[TheMaleBrain]

Here is a new thought for a woman - If you lost the case, how about moving on?

The case (link in Hebrew):
4 years ago, an Israeli celebrity was charged with sexual assault.
A new female employee said that on a business trip he texted her to come to his room, and forced himself on her. She claimed that she did what she could, but then just gave up and let him fuck her - "just to get it over with and let her go".
She went to the police.

He was arrested, interrogated and confronted his accuser. The prosecution backed down and decided that due to "lack of guilt" and no supporting evidence the case was closed.

Fast forward to today:
The girl filed a civil lawsuit.
Her female attorney stated that they believe she was raped. In response to the celeb worrying about her trying to get rich off his back, she also said: "we will donate the money to sexual harassment support groups"
The celeb said that he hopes that the judge will throw her out of court, and will award him high attorney's fees.

My analysis:
Simple case of regret.
She slept with status, hoped to get famous, but was denied.
Falsly charged him, got thrown out of court and though how to get back at him.
Came up with the idea of civil lawsuit.
Also remember that the prosecution are mostly female based. If they closed the case...

Conclusion:
A case of fame-seeker gold-digging whore.

I wish the celeb to get an extremely high attorney's fee, but I don't count on it.

[H1N1]

(11-26-2015 11:06 AM)TheMaleBrain Wrote:  

Here is a new thought for a woman - If you lost the case, how about moving on?

The case (link in Hebrew):
4 years ago, an Israeli celebrity was charged with sexual assault.
A new female employee said that on a business trip he texted her to come to his room, and forced himself on her. She claimed that she did what she could, but then just gave up and let him fuck her - "just to get it over with and let her go".
She went to the police.

He was arrested, interrogated and confronted his accuser. The prosecution backed down and decided that due to "lack of guilt" and no supporting evidence the case was closed.

Fast forward to today:
The girl filed a civil lawsuit.
Her female attorney stated that they believe she was raped. In response to the celeb worrying about her trying to get rich off his back, she also said: "we will donate the money to sexual harassment support groups"
The celeb said that he hopes that the judge will throw her out of court, and will award him high attorney's fees.

My analysis:
Simple case of regret.
She slept with status, hoped to get famous, but was denied.
Falsly charged him, got thrown out of court and though how to get back at him.
Came up with the idea of civil lawsuit.
Also remember that the prosecution are mostly female based. If they closed the case...

Conclusion:
A case of fame-seeker gold-digging whore.

I wish the celeb to get an extremely high attorney's fee, but I don't count on it.

It's very common that those who do not successfully prosecute a criminal action will resort to the Civil Law, the law of tort, to gain some form of compensation, or a symbolic victory and recognition that the offense in question did actually happen.

I have no idea whether the guy did rape her, or whether she is putting it on, but that's really the point of these 1v1 crimes - with no witnesses and no additional evidence, noone can ever really know. If the guy really did do it, why should she move on, and forgo her right to judgement in her favour? I don't know if you've ever had the frightening experience of coming into contact with the type of people who make up a jury of your peers, but sometimes one must wonder whether tossing a coin isn't more likely to result in consistent justice. It isn't a huge stretch to think that the bloke did rape her, and that a court could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not consensual.

To put it another way, if you had a sister, and she came home and gave you this story, that a bloke she worked for forced himself on her and that she recognised the futility of the struggle and submitted through shock and horror, would you still be saying 'fame-seeking, gold-digging whore'? I think plenty of people on this board need to make up their minds whether they want women to be sweet, gentle, feminine and submissive or rational, unemotional, physically capable pseudo-men, because those goalposts just seem to keep moving. If you want the former, why would you expect her to do anything else in the moment than submit and feel horror at the violation of her sanctity?

Like I say, she may be lying, or she may be telling the truth, but noone other than those two know, and sometimes the bloke really is the arsehole.

[Menace]

Burden of proof far lower in civil suit (preponderance of evidence) vs criminal trial (beyond reasonable doubt), at least in us.

No idea what the law is in Israel.

What do you base your analys on? Sounds like pure speculation. Women do get taken advantage of and/or assaulted by powerful men. I don't think there's a need to have a "stick it to the woman" attitude every time there's a story about sexual assault.

[Merenguero]

(11-26-2015 02:58 PM)Menace Wrote:  

Burden of proof far lower in civil suit (preponderance of evidence) vs criminal trial (beyond reasonable doubt), at least in us.

No idea what the law is in Israel.

What do you base your analys on? Sounds like pure speculation. Women do get taken advantage of and/or assaulted by powerful men. I don't think there's a need to have a "stick it to the woman" attitude every time there's a story about sexual assault.

I had the opposite happen last week and it's happened before. In a civil case, the Plaintiff couldn't meet the preponderance of evidence burden and we now have a criminal trial on the same facts where the burden will be beyond a reasonable doubt. As I have in the past, I will obviously be arguing, among other things, how can a judge find behind a reasonable doubt, when the alleged victim, couldn't even meet the preponderance of evidence standard in the first trial.

[TheMaleBrain]

In Israel there is no jury, just a judge or 3 of them.
This happened 4 years ago. So why is she suing now? Why not 3 years ago?

(11-26-2015 11:34 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

To put it another way, if you had a sister, and she came home and gave you this story, that a bloke she worked for forced himself on her and that she recognised the futility of the struggle and submitted through shock and horror, would you still be saying 'fame-seeking, gold-digging whore'? I think plenty of people on this board need to make up their minds whether they want women to be sweet, gentle, feminine and submissive or rational, unemotional, physically capable pseudo-men, because those goalposts just seem to keep moving. If you want the former, why would you expect her to do anything else in the moment than submit and feel horror at the violation of her sanctity?

Like I say, she may be lying, or she may be telling the truth, but noone other than those two know, and sometimes the bloke really is the arsehole.

N1H1
If it was my sister, and there was no evidence whatsoever (physical) - because when it is rape there is actual evidence, I would tell her to go to counseling and support her. She may experience "rape" but if it cannot be proven then why not pick up the pieces and move on with your life? Should you dwell in it for years?

Your dichotomy of women is wrong. I cannot tell women what to do. However, I can point out contradictions in their behavior. The same way society "shames" me into "manning up" or doing whatever it is I'm doing to give myself a good life.

As per your final point - WRONG!
She went to the police. The police investigated the hell out of it, and no charges were pressed due to "LACK of GUILT". We all read how the establishment goes after men. The guy maybe an arsehole. But that has nothing to do with rape charge - which can ruin his life.

In criminal law there is an important principle:
Innocent until proven guilty. You just assumed that it is OK to go after someone, even though the system "decided" that he is innocent. Oh, and it just happened that he is a celebrity.

[H1N1]

(11-28-2015 03:15 AM)TheMaleBrain Wrote:  

In Israel there is no jury, just a judge or 3 of them.
This happened 4 years ago. So why is she suing now? Why not 3 years ago?

(11-26-2015 11:34 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

To put it another way, if you had a sister, and she came home and gave you this story, that a bloke she worked for forced himself on her and that she recognised the futility of the struggle and submitted through shock and horror, would you still be saying 'fame-seeking, gold-digging whore'? I think plenty of people on this board need to make up their minds whether they want women to be sweet, gentle, feminine and submissive or rational, unemotional, physically capable pseudo-men, because those goalposts just seem to keep moving. If you want the former, why would you expect her to do anything else in the moment than submit and feel horror at the violation of her sanctity?

Like I say, she may be lying, or she may be telling the truth, but noone other than those two know, and sometimes the bloke really is the arsehole.

N1H1
If it was my sister, and there was no evidence whatsoever (physical) - because when it is rape there is actual evidence, I would tell her to go to counseling and support her. She may experience "rape" but if it cannot be proven then why not pick up the pieces and move on with your life? Should you dwell in it for years?

Your dichotomy of women is wrong. I cannot tell women what to do. However, I can point out contradictions in their behavior. The same way society "shames" me into "manning up" or doing whatever it is I'm doing to give myself a good life.

As per your final point - WRONG!
She went to the police. The police investigated the hell out of it, and no charges were pressed due to "LACK of GUILT". We all read how the establishment goes after men. The guy maybe an arsehole. But that has nothing to do with rape charge - which can ruin his life.

In criminal law there is an important principle:
Innocent until proven guilty. You just assumed that it is OK to go after someone, even though the system "decided" that he is innocent. Oh, and it just happened that he is a celebrity.

Full disclosure - I studied law, and 'minored' if that is the right term, in criminal law and the law of evidence.

Perhaps she is suing now because the case took several years to go through the courts (I can't read Hebrew so I am forced to work with your summary), perhaps she receieved bad advice to just 'move on' and was not informed that she may have recourse to a civil claim against him. Perhaps she tried to move on and couldn't and the injustice of the decision ate away at her until she had to go back and try to get some sort of recognition that the event actually happened. 3 years is not a very long time. I don't know if you've every experienced a rape trial, but the woman can be dragged through the mud pretty ruthlessly by a prosecutor. In a crime like rape, where, contrary to your assertion, there is often precious little evidence unless the woman goes straight to the police, rather than, say, crying in the shower, the case can be pretty much a question of which party seems more credible. Simply bolding 'there is actual evidence' does not make it any true that if you were to stamp your feet and shout that it must be the case.

As for 'why not pick up the pieces and move on' 'why dwell on it', I agree, as a man, that that is a rational, masculine approach to a humiliation. However, at this point I would have to quote you back at yourself, paraphrased, and say that to expect women to behave as rational males in the face of extreme trauma suggests that perhaps it is you who has failed to understand the true nature of women.

If that is how you would handle the rape of a trusted, honest family member, then perhaps that more than anything is indicative of the disconnect in our world views and conception of justice.

As for the last, patronising, 'WRONG!' 'In criminal law...', thanks, but again, you are simply ignorant of the nature of these offenses. 'The police investigated the shit out of it'. Oh right, you mean they may have checked her vag (again, perhaps after a shower and sleepless night) and saw she had had sex recently, without signs of a struggle, and asked the alleged rapist whether he did it or not, and he said 'no'. Where do you go from there? It sounds like you learned everything you know about police investigation and the criminal law from Inspector Cleuso. One on one crimes are almost impossible to convict on, unless some aspect of the crime is so suspicious as to prima facie suggest a crime must have taken place. Again, I am not suggesting the guy is guilty, merely that the nature of police investigation, judicial process, disparity in financial resources giving access to good legal advice etc etc, makes it perfectly reasonable that she should act as she has done.

[Sonoma]

I don't mind this. She went to criminal court first, then civil court. No clue if she's lying, but at least she's following procedure

[The Father]

I'll throw in the usual disclaimer that I have no idea WTF really happened.

That said, I am a little disturbed at the shakedown racket that goes on in the US with celebrities, in which the civil suit IS the objective, and the criminal suit just a pity shield (and a means of free advertising, to raise awareness of the matter and destroy the man's reputation). Kobe Bryant, Ben Rothlisberger, Colin Kaepernick, among others, had extortion attempted on them this way. Obvi, I have no idea whether this goes on in Israel as I have never been there and don't read much about the place. But I know that 1) women like celebrities, 2) women have victim complexes, and 3) some unethical women like to set "honey traps" to shake down rich men. The whole thing sickens me - as much as rape.

[TheMaleBrain]

N1H1

As you stated:

(11-28-2015 09:16 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

If that is how you would handle the rape of a trusted, honest family member, then perhaps that more than anything is indicative of the disconnect in our world views and conception of justice.

Agree to disagree.
If you cannot bring justice (and sometimes you cannot) then you have to move on. Cases take forever. Do you want to see your loved one dragged for years?
I don't. But that is me.
I fully understand if you think differently.

Mark Twain said:

Quote:

It were not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse races.

[CynicalContrarian]

This Brit might be a bit luckier :

Teenager revokes Bali rape claim

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-upd...75281e503e

' THE 18-year-old Australian woman who accused a British man of raping her in Bali has retracted her allegations.
In revoking her police report, the woman said that she did not want to be troubled by the case as she hoped to pursue
her university studies in the US.
Detectives, who were still awaiting the woman’s forensic exam results, say both parties have agreed to end the case.
The 25-year-old man had earlier denied raping the woman when questioned by police, claiming the pair had consensual sex. '


So they're flaking on their own rape allegations now?
It's just easier to hamsterise that it's actually not that important?
Or is the thought of all that U.S. carousel riding making her forget?

[CynicalContrarian]

Hell, this one isn't even going to criminal courts.
Just the court of public opinion :

Adult film actor is accused of rape on Twitter by his ex-girlfriend

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

- Porn actor James Deen, 29, has been accused of rape by his ex-girlfriend
- Stoya, who is a porn actress and writer, accused Deen - real name Bryan Sevilla - of rape Saturday in two tweets
- She wrote: 'James Deen held me down and f***ed me while I said no, stop, used my safeword'
- It is unclear where or when the alleged rape occurred and Deen has yet to comment on her allegation


This from a chick with her own Fleshlight...