A woman who was in a vegetative state for years gave birth. Police want DNA from men who work at the facility

by Tommy Monk Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:08 pm

First topic message reminder :

Police investigators have begun to gather DNA from men who work at an Arizona care facility where a woman in a vegetative state gave birth last month.

Phoenix police Sgt. Tommy Thompson said Wednesday the woman and child, who was in medical distress after being delivered December 29, remain in the hospital.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/us/arizona-woman-vegetative-state-gives-birth/index.html

Some sick bastards about...

by Original Quill Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:34 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Interesting question

consent

now for sex is that merely "consent" or informed consent ????

The defendant, whomever he is, is not an expert. The average person doesn't have to answer that.

by Guest Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:35 pm

Thor wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

She woke up and consented.

She is already awake but unconcious when in a vegetative state. As she is brain damaged, showing your complete ignorance here

This means she can openm her eyes, but is not concious of her surroundings

You do realise this?

So how could she give consent?

Still waiting quill

by Original Quill Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:44 pm

Thor wrote:
Thor wrote:

She is already awake but unconcious when in a vegetative state. As she is brain damaged, showing your complete ignorance here

This means she can openm her eyes, but is not concious of her surroundings

You do realise this?

So how could she give consent?

Still waiting quill

Me too. The point is made: all a defendant has to do is say she consented.

It's up to the State of Arizona to make it's case and prove a defendant guilty. All records and witnesses will be cross-examined...flaws will be revealed. Defense experts will be brought in and lay waste to the records, procedures and practices of this clinic. Most of all, they will tear apart any treating diagnosis of the attending physician...who is also a suspect, alarmingly. What a Face

Won't that be fun!

And the standard, remember, is beyond a reasonable doubt.

by Syl Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

I know you say you are a lawyer Quill, we can all say what the heck we want on the internet.
I could be a truck driver from Moss side if I want to be.

It isn't about you or me, except in some insecure minds.

Syl wrote:The law must be very different in the USA to what it is here if it's true that this is not a straight forward case of rape.

As Victor said, the state has to prove its case. Otherwise, one is innocent until proven guilty. There is no "straight forward case" anywhere in jurisprudence.

Syl wrote:The woman has been in a vegatetive state since she was three years old, she has never regained consciousness, and even if some miracle happened and she did wake up, her mental age would be in the state she was when she was last conscious....which was when she was three.
A three year old cannot consent to sexual intercourse so neither could this poor woman.
And then there is her physical state.

All that has to be proven. There are no foregone conclusions, or "straight forward cases."

Syl wrote:How could anyone argue with the facts of her medical state?

Very easily. You go through the records, line-by-line, and question everything. You bring experts to the stand to say how poor the record-keeping is at this clinic. You bring experts to the stand to say how the patient was misdiagnosed. You bring experts to the stand to say how she is quite capable of awakening, and being quite lucid. You question everything.

A smart arsed immoral prosecutor, no matter how clever he thinks he is, must rebut all those experts because he has the burden of proof.

Syl wrote:Here it seems no one but you is doubting that the woman has been illegally impregnated by some low life scum of the earth who so far (because of some obvious cover up) has so far gone undetected.

Are they experts? I'm sure the defense attorney will be glad to cross-examine them.

It was you who mentioned the fact you are the lawyer here...I was just responding to that.

As for the rest....going round in circles.
Unless the facility had no qualified medical staff who knew the girls history, or unless they have no records to prove she has indeed been in a vegetative state since she was three years old, it is an undisputed fact that someone has impregnated this woman unlawfully.

Whoever that is has yet to be established....and as a cover up has obviously been happening here, maybe the culprit wont be found.
The owners/managers of the facility should face charges though because they have obviously not provided safe and secure care for their patient.

Or would you argue against that one too?

by Guest Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:51 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:

Still waiting quill

Me too. The point is made: all a defendant has to do is say she consented.

It's up to the State of Arizona to make it's case and prove a defendant guilty. All records and witnesses will be cross-examined...flaws will be revealed. Defense experts will be brought in and lay waste to the records, procedures and practices of this clinic. Most of all, they will tear apart any treating diagnosis of the attending physician...who is also a suspect, alarmingly. Won't that be fun!

And the standard, remember, is beyond a reasonable doubt.

How is that answering my point?

How is that you even understanding what is a vegetative state?

Seriously?

So explain the flaws, when this person is actually biologically awake, but brain damaged, unable to comprehend many things?

Try again

by Original Quill Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:52 pm

Syl wrote:It was you who mentioned the fact you are the lawyer here...I was just responding to that.

Yes, it makes for a very interesting hypothetical for me. If I were still teaching law I might turn it into an model exercise for teaching purposes.

by Original Quill Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:54 pm

Didge wrote:How is that answering my point?

What point? I've answered all your questions. You just haven't thought about it enough: everything gets questioned. Reflect on that.

by Victorismyhero Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:Interesting question

consent

now for sex is that merely "consent" or informed consent ????

The defendant, whomever he is, is not an expert. The average person doesn't have to answer that.

I realise that quill, I was just wondering what the law requires?

by Guest Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:57 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:How is that answering my point?

What point? I've answered all your questions. You just haven't thought about it enough: everything gets questioned. Reflect on that.

You avoided tham based on your ignorance of understandin g medical conditions

Try again

She is already awake but unconcious when in a vegetative state. As she is brain damaged, showing your complete ignorance here

This means she can openm her eyes, but is not concious of her surroundings

You do realise this?

So how could she give consent?

by Syl Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:58 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:It was you who mentioned the fact you are the lawyer here...I was just responding to that.

Yes, it makes for a very interesting hypothetical for me. If I were still teaching law I might turn it into an model exercise for teaching purposes.

Yes Quill, you mentioned you were a lawyer, when I respond you say it isn't about you, so why bring your occupation into the equation in the first place? Rolling Eyes

It will be interesting to follow this case...see who or what is sued by the girls family.

It's still a mystery how no one in her family knew she was pregnant till days after delivering her son.
It's interesting that no one in the facility informed her family or the authorities she was pregnant till days after her delivery.

by Original Quill Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:05 pm

Syl wrote:Unless the facility had no qualified medical staff who knew the girls history, or unless they have no records to prove she has indeed been in a vegetative state since she was three years old, it is an undisputed fact that someone has impregnated this woman unlawfully.

You know where I would start, in order to prove their complete and utter incompetence? Why didn't they realize she was pregnant? When, where and how did they discover it? Such incompetence...their records and staff are hiding something!

No matter what their answers, I'll bet there are some cover-ups along those lines.

Once I found one mishap, one falsehood, or one shortcut, I would implant a conspiracy theory in the jury's mind. It's a cover-up! An obstruction of justice. They are trying to convict my client, to cover-up their own incompetence!

It would be a fun case to try, as trials go. Mysterious pregnancy. Clandestine visits by relatives or orderly. And after the trial, I'd write a book. Ya can't make this up! Wink

by Guest Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:07 pm

Thor wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

What point? I've answered all your questions. You just haven't thought about it enough: everything gets questioned. Reflect on that.

You avoided tham based on your ignorance of understandin g medical conditions

Try again

She is already awake but unconcious when in a vegetative state. As she is brain damaged, showing your complete ignorance here

This means she can openm her eyes, but is not concious of her surroundings

You do realise this?

So how could she give consent?

Still waiting Quill for you to admit you are clueless medically

by Original Quill Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:13 pm

Thor wrote:
Thor wrote:

You avoided tham based on your ignorance of understandin g medical conditions

Try again

She is already awake but unconcious when in a vegetative state. As she is brain damaged, showing your complete ignorance here

This means she can openm her eyes, but is not concious of her surroundings

You do realise this?

So how could she give consent?

Still waiting Quill for you to admit you are clueless medically

I don't understand your post. I'm not a physician, I just tear them apart on cross-examination. Twisted Evil

by Guest Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:

Still waiting Quill for you to admit you are clueless medically

I don't understand your post. I'm not a physician, I just tear them apart on cross-examination.

Well I am sure the judge would tear apart your ignorance on what a vegetative is and how it would be impossible in this state to give consent

Hence you would be stopped before you crossed examined, as it would take half an hour for people to stop lauging at your stupiduity here

Laughing

by Original Quill Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:25 pm

Thor wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I don't understand your post. I'm not a physician, I just tear them apart on cross-examination.

Well I am sure the judge would tear apart your ignorance on what a vegetative is and how it would be impossible in this state to give consent

Hence you would be stopped before you crossed examined, as it would take half an hour for people to stop lauging at your stupiduity here

I get along with judges very well. I've even been a judge, on a pro tempore basis...in fact, in Arizona.

Anyway, in this country they can't stop you from asking material questions. As an attorney, you can stop the trial and go up on a special action appeal to question the judge's ruling. Messy situation. But, nevertheless, you have an absolute right to due process of law under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

You never see this on TV, but when the Judge says "sustained", you simply say "I'd like to make an offer of proof". Then the fun begins. Laughing

by Guest Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:

Well I am sure the judge would tear apart your ignorance on what a vegetative is and how it would be impossible in this state to give consent

Hence you would be stopped before you crossed examined, as it would take half an hour for people to stop lauging at your stupiduity here

I get along with judges very well. I've even been a judge, on a pro tempore basis...in fact, in Arizona.

Anyway, in this country they can't stop you from asking material questions. As an attorney, you can stop the trial and go up on a special action appeal to question the judge's ruling. Messy situation. But, nevertheless, you have an absolute right to due process of law under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

You never see this on TV, but when the Judge says "sustained", you simply say "I'd like to make an offer of proof". Then the fun begins.

So what if you get on with judges

Nobody says you cannot ask questions

This is about you embarressing yourself based on ignorance on medicqal conditions, asking dumb questions

As I am sure the judge will ask the same points I raised to you, which you continually avoid

by Guest Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:28 pm

Will catch up on this later

Night everyone

by Original Quill Sun Jan 13, 2019 8:38 pm

Thor wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I get along with judges very well. I've even been a judge, on a pro tempore basis...in fact, in Arizona.

Anyway, in this country they can't stop you from asking material questions. As an attorney, you can stop the trial and go up on a special action appeal to question the judge's ruling. Messy situation. But, nevertheless, you have an absolute right to due process of law under the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

You never see this on TV, but when the Judge says "sustained", you simply say "I'd like to make an offer of proof". Then the fun begins.

So what if you get on with judges

Nobody says you cannot ask questions

This is about you embarressing yourself based on ignorance on medicqal conditions, asking dumb questions

As I am sure the judge will ask the same points I raised to you, which you continually avoid

In your dreams, Kuntish man. Laughing

You've lost, and only your seep-seated insecurities keep you going. Better than crying, eh?

You don't realize this is a legal matter. Medical data and testimony are just fodder for the mill. You ask the wrong questions.

by Guest Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:57 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:

So what if you get on with judges

Nobody says you cannot ask questions

This is about you embarressing yourself based on ignorance on medicqal conditions, asking dumb questions

As I am sure the judge will ask the same points I raised to you, which you continually avoid

In your dreams, Kuntish man. You've lost, and only your seep-seated insecurities keep you going. Better than crying, eh?

You don't realize this is a legal matter. Medical data and testimony are just fodder for the mill. You ask the wrong questions.

I am a Londoner, I simple live in Kent Laughing

I see you still fail to answer my points

My best bet for you is to go and take a basic first aid course, at least that will even give you a better undstanding medically, than you already have now

Laughing

by Original Quill Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:30 pm

Thor wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

In your dreams, Kuntish man. You've lost, and only your seep-seated insecurities keep you going. Better than crying, eh?

You don't realize this is a legal matter. Medical data and testimony are just fodder for the mill. You ask the wrong questions.

I am a Londoner, I simple live in Kent

I see you still fail to answer my points

My best bet for you is to go and take a basic first aid course, at least that will even give you a better undstanding medically, than you already have now

Eh...you've already lost. I don't need a first aid course...I can hire 'em. The task isn't to give CPR aid, but to convince a jury. Give it up with the medical talk or I'll hire you and force you to give give testimony. Razz

So you work in London? Where at? I mean vicinity...east, west end, Greenwich, Richmond...where?

by Guest Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thor wrote:

I am a Londoner, I simple live in Kent

I see you still fail to answer my points

My best bet for you is to go and take a basic first aid course, at least that will even give you a better undstanding medically, than you already have now

Eh...you've already lost. I don't need a first aid course...I can hire 'em. The point isn't to give respiratory aid, but to convince a jury. Give up, with the medical talk or I'll hire you and force you to give give testimony.

So you work in London? Where at? I mean vicinity...east, west end, Greenwich, Richmond...where?

Well how do you think you did here convincing people Quill?

I would take that as you not being able to do so

No I grew up in London but now live in Kent. I moved here about 15 years ago

In many parts I lived in London, the first being Crystal Palace, where I grew up as a child

So south London

by Original Quill Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:46 pm

Didge wrote:Well how do you think you did here convincing people Quill?

It's much more important to be right, didge. If people wanna survive they'll soon learn to listen.

Didge wrote:In many parts I lived in London, the first being Crystal Palace

Oh, I've been there. But most of the time I stay in Harrington Gardens. Or, the Draycott.

by Syl Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:24 am

If this case did come before a jury, I doubt any right minded citizen would come to any conclusion other than the woman had been raped.
The facility is obviously guilty of covering up the fact she was pregnant, why they did so has yet to be established.

It'll be interesting to hear more details about this case when more news is released.

by Guest Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:31 am

Regulators wanted to remove developmentally disabled patients from a Phoenix long-term care facility years before a woman in a vegetative state gave birth there, Arizona’s largest newspaper reported on Sunday.

The Arizona Republic reported that Hacienda HealthCare faced a 2016 criminal investigation for allegedly billing the state more than $4m for bogus 2014 charges for wages, transportation, housekeeping, maintenance and supplies.

The criminal case was dropped in 2017 and no charges were filed, the Republic said, but a court battle is continuing in an effort to force Hacienda to turn over records.

Phoenix police have said the 29-year-old woman was sexually assaulted and gave birth last month. Investigators are collecting DNA from Hacienda’s male employees and others who may have had contact with the woman.

The woman is a member of the San Carlos Apache tribe. Her family have said in a statement through their attorney that they will care for the infant boy. They have also asked for privacy.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/13/woman-coma-birth-phoenix-facility-2016-investigation

by Maddog Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:45 am

A low life has been arrested for rape or sexual assault, based on DNA evidence.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nurse-arrested-in-rape-of-woman-in-vegetative-state-who-gave-birth-at-care-facility

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:52 am

Seems like I owe Quill And Victor an apology, due to the fact. Some blood sucking Lawyer, is actually trying a defense claiming "no direct evidence". Though it seems odd, they will use medical experts to challenge the DNA???? Though I still believe the Prosecution will easliy get a conviction here. I also think I am right in regards to medical experts will be key here.

Daily Mail wrote:Lawyer for devout Christian nurse, 36, who was arrested for raping a 29-year-old quadriplegic patient says there's 'no direct evidence he committed the act' - despite his DNA linking him to her baby

A lawyer for an Arizona male nurse charged with raping a quadriplegic woman at a long-term care facility says there is no proof he committed the act - even though police say his DNA linked him to the case after she gave birth to a baby boy.

Nathan Sutherland, 36, faced court on Wednesday after being charged with raping the 29-year-old woman at Hacienda Healthcare Skilled Nursing Facility in Phoenix.

Police started investigating after the severely disabled woman, who they say was not in a position to give consent, unexpectedly gave birth on December 29.

The shock birth prompted authorities to test the DNA of all the men who worked at the care facility.

Sutherland, a devout Christian and father-of-four, was forced to submit his DNA sample under court order on Tuesday and the results showed he was a match to the baby.

He declined to speak with police and invoked his Fifth Amendment rights. He did not enter a plea when he faced court on Wednesday.

Defense attorney David Gregan described his client as a family man with young children who has lived in Arizona since 1993.

'There's no direct evidence that Mr Sutherland has committed these acts,' Gregan said.

'I know at this point there's DNA. But he will have a right to his own DNA expert.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6626219/Nurses-lawyer-says-theres-no-proof-raped-quadriplegic-woman-gave-birth.html

by Syl Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:02 pm

Maddog wrote:A low life has been arrested for rape or sexual assault, based on DNA evidence.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nurse-arrested-in-rape-of-woman-in-vegetative-state-who-gave-birth-at-care-facility

If indeed he is the guilty one...Filth.

He has worked there since 2011, I wonder how many other defenceless people he has defiled in that time?
I wonder how many more cases this so called care facility have covered up for, and had this poor woman not been impregnated and given birth I wonder how many more years this could have gone on in secret.

by nicko Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:23 pm

Is DNA testing 100% accurate ? I read somewhere that there is a .01% of a mistake ?

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:38 pm

nicko wrote:Is DNA testing 100% accurate ? I read somewhere that there is a .01% of a mistake ?

Well Nicko, there is 4 ways this can happen

The tests are tampered with
Lab errors
That the paternal father is related to the mother. IE for example they are siblings, which can be ruled out in this instance
DNA mutations (this being extremely rare)

To easily ensure the first two have not happened, a number of independent tests can be carried out and if all show the same person. Then these claims by the defense can be ruled out. I am sure the defense will ask to be able to carry out tests themselves through an independent body.

The defense experts would have to show that in the DNA results there is confliction to this with mutations.

http://dna-view.com/mudisc.htm

So the number 99.9 shows how very accurate they are and its very rare there is a mistake

I highly doubt the defense can argue off the DNA, if a set number of sample tests are taken, by independet bodies

by Original Quill Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:32 pm

Didge wrote:Seems like I owe Quill And Victor an apology, due to the fact. Some blood sucking Lawyer, is actually trying a defense claiming "no direct evidence".

Apology accepted, though I understand your initial reticence. I never said I favored the defense; I said you can expect to see it in this case.

I, too, don't think it's smart to question the DNA evidence. But the lawyer is on the right track to question the absence of direct evidence.

Remember, the other element of sexual assault is the absence of actual, factual consent. This is not like the underage issue, where the victim in legally incapacitated from consenting by virtue of age. The state must in this case actually prove the actual lack of consent.

Slam dunk, you think? Remember, the defendant is the only witness to the conception. Like the George Zimmerman case, he can tell any story he wants without fear he will ever be contradicted.

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Seems like I owe Quill And Victor an apology, due to the fact. Some blood sucking Lawyer, is actually trying a defense claiming "no direct evidence".

Apology accepted, though I understand your initial reticence. I never said I favored the defense; I said you can expect to see it in this case.

I, too, don't think it's smart to question the DNA evidence. But the lawyer is on the right track to question the absence of direct evidence.

Remember, the other element of sexual assault is the absence of actual, factual consent. This is not like the underage issue, where the victim in legally incapacitated from consenting by virtue of age. The state must in this case actually prove the actual lack of consent.

Slam dunk, you think? Remember, the defendant is the only witness to the conception. Like the George Zimmerman case, he can tell any story he wants without fear he will ever be contradicted.

That may not be the case Quill. She is severely intellectually disabled due to be in a vegitative state and thus unable to speak. Though she is able to move her legs and arms slightly and respond to speech with facial expressions. (I found out this today) Again she is still going to have the mind of when she had this accident of around a 3 year old, but is it then possible to ask questions to the victim, wherein she can respond with facial expressions?

I have no idea how credible this would be in court, but it could also be damning to the defendent, if she showed anguish, anger, being upset, at pictures of this individual and questions asked in a manner she could understand.

Again I am not sure on the law in regards to Intellectually disabled

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:47 pm

The woman's family released a statement on Tuesday via their lawyer clarifying her condition.

“She has significant intellectual disabilities as a result of seizures very early in her childhood,” John Michaels, the family’s lawyer, said in a statement.

“She does not speak but has some ability to move her limbs, head and neck. Their daughter responds to sound and is able to make facial gestures.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/nurse-who-got-patient-coma-13899076

Correction, they said sound, not speech, though unsure what they mean by that, but she can respond. Which could be crucial to this case

Again as the Police state, there is no way someone of that mindset and age mindset could ever give consent

Though I doubt that is route the defense lawyer would take.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Seems like I owe Quill And Victor an apology, due to the fact. Some blood sucking Lawyer, is actually trying a defense claiming "no direct evidence".

Apology accepted, though I understand your initial reticence. I never said I favored the defense; I said you can expect to see it in this case.

I, too, don't think it's smart to question the DNA evidence. But the lawyer is on the right track to question the absence of direct evidence.

Remember, the other element of sexual assault is the absence of actual, factual consent. This is not like the underage issue, where the victim in legally incapacitated from consenting by virtue of age. The state must in this case actually prove the actual lack of consent.

Slam dunk, you think? Remember, the defendant is the only witness to the conception. Like the George Zimmerman case, he can tell any story he wants without fear he will ever be contradicted.

There was at least one witness to the "fight" between Zimmerman and Martin. You really need to check your facts more often - what with you being a lawyer.

by Original Quill Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:13 pm

Thor wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Apology accepted, though I understand your initial reticence. I never said I favored the defense; I said you can expect to see it in this case.

I, too, don't think it's smart to question the DNA evidence. But the lawyer is on the right track to question the absence of direct evidence.

Remember, the other element of sexual assault is the absence of actual, factual consent. This is not like the underage issue, where the victim in legally incapacitated from consenting by virtue of age. The state must in this case actually prove the actual lack of consent.

Slam dunk, you think? Remember, the defendant is the only witness to the conception. Like the George Zimmerman case, he can tell any story he wants without fear he will ever be contradicted.

That may not be the case Quill. She is severely intellectually disabled due to be in a vegitative state and thus unable to speak. Though she is able to move her legs and arms slightly and respond to speech with facial expressions. (I found out this today) Again she is still going to have the mind of when she had this accident of around a 3 year old, but is it then possible to ask questions to the victim, wherein she can respond with facial expressions?

I have no idea how credible this would be in court, but it could also be damning to the defendent, if she showed anguish, anger, being upset, at pictures of this individual and questions asked in a manner she could understand.

Again I am not sure on the law in regards to Intellectually disabled

If she can communicate, but has the mental age of a 3-year old, she may not be qualified to testify, particularly to respond to complex questions. There are laws limiting child testimony already in place.

But, you might say, she therefore also had no capacity to consent. Except, her real age is beyond the age of majority...how do you get to say which age predominates for purposes of determining [rape] consent? And this doesn't even reach the factual question of how a defendant is supposed to presume minority status in a fully mature woman.

This presents a case of first impression. Laws are made by legislatures, not courts. Does a court want to legislate and say that mental age is superior to actual age? Isn't that judicial activism?

And, what consequences? Maybe the next case is not about rape, but is over a will. Now we are into determining property rights by arguing the mental age of a testator. You change a little cog in the works, you see what you get?

by Original Quill Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:20 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Apology accepted, though I understand your initial reticence. I never said I favored the defense; I said you can expect to see it in this case.

I, too, don't think it's smart to question the DNA evidence. But the lawyer is on the right track to question the absence of direct evidence.

Remember, the other element of sexual assault is the absence of actual, factual consent. This is not like the underage issue, where the victim in legally incapacitated from consenting by virtue of age. The state must in this case actually prove the actual lack of consent.

Slam dunk, you think? Remember, the defendant is the only witness to the conception. Like the George Zimmerman case, he can tell any story he wants without fear he will ever be contradicted.

There was at least one witness to the "fight" between Zimmerman and Martin. You really need to check your facts more often - what with you being a lawyer.

But you get the point as to this case, don't you? (We'll argue the Trayvon Martin case another time, and what constitutes a percipient witness.) The point here is, what latitude...who gets to tell his story without contradiction.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:29 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

There was at least one witness to the "fight" between Zimmerman and Martin. You really need to check your facts more often - what with you being a lawyer.

But you get the point as to this case, don't you? (We'll argue the Trayvon Martin case another time, and what constitutes a percipient witness.) The point here is, what latitude...who gets to tell his story without contradiction.

You should choose your examples more carefully. Zimmerman certainly was not able to tell his story without contradiction.

by Original Quill Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

But you get the point as to this case, don't you? (We'll argue the Trayvon Martin case another time, and what constitutes a percipient witness.) The point here is, what latitude...who gets to tell his story without contradiction.

You should choose your examples more carefully. Zimmerman certainly was not able to tell his story without contradiction.

I'll prove you wrong on that point another time. This is a thread about another case, and didge is raising some important points and we are having an excellent discussion.

If you'd like, start another thread on the Trayvon Martin murder, and I'll join so we can discuss limitations on witness perception.

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:23 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You should choose your examples more carefully. Zimmerman certainly was not able to tell his story without contradiction.

I'll prove you wrong on that point another time. This is a thread about another case, and didge is raising some important points and we are having an excellent discussion.

If you'd like, start another thread on the Trayvon Martin murder, and I'll join so we can discuss limitations on witness perception.

No. You brought up Zimmerman, quite falsely, so don't give me that nonsense. If you don't want me to pull you up, don't use Zimmerman as an false example.

by Original Quill Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I'll prove you wrong on that point another time. This is a thread about another case, and didge is raising some important points and we are having an excellent discussion.

If you'd like, start another thread on the Trayvon Martin murder, and I'll join so we can discuss limitations on witness perception.

No. You brought up Zimmerman, quite falsely, so don't give me that nonsense. If you don't want me to pull you up, don't use Zimmerman as an false example.

Ahhh...it's a wonderful idea for discussion on it's own. Start the thread...we haven't had one about Trayvon Martin--one of your favorite subjects--for a long, long time. How brilliant of you to think of it!

cheers

by Syl Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:48 pm

Maybe a different thread discussing Zimmerman would be a good idea, cos I cant for the life of me think what the connection is with this thread. scratch

by Maddog Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:40 pm

Syl wrote:Maybe a different thread discussing Zimmerman would be a good idea, cos I cant for the life of me think what the connection is with this thread.

Why would that matter. Cool

by Raggamuffin Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:26 pm

Syl wrote:Maybe a different thread discussing Zimmerman would be a good idea, cos I cant for the life of me think what the connection is with this thread.

Ask Quill - he brought him up. There's no need for a new thread, Quill just needs to accept that he chose a bad example.

by Syl Fri Jan 25, 2019 1:10 am

I cant think of any other case comparable to this one.

Many vulnerable people are raped, but a woman with a mental age of three, who has been in a vegatative state for more than 20 years giving birth to a baby fathered by an empoyee who was supposed to be caring for her.....and all this hidden from her family and the authorities till days after the birth......surely this case is a first of it's kind.

Or at least the first that has been made public.

by Maddog Fri Jan 25, 2019 1:21 am

Syl wrote:I cant think of any other case comparable to this one.

Many vulnerable people are raped, but a woman with a mental age of three, who has been in a vegatative state for more than 20 years giving birth to a baby fathered by an empoyee who was supposed to be caring for her.....and all this hidden from her family and the authorities till days after the birth......surely this case is a first of it's kind.

Or at least the first that has been made public.

We have similar cases all of the time, but it involves alcohol as the reason a woman can't consent. Drunk girl leaves party. She's too drunk too consent. DNA links male to sexual activity. He claims it was consensual but her level of intoxication makes it impossible for her to consent. This woman in AZ was far more incapacitated than a drunk woman.

The resident lawyer here is full of shit.

by Syl Fri Jan 25, 2019 1:30 am

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:I cant think of any other case comparable to this one.

Many vulnerable people are raped, but a woman with a mental age of three, who has been in a vegatative state for more than 20 years giving birth to a baby fathered by an empoyee who was supposed to be caring for her.....and all this hidden from her family and the authorities till days after the birth......surely this case is a first of it's kind.

Or at least the first that has been made public.

We have similar cases all of the time, but it involves alcohol as the reason a woman can't consent. Drunk girl leaves party. She's too drunk too consent. DNA links male to sexual activity. He claims it was consensual but her level of intoxication makes it impossible for her to consent. This woman in AZ was far more incapacitated than a drunk woman.

The resident lawyer here is full of shit.

This woman had no voice before, during or after the event...she cant simply sober up and give her side of the story.
If the mans dna matches the babies, there is no doubt he raped her and fathered the child.

by Maddog Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:21 pm

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:

We have similar cases all of the time, but it involves alcohol as the reason a woman can't consent. Drunk girl leaves party. She's too drunk too consent. DNA links male to sexual activity. He claims it was consensual but her level of intoxication makes it impossible for her to consent. This woman in AZ was far more incapacitated than a drunk woman.

The resident lawyer here is full of shit.

This woman had no voice before, during or after the event...she cant simply sober up and give her side of the story.
If the mans dna matches the babies, there is no doubt he raped her and fathered the child.

That's true. Intoxication is temporary situation that keeps someone from legally being a legal to consent.

This woman has a permanent condition that keeps her from being able to consent. Therefore sex with her will always be rape.

I think the birth of a child with matching DNA proves that this dude had sex with her and therefore raped her.

by Syl Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:53 pm

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:

This woman had no voice before, during or after the event...she cant simply sober up and give her side of the story.
If the mans dna matches the babies, there is no doubt he raped her and fathered the child.

That's true. Intoxication is temporary situation that keeps someone from legally being a legal to consent.

This woman has a permanent condition that keeps her from being able to consent. Therefore sex with her will always be rape.

I think the birth of a child with matching DNA proves that this dude had sex with her and therefore raped her.

I agree.
And tbh I cant see any sane person in any court of law trying to argue differently.

by Original Quill Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:48 pm

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:

We have similar cases all of the time, but it involves alcohol as the reason a woman can't consent. Drunk girl leaves party. She's too drunk too consent. DNA links male to sexual activity. He claims it was consensual but her level of intoxication makes it impossible for her to consent. This woman in AZ was far more incapacitated than a drunk woman.

The resident lawyer here is full of shit.

This woman had no voice before, during or after the event...she cant simply sober up and give her side of the story.
If the mans dna matches the babies, there is no doubt he raped her and fathered the child.

No question that is the generalization. Unfortunately, you don't understand the standards of direct and indirect evidence. It's indirect evidence anytime you have to rely on such generalization. Only when you can ask (and answer) a percipient witness the relevant person, what happened, is there direct evidence.

As a legal matter, direct evidence trumps indirect evidence. So you can give all the textbook/medical-records evidence you want, but as soon as someone steps up and says, no...she woke up and gave consent, its superseded. Then there is an issue of fact.

As the only witness, if the accused is smart he will claim that she woke up and gave consent. Innocent until guilty, it's up to the prosecution to bring forth evidence that it didn't happen the way the accused said. At worst, it leaves it to the jury to determine if there is reasonable doubt.

by eddie Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:56 pm

Quill, if a seriously ill woman awakens from a coma...don’t you think the man would/should call medical staff?
Why wouldn’t he?

As for direct and indirect evidence, if the person cannot speak then indirect evidence is evidence enough.

by Original Quill Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:06 pm

eddie wrote:Quill, if a seriously ill woman awakens from a coma...don’t you think the man would/should call medical staff?
Why wouldn’t he?

I would expect he would. It's a relevant question to ask if you are arguing to the jury. But his lawyer might ask the jury: Even if he didn't call anyone, does that make him a rapist? Suppose the guy testifies, she slipped back into a coma and I knew no one would believe me that she consented. So I kept my mouth shut...until now.?

eddie wrote:As for direct and indirect evidence, if the person cannot speak then indirect evidence is evidence enough.

How do you establish she didn't speak? Remember, the State must prove every element. In this hypothetical, the defendant is alleging she did speak up and gave consent. He is the only witness. How do you disprove him?

by Sponsored content