BYU rape case defendant aquitted

[Darren10]

10 hours ago, bsjkki said:

It was but inconsistent statements from the accuser overcame this confession. I really would like trial transcripts. Proving rape is difficult and I am surprised her previous sexual encounters and post sexual encounters (different guy) were admissible. Often rape victims don't even say "no" or fight--they just freeze. That makes it really hard to prove rape in court of law. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/23/why-many-rape-victims-dont-fight-or-yell/?utm_term=.426e660e031d

Plus she had already consented to sex and was having sex with the accused rapist when she told him no. At least that’s the scenario I got from the Salt Lake Tribune article. 

[Darren10]

10 hours ago, bsjkki said:

It was but inconsistent statements from the accuser overcame this confession. I really would like trial transcripts. Proving rape is difficult and I am surprised her previous sexual encounters and post sexual encounters (different guy) were admissible. Often rape victims don't even say "no" or fight--they just freeze. That makes it really hard to prove rape in court of law. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/23/why-many-rape-victims-dont-fight-or-yell/?utm_term=.426e660e031d

Plus she had already consented to sex and was having sex with the accused rapist when she told him no. At least that’s the scenario I got from the Salt Lake Tribune article. 

[Darren10]

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

No, not exactly. I would strongly recommend reading the book Missoula to have a picture of what happens with rape cases. They're several problematic areas that lead to rape going uncharged.  

So the problem is with the executive branch, ergo, the “police system”?

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, Darren10 said:

So the problem is with the executive branch, ergo, the “police system”?

No the problem is in the Legislative, Judicial, Executive branches of the Government, the Fourth Estate, religious institutions, and our families.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

No the problem is in the Legislative, Judicial, Executive branches of the Government, the Fourth Estate, religious institutions, and our families.

Well, that sucks.

[thesometimesaint]

Yep. So many problems could be solved if we followed the Golden Rule, and not the Rule of Gold.

[Storm Rider]

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 2:21 PM, thesometimesaint said:

If someone has driven a car before, are they then responsible for someone else deliberately driving a car and hitting them with it?

And if an individual breaks into a home 13 times in the neighborhood and then their own home is broken into is there an innocent party?  When?  Do lawyers and judges always look the other way when a criminal is brought for crimes against them?  No, they look at the record of the individual.  There is this thing called contributory negligence. 

I simply don't buy into the group think that goes on when it comes to rape.  Yes, I still think modest dress is valuable and important just as I think someone that dresses immodestly does it for a reason.  Why do people dress immodestly?  They absolutely don't do it to tell people to stop looking at me; don't think I am beautiful; don't touch me; don't talk to me; leave me alone.  It is just plain common sense that individuals have some degree of contributory action when bad things happen.  When a person goes along in a car that is involved in a hit and run are they liable?  How about if they walk into a bank and their friend robs the bank?  Of course they are liable. 

Society has developed this odd situation that individuals are fully responsible for their actions unless it is a rape.  Then everyone must have amnesia and look the other way regardless if the victim drank heavily, dressed immodestly, had already had voluntary sex with the perpetrator, etc.  In this crime none of that matters. All of a sudden she is as innocent as the driven snow and was just minding her own business when out of the blue someone rapes her. 

To point out - I don't think a rape victim is totally responsible; she is never "asking for it". The responsibility for the rape still rests on the perpetrator's shoulders. I still think that young women need to be taught the merits of dressing modestly, not putting themselves in dangerous situations with drugs and alcohol, and doing social activities in groups.  These things may help with some types of rape; however, they will not be of benefit to another broad range of rapes. 

My entire point is that we are each responsible for our actions.  If we play with fire long enough and become careless we will get burned.  Is it the fire's fault for burning us or does our dangerous activity playing carelessly with fire contribute?  We are also not addressing the low-life males that live a lifestyle where their sexual urges direct and guide their every action.  Any lifestyle that encourages men to follow their sexual urges is not healthy and it is wrong. 

I am also happy this young lady stepped forward; it was not easy, but it was worth it.  She played with fire and had totally forfeited her right to attend BYU by her repeated actions.  BYU is for students that have chosen to live by certain standards and this young woman was not even trying to live within those standards which she had promised herself, her bishop, and her God.  The pig who raped her should be in jail.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Storm Rider

[Calm]

"we play with fire long enough and become careless we will get burned.  Is it the fire's fault for burning us or does our dangerous activity playing carelessly with fire contribute"

Fire is an unthinking thing.  If you believe males are brainless things, your analogy works.

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Yep. So many problems could be solved if we followed the Golden Rule, and not the Rule of Gold.

So profound that I don't quite get it. 

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

"we play with fire long enough and become careless we will get burned.  Is it the fire's fault for burning us or does our dangerous activity playing carelessly with fire contribute"

Fire is an unthinking thing.  If you believe males are brainless things, your analogy works.

Or that they are creatures who succumb to temptation and they tend to be a bit stronger than females but I've been told that gender differences don't exist. Any way, It's perhaps better not to offet the temptation in the first place. 

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

And if an individual breaks into a home 13 times in the neighborhood and then their own home is broken into is there an innocent party?  When?  Do lawyers and judges always look the other way when a criminal is brought for crimes against them?  No, they look at the record of the individual.  There is this thing called contributory negligence. 

I simply don't buy into the group think that goes on when it comes to rape.  Yes, I still think modest dress is valuable and important just as I think someone that dresses immodestly does it for a reason.  Why do people dress immodestly?  They absolutely don't do it to tell people to stop looking at me; don't think I am beautiful; don't touch me; don't talk to me; leave me alone.  It is just plain common sense that individuals have some degree of contributory action when bad things happen.  When a person goes along in a car that is involved in a hit and run are they liable?  How about if they walk into a bank and their friend robs the bank?  Of course they are liable. 

Society has developed this odd situation that individuals are fully responsible for their actions unless it is a rape.  Then everyone must have amnesia and look the other way regardless if the victim drank heavily, dressed immodestly, had already had voluntary sex with the perpetrator, etc.  In this crime none of that matters. All of a sudden she is as innocent as the driven snow and was just minding her own business when out of the blue someone rapes her. 

To point out - I don't think a rape victim is totally responsible; she is never "asking for it". The responsibility for the rape still rests on the perpetrator's shoulders. I still think that young women need to be taught the merits of dressing modestly, not putting themselves in dangerous situations with drugs and alcohol, and doing social activities in groups.  These things may help with some types of rape; however, they will not be of benefit to another broad range of rapes. 

My entire point is that we are each responsible for our actions.  If we play with fire long enough and become careless we will get burned.  Is it the fire's fault for burning us or does our dangerous activity playing carelessly with fire contribute?  We are also not addressing the low-life males that live a lifestyle where their sexual urges direct and guide their every action.  Any lifestyle that encourages men to follow their sexual urges is not healthy and it is wrong. 

I am also happy this young lady stepped forward; it was not easy, but it was worth it.  She played with fire and had totally forfeited her right to attend BYU by her repeated actions.  BYU is for students that have chosen to live by certain standards and this young woman was not even trying to live within those standards which she had promised herself, her bishop, and her God.  The pig who raped her should be in jail.

I agree with the entire post but you get a big fat agreement from me on that last paragraph. 

Edited October 22, 2017 by Darren10

[kiwi57]

On 10/21/2017 at 6:33 AM, thesometimesaint said:

Quit blaming the victim. Her sexual history is irrelevant to the crime committed against her.

That's a bit of a slogan, actually. It doesn't seem like the accused was acquitted for any issues with identification; that suggests that the jury acquitted because they weren't convinced that there was actually a rape. You can't have a victim without a crime.

I remember the great moral panic over child sexual abuse during the 1980's and 1990's, in the course of which a number of innocent people went to jail. There were two catch-cries at the time: "Children don't make things like this up!" and "Victims must always be believed!" The first one has subsequently been shown to be false; in the right circumstances, children can be made to say just whatever the nearest influential adults want them to say. The second is actually circular, since it insists that the claim of victimhood must never be questioned, however dubious it might look. If you do question the claim, then you risk not believing a bona fide victim, right?

And I'm seeing a very similar conversation around what looks increasingly like a great moral panic over campus rape in the US.

I'm not saying that this case is necessarily a manifestation of that. Actually I'm inclined to believe that the girl probably was raped. Juries don't always get it right, after all.

But they did see the evidence I (and the rest of us) haven't seen. And they did acquit.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Or that they are creatures who succumb to temptation and they tend to be a bit stronger than females but I've been told that gender differences don't exist. Any way, It's perhaps better not to offet the temptation in the first place. 

If anyone is bringing up no gender differences on the board, I can see why this is repeated so often by posters.  But I am not reading any comments that way myself.  Instead I see lots of posters explicitly and implicitly saying there are differences.

And to be blunt because of this when I hear the "I have been told there are no gender differences", I hear it as self centered whining rather than responding to what people are saying.

[Darren10]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

If anyone is bringing up no gender differences on the board, I can see why this is repeated so often by posters.  But I am not reading any comments that way myself.  Instead I see lots of posters explicitly and implicitly saying there are differences.

And to be blunt because of this when I hear the "I have been told there are no gender differences", I hear it as self centered whining rather than responding to what people are saying.

Well, not in this thread at least. Of course there are differences. These differences are interested but not explicit to either gender. There are many posters who do not elplicitky or implicitly defend these differences when posters say such differences are fallacious. That's why I whine about it. Sometimes that's the best way to get a message across. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

. There are many posters who do not elplicitky or implicitly defend these differences when posters say such differences are fallacious. 

Where on the board have you ever seen such a comment?

Edited October 22, 2017 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, Darren10 said:

So profound that I don't quite get it. 

Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Rule of Gold: Those that have the Gold rule.

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

That's a bit of a slogan, actually. It doesn't seem like the accused was acquitted for any issues with identification; that suggests that the jury acquitted because they weren't convinced that there was actually a rape. You can't have a victim without a crime.

I remember the great moral panic over child sexual abuse during the 1980's and 1990's, in the course of which a number of innocent people went to jail. There were two catch-cries at the time: "Children don't make things like this up!" and "Victims must always be believed!" The first one has subsequently been shown to be false; in the right circumstances, children can be made to say just whatever the nearest influential adults want them to say. The second is actually circular, since it insists that the claim of victimhood must never be questioned, however dubious it might look. If you do question the claim, then you risk not believing a bona fide victim, right?

And I'm seeing a very similar conversation around what looks increasingly like a great moral panic over campus rape in the US.

I'm not saying that this case is necessarily a manifestation of that. Actually I'm inclined to believe that the girl probably was raped. Juries don't always get it right, after all.

But they did see the evidence I (and the rest of us) haven't seen. And they did acquit.

Unfortunately we can be a victim of a noncriminal act. You get hit by lightening. You are very much a victim, but no crime was committed.

I've never said that the victim should never be questioned. However some questions, like sexual history, are irrelevant to the charge. Can a husband rape his wife?

Did OJ Simpson murder two people? According the criminal laws against murder. No; He was found not guilty. However; he was found financially responsible for them.

I don't know if she was actually raped or not. Evidently neither did that jury.

Until God comes back and tells us exactly what happened. We're kinda stuck with the system we have.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Rule of Gold: Those that have the Gold rule.

I understood what you were saying just not how it applied here.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I understood what you were saying just not how it applied here.

Treat others how you want to be treated. Solves a lot of problems we face in this world.

[Calm]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Where on the board have you ever seen such a comment?

This is a CFR btw, Darren.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Calm

[Avatar4321]

Don't know anything about the case. I am curious how the jury reached their verdict.

 

 

[Calm]

"In his closing argument Wednesday afternoon, defense attorney Matthew Morrise told jurors that the state’s case relies solely on whether the jury could believe the alleged victim, and he accused her of telling various stories about the rape to suit her audience. Her account shifted from preliminary hearing to trial, Morrise argued, and then later as she spoke with media in her efforts to change reporting policies at Brigham Young University.

“You can not convict Mr. Seidu unless you can trust that source,” Morrise told jurors. “She has to have credibility. If you finish this and you have any question about [her] credibility, you must find Mr. Seidu not guilty.”"

From a commenter, anonymous so who knows:

"I attended portions of the trial. The accuser was caught in lie after lie after lie about lots of things, including whether she ever intended to follow the honor code. She and Seidu had consensual intercourse 4 times in 15 days of knowing him, she had sex with someone else in between their last time and her report to police. She lied to the media in her interviews about being punished for reporting a rape, when BYU, due to privacy considerations couldn't respond. At the end of the trial, she simply wasn't believable enough for the jury to convict Seidu beyond a reasonable doubt."

That still leaves the tape where he admitted to raping her though.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/19/utah-man-acquitted-of-raping-byu-student/comments/#disqus_thread

[Calm]

Another comment that appears to be informed:

"I understand that there was a call set by the police between Barney and the defendant. It was apparently NOT a spontaneous call.

The defense argued that the call was a set up. Barney was manipulative. And obtained an indirect expression of regret/acknowledgement so that she (Barney) could get on with her life and forgive the defendant.

The defense argued that the call was orchestrated by the police.

Thus, the defense argued that the call was not a true confession. Didn't have the defendant acknowledging key points of fact etc.

The "confession" as it was spun by the prosecution was the only reported, genuine evidence in the trial.

Thus, I suspect that the defense was successful in making the call suspect in the eyes of the Jury.

We will never really know how solid the "confession" was because the Trib and other media have not published the transcripts."

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"In his closing argument Wednesday afternoon, defense attorney Matthew Morrise told jurors that the state’s case relies solely on whether the jury could believe the alleged victim, and he accused her of telling various stories about the rape to suit her audience. Her account shifted from preliminary hearing to trial, Morrise argued, and then later as she spoke with media in her efforts to change reporting policies at Brigham Young University.

“You can not convict Mr. Seidu unless you can trust that source,” Morrise told jurors. “She has to have credibility. If you finish this and you have any question about [her] credibility, you must find Mr. Seidu not guilty.”"

From a commenter, anonymous so who knows:

"I attended portions of the trial. The accuser was caught in lie after lie after lie about lots of things, including whether she ever intended to follow the honor code. She and Seidu had consensual intercourse 4 times in 15 days of knowing him, she had sex with someone else in between their last time and her report to police. She lied to the media in her interviews about being punished for reporting a rape, when BYU, due to privacy considerations couldn't respond. At the end of the trial, she simply wasn't believable enough for the jury to convict Seidu beyond a reasonable doubt."

That still leaves the tape where he admitted to raping her though.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/10/19/utah-man-acquitted-of-raping-byu-student/comments/#disqus_thread

I read the comments too since there was so little coverage of the actual trial. It almost seems the accuser was more on trial than the defendant. I think this is one reason for the scarce coverage. Would you want to publish the accusations against the accuser? She lied, changed her story, waited a whole 4 days to report, slept around etc...what victim would ever come forward knowing their life was going to be fodder for the masses?

They were very successful in shredding her credibility.

Edited October 22, 2017 by bsjkki

[Storm Rider]

12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I read the comments too since there was so little coverage of the actual trial. It almost seems the accuser was more on trial than the defendant. I think this is one reason for the scarce coverage. Would you want to publish the accusations against the accuser? She lied, changed her story, waited a whole 4 days to report, slept around etc...what victim would ever come forward knowing their life was going to be fodder for the masses?

They were very successful is shredding her credibility.

To me the kind of person that would have few problems coming forward is a young woman who did not sleep around, did not lit, did not change her story, and reported when the rape occurred.  I hope that it is not such an unusual position for a young woman of today. 

Within the legal system credibility is vital.  Some people inure credibility by the simply manner in which they live their lives. By the same token if a person lives a life of low morals it is more difficult to gain credibility in the eyes of the law and society at large.  When you meet a person and then learn they are a con man do you continue to trust them?  Of course not, the same concept applies to this young woman. 

Having stated this, it does not mean that a woman of low moral standards cannot be raped. Quite the contrary, a woman, any woman, can be raped.  The question is how do we believe, trust those of low moral standing?