacked out and could not testify about what happened, so there is no relevant testimony from her.
Note that being drunk enough to be blacked out does not mean she was unable to give consent. I've been blacked out drunk quite a few times in my life (though not within the last decade) but the idea that I was unable to consent in that state is ludicrous both in common sense and legal terms.
Second, there is no direct witness testimony that shows Turner committing sexual assault on Doe while she was unconscious. The testimony of the two Swedes,
at best, places him "on top" of her when they entered the scene. He was not penetrating her or having intercourse with her at that moment. Even the idea that he was "on top" of her was something introduced in testimony during the trial,
but was not what the witnesses told the investigative officer. I consider their testimony during the trial to be, at the very least, compromised for this reason. The supposed exclamation made by Jonsson -- "
what the fuck are you doing, she's unconscious" -- never appeared in the record before actual trial testimony. In any case, there is no direct witness testimony of this alleged sexual assault.
Given this, we have to rely on circumstantial evidence to determine Emily Doe's likely degree of incapacitation and consequent inability to consent. Here is what we know:
First, contrary to what some have written, we
do not know Doe's blood alcohol content (BAC) at the time of the events. All we have are "extrapolated" BAC levels from measurements taken 6 hours later:
Quote:Doe's BAC came in at 0.127 or 0.129 around 7 a.m. that morning but was "back extrapolated" by a prosecution's witness to be at 0.241 or 0.249 at the time of the alleged sexual assault, around 1 a.m. Turner's registered at 0.13, around 3:15 a.m. and was estimated to be 0.171 around 1 a.m.
Such extrapolations are highly uncertain and dependent on many factors. There is no doubt that the prosecution witness was motivated to shade the estimate towards the higher end of the spectrum. All we can conclude is that Doe was very drunk -- shitfaced would be a good word; but we cannot conclude that this extrapolated BAC shows her to have been unconscious and unable to consent.
Further,
we know for a fact that Doe was, in fact, not only conscious but ambulatory
mere minutes before the events took place -- minutes, not hours. She and Turner left the party and walked towards the "dumpster" -- she walked, she was not carried there on the wings of angels or demons. The witnesses came upon Turner and Doe only MINUTES -- perhaps some 20 minutes at most -- after they left the party. So we have her very much conscious and walking some minutes before these events.
In addition, it is known that she left a message or messages on her boyfriend's phone just before leaving. So we also know she was conscious enough to make a phone call.
Finally, it should be noted that no one at the party took any particular exception to Turner and Doe leaving. There is a good chance this would not have been the case if Doe had been very nearly unconscious, rather than merely drunk and shitfaced like everyone else there (including Turner).
Now let's use some common sense. Why did Doe leave the party to walk with Turner towards the dumpster? It was likely not to discuss ancient Japanese poetry. There is a very good reason to believe she wanted to mess around with him, maybe fuck him, maybe make out, who knows. I can't prove this, of course, but guess what -- I don't need to.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt. The jury is entitled to draw common sense conclusions that enter into consideration of whether guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
What I know for sure is that women go to parties and get drunk because they want to fuck; and women, especially when they are drunk and horny, LOVE the idea and the excitement of having sex in public locations to an extent that most prudish men and white-knights can never understand.
Putting all these things together, what we have is Doe, drunk but fully conscious -- as evidenced by her ability to walk and to make phone calls, and by the general attitude of the other revelers -- leaving the party with Turner with the very likely intent of engaging in some sort of outdoors sexual activity with him. We know that at some point soon, that's exactly what they did -- according to Turner, with Doe's full consent.
There is absolutely no way that this evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt -- and in my opinion, even to any likelihood -- that Turner stuck his finger in Doe's vagina when she was
already unconscious and unable to consent. Even if you don't think it's
likely -- and I do, based on Turner's testimony and its plausibility -- it is certainly
possible that things happened just as he said and that he only did these acts with Doe's full consent and that she passed out at some point later. There is NO evidence that can prove otherwise that comes close to approaching, let alone exceeding, the reasonable doubt standard.
Lastly, I want to address Turner's behavior. The fact that he attempted to run away from the two grad students who came on the scene is supposed to be damning to him. It is not. First, this of course has no
direct bearing whatsoever on guilt or innocence, trying to run is not in itself a crime. Further, it's also not an
indirect indication of anything. You have to remember that Turner himself was quite drunk -- not as shitfaced as Doe but solidly drunk; that one of the two Swedes attempted to put him into a headlock; that messing with a girl in public is in itself something that guys can be scared to do; and that there was a general atmosphere of fear and hysteria about "sexual assault" on US college campuses, and Stanford in particular. Turner was a scared drunk young kid, and it's entirely understandable he lost his head and tried to run away. This has no bearing whatsoever, direct or even circumstantial, on his guilt or innocence.
That's really all that needs to be considered. Based on this review of the evidence, there is only one verdict that could be responsibly returned, and that is "not guilty".
**************
A few additional remarks and then I'll have nothing further to say about this case:
-- Why did the jury decide as it did? It is very difficult for juries to adjudicate sex crime cases objectively. Men, in particular, have intensely protective instincts towards women; they always tend to think of a woman as a victim and prey, and of another man as a predator. They are white-knights with no understanding of female sexuality and promiscuity. Before feminism became widespread, women often made better jurors in sex crime cases than men did, because they had a more skeptical view of fellow women and a more realistic appraisal of their sexual behavior. Feminism changed the equation for women because some of them will now act ideologically; but men remain the white-knights and sexual naifs they always were.
In addition, this trial was prosecuted tendentiously as part of the "rape culture" hysteria. The prosecutor pointed to Turner and instructed the jury to view him as the "face of sexual assault on campus". She explicitly wanted to make an example of him. This was improper and tendentious rhetoric that no doubt further swayed the jury. It adds to the many grounds for appeal in this case.
-- The much acclaimed "victim statement" in this case is a uniquely disgusting, malicious, and histrionic document. I did not believe when I saw it, and I believe less now, that it was written in full by "Emily Doe". It bears all the marks of a far more experienced, ideological, and nastier hand.
I cannot prove, but strongly suspect, that this document was written in part or in full by Michele Dauber, the Stanford Law professor who has been primarily responsible for coordinating the propaganda campaign in this case. As another poster astutely noted, Dauber's fingerprints are absolutely everywhere you look; it was she who has made all quoted statements to the press, it was she who released the letter written by Turner's father -- and others -- to the media, it is she who is leading the movement to recall judge Persky. In addition, Dauber has long been the leading voice in Stanford in favor of much harsher and more draconian "sex assault" laws and prosecutions; in other words, she had been the principal leader of the witch hunt there. And she is a friend of Doe's family. Put all this together and I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Dauber is primarily responsible for composing that disgusting letter. That Doe acquiesced and participated in this process shows a great deal about her own character. But she is not the author, in my opinion.
-- Is the sentence "light"? Because of the deranged US sex offender registration laws, almost any sex crime sentence amounts, in fact, to a LIFE SENTENCE: sex offender registration is forever and it essentially bars the offender from ever leading a normal life. It is a stain on a man's reputation and livelihood that can never be removed.
Sex offender registration laws were motivated by the need to protect communities against violent repeat offenders; in reality, they amount to life sentences to often harmless men convicted of minor crimes -- very often crimes that did not involve violence at all, or of a nature where the offender clearly poses no danger to anyone (
as is the case with Turner even if he was guilty). This is an evil and inhuman system, and as long as it remains in place, NO punishment for sex crimes in the US is ever "lenient", and more often than not it is a cruel and excessive lifelong punishment far harsher than any mere jail sentence.
-- The hysteria in the media regarding this case, and the
blood lust against poor wide-eyed fearful Turner, the white dude who is now "the face of sexual assault" and who deserves eternal damnation -- as well as the hysterics of solemnity surrounding the disgusting "victim statement" -- are unlike anything I've ever seen, and give this case a specially chilling and sinister undertone. Like I said before, it is the Year Zero payback for the loss they took on lyin' Jackie Coakley; and they intend to pay back with interest. It is impossible to contradict this savage consensus in public, and I don't particularly advise anyone to try. You can see from an earlier post in the thread what kind of persecution has been directed against the brave and forthright Leslie Rasmussen who dared to write a sensible and human letter in defense of her good high school friend Brock.
-- Speaking for myself. As I hope you can see from this post, I follow the truth wherever it takes me. I do not see the world through a "red pill" lens, or that of any other color; I don't care if I'm in the majority, minority or anything in between. No lawyer, pundit, or expert of any other kind possesses an authority that exceeds the weight of evidence and common sense, as they can be evaluated by a man who is patient, open-minded, curious, and willing to avail himself of the facts. I can be persuaded by arguments from others just as I hope to persuade others, but the evidence and the facts about the world as I know it take absolute precedence over everything else. I've laid them out as I see them. I have nothing further to say about this matter, although I hope one day to be able to update this thread with good news from a decision of an appellate court. Until then, I wish Dennis Riordan and his team good luck in their work on Turner's behalf; they'll need it.
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 3 users Like weambulance's post:
