I didn't follow this too closely.
Was it just words, again, from alleged victims or was there anything actually physical that leaves no doubt he had non consensual sex with women forcing himself into them?
There should always be in 100% of every rape accusation physical evidence before it can be allowed in a courtroom.
Words alone should not be enough since they are not enough to prove actions.
"-Words alone should not be enough since they are not enough to prove actions."
in america they apparently are....... that shit won't fly here in Europe.
strange things have turned out that way.
Every country in Europe requires physical evidence to convict someone of any serious crime? Got links to these laws? Or are your words supposed to be enough? Do you know the meaning of the word, irony?
share
As far as I know, only statements from the victims from incidents that happened 20 years ago - but I also didn't follow this closely.
There should always be in 100% of every rape accusation physical evidence before it can be allowed in a courtroom.
No, no, no, no.
It HAS to me more than just words and SHOULD ALWAYS be more than just words.
Otherwise even more innocent men will be put in prison.
Would you want a woman who you made mad accuse you of raping her when you didn't?
You would change your tune and beg for physical evidence if that happened to you.
I understand what you're saying, but if a woman is raped without bruises or vaginal tearing, she has no justice.
I don't claim to know the answer, but since we're talking about Masterson, a 20 year tale which could easily be revisionist doesn't cut it for me and it shouldn't for any jury, but if any of these women immediately went to the police or at least told someone *believable* what happened, that's got to count.
What physical evidence proves non consensual sex?
share
Non consensual sex often will present with vaginal tearing and DNA from the rapist along with other signs of struggle such as bruising. Yes I realize that rough sex can simulate the same physical evidence.
I think the point is that a rape accusation 20 years after the fact doesn't leave the accused with much of a defense other to say he didn't do it.
Not all rape is rough though. There isn't always vaginal tearing or bruising. Condoms prevent a lot of DNA evidence. If the only way someone can get convicted according to the OP is physical evidence, then it's pretty much saying that anyone can get away with rape if they want to.
share
There are other factors. If the woman didn't know the rapist and if she immediately called the police, those factors would change things.
The women accusing Masterson knew him and went to his place voluntarily. One of them said she consented to vaginal sex but not anal. These things is what makes knowing what happened difficult. What if Masterson didn't rape these women but was just a POS (which he is) that made the women suffer next day regret?
Even if it wasn't 20 years later, the case you mentioned where she consented to vaginal but not anal would be difficult to prove just based on physical evidence as well if she reported it right after
share
It's too bad polygraphs weren't accurate enough to discern who was telling the truth - guilty men can get away with rape without evidence and a good story and women can get an innocent man convicted without evidence and a good story.
Maybe someday we'll have the technology to ferret out the truth easily and conclusively.
I do agree with that. I think it was in the show Upload before they had sex they both got out their phones and recorded that what they were doing was consensual. I also do think that a lot more people (both sexes) have gotten away with rape than have been falsely accused.
shareEven if that visual evidence is lacking there are rape kits that collect samples to show if she had been raped.
So if I am innocent you really think it should just be words alone to send me to prison from a woman scorned?
20+ years after the claim it happened without physical evidence is wrong.
Police solve cold cases based on evidence such as DNA on a victim's clothing decades after it happened.
If they can do that for murder cases, where they need more than just words for proof, then they should do that for rape as well.
Rape kits show DNA. They don't prove consent. So that still is a who said what case. Like I said above in the case with the woman who consented to vaginal sex but not anal, DNA isn't going to do anything. Like I said too, not all rapes are violent. There may or may not be tearing. There may not be skin under the fingernails.
Truth be told, even if you were innocent, if all it took was forensic evidence, I could have sex with you. I could even make it rough on my end. Then when I leave your place I can go to the hospital and get a rape kit done, and your DNA would be all over me. If your word against mine meant nothing, then you would be even more screwed.
"anyone can get away with rape if they want to."
That is pretty much the way it is, despite what these "men's rights" rapist apologist crybabies say.
Nothing. That's why rape and sex assault is unfortunately so difficult to prove.
shareRolf Harris was sent to jail for groping women and girls 25+ years earlier. He denied it and the alleged actions were totally, utterly unprovable.
shareThat wasn't right.
Of course one should not grope women but I would think there may be some DNA or even fingerprints he may leave behind.
If there is nothing then maybe he did nothing.
What statements were made? Did Masterson make any statements that were provably false which helped convict him?
shareHow exactly do you prove rape from 20 years ago? It would have to be from semen analysis and video evidence of the rape.
There are some sickos out there that get there kicks by video taping their victims' rape. Ala Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo.
--Michael D. Clarke
Don't know. I didn't follow the case either. I didn't know the charges were so old. Just some sad story 20 plus years later getting a man locked up for 30 years to life is insane.
shareExactly.
There needs to be a statute of limitations on this.
Throw it out in five years if there is no evidence and if it is just words 10+ years later.
The bottom line is that Danny didn't testify in his own defense and instead hid behind his defense lawyer's countering each of the plaintiff's testimonials in his stead. Imho, when you resort to that you appear more guilty to the jury and they in turn have more empathy for the plaintiffs, even if all they have is their testimony and no physical evidence.
shareYou're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Typically defense lawyers advice their clients not to go on the stand, there are a bunch of reasons for it but one eg, you could be nervous about public speaking and the jury might misconstrue that nervousness as guilt. I completely understand why he didn't and why he was advised not to.
share