The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, October 10th, 2012 9:16am PDT - promote requested by Boise_Lib.

I'm glad she won. This blame-the-victim mentality in our societies needs to be reversed for good. And that defense lawyer needs to be named and shamed (my cursory Googling suggests that he/they are never named).

Why would any woman in this day and age go home with a man she met online on their first date? How can any woman think that is a good idea? Same goes for a man. Do people not understand how many sick, depraved people are out there?

It sounds like she was horribly raped and beaten. Terrible.

That defense attorney should be disbarred for requesting her diary and internet searches. Some defense attorneys are just scum. "It would help establish if she thought there was a criminal act from my client." Are you serious? So he assumes that she is into some kinky rape and beat me for 5 hours fetish?

*news *controversy *sexuality

Adding video to channels (Controversy, News, Sexuality) - requested by MrFisk.

former anesthesiologist? wonder how many women he "put under" and did shit to in the past?

Damn Prometheus honest trailer - I can't stop hearing "Noomi Rapeface"....

Not that I disbelieve the victim/woman in this case, but as a hypothetical (devil's advocate), what if the content of conversation throughout the date leading up to the attack pertained almost entirely to sadomasochistic sexplay? What if her google searches in the days/hours leading up to the date had to do with bondage and domination?

Not that such a finding would ever excuse the kind of abuse that it appears this woman had to endure, but could that have influenced the jury's verdict and/or the sentence of the defendant in this case?

So.... aren't you proving in your question here that the Google searches are irrelevant? If nothing can excuse the abuse she suffered? If she had looked at bondage sites? So what? Clearly the safe word wasn't honored.


>> ^Trancecoach:

Not that I disbelieve the victim/woman in this case, but as a hypothetical (devil's advocate), what if the content of conversation throughout the date leading up to the attack pertained almost entirely to sadomasochistic sexplay? What if her google searches in the days/hours leading up to the date had to do with bondage and domination?
Not that such a finding would ever excuse the kind of abuse that it appears this woman had to endure, but could that have influenced the jury's verdict and/or the sentence of the defendant in this case?

does it matter in terms of the verdict or sentencing?>> ^bareboards2:

So.... aren't you proving in your question here that the Google searches are irrelevant? If nothing can excuse the abuse she suffered? If she had looked at bondage sites? So what? Clearly the safe word wasn't honored.

>> ^Trancecoach:
Not that I disbelieve the victim/woman in this case, but as a hypothetical (devil's advocate), what if the content of conversation throughout the date leading up to the attack pertained almost entirely to sadomasochistic sexplay? What if her google searches in the days/hours leading up to the date had to do with bondage and domination?
Not that such a finding would ever excuse the kind of abuse that it appears this woman had to endure, but could that have influenced the jury's verdict and/or the sentence of the defendant in this case?

@Trancecoach -- you get that is this victim blaming, right? An interest in bondage et al does not mean you are consenting to being raped and beaten. Just as going to his house, which is a dumb move, doesn't mean you deserve what happens. Or wearing a short skirt. This is all the same thing -- be careful, or it is your fault.

The guy was a professional, he is good looking, I'll bet he was charming. There are loads of one night stands out there that take one of each gender (on average!) that don't end in rape.

Especially nowadays -- Fifty Shades of Gray, an apparently terribly written book, is the best selling book of all time. So if you have read that, you better not go to a stranger's house?

Am I missing your point? I feel like I might be missing your point...

Yes, you're missing my point entirely.
She prevents the court from subpoenaing her google searches. What if said searches indicate that she was, in fact, seeking said experience? At what point are said searches immaterial in a court of law? >> ^bareboards2:

@Trancecoach -- you get that is this victim blaming, right? An interest in bondage et al does not mean you are consenting to being raped and beaten. Just as going to his house, which is a dumb move, doesn't mean you deserve what happens. Or wearing a short skirt. This is all the same thing -- be careful, or it is your fault.
The guy was a professional, he is good looking, I'll bet he was charming. There are loads of one night stands out there that take one of each gender (on average!) that don't end in rape.
Especially nowadays -- Fifty Shades of Gray, an apparently terribly written book, is the best selling book of all time. So if you have read that, you better not go to a stranger's house?
Am I missing your point? I feel like I might be missing your point...

@Trancecoach, an interest in bondage is very far removed from being choked and raped.

This is classic slut shaming, honey. Interested in kinky sex? Oh, but then you changed your mind because you are a dirty dirty girl and are so ashamed of what you did.

The google searches are irrelevant.

What is relevant is what he did to her.

haha, @bareboards2, you seem quite eager to jump into epithets, dear.. even before responding to the question I'm actually asking! It isn't slut shaming so much as it is an inquiry into the facts of the case?
There's a lot of dubiousness when it comes to "he said/she said" accusations, let alone what constitutes "consent" between adults behind closed doors.

Let me reiterate for the third time (since you seem to have missed it the first two times I stated it) that I am not making any claims or suggestions about the facts or issues pertinent to the particular case described in this video (and, while you're attempts to suggest that I am are entertaining, I do feel somewhat insulted by them). My query simply poses the question as to whether a plaintiff's google searches are always immaterial or if there are special hypothetical cases (which I raised as such in my first and subsequent posts on this thread) by which that would not be the case.

In other words, where/how does one draw the line (without casting ad hominems at your interlocutor)?


>> ^bareboards2:

@Trancecoach, an interest in bondage is very far removed from being choked and raped.
This is classic slut shaming, honey. Interested in kinky sex? Oh, but then you changed your mind because you are a dirty dirty girl and are so ashamed of what you did.
The google searches are irrelevant.
What is relevant is what he did to her.

@Trancecoach, maybe if we changed the crime from rape, a notoriously difficult situation under any circumstance, to some other crime.

Because when the crime is rape, and a woman's sexual activities outside the actual event are introduced, things get hairy.

So. Push the reset button. Let's pick another crime and see if google searches are pertinent.

Building a bomb. How did they learn how to build the bomb? Did they search the internet for sources of materials? Did they order the materials online? Yeah, I'll say a subpoena for that information is in order.

Child pornography. Yeah, I think you are going to need the computer for that.

Organizing a terrorist cell. Yeah, email records, I think that is admissible evidence in court.

Even the judge in this case found the subpoena for her google searches and her journals that recorded her healing process after the rape to be inappropriate and voided them.

I glad she had that judge. Who restricted the case to the physical evidence of assault.

So google searches are never pertinent in case of this type? Only for those case by which the computer is instrumental? No exceptions? I wonder if there is a principle which can be drawn.

>> ^bareboards2:

@Trancecoach, maybe if we changed the crime from rape, a notoriously difficult situation under any circumstance, to some other crime.
Because when the crime is rape, and a woman's sexual activities outside the actual event are introduced, things get hairy.
So. Push the reset button. Let's pick another crime and see if google searches are pertinent.
Building a bomb. How did they learn how to build the bomb? Did they search the internet for sources of materials? Did they order the materials online? Yeah, I'll say a subpoena for that information is in order.
Child pornography. Yeah, I think you are going to need the computer for that.
Organizing a terrorist cell. Yeah, email records, I think that is admissible evidence in court.
Even the judge in this case found the subpoena for her google searches and her journals that recorded her healing process after the rape to be inappropriate and voided them.
I glad she had that judge. Who restricted the case to the physical evidence of assault.

Principal would be --- the google search is related to the crime. The accused criminal does the action, not the victim of the criminal.

@Trancecoach, in my opinion. And as supported by the judge in this case, who did something unprecedented in voiding the subpoena.

Ok, so the plaintiff's google searches are never applicable? Is that because they're "not related to the crime?"

>> ^bareboards2:

Principal would be --- the google search is related to the crime. The accused criminal does the action, not the victim of the criminal.
@Trancecoach, in my opinion. And as supported by the judge in this case, who did something unprecedented in voiding the subpoena.

Yep, @Trancecoach, I guess that is what I am saying. In addition to the journals she kept with pen and paper as part of her healing process.