Post: #101

Hard to tell what really happened here honestly. Clearly this is another drugs and alcohol case, not rape. Girls admitted to "not being a drinker" but blacked out several times before.

The media is clearly trying to frame this in the worst way, "college frat guys rapes girl behind dump". I was laughing when I finally realized that they didn't even have sex..

I'm not really sure what the consequences should for fingering a girl against a will. Its kinda hard to believe she would have been completely unconscious during that whole thing though. Try moving one of your friends when he's in that state. Its not easy. Its quite possible she went into that state when they fell on the ground. His story is believable. However, I don't know the guy is completely without fault. There were a couple of things that stood out to me.

1. They have a couple texts that he trips on acid sometimes. (College swimmers do a lot of drinking and drugs at many schools FYI)
2. What's the motivation for the Swedish guys to lie about what they saw?
3. The girl was unconscious for another 3 hours after.

Post: #102

Damn didn't read the whole thread, but it's scary about how easily some guys on the forum crucified this kid as guilty! And that reminded me why the media keeps on going strong with Rape Hysteria: Because it works in making you believe it! A tremendously crafted statement, and some certified Forum players buried this Kid like Lizard said. We live in Scary times Indeed. The 2 guys were not wrong for knocking out the kid. It's the justice system that should step in and dismiss this as a Drunken Affair, but that'll never happen. Men now must be careful, and be their own best friends. Just say NO to a passed out HO

Post: #103

(06-07-2016 07:31 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  Meh. Keep the fuck away from white bitches. Problem solved.

Keep the fuck away from white bitches. Problem solved
Corrected for you: Keep the fuck away from sluts while you are in Western countries. Problem solved.

I guess it has almost reached a point, where intelligent and cautious men will have to patiently wait until they are away from Western countries, to have (non-marital) sex. Western countries therefore are useful to make money, or maybe raise your kids in, but not to have (safe, varied or quality) sex.

Post: #104

It's easy to get duped if you get your news from pretty much anywhere else.

The guys on the local sports radio show obviously read enough for a brief radio segment after talking about the latest at Baylor. Then a rape culture segue to Stanford.

I was under the impression he had her bent over the dumpster just going to town. Imagine my "surprise" after playing a little catch up in this thread. I don't know what really happened, if she passed out, fell asleep, faked being asleep, but getting life on the sex offender list for a drunken finger bang with consent seems crazy.

And I still hate that "with intent to rape", you either do or you don't, it's not like he was stocking up on cocktail roofies.

To add to GlobalMan, are girls allowed to close their eyes or be relaxed during sex, oral, or massage? This new check in every 5 seconds world is so dumb, and the rules are being pushed by "people who wouldn't know a good time if it sat on their face."

Post: #105

I’m still undecided about this case. Need more data and deliberation. The media hysteria is certainly shameless as usual though.
A few observations:

(06-07-2016 10:18 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 09:06 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  2. Intoxication is not a defense except in limited circumstance w specific intent crimes. If you can move your muscles, you have the general criminal intent necessary. Extreme intoxication on the border of unconsciousness makes consent impossible.

If intoxication voids the "victim's" consent, why wouldn't it also void the "perpetrator's" guilt?
… After all, it seems to me extremely clear that giving consent to sex requires much less analytical prowess and presence of mind than trying to figure out whether consent is "valid" under a given circumstance

This is a great point that is under-noticed and I’d like emphasize it. I wonder what the law says about this though. If the law has deemed that extreme intoxication nulls the victim’s consent but not the penetrator’s guilt, then maybe the judges were just following the law. In this case it's the law that's problematic and needs to be modified.

(06-07-2016 10:47 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  She wasn't merely intoxicated. She was unconscious. Unconscious people can't give consent.

She was likely on the verge of unconsciousness, but probably not completely unconscious when the fingering happens. Here is what she said:

Quote: And you’re right, maybe I was still fluttering my eyes and wasn’t completely limp yet, fine. His guilt did not depend on him knowing the exact second that I became unconscious, that is never what this was about. I was slurring, too drunk to consent way before I was on the ground. I should have never been touched in the first place

(06-07-2016 11:16 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  Cassanova literally asks whether he can insert one or more of his digits 'midst her pudenda.

GIRL LITERALLY FUCKING AGREES AT THAT POINT AND DOES NOT DISPUTE CONSENT GIVEN AT THAT POINT DURING TRIAL.

Not saying I believe the girl, but from what I understand she did contest his testament that he asked for consent.

Quote: I want to remind you, the night after it happened he said he never planned to take me back to his dorm. He said he didn’t know why we were behind a dumpster. He got up to leave because he wasn’t feeling well when he was suddenly chased and attacked. Then he learned I could not remember.

So one year later, as predicted, a new dialogue emerged. Brock had a strange new story, almost sounded like a poorly written young adult novel with kissing and dancing and hand holding and lovingly tumbling onto the ground, and most importantly in this new story, there was suddenly consent. One year after the incident, he remembered, oh yeah, by the way she actually said yes, to everything, so.

He said he had asked if I wanted to dance. Apparently I said yes. He’d asked if I wanted to go to his dorm, I said yes. Then he asked if he could finger me and I said yes. Most guys don’t ask, can I finger you? Usually there’s a natural progression of things, unfolding consensually, not a Q and A. But apparently I granted full permission. He’s in the clear. Even in his story, I only said a total of three words, yes yes yes, before he had me half naked on the ground. Future reference, if you are confused about whether a girl can consent, see if she can speak an entire sentence. You couldn’t even do that. Just one coherent string of words. Where was the confusion? This is common sense, human decency.

What she’s saying is: she doesn’t remember whether she said yes. She doubts it because it sounds unnatural and he said something different before he learned that she didn’t remember anything. Then she contends that if she’s too drunk to speak a full sentence, her intoxication has reached a point that is enough to make her consent void – appealing to what sp5 said above:

(06-07-2016 09:06 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  Extreme intoxication on the border of unconsciousness makes consent impossible.

(06-06-2016 07:11 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  In other words she's admitting she was by no means unconscious when he started "fingering" her which she herself said she "liked".

I’m still figuring out what the case is but, as a matter of fact, she didn’t say/admit that she liked it.

Quote: In the next paragraph, I read something that I will never forgive; I read that according to him, I liked it. I liked it. Again, I do not have words for these feelings.

… The night after it happened, he said he thought I liked it because I rubbed his back. A back rub.

Never mentioned me voicing consent, never mentioned us even speaking, a back rub. One more time, in public news, I learned that my ass and vagina were completely exposed outside, my breasts had been groped, fingers had been jabbed inside me along with pine needles and debris, my bare skin and head had been rubbing against the ground behind a dumpster, while an erect freshman was humping my half naked, unconscious body. But I don’t remember, so how do I prove I didn’t like it.

There is an "I liked it" sentence but it is simply a quoting repetition of the report, which she doubts. She’s saying that she couldn’t forgive that he said she liked it just because according to him she rubbed his back.

(06-07-2016 02:59 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 02:48 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  I've passed out while a girl was blowing me, more than once in fact. I'm going to track down those fucking rapists and pursue charges to the fullest extent of the law, as I don't think they stopped blowing me immediately.

They were very careful about how they worded the law.

Quote:Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration

Her sucking your dick isn't penetration on her part so there is no crime. If she walks in while you're passed out, starts blowing you, then passes out mid-BJ, you're guilty of rape.

Well, actually the law covered female-on-male rape as well. Read it again:

Quote: (1) “Sexual penetration” is the act of causing the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of any person or causing another person to so penetrate the defendant's or another person's genital or anal opening for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or by any unknown object.

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/p...t-289.html

==

Lastly, there is one thing she said that caught my attention:

Quote:I thought there’s no way this is going to trial; there were witnesses, there was dirt in my body, he ran but was caught. He’s going to settle, formally apologize, and we will both move on. Instead, I was told he hired a powerful attorney, expert witnesses, private investigators who were going to try and find details about my personal life to use against me, find loopholes in my story to invalidate me and my sister, in order to show that this sexual assault was in fact a misunderstanding. That he was going to go to any length to convince the world he had simply been confused.

I wonder if this is genuine or just a shameless attempt at emotional manipulation, feigning generous compassion? Do you think she would really forgive him if he had just apologized from the beginning?


==


Just trying to make a few things clear. As I said, I'm still undecided on this case. I'm willing to take a stance or change my opinion if a compelling enough argument is made.

Post: #106

So this guy is a finger raper, who only starts his fingering assault after the victim consents. An people on my Facebook have memes an comments about how this kid should die, get rapped everyday in prison for the rest of his life, and burn in hell......
"Murica"

I stirred the pot on Facebook by replying to a few of the memes and post people are making about this case. These people know nothing John Snow. They only know what memes are telling them. I bet 95% of them don't know that she was only penetrated by fingers... to which she consented to....

Post: #107

(06-07-2016 07:07 PM)Cr33pin Wrote:  So this guy is a finger raper, who only starts his fingering assault after the victim consents. An people on my Facebook have memes an comments about how this kid should die, get rapped everyday in prison for the rest of his life, and burn in hell......
"Murica"

Reminds me of the internet tough guy comments I always used to see back before news sites started removing or heavily moderating comment sections. Honestly, making impotent death threats online as virtue signaling has to be about the most pathetic thing there is.

Post: #108

After reviewing a great deal of material about this case, I'm more convinced than ever that a verdict of "not guilty" should have been returned. There is absolutely no way that a reasonable doubt threshold was met, or even approached, in this case.

In addition, I now believe there is a very good chance the case will be overturned on appeal. There are serious problems and irregularities with the testimony of the key witnesses in the case -- the two Swedish white-knights -- as well as with misleading and tendentious statements made by the prosecutor. The appeals lawyer that the Turners have hired, Dennis Riordan, is considered one of the very best in the country.

The key witness testimony irregularity is described in this article:

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/...sault-case

Quote:Last week, Armstrong asked Stanford graduate student Peter Jonsson, who tackled Turner after seeing that Doe was not moving while Turner was on top of her, to confirm that he didn't tell the investigating police officer about a key comment that he's since claimed he made that night. Kianerci used that phrase -- "What the ---- are you doing? She's unconscious" -- as the dramatic entry into her opening statement last Thursday. Jonsson confirmed he didn't tell the investigating officer that.

Armstrong was Turner's defense attorney in the trial, and Kianerci was the prosecutor. Jonsson was the main witness, one of the two Swedes. The outcome of the trial essentially hinged on Jonsson's testimony, and particularly on the remark that he supposedly made upon supposedly seeing Turner "on top" of the girl: "What the ---- are you doing? She's unconscious". However, as this passage shows, Jonsson admitted under cross-examination that he never told the investigating officer about this remark, at any point.

The case should have been thrown out at that point; it is clear that this witness was coached by the prosecution to give testimony that would maximize the chances of conviction. It should also be noted (as I already wrote earlier) that after hearing the testimony of the "victim" and the Swedes, the rape charges were immediately withdrawn. But they managed to convict Turner of the bogus other three charges based on coached testimony and completely improper and tendentious statements by the prosecutor (telling the jury that Turner was "the face of sexual assault on campus").

In sum, this is a ridiculous he said / she said case. The testimony of the main witnesses was inconsistent and tendentious, and in any case never proved that the girl was accosted or fingered in any way while unconscious (the witnesses did not see this happen). It was tried in a witch hunt atmosphere that has pervaded US college campuses, and Stanford in particular -- read about the latter here:

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/...rvey-finds

There is a good chance the case will be overturned on appeal. It will be a great day if that happens.

In addition, I have some speculative thoughts about the "victim letter" and the role of a particular character in fanning the flames in this case, but I'll keep those for a later time. For now, suffice it to say that the hysteria surrounding this case and the incredible media frenzy unleashed against Turner is uniquely disgusting and shows how strong this EVIL has become in today's society. Here is a truly chilling and sinister Washington Post piece for those who can stomach this sort of Year Zero monstrosity:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/why...story.html

Post: #109

(06-07-2016 07:07 PM)Cr33pin Wrote:  So this guy is a finger raper, who only starts his fingering assault after the victim consents. An people on my Facebook have memes an comments about how this kid should die, get rapped everyday in prison for the rest of his life, and burn in hell......
"Murica"

I stirred the pot on Facebook by replying to a few of the memes and post people are making about this case. These people know nothing John Snow. They only know what memes are telling them. I bet 95% of them don't know that she was only penetrated by fingers... to which she consented to....

This is what it is all about. The ability to garner violent homicidal rage in the sheep. Then choose where to direct it - 'elite' white kids. Don't make any mistake, I got a sudden 'Raped by the Elite' suggestion by Youtube today. If you knew my search history, you'd know there was ZERO way that happens organically.

Notice how EACH AND EVERY time in these rape culture cases, it is always a middle to upper class white guy.

Name me a single 'rape culture' story without the alleged perp being white college educated?

Post: #110

I've seen a number of people on Facebook, who are outraged about the white privilege supposedly on display with the lenient six month sentence the kid received, bring up Brian Banks as an example of how black people are railroaded by the justice system. As most of you guys know, Brian Banks was a star high school football who spent five years in prison for a rape he didn't commit, and only got out because the accuser finally admitted she made it up.

These people (SJWs) bringing up Brian Banks to make a point about white privilege are the same exact people who always go on about rape culture, victim blaming, how you must always "believe women" and that false rape accusations aren't really a thing. Their lack of self awareness is staggering.

Post: #111

It's worth noting that the judge in the case clearly realized that Turner's testimony was compelling and very likely truthful, and one even gets the sense that he disagreed with the verdict. Here are some quotes from this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/...dge-recall

Quote:The judge seemed to show some sympathy to Turner’s perspective. “I take him at his word that subjectively that’s his version of his events. … I’m not convinced that his lack of complete acquiescence to the verdict should count against him,” he said.

Dauber said she was further shocked to see Persky minimize the significance of the guilty verdicts, which came from a jury of eight men and four women. The judge said at sentencing: “A trial is a search for the truth. It’s an imperfect process.”

Persky also appeared to rely heavily on letters that Turner’s friends and family sent and read an excerpt from a former classmate who told the judge she couldn’t believe the assault allegations.

“To me that just rings true,” the judge said. “It sort of corroborates the evidence of his character up until the night of this incident, which has been positive.”

The SJW hyenas are now trying to get the judge recalled for the unthinkably "light sentence" issued in the case. Of course the sentence was exactly what was recommended by the probationary commission, but that's not going to stop this witch hunt against a sane judge from moving forward.

Post: #112

(06-07-2016 09:49 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  It's worth noting that the judge in the case clearly realized that Turner's testimony was compelling and very likely truthful, and one even gets the sense that he disagreed with the verdict. Here are some quotes from this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/...dge-recall

Quote:The judge seemed to show some sympathy to Turner’s perspective. “I take him at his word that subjectively that’s his version of his events. … I’m not convinced that his lack of complete acquiescence to the verdict should count against him,” he said.

Dauber said she was further shocked to see Persky minimize the significance of the guilty verdicts, which came from a jury of eight men and four women. The judge said at sentencing: “A trial is a search for the truth. It’s an imperfect process.”

Persky also appeared to rely heavily on letters that Turner’s friends and family sent and read an excerpt from a former classmate who told the judge she couldn’t believe the assault allegations.

“To me that just rings true,” the judge said. “It sort of corroborates the evidence of his character up until the night of this incident, which has been positive.”

The SJW hyenas are now trying to get the judge recalled for the unthinkably "light sentence" issued in the case. Of course the sentence was exactly what was recommended by the probationary commission, but that's not going to stop this witch hunt against a sane judge from moving forward.

Yeah, I feel in some ways that the internet and mass media has ruined justice and turned it into mere mob rule, more akin to the Salem Witch Trials than a "progressive" society.

Not to mention the SJWs who presume "guilty of rape until proven innocent" just do a disservice to the actual victims; much like the boy who cried wolf, they share blame when no one believes an actual victim.

Post: #113

She didn't do her cause any favors when she lashed out at the court - prior to any ruling! Like a typical liar, she tried to reframe the trial from an investigation of facts, to a referendum on rape culture.

Quote:In court, the victim had spoken out against the inequities of the legal process, arguing that the trial, the sentencing and the legal system’s approach to sexual assault — from the defense lawyer’s questions about what she wore that night to her attacker’s sentence — were irrevocably marred by male and class privilege.

EDIT: I'm legitimately shocked no one has doxxed the "victim" yet.

Post: #114

(06-07-2016 08:17 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  I've tried rape cases, even got real rapists off.

I wrote a post on defending against false rape charges: /thread-29563.html

This does not look like a false charge to me. It's on the border between drunken poor judgment and predation.

The witnesses intervening and chasing the guy, her state, plus whatever lacerations and contusions she had seem to be the key pieces of evidence.

Jury convicted after strong instructions on presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt. Hard to question verdict without hearing all evidence.

Prosecutor's argument that he was face of campus sexual assault may have been improper, could lead to reversal, but usually cured by judge's admonition.

Sentence was lenient, after 15 years comparing boys from elite colleges and townies in court, I have no doubt that a townie working at McD's would have been hammered with years in state prison, not months in county lock up.

Please post more if you have time and analyze the case. Because we have everybody jumping on board saying he's definitely not guilty and it's one big conspiracy cause they're all out to get us. Yet you an attorney say it doesn't seem like a false rape charge, please elaborate.

Either way, kids an idiot in my mind for doing anything with a girl who was in a near blacked out state or unconscious, extremely bad judgement on his part. I've been in similar situations several times and even in my most wasted moments had the mental capacity to stop myself.

Post: #115

(06-07-2016 10:10 PM)Neo Wrote:  Because we have everybody jumping on board saying he's definitely not guilty and it's one big conspiracy cause they're all out to get us.

Who said that it was "one big conspiracy" and "they're all out to get us"?

Are you interested in finding out what happened in this case, or would you rather caricature and misrepresent the many detailed, sensible and informative posts in this thread? Did you even bother reading any of them?

Post: #116

I don't know enough details about this case to make an argument either way, but holy shit is there a terrifying piece written about it on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/opinions/s...index.html

Quote:We women know all too well about victim blaming, alcohol as an excuse for assault. It's not alcohol that's raping women; it is men.

Our sons, all the young men in our lives need to be told: Alcohol is never an excuse
As the victim wrote: "Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost fully naked."

It's black and white: If a woman is drunk, she can't consent.

Read that last line back again.

Quote:It's black and white: If a woman is drunk, she can't consent.

One more time to fully digest.

Quote:It's black and white: If a woman is drunk, she can't consent.

The stupidity and dictator-esque tyranny of such a statement is apparent on so many levels.

First, it is anything but black and white. What is "drunk?" Is one drink deep "drunk?" Is legally intoxicated for the purpose of driving (.08 BAC) "drunk?" There is in fact a tremendous gray area present when dealing with subjective terms like "drunk" that only a complete moron could be oblivious to.

Secondly, why does she feel the need to specify that a woman can't consent if she's drunk? Why didn't she say "if a person is drunk, he/she can't consent"? Does she want gender discrimination codified into law? Let's give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she'd want the law to be written gender-neutrally. So then what if both parties have sex while drunk? Did they both commit rape? Or did only the less intoxicated one commit rape?

This brings up the most obvious problem with her assertion; by any reasonable definition of "drunk," who hasn't committed rape under her characterization? It is not fucking rare for an individuals to have intercourse while one or more parties is intoxicated. Society tells us that rape is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable and that perpetrators should spend years, if not life in prison, and now this commentator is proposing a definition of rape that almost everyone would be guilty of; does this mean she believes the majority of adults deserve to be in prison? Can a person be this fucking stupid?

Of course, at this point I feel a little bit silly logically dissecting an oped that was simply a virtue-signalling faux-outrage piece designed to have a strictly emotional appeal.

Post: #117

(06-07-2016 07:27 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  After reviewing a great deal of material about this case, I'm more convinced than ever that a verdict of "not guilty" should have been returned. There is absolutely no way that a reasonable doubt threshold was met, or even approached, in this case ........... EDITED ON MY PART FOR BREVITY........

....Here is a truly chilling and sinister Washington Post piece for those who can stomach this sort of Year Zero monstrosity:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/why...story.html

SO, while I read the above article.. which was truly disgusting in it's own right.. I thought to myself.. let's have a look at the writer.. and.. guess what..



   

So Typical.. sooooo very typical.

Post: #118

By the way, to all those posters preaching how you should never get with drunk girls, how it's "extremely poor judgment" to do so, how everyone should realize this etc:

Please understand that sloppy drunken hookups are literally the main way that dudes and sluts get with each other on American college campuses, and have been for MANY YEARS. It's just a part of reality.

Young kids will do what everybody else is doing, and they cannot be blamed for it.

The exact same episode that led to poor Brock having his life ruined forever -- unless his appeal is successful -- has happened millions of times on US college campuses. This shit literally happens every day. A dude and some slut get drunk, go outside, sloppily mess with each other til one or both pass out. Then next morning get up no worse for the wear in their American youth and strength and go to swim practice or women's studies 201, as the case may be.

And no, the fact that the exact same thing happens all the time does not mean that Brock is the "face of campus sexual assault", that our colleges are filled with young white privileged monsters whose masks need to be ripped off. It means they are filled with kids who get drunk and sloppily hook up with each other because that's just how it is.

The ONLY difference in this case is that Brock happened to be on a campus where the "sexual assault" hysteria had been particularly savage; and that two accursed white-knighting Swedes happened to pass by just he was groggily getting up off that slut in his drunken daze. That's the difference between swim practice the next morning and maybe a morose text from the drunken slut, and a life very possibly ruined forever.

Post: #119

Wow even Mike Cernovich just came out saying he thought it was clear cut rape.

I agree with LOZ. The media is fooling alot of people. And the boys father wrote an easily misunderstood(or propagandized) letter like a dumbass.

Post: #120

(06-07-2016 11:17 PM)Burt Gummer Wrote:  Wow even Mike Cernovich just came out saying he thought it was clear cut rape.

I agree with LOZ. The media is fooling alot of people. And the boys father wrote an easily misunderstood(or propagandized) letter like a dumbass.

I just saw that tweet by Mike, and it's a bad misjudgment by him. I hope he reads this thread at some point. I've gone through a lot of material related to this case and would be able to provide many links on demand.

It's also possible, of course, that Mike doesn't want to fight every battle; the heat on this case is truly incredible, and helping Trump get elected takes precedence. But in that case it's best to just say nothing.

Post: #121

Depending on the county jail, that 3 months could be a death sentence for that kid. Or he could wind up the one that gets raped the real way.

You could get anybody sleeping next to you in the county jails I know about. It could be some guy who just got a life sentence, or some psycho off their meds. I have no idea if they have protective custody or not, because he's a sex offender.

I feel sorry for that dude.

Aloha!

Post: #122

Thank you for that human post Kona. I feel sorry for him as well.

Post: #123

(06-07-2016 11:27 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Thank you for that human post Kona. I feel sorry for him as well.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openf...968594.php

Read that.

That judge might have known exactly what he was doing with the "lenient" sentence.

Aloha!

Post: #124

This is one of those, "I'm Proud to be an RVF Member" threads.

Thanks to everyone, especially TLOZ.

Post: #125

Quote:Armstrong was Turner's defense attorney in the trial, and Kianerci was the prosecutor. Jonsson was the main witness, one of the two Swedes. The outcome of the trial essentially hinged on Jonsson's testimony, and particularly on the remark that he supposedly made upon supposedly seeing Turner "on top" of the girl: "What the ---- are you doing? She's unconscious". However, as this passage shows, Jonsson admitted under cross-examination that he never told the investigating officer about this remark, at any point.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but why is this a smoking gun? Is it possible that the specific words he said were not part of the witness interview conducted by the police? I don't see how saying he said "What the ---- are you doing? She's unconscious" on the stand without having mentioned doing so to the cops as proof of coaching by the prosecution. Furthermore, is witness coaching illegal? I thought that was standard practice.