Post: #201

@Bortimus: Just delete your account already and do so unapologetically. If anyone asks, just tell them you don't want to be part of Zuckerberg's spying platform, and that you have better things to do with your life.

Post: #202

Just saw on Fox how bad they're hyping this up. Saying "Stanford student raped 22 year old woman behind a dumpster, then claimed 'It's not my fault'!" Then compared it to the "affluenza" case. Jesus Christ.

Post: #203

(06-09-2016 04:42 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  @Bortimus: Just delete your account already and do so unapologetically. If anyone asks, just tell them you don't want to be part of Zuckerberg's spying platform, and that you have better things to do with your life.

I like to check it every once in a while just to see how "normal" people are reacting to current events. This forum is great for getting intelligent opinions and analysis, but we still have to live in the real world.

Post: #204

SP5, thanks for your time. Very well explained, but I think the problem here is more about the actual laws.

The fact that ``Sexual penetration of an intoxicated woman'' is now a crime shows you just how far this country has fallen. It is feminist horseshit that has been written into law by our ``elected leaders.'' What is intoxicated? One drink? One beer? Two shots? Five beers? Or whatever the woman says the next day? Do men receive this legal protection? I think you stated they do? But in actual reality do they? Has a woman ever been prosecuted for having sex with a drunk male. Most prosecutors wouldnt even bother with charges, if the cops even bothered with a statement.

Just being a man makes you guilty. Did he rape her? I dont know. I wasnt in that jury box. However, the standard is clear. The definition of rape has now changed to: just being male and making contact with a woman, if said woman decides that said contact wasnt what she wanted, (even if she did want it at the time) even days later.

Bottom line: This guy never a had a chance. The way the laws have been written, without regard to any common sense is insane. The fact that person A can be drunk and person B be drunk and there be two separate standards of accountability (based completely and solely on gender) is insane.

I believe that is what so many on this forum are upset about.

Post: #205

(06-09-2016 03:51 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 11:09 PM)stugatz Wrote:  Lizard of Oz, posts like yours above are what made me stop lurking and join this forum. Bravo.

Lizard of Oz makes me want to stop posting and go back to lurking.

Easy guys. Lizard is still the man. He just looks out for his fellow man a tad stronger than most here have the courage for. This forum could use at least 5 more Lizards honestly. There are good things that happen in the background because of him. Lizard knows a metric ton of things, but he cannot know it all. That is why guys like SP5 can pick us up on areas we do not have expertise in. A squad of SEALs are not going to be all medics or all fluent in Arabic, Farsi, and Pashtu. So we as a team here, have specialties that we have to leverage amongst each other when the need arises to keep things in check.

Our values can help us keep things in check and in perspective, amongst one another. That is what allows us to grow here and develop.

Post: #206

I'm tired of this shit. Simple and plain. Rape is one of the simplest crimes to solve. You got raped? Call the police immediately so they can break out the rape kit and get the evidence.Also, if it was "without consent" then there should be some signs of physical harm on your body. Oh but you were unconscious? Well that's the risk you take when get wasted,pop pills, etc. It's not society's responsibility for protect you from being a slut.Remeber the movie knocked up? The bitch fucked Seth Roger while wasted and wasn't exactly ecstatic about it when she woke up. But you know what? She was okay with it. Because she knew it was HER fault for getting wasted and fucking some random dude. Rape is a very serious crime. There should be no gray area when prosecuting someone for this crime. Period. Fucking SJWs I swear to god.I can only hope Trump will get elected and save our culture.

Post: #207

(06-09-2016 05:06 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 03:51 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(06-08-2016 11:09 PM)stugatz Wrote:  Lizard of Oz, posts like yours above are what made me stop lurking and join this forum. Bravo.

Lizard of Oz makes me want to stop posting and go back to lurking.

Easy guys. Lizard is still the man. He just looks out for his fellow man a tad stronger than most here have the courage for. This forum could use at least 5 more Lizards honestly. There are good things that happen in the background because of him. Lizard knows a metric ton of things, but he cannot know it all. That is why guys like SP5 can pick us up on areas we do not have expertise in. A squad of SEALs are not going to be all medics or all fluent in Arabic, Farsi, and Pashtu. So we as a team here, have specialties that we have to leverage amongst each other when the need arises to keep things in check.

Our values can help us keep things in check and in perspective, amongst one another. That is what allows us to grow here and develop.

It was just a compliment, not an expression of fealty, though I do agree with your assessment of the forum.

Post: #208

(06-09-2016 06:05 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  You don't know what direct evidence is - they observed Brock on top of her, and her in an unconscious state, an unconscious state which lasted until she was in the hospital hours later. The paramedic gave direct evidence of her state when he arrived.

This is the crux of the case -- contrary to what Sp5 is asserting, the Swedes DID NOT observe him on top of an unconscious Emily Doe; they had no way of knowing her state.

The defendant never "admitted" digitally penetrating Emily Doe; he freely asserted that he had done so with her consent; and all her actions up to that point are at least consistent with his claims. She walked with him to that area, she was not abducted and dragged there. This is consistent with consent, and, since "unconsciousness" at the time of digital penetration cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must acquit.

Nothing else matters. It's he said/she said all the way down the line, and he never said anything else but that she willingly consented. There is ZERO EVIDENCE, aside from medical conjecture and extrapolation after the fact, that she was unconscious and unable to consent at the time he digitally penetrated her. None.

There is only the claim of the prosecution that the Swedish witness saw him on top of her “unconscious” body; that was the prosecution's most important claim, and the claim with which they opened their case, and very shrewdly too, since the entire case hangs on whether or not you believe that the Swedish witness somehow knew Emily Doe to be unconscious at some previous time when Turner had digitally penetrated her.

The great mystery of this case is why people are assuming that the Swede Jonsson had some ability to know that ED was unconscious at some logically prior time that BT had digitally penetrated her. Since he did not observe that penetration, it must have happened previously to him seeing BT on top of her -- how could he possibly know she had been unconscious at that time?

Why is this so blithely accepted?

Here is a recent article about the appeal on the case:

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/...-da-appeal

The crucial excerpt:

Quote:In contrast, prosecutor Alaleh Kianerci questioned Turner's remorsefulness, noting that Turner denied knowing the victim was unconscious. However, two graduate students who happened upon the scene and detained Turner for police were able to see she was unconscious while biking by in the middle of the night.

1. How were these magical Swedes able to ascertain from a bike in the middle of the night that Emily Doe was unconscious at that time?

2. Even assuming that they had this magical capacity, how could they, or anyone other than Turner, know if she was unconscious at the time when the digital penetration happened?

Let's review the timeline here. At 12:35am, Doe was fully conscious, leaving messages on her boyfriend's voicemail, and leaving the party with Turner to walk to the dumpster. She was conscious enough to walk there on her own, she was not carried there or abducted or jumped. The first EMT calls were made at 12:55am, 20 minutes later. The digital penetration occurred at some point between 12:35am and 12:55am, a span of 20 minutes. For all we know it might have been 12:40 or 12:45, 5 or 10 minutes after Doe freely left the party with Turner.

How could the Swedes, or anyone else, know if Doe was conscious at the time digital penetration occurred? They could not and cannot. Turner says that she consented. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Thus, the correct verdict: not guilty.

Post: #209

In terms of the unconscious charge, I am inclined to agree that there isn't sufficient evidence of penetration while unconscious based on what we know. If he was convicted of this charge, it must be based on something he confessed to the police, some other fact that we're not privy to, or his defense royally fucked up.

If his defense royally fucked up, perhaps it's because he was attempting a strategy to get him acquitted on all counts, not just the unconscious charge. After all, a conviction on any one of the three charges results in the unholy sexual offender label.

The charge of sexual penetration of an intoxicated woman is most straightforward. Before the act occurred, she left a voicemail on her boyfriend's phone. "Her speech was slow, slurred and unintelligible, with only some words recognizable." As prosecution, I would argue that she was too drunk to consent at this point, and I bet I could get basically any jury to agree with me.

(06-09-2016 06:13 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  It was just a compliment, not an expression of fealty, though I do agree with your assessment of the forum.

I figured it wasn't an insult. LoZ is a good man and a great contributor, notwithstanding my belief that he is wrong on this occasion.

Post: #210

One of the news stories about this has a headline that's something like this: "When Peak White Privilege and Peak Rape Culture Create Perfect Fuckshit Souffle"

I'm not linking to the article cause I don't want to give them clicks. The reason it's "perfect" is because this case is a media-manufactured false flag. It is the perfect media-manufactured "fuckshit souffle". End of.

P.S. If on the off chance this bullshit story is true, and the witnesses' side of the story is correct, then this kid is clearly a rapist. If the witnesses are correct, this is about as clear cut as it gets. Yes almost all public RAs are bullshit, but sometimes real rape does happen. If his side of the story is correct, he's still a dumbshit for canoodling around with drunk whores, especially when he was a college athlete and had a veritable harem of prime college poosy in his near future. He should have gotten away from her as soon as it was clear that she was too drunk to stay conscious, not because I particularly give a fuck about her or want to white knight, but for his own safety. Abundance mentality saves lives. But again, all this assumes this giant mound of obviously manufactured bullshit actually happened.

Post: #211

Peregrine,

As far as the penetration while unconscious charge, I've gone through the court summary of the police report which has now been published online. There is no confession of this by Turner. He's always said that Doe explicitly consented to the fingering -- and was, obviously, conscious when it happened. No known evidence contradicts his story. The verdict on this charge should have been "not guilty".

The California law on sexual penetration while intoxicated states that the victim must be "prevented from resisting" by virtue of being intoxicated, and that this should be "known or reasonably should have been known" by the accused:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/...ionNum=289

I see no evidence that indicates that Doe was so intoxicated as to be "prevented from resisting", and no evidence that indicates that Turner should have been aware of this if she was. He testified that she seemed no more drunk than other people at the party.

The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution and I don't see that it was met on this charge either. Beyond the letter of the law, consensual intercourse between people at that level of intoxication happens all the time, of course. If all such incidents were prosecuted, half the male population of California would consist of registered sex offenders.

Post: #212

(06-09-2016 09:51 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  The California law on sexual penetration while intoxicated states that the victim must be "prevented from resisting" by virtue of being intoxicated, and that this should be "known or reasonably should have been known" by the accused:

This has been my thought, "prevented from resisting" means that she was too drunk to say "no", right? He's testifying that she said yes and was on board with the finger banging - he was clear and consistent about that part.

For this to be rape means that either:

A. We don't believe him. She was passed out, he finger banged an unconscious girl and would have had sex with her if the Swedish students hadn't shown up;
or
B. We've degenerated so far that "prevented from resisting" means that she was intoxicated to the point that she would otherwise not have found him attractive enough for sex. In other words, having beer goggles is enough to form the new legal definition of rape.

Scarily, B, fits with an earlier thread wherein feminists are trying to say that having even one drink completely removes the woman from all legal responsibility and all agency and puts men on the legal hook.

Post: #213

(06-09-2016 09:21 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  If his defense royally fucked up, perhaps it's because he was attempting a strategy to get him acquitted on all counts, not just the unconscious charge. After all, a conviction on any one of the three charges results in the unholy sexual offender label.

I'm speculating but I think that is what happened.

The prosecution wasn't going to settle for anything that didn't include a sex crime and Turner wasn't going to settle with a sex crime but that gives him the sex offender label, he gets kicked out of Stanford and has no chance to go to the Olympics. It was all or nothing for the defense because 1 conviction and Turner is screwed.

I know some people will disagree but I think most of Turner's story in court was a lie. He contradicted what he had already told the police and Turner's attorneys knew the girl didn't remember anything so they came up with the perfect story, including Turner asking her for permission to finger her, because it was all or nothing. I'm not saying that Turner is guilty of fingering while she was unconscious but the defense came up with the best story to get him acquitted on all 3 charges.

I think any jury in Palo Alto is going to have feminists and SJWs and the jury was annoyed that Turner was lying with his perfect story. He also has legitimate credibility issues which are talked about in some of the other media articles. For the jury it wasn't "he said she said" because they didn't believe anything Turner said and the girl didn't say anything. It was all about what the magical Swedes said and the jury made an emotional decision to convict on all 3 charges even though there was weak evidence for some of those charges. The jury didn't like Turner and they bought into the rape hysteria which is exactly what the prosecution was trying to get them to do.

I'm not as optimistic as LoZ about Turner but I don't think there is solid evidence on at least one of the charges. Maybe there is evidence that we don't know about but it seems to me that there is evidence suggesting that he was not attempting to rape (he was always fully clothed and he got up and walked away from the girl before he realized the Swedes were there) so a lot of evidence would be needed to prove that charge beyond a reasonable doubt or beyond the opinion of the magical Swedes.

I know some of you think LoZ has gone too far with this but I think he has done more research on this than anyone and he makes some good points that I can confirm from the articles that I've read. For example, the girl was found only 20 minutes after she is confirmed to be conscious via calls she made from her cell phone. We should be skeptical about the proof of her being unconscious when Turner fingered her.

I think Turner was immature, arrogant, and he lied a lot during this case. However, I'm not convinced he is guilty on all 3 of charges and I think there is a lot of bullshit going on in this case. The light sentence given by a very credible judge who usually doesn't give light sentences says a lot. Persky is a smart guy and I think he knew Turner was lying in the trial but he still gave Turner a light sentence. Persky knew the prosecution was ruining the kid's life in the media and he knew there was weak evidence on some of the charges.

This case is much bigger than what happens to an immature 19 year old college student who made some dumb mistakes when he was drunk. This case is being used to influence policies and public opinion on a variety of issues. It's a war on Turner and the very credible judge Persky, both white men. This case is being used by the media to stir up a lot of anger towards white men during the presidential election while the democrats are constantly talking about Trump being a misogynist. If the SJWs get a few incidents like this to exploit with idiot sheeple then that could make the difference in a close election.

Post: #214

Quote:I see no evidence that indicates that Doe was so intoxicated as to be "prevented from resisting", and no evidence that indicates that Turner should have been aware of this if she was. He testified that she seemed no more drunk than other people at the party.

I see what you're saying, but your reading of the law and the facts are very, very kind to Turner. "Prevented from resisting" can be interpreted many different ways. If I understand correctly, your interpretation basically means she would have to have blacked out from intoxication to be prevented from resisting, but that would be no different than rape due to unconsciousness. Depending on what precedent has been set by case law, "prevented from resisting" is probably more correctly interpreted as not having the mental faculty to consent in the same way that a 12 year old doesn't have the mental faculty to consent (I'm sure Sp5 would know better than me). Whether Emily Doe was too drunk to consent is a judgement call that the jury has to make. I understand that you may disagree with their judgement call, but it certainly was not an unreasonable one. The strongest evidence that Turner should have been aware would be his relatively lower BAC and testimony from the bystanders, police, and hospital staff that he was still cogent at the time.

Whether these laws are just is an entirely different matter, but based on prevailing law and the known facts, I can understand why he was convicted.

Post: #215

Can you imagine being this Turney guy. One minute you're on top of the world: swimmer at one of the best schools in the world, possibly going to the Olympics, presumably having sex with tons of hot chicks. Next minute you're drunk at a frat party talking to a drunk cute girl who's all over you, finger her, then charged with rape and being crucified in the media all over the world. His life will never be the same. Crazy how fast your life can change in one night. I dont condone rape but I can't judge him either, because im sure we've all had one night or two where we went home with an extremely intoxicated girl and hooked up with her.

Post: #216

Possible solution to this problem:

1. No girls come in to the party without signing in.
2. Visual check for pre-party intoxication level (if drunk, no alcohol given, proceed to step 4).
3. No more than 2 drinks per hour (sharpie marker, wrist bands you cut off and take away, etc.) and 4-drink maximum.
4. Once a girl reaches 4 drinks, or is in any way slurring, or showing signs of intoxication, her drinking night is over at the party.
5. If she stays, she must immediately put this t-shirt on over whatever she is wearing and it is assigned to her name on the guest list:

6. If she refuses to wear the shirt, she gets called a cab/ uber and is required to leave.
7. A local Slack channel by fraternity and house party organizers could further extend by posting all names that were too drunk to fuck on any given date so no chump makes a terrible life choice over one snail trail on his bear rug.

I don't have much to add to the case. Just brainstorming.

Post: #217

(06-10-2016 12:20 AM)Gustavus Adolphus Wrote:  Possible solution to this problem:

1. No girls come in to the party without signing in.
2. Visual check for pre-party intoxication level (if drunk, no alcohol given, proceed to step 4).
3. No more than 2 drinks per hour (sharpie marker, wrist bands you cut off and take away, etc.) and 4-drink maximum.
4. Once a girl reaches 4 drinks, or is in any way slurring, or showing signs of intoxication, her drinking night is over at the party.
5. If she stays, she must immediately put this t-shirt on over whatever she is wearing and it is assigned to her name on the guest list:

6. If she refuses to wear the shirt, she gets called a cab/ uber and is required to leave.
7. A local Slack channel by fraternity and house party organizers could further extend by posting all names that were too drunk to fuck on any given date so no chump makes a terrible life choice over one snail trail on his bear rug.

I don't have much to add to the case. Just brainstorming.

GA with the DK name drop, nice.

The first 4 have been done by frat houses before.

Not that detailed but they do not let drunk girls in or ugly girls.

The girls screamed racism, sexism, profiling, etc.

Post: #218

Joe Biden has penned an open letter to the 'victim', and sent it to Buzzfeed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36494646

I hope this young man doesn't do anything drastic now. The pressures on him are unfathomable, and he is just a boy. You can see from the article that the truth will not stand in the way of a good story, and every mainstream media outlet is presenting him as a convicted rapist.

The lack of humanity these people have is terrifying. What's worse is I think these things will split families over time. Several members of my family have thrown themselves into the outrage with reckless abandon, and I feel a visceral disgust for them.

Post: #219

(06-09-2016 06:39 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  1. How were these magical Swedes able to ascertain from a bike in the middle of the night that Emily Doe was unconscious at that time?

I notice you don't question the judgement of the responding paramedics who also testify she was unconscious and unrousable.

As you're well aware, the guys got off their bikes and went over, tackled the guy, presumably asked the girl laying half naked on the ground without moving if she was OK, and received no verbal or physical response. Have you ever encountered a person who was unconscious from drinking, violence, or any other cause? From the absurd arguments here it surely seems not.

(06-09-2016 06:39 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  2. Even assuming that they had this magical capacity, how could they, or anyone other than Turner, know if she was unconscious at the time when the digital penetration happened?

Since the Swedes walked over during the act but before (what we would call) actual rape occurred it's reasonable to assume that the digital penetration was actively occurring or had happened within the previous few minutes. It's a ridiculous defense to say that she may have gone from lapsing into unconsciousness to fully unconscious just after penetration, therefore it was legal. Especially since without intervention it seems unlikely that the incident would have stopped when it did.

When I was coming of age there was a gay predator who we later learned regularly did this shit to teen guys. They'd drink too much and wake up with his hand down their pants. Word got around and he rightfully got the shit kicked out of him and was forced out of town. When I heard several women defending him afterwards I was as disgusted with them as I am with some of the posters here.

The perp's testimony reads like total horseshit. He actively asked for consent at every step of the way? Wasn't this forum ripping that CA requirement apart in a different thread because "nobody actually does that"? Except drunk frat boys about to bang behind a dumpster apparently. He just so happened to get up and run off to vomit as two bikers pull up and ask WTF he's doing, no relation to them actually stopping? Bullshit. There is no defense for this chick's attention whoring after the fact, but the lack of remorse from both the perp and his father are the reason this went viral, we should be tearing into them for harming the cause rather than defending them.

Post: #220

I don't think this was mentioned before:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...lieve.html

Quote:took photograph of his victim's breasts during attack - and shared it with swim team friends who deleted it after his arrest', police believe

Post: #221

This case shows you a lot, but certainly shows that if you can't be discreet at all ... in this day and age ... you're asking for it.

Question:

If the guy had NEVER SAID A WORD to anyone, would he have been found guilty?

Post: #222

http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/brock-...ime/?fb=dd

Ok, now I'm 100% certain this case is a false flag. Who gets their sentence reduced for good behavior within days of arriving in jail, especially a muthafucking CONVICTED RAPIST (considered the lowest of the low even in prison). I know bullshit when I smell it.

Will paste article in a new post, I'm on mobile now and mobile site isn't cooperating.

Post: #223

Quote:Brock Turner gets his sentence reduced for good behavior

By Lyz Lenz
Jun 9, 2016, 10:32am CT | Last updated Jun 9, 2016, 10:35am CT

In a rape case that just won't end, there's a new twist. Brock Turner, the former Stanford student who received a jail sentence of six months after raping an unconscious woman, has now received time off for good behavior, according to the Daily Mail.


Photo via Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office

The paper reports that Turner will only serve four months of his six-month sentence; he is due to be released on September 2. The sentence was reduced because of time served and because the court believes that Turner is "unlikely to misbehave behind bars."

The Daily Mail also got probation documents that revealed that Turner continued to lie about the rape to his probation officer even after he was convicted. According to the documents, the Santa Clara district attorney had to intervene and warned Turner to tell the truth.


In other Turner news, he is also being held in a private cell at the Elmwood jail in Milpitas, California. Though the majority of Elmwood's inmates have to bunk up, officials state that Turner's situation has to do with the "nature of his crime."

Post: #224

(06-10-2016 01:31 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  Since the Swedes walked over during the act but before (what we would call) actual rape occurred it's reasonable to assume that the digital penetration was actively occurring or had happened within the previous few minutes.

Wrong. This is pure speculation. We have no knowledge of when the digital penetration occurred, except that it happened at some point between 12:35 am (when ED willingly left the party with BT, fully conscious and having just left a message on her boyfriend's voicemal), and 12:55am when the Swedes came on the scene.

(06-10-2016 01:31 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  It's a ridiculous defense to say that she may have gone from lapsing into unconsciousness to fully unconscious just after penetration, therefore it was legal.

What we know for sure is that she was fully conscious, talking on the phone, and walking at 12:35am. What we do not know -- and have no evidence to decide either way -- is when she became unconscious. Since we have no evidence either way, the only possible verdict on that charge is "not guilty".

My personal opinion is that she passed out or more like fell into a drunken sleep after the digital penetration. Turner testified that she experienced an orgasm after about a minute of him fingering her. It's plausible and indeed natural that she would have fallen into a drunken sleep right after that happened.

What's clear, however, is that there is NO proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she was unconscious when the digital penetration happened. It's not up to the defense to prove innocence; it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt.

(06-10-2016 01:31 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  Especially since without intervention it seems unlikely that the incident would have stopped when it did.

All speculation about what would happened "without intervention" is completely baseless and beside the point. My opinion is that once Turner would have noticed Doe was sleeping or passed out he would have either left the scene, or tried to get her back to the frat house or some other place where she could sleep it off. Others may feel differently. Either way it's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence in the case.

(06-10-2016 02:00 PM)kaotic Wrote:  I don't think this was mentioned before:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...lieve.html

Quote:took photograph of his victim's breasts during attack - and shared it with swim team friends who deleted it after his arrest', police believe

There is of course ZERO evidence that Turner sent any pictures, or that the picture mentioned had anything to do with the case. No picture was ever found.

All they have is a message left on the swim team group chat from one of the members saying "whos tit is that". That's it. It could have been related to anything, including to a pic of any kind shared by anyone else in the group.

Of course even if Turner did take a pic and sent it to his teammates, this has absolutely nothing to do with his guilt or innocence in the case. This article and the leaks from the police are pure speculation whose only purpose is to fuel the unprecedented hysteria around this case -- a hysteria whose purpose is to paint Turner, and by implication all "frat bros", and by wider implication all white men that are not fanatical SJW white-knights, as the very face of evil.

This campaign is the next big move in the culture war. Like I said before, it's payback -- a thousandfold -- for the loss they took on lyin' Jackie Coakley and the UVa case. The current hysteria is unlike anything I've ever seen and everyone -- everyone -- is on board. That "victim letter" is going to be read live before the US Congress. It's a major move and I'll have more to say about it.

Post: #225

Quote:The Daily Mail also got probation documents that revealed that Turner continued to lie about the rape to his probation officer even after he was convicted. According to the documents, the Santa Clara district attorney had to intervene and warned Turner to tell the truth.

Incredible.

"Continued to lie about the rape".

What rape? He was not only not convicted of "rape", he was not even charged. The obviously bogus rape charges were dropped by the prosecution as soon as the case got underway.

And what does "continued to lie about the rape" mean? Turner has always maintained he was innocent. It is his most fundamental right to continue to do so. There are many real criminals who have never confessed to anything and have denied everything all the way down the line. That prerogative can never be taken away from anyone.

But no -- the Khmer Rouge Year Zero cadres demand a full confession, nothing less will do.

Unbelievable evil!