Innocent Victims of "MeToo"


Tecumsehsbones
#1
A 25-year-old Maryland man with a long arrest record was charged with first-degree rape Wednesday amid allegations that he dragged the victim into a wooded area in Rockville as she walked from a Metro station just before midnight.

Detectives said they do not think he knew the woman, who is in her 30s and was hospitalized after the attack for kidney pain and injuries to her throat and face.

The woman fought the attacker and eventually was able to break away and run to a nearby office building. Surveillance video shows her rushing to the glass doors and looking over her shoulder to see if he was chasing her. A security guard helped her and called the police.

Investigators were led to the suspect, Dustin Thomas Rogers, in large part because he left his iPhone at the crime scene, according to Montgomery District Court records filed Thursday. Detectives also reviewed surveillance video from a convenience store near the scene that showed Rogers making a credit card purchase at 11:36 p.m. Tuesday, just minutes before the attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.057be68d9b24

What evidence does she have to corroborate her story?
 
MHz
#2
Are you suggesting she tried to rob him and he fought back?

Having your criminals take their phones along is a good way to ensure your prisons are always full.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#3
Take your pills.
 
Mowich
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

A 25-year-old Maryland man with a long arrest record was charged with first-degree rape Wednesday amid allegations that he dragged the victim into a wooded area in Rockville as she walked from a Metro station just before midnight.

Detectives said they do not think he knew the woman, who is in her 30s and was hospitalized after the attack for kidney pain and injuries to her throat and face.

The woman fought the attacker and eventually was able to break away and run to a nearby office building. Surveillance video shows her rushing to the glass doors and looking over her shoulder to see if he was chasing her. A security guard helped her and called the police.

Investigators were led to the suspect, Dustin Thomas Rogers, in large part because he left his iPhone at the crime scene, according to Montgomery District Court records filed Thursday. Detectives also reviewed surveillance video from a convenience store near the scene that showed Rogers making a credit card purchase at 11:36 p.m. Tuesday, just minutes before the attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.057be68d9b24

What evidence does she have to corroborate her story?


Going only by what you have written as I am unable to access the article, I'd have to say that unless she had a rape kit done while in hospital that can nail this perp, I see no other factual evidenceto support her claim. I see a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to the truth of her allegations. His long history of similar crimes, his phone at the crime scene and the video proving he was in the area at the time are all most compelling.

Then maybe I'm missing something here.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

Going only by what you have written as I am unable to access the article, I'd have to say that unless she had a rape kit done while in hospital that can nail this perp, I see no other factual evidenceto support her claim. I see a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to the truth of her allegations. His long history of similar crimes, his phone at the crime scene and the video proving he was in the area at the time are all most compelling.
Then maybe I'm missing something here.

Could be. His rap sheet indicates an inability to distinguish what is and isn't his to take, and a willingness to acquire what he wants by threat of violence. One might presume this includes sex.

On the other hand, he has never been convicted of rape or sexual assault, so we have only her word to indicate that she didn't consent, and then get mad at him later.

So it's a "he said, she said" thing. And he's white, but not country-club white.
 
Mowich
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Could be. His rap sheet indicates an inability to distinguish what is and isn't his to take, and a willingness to acquire what he wants by threat of violence. One might presume this includes sex.

On the other hand, he has never been convicted of rape or sexual assault, so we have only her word to indicate that she didn't consent, and then get mad at him later.

So it's a "he said, she said" thing. And he's white, but not country-club white.

My bad, I assumed that he had been convicted of sexual crimes. That he hasn't could mean that he has altered his criminal behavior to include rape; that he's done so in the past but wasn't charged or that it isn't part of his MO and he didn't commit this offense.
 
White_Unifier
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

Going only by what you have written as I am unable to access the article, I'd have to say that unless she had a rape kit done while in hospital that can nail this perp, I see no other factual evidenceto support her claim. I see a lot of circumstantial evidence that points to the truth of her allegations. His long history of similar crimes, his phone at the crime scene and the video proving he was in the area at the time are all most compelling.
Then maybe I'm missing something here.

Even a rape kit test might prove only that a sexual act occurred, not necessarily how willing the participants in the act are. That's the problem with this kind of crime: because it's so difficult to prove, a judge might acquit nine out of ten accused even though he knows that of those he acquits, nine out of ten are probably guilty. We could lower the burden of proof to balance of probabilities to increase the probability of the guilty being convicted, but then that would increase the risk of the innocent being convicted too. Between the two options, I'd rather let nine out of ten rapists go free to reduce the risk of a wrongful conviction. It's a choice society has to make.
 
MHz
+1
#8
How many first dates take place in the bushes in a deserted park at night. I doubt she has a history that would suggest that and if she did it sure as hell wouldn't be a secret.
 
White_Unifier
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

How many first dates take place in the bushes in a deserted park at night. I doubt she has a history that would suggest that and if she did it sure as hell wouldn't be a secret.

I'm not privy to the details of the case. There may be enough proof to convict him. I don't know.
 
MHz
#10
I noticed that also. That should be the norm until the trial is over, if there is one and I don't see many women putting on a show because they need some drama in their lives. She should come out of the interview with a piece of paper that is an open carry permit and a big discount down at the gun-range where the pic on the target is her attacker.
That might tempt the person to enter a guilty plea rather than get out and killed late at night where the killer gets away.
 
White_Unifier
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

I noticed that also. That should be the norm until the trial is over, if there is one and I don't see many women putting on a show because they need some drama in their lives. She should come out of the interview with a piece of paper that is an open carry permit and a big discount down at the gun-range where the pic on the target is her attacker.
That might tempt the person to enter a guilty plea rather than get out and killed late at night where the killer gets away.

Therein lies the problem. I'm sure nine out of ten women who claim rape are telling the truth, but how do we tell them apart from the one out of then who aren't?
 
MHz
#12
Waterboarding in open court would sway the jury in the right direction I'm sure.
 
White_Unifier
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

Waterboarding in open court would sway the jury in the right direction I'm sure.

The accuser, the defendant, or the jury? Whom are you proposing we waterboard?
 
Mowich
+3
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Even a rape kit test might prove only that a sexual act occurred, not necessarily how willing the participants in the act are. That's the problem with this kind of crime: because it's so difficult to prove, a judge might acquit nine out of ten accused even though he knows that of those he acquits, nine out of ten are probably guilty. We could lower the burden of proof to balance of probabilities to increase the probability of the guilty being convicted, but then that would increase the risk of the innocent being convicted too. Between the two options, I'd rather let nine out of ten rapists go free to reduce the risk of a wrongful conviction. It's a choice society has to make.

A rape kit would give authorities the perps DNA.

Yes well, with the me2 bunch twits continually making unfounded unsubstantiated allegations every chance they get, the last thing we need is to lower the burden of proof.
 
Mowich
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

How many first dates take place in the bushes in a deserted park at night. I doubt she has a history that would suggest that and if she did it sure as hell wouldn't be a secret.


Good point, MHZ............still doesn't prove he did it.
 
Mowich
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

The accuser, the defendant, or the jury? Whom are you proposing we waterboard?


The Judge.
 
MHz
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

The accuser, the defendant, or the jury? Whom are you proposing we waterboard?

OMG my first name is 'all the Lawyers', I'm a racist.
 
White_Unifier
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

A rape kit would give authorities the perps DNA.
Yes well, with the me2 bunch twits continually making unfounded unsubstantiated allegations every chance they get, the last thing we need is to lower the burden of proof.

Correction: it would give the alleged perp's DNA. Just to play the devil's advocate, what happens if he turns around and says she sexually assaulted him, ran to the police, and accused him of sexually assaulting her? Again, all a rape kit test would prove is that he had sex with her, not that he raped her. Of course he might have raped her, but the rape kit test alone would probably not prove that without some kind of additional proof to establish assault.
Last edited by White_Unifier; 1 week ago at 08:14 PM..
 
Jinentonix
+3
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

A 25-year-old Maryland man with a long arrest record was charged with first-degree rape Wednesday amid allegations that he dragged the victim into a wooded area in Rockville as she walked from a Metro station just before midnight.
Detectives said they do not think he knew the woman, who is in her 30s and was hospitalized after the attack for kidney pain and injuries to her throat and face.
The woman fought the attacker and eventually was able to break away and run to a nearby office building. Surveillance video shows her rushing to the glass doors and looking over her shoulder to see if he was chasing her. A security guard helped her and called the police.
Investigators were led to the suspect, Dustin Thomas Rogers, in large part because he left his iPhone at the crime scene, according to Montgomery District Court records filed Thursday. Detectives also reviewed surveillance video from a convenience store near the scene that showed Rogers making a credit card purchase at 11:36 p.m. Tuesday, just minutes before the attack.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.057be68d9b24
What evidence does she have to corroborate her story?

I'm not sure what your title is alluding to. The man was charged, not convicted. The police are merely doing their job. For them there's probably enough evidence to warrant a charge. It'll be up to the courts to determine if it and any other evidence is compelling enough for a conviction.
Then again, I know of two relatively recently released people who were wrongfully convicted of rape where the prosecutors in the cases basically railroaded them into prison by withholding evidence in one case and having evidence quashed in another that would have exonerated the accused.
In the latter case, the "victim's" lawyer was a woman who used the pathetic excuse that she simply believed the girl, despite the mountain of evidence against her claim.
 
B00Mer
+4
#20  Top Rated Post
Honestly this metoo movement "crying rape" is taking away from the real rape victims..

False accusations make it harder for real rape victims to come forward because of what they will have to go through..
 
10larry
#21
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/...cally-believe/
 
Twin_Moose
+2
#22
There must have been enough evidence to charge the perp. but he still has the right to be heard by a court of his peers and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
 
White_Unifier
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

I'm not sure what your title is alluding to. The man was charged, not convicted. The police are merely doing their job. For them there's probably enough evidence to warrant a charge. It'll be up to the courts to determine if it and any other evidence is compelling enough for a conviction.
Then again, I know of two relatively recently released people who were wrongfully convicted of rape where the prosecutors in the cases basically railroaded them into prison by withholding evidence in one case and having evidence quashed in another that would have exonerated the accused.
In the latter case, the "victim's" lawyer was a woman who used the pathetic excuse that she simply believed the girl, despite the mountain of evidence against her claim.

I know of a friend's wife's case (an immigration and not a criminal case mind you) in which sometimes similar happened. He showed me the police and CBSA reports and hearing transcripts and I found them quite shocking in the degree of broken English among other things. That even raised questions about the functional literacy of the officers involved.

The person was accused of working in Canada without a visa and insisted that she could prove the falsity of the officers' claims and that other witnesses could vouch for her if only her lawyer could get the names of the officers and of the witnesses mentioned in the police report.

The Minister's counsel refused to present the names of the officers or of any witness even though the police report made reference to those witnesses (with names blacked out mind you). The Minister's counsel said that if the accused's counsel wanted those names, she'd have to go through the Access to Information Act. Due to times constraints, the accused decided to proceed without witnesses in a he-said-it-said case (referring to reports written by anonymous police officers). Luckily for her, the first judge concluded that even though in the British adversarial system, the Minister's counsel did have a right to refuse to present requested information, he had to take that refusal into consideration in his decision and, given the broken English in which the report was written with some parts being difficult to understand and some making little sense, he ruled in her favour on a balance of probabilities.

To her surprise, the Minister appealed the decision and the second judge ruled that the first judge was wrong in not taking the anonymous police report at face value and requiring the accused to prove the falsity of the report. This in spite of the fact that she claimed that she could do so only if she could get a statement from the witnesses (whom she didn't personally know but believed would vouch in her favour by simply narrating what they'd actually seen even if they didn't know her personally) and by getting a more precise statement from the officers involved (since the report was written in somewhat vague terms when referring to key points of evidence, not to mention written in very broken English that was difficult to decipher in some parts).

The above shows just how severely flawed the British adversarial system is in such cases. If I ever were arrested for something, I'd absolutely want a constitutional right to an inquisitorial trial (which unfortunately our constitution does not presently guarantee) as a kind of nuclear option. While it might give the judge more search, seizure, and interrogation powers against me and while it might forfeit my right to remain silent, it would on the other hand give the judge full power to access all original unedited police files against me and to interview any witness he needs to to get to the truth of the matter.

From what I've seen at least from what I'd read of my friend's wife's case, the British adversarial system leads to nothing more than a kangaroo court where the Minister's counsel or prosecutor may hold the only key to the proof of the accused's innocence but has the express task of presenting only that proof that demonstrates her guilt (and is even paid by the taxpayer to do just that). How does that not constitute a kangaroo court?
 
Serryah
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by B00Mer View Post

Honestly this metoo movement "crying rape" is taking away from the real rape victims..

False accusations make it harder for real rape victims to come forward because of what they will have to go through..


Okay, so who do you know is telling the truth?

"Crying Rape" is only the first thing that happens. The problem is that the moment that "Rape" is cried, a woman is likely to be disbelieved rather than believed, is likelier to be mocked or threatened than not and that's before the investigation starts. And not only women. I'd be scared to know what men go through if they reported a rape.

I'm not saying that there aren't cases of people claiming Rape when there was none, I'm not that stupid. The point is, just how do you prove Rape happens when most of the time people work against you, not for you?

Don't blame Me Too for it, put the blame where it goes, onto the people who don't believe something happened to begin with.
 
White_Unifier
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

Okay, so who do you know is telling the truth?
"Crying Rape" is only the first thing that happens. The problem is that the moment that "Rape" is cried, a woman is likely to be disbelieved rather than believed, is likelier to be mocked or threatened than not and that's before the investigation starts. And not only women. I'd be scared to know what men go through if they reported a rape.
I'm not saying that there aren't cases of people claiming Rape when there was none, I'm not that stupid. The point is, just how do you prove Rape happens when most of the time people work against you, not for you?
Don't blame Me Too for it, put the blame where it goes, onto the people who don't believe something happened to begin with.

I agree it's a complicated situation. I'm sure nine claims out of ten are true. The problem for the judge is telling them apart from the one out of ten. Because rape is so difficult to prove, unless we want to put innocent people in jail, we end up with a situation in which a judge will acquit nine defendants out of ten even though he know that nine out of ten are probably guilty. If a person (man or woman) is accused of rape, I'd say from the start nine out of ten chance he or she is guilty; yet because he or she may be innocent, I can't take the law into my own hands.

As for the complainant, nine times out of ten she (or he) survived sexual assault. In the end, all we can really do in the absence of proof in most cases is to believe both sides and to acquit. Very rarely will there be sufficient proof for a conviction.

The above presents a new problem though. Since we know that nine out of ten accused are guilty but that maybe only one out of ten are convicted because we can't always tell the guilty apart from the innocent, our better sentiments lead us to want to do something about it. That's where rape-shield laws come in. While they may increase the conviction rate, they also increase the risk of a wrongful conviction. Another proposal I've read was to reduce the burden of proof to proof of rape on a balance of probabilities and of a sexual act beyond reasonable doubt. While that too would increase the conviction rate, it too would lead to a higher risk of a wrongful conviction.

My preferred solution would be the right to an inquisitorial trial with protection from rape-shield laws (so as to reduce the risk of a wrongful conviction) and make fornication a heavily fineable offence. That would have the benefit of deterring sexual assaults (since fornication would be easier to prove than sexual assault) while still maintaining adequate protection against a wrongful finding of guilt (since the person would still be fined for something that he would have been proved guilty of beyond reasonable doubt after due process with all of the protections the state could afford to give such as the right to an inquisitorial trial and protection from rape-shield laws.

There may exist other options too; but at the end of the day, radical feminists need to understand that even when a rape does occur, it usually can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt and so the judge can't usually tell the rapist apart from an innocent accused. Radical feminists need to address this reality head on rather than spew a hate-on for men.

By the way, women too can sexually coerce boys and even men into sex. I know. And that further adds to the complexity of the case since a judge can't even rightfully just assume that the perpetrator is necessarily the male and the victim the female. Sometimes when there is sexual harassment and counter sexual harassment (and yes that can happen when one party tries to pressure the other into a sex act and other then responds by forcing the first into another sex act that that person didn't want), we can't assume even when there is proof of one party coercing the other that the coercion or other abuse was not reciprocal.

So many complexities abound in these kinds of cases that even when the party or parties is or are guilty, seldom can the state prove it conclusively. Though I do not deny that most accusations are probably true and that most perpetrators are probably acquitted, I still think that feminism fails to address the complexities of the matter. Even though probably nine out of ten perpetrators are acquitted, some innocents still end up convicted. The question then becomes how we as a society are to address these imperfections in the system. Feminism needs to stop skirting around these complexities and address them head on if it's to remain relevant.
 
MHz
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

OMG my first name is 'all the Lawyers', I'm a racist.

I'm going to stick with water-boarding the Lawyers just for the fuk of it. The ones that smile can only defend people.

Neither side has access to any Lawyers, the 3 Judges go over the 'proof' and the two people tell their version and accept questions from the jury and the next morning the verdict is read out. About 10PM the stupid questions will have gone home.
 
Mowich
+2
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

Don't blame Me Too for it, put the blame where it goes, onto the people who don't believe something happened to begin with.

There is little I take on blind faith anymore. Both sides of the story are essential. Investigations into the allegations must thorough and detailed. Once all the facts of the case are known, judgement can be rendered.
 
taxslave
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Serryah View Post

Okay, so who do you know is telling the truth?
"Crying Rape" is only the first thing that happens. The problem is that the moment that "Rape" is cried, a woman is likely to be disbelieved rather than believed, is likelier to be mocked or threatened than not and that's before the investigation starts. And not only women. I'd be scared to know what men go through if they reported a rape.
I'm not saying that there aren't cases of people claiming Rape when there was none, I'm not that stupid. The point is, just how do you prove Rape happens when most of the time people work against you, not for you?
Don't blame Me Too for it, put the blame where it goes, onto the people who don't believe something happened to begin with.

How about when the woman waits 35 years to bring the subject up?
 
Hoid
#29
statute of limitations on right and wrong.
 
pgs
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

statute of limitations on right and wrong.

You tell me . Did some young lady ever push your hand away ?