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

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...

I think a jury would correctly think...


WHY DIDNT HE CALL (EXCITEDLY) FOR MEDICAL STAFF IMMEDIATELY?

Why wouldn’t he?

eddie wrote:I think a jury would correctly think...


WHY DIDNT HE CALL (EXCITEDLY) FOR MEDICAL STAFF IMMEDIATELY?

Why wouldn’t he?

The defendant testifies she did speak up and gave consent. But after the sex she immediately fell back into the coma. Without her as a witness to the consent, he reasoned it would be best if he didn't say anything. After all, but for the pregnancy no one would know.

He is the only witness. How do you disprove him?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I think a jury would correctly think...


WHY DIDNT HE CALL (EXCITEDLY) FOR MEDICAL STAFF IMMEDIATELY?

Why wouldn’t he?

The defendant testifies she did speak up and gave consent.  But after the sex she immediately fell back into the coma.  Without her as a witness to the consent, he reasoned it would be best if he didn't say anything.  After all, but for the pregnancy no one would know.

He is the only witness. How do you disprove him?

The defense are not even enteraining such a claim, and there is a massive reason as to why. Which I have already explained throughout this thread.

She simple would be unable to give consent, due to the mental age that she has alongside suffering sever brain damage

Which medical experts can easily prove is the case

Hence why the defense is attempting to fight on grounds around the DNA

Didge wrote:The defense are not even enteraining such a claim, and there is a massive reason as to why. Which I have already explained throughout this thread.

She simple would be unable to give consent, due to the mental age that she has alongside suffering sever brain damage

But the defendant gives direct testimony that she woke up and gave express consent.

Didge wrote:Which medical experts can easily prove is the case

But the defendant has direct evidence that contradicts the experts.  It makes news in the National Enquirer...GIRL IN COMA WAKES UP AND CONSENTS TO SEX!!

The article gives the full account: "Said she was tired afterward," it said, "she fell back to sleep."

Didge wrote:Hence why the defense is attempting to fight on grounds around the DNA

I don't know about the DNA.  That's not a part of the hypothetical.

Original Quill 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.

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.

You think it would be smart for a supposed carer of a woman with a mental age of three, who has been in a vegatative state for 26 years, to stand in court and claim she woke up, asked for sex, then fell back into her coma again.....he obliged, impregnated her, and kept schtum till he was arrested only after his dna matched with the baby?

Yes.....I can see why you would think that would work.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:The defense are not even enteraining such a claim, and there is a massive reason as to why. Which I have already explained throughout this thread.

She simple would be unable to give consent, due to the mental age that she has alongside suffering sever brain damage

But the defendant gives direct testimony that she woke up and gave express consent.

Irrelevant, as she is unable mentally to give consent.

She is already awake, but has significant intellectual disabilities

“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

Didge wrote:Irrelevant, as she is unable mentally to give consent.

The defendant tells the jury, She seemed perfectly lucid to me...even asked for a glass of water. I fell in love instantaneously! She's a beautiful girl.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Irrelevant, as she is unable mentally to give consent.

The defendant tells the jury, She seemed perfectly lucid to me...even asked for a glass of water.  I fell in love instantaneously!  She's a beautiful girl.

Irrelevant, as she is unable mentally to give consent.

Which medical experts can easily prove

Didge wrote:She is already awake, but has significant intellectual disabilities

The defendant tells the jury he never read her chart. He didn't know anything about her...'cept she was beautiful, intoxicating, and I fell in love immediately. But after wild and wonderful sex, she just wanted to go back to sleep.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:She is already awake, but has significant intellectual disabilities

The defendant tells the jury he never read her chart.  He didn't know anything about her...'cept she was beautiful, intoxicating, and I fell in love immediately.  But after wild and wonderful sex, she just wanted to go back to sleep.

Irrelevant, as she is unable mentally to give consent.

Which medical experts can easily prove

The defendant contests the expert's opinion of her mental state.  

How's the jury going to find lack of consent against that love story?

Original Quill wrote:How's the jury going to find lack of consent against that love story?

Irrelevant, as she is unable mentally to give consent.

Which medical experts can easily prove

Original Quill wrote:The defendant contests the expert's opinion of her mental state.  

How's the jury going to find lack of consent against that love story?

I'd say it results in a hung jury, as all the women on the panel are in tears.

A Hollywood production company approaches the defendant for the right to the story. He gets rich.

Original Quill wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The defendant contests the expert's opinion of her mental state.  

How's the jury going to find lack of consent against that love story?

I'd say it results in a hung jury, as all the women on the panel are in tears.

A Hollywood production company approaches the defendant for the right to the story.  He gets rich.

They can contest all they like, but the prosecution can easily prove through sicence she cannot give consent.

Also your vieW to him admitting to having sex with the victim. Goes against his actual defense being made by the lawyer, which is to challenge the DNA

In other words, he would end up convicting himself

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'd say it results in a hung jury, as all the women on the panel are in tears.

A Hollywood production company approaches the defendant for the right to the story.  He gets rich.

They can contest all they like, but the prosecution can easily prove through sicence she cannot give consent."

In law, proof = what the jury says.

Didge wrote:Also your vie to him admitting to having sex with the victim. Goes against his actual defense being made by the lawyer, which is to challenge the DNA

But he doesn't raise the DNA defense.

Didge wrote:In other words, he would end up convicting himself

The jury was hung.  He's out, walking around.  The prosecution is pondering whether to bring a second case.

The Hollywood production company is starting on filming, and they've engaged Chris Hemsworth to play the defendant, and Rachel Weisz to play the girl.  The script is rewritten a bit, and she's an Indian Princess, daughter of a chief of the White Mountain Apache.

The Tribe goes to court for parental rights to the baby...It's White Mountain Apache Tribe v. [whoever Chris Hemsworth plays].  The Tribe makes him an offer to make him an honorary member, and the couple arranges a shaman marriage (their religion allows the bride to be asleep).

What result: does the State of Arizona refile the case or sue for a part of the proceeds?

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

They can contest all they like, but the prosecution can easily prove through sicence she cannot give consent."

In law, proof = what the jury says.

Didge wrote:Which medical experts can provide

But he doesn't raise the DNA defense.

Didge wrote:But his defense team are, hence your views and claims contradict the defense being made by them

The jury was hung.  He's out, walking around.  The prosecution is pondering whether to bring a second case.

What result: does the State of Arizona refile the case?

This man  is as good as convicted. His DNA matches the child

Unless the defense team can scientifally prove the defendent is a God and the victim immaculately conceived. He is guilty as charged

The jury says, ehhh...

In an informal discussion after trial, the women of the jury say the State of Arizona failed to prove lack of consent. The defendant was a nice boy, they said, and the expert looked a little shady and weasley.

They apologize (insincerely) for failing to come to a consensus, but as one said, wattaya gonna do?

Original Quill wrote:The jury says,  ehhh...

In an informal discussion after trial, the women of the jury say the State of Arizona failed to prove lack of consent.  The defendant was a nice boy, they said, and the expert looked a little shady and weasley.

They apologize (insincerely) for failing to come to a consensus, but as one said, wattaya gonna do?

The jury will find this man as guilty as charged and quite a sick individual. Place in a position of trust that sexually abuse at least one patient.

You do realise they are now investigating if other patients also have been abused by this individual

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The jury says,  ehhh...

In an informal discussion after trial, the women of the jury say the State of Arizona failed to prove lack of consent.  The defendant was a nice boy, they said, and the expert looked a little shady and weasley.

They apologize (insincerely) for failing to come to a consensus, but as one said, wattaya gonna do?

The jury will find this man as guilty as charged and quite a sick individual. Place in a position of trust that sexually abuse at least one patient.

You do realise they are now investigating if other patients also have been abused by this individual

That's not in hypothetical.  The hypothetical supposes that the jury is hung. I think the members of the jury will have doubts.

We should watch this case.  It will be fun.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

The jury will find this man as guilty as charged and quite a sick individual. Place in a position of trust that sexually abuse at least one patient.

You do realise they are now investigating if other patients also have been abused by this individual

That's not in hypothetical.  The hypothetical supposes that the jury is hung.  I think the members of the jury will have doubts.

We should watch this case.  It will be fun.

Why would they have any doubts on this reality? Its not even hypothetical. A women, who as a child suffered major brain damage to the extent. She is now intellectually disabled. I also fail to see how this is even fun for anyone. We have a woman, who has never had the opportunity to grow as an adult like everyone else and remains in the mind of a child. Let alone the severity of the braindamage she has suffered with seizures.

So I realy doubt anyone including the jury will even consider your hypothetical. They will see that this woman became pregnant whilst in the care of people that were employed based on a position of trust. Where clearly this trust was compromised and abused. Meaning she was raped. What we sadly do not know, is how many times she was actually abused by this man or even in the worst case scenario others. As how else did not even the rest of staff. Not even notice she was pregnant? What I see here is an even bigger issue of abuse where many are complicit to this abuse.

How else do you explain his DNA, that he freely admitted to the court, that matches the child?

So no compromised supposes that the jury is hung on this. That is only within your own mind

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's not in hypothetical.  The hypothetical supposes that the jury is hung.  I think the members of the jury will have doubts.

We should watch this case.  It will be fun.

Why would they have any doubts on this reality? Its not even hypothetical. A women, who as a child suffered major brain damage to the extent. She is now intellectually disabled. I also fail to see how this is even fun for anyone. We have a woman, who has never had the opportunity to grow as an adult like everyone else and remains in the mind of a child. Let alone the severity of the braindamage she has suffered with seizures.

So I realy doubt anyone including the jury will even consider your hypothetical. They will see that this woman became pregnant whilst in the care of people that were employed based on a position of trust. Where clearly this trust was compromised and abused. Meaning she was raped. What wqe sadly do not know, is how many times she was actually abused by this man. How else do you explain his DNA, that he freely admitted to the court, that matches the child?

So no compromised supposes that the jury is hung on this. That is only within your own mind

That is a factual question. Questions of fact are left to a jury. It is written.

We can all speculate on what a jury would do. As an attorney, it's only my job to pose the possibilities.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

Why would they have any doubts on this reality? Its not even hypothetical. A women, who as a child suffered major brain damage to the extent. She is now intellectually disabled. I also fail to see how this is even fun for anyone. We have a woman, who has never had the opportunity to grow as an adult like everyone else and remains in the mind of a child. Let alone the severity of the braindamage she has suffered with seizures.

So I realy doubt anyone including the jury will even consider your hypothetical. They will see that this woman became pregnant whilst in the care of people that were employed based on a position of trust. Where clearly this trust was compromised and abused. Meaning she was raped. What wqe sadly do not know, is how many times she was actually abused by this man. How else do you explain his DNA, that he freely admitted to the court, that matches the child?

So no compromised supposes that the jury is hung on this. That is only within your own mind

That is a factual question.  Questions of fact are left to a jury.  It is written.

We can all speculate on what a jury would do.  As an attorney, it's only my job to pose the possibilities.

Well I pose one simple question to you on being an attorney.

Have you factored empathic intelligence in regards to the jury

I gather you have not

As iot will be there job to try and place themselves in the position of the victim and suspect

You clearly have not

If you had, then you will know why your points Quill hold no balance and reasoning here

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

The jury will find this man as guilty as charged and quite a sick individual. Place in a position of trust that sexually abuse at least one patient.

You do realise they are now investigating if other patients also have been abused by this individual

That's not in hypothetical.  The hypothetical supposes that the jury is hung.  I think the members of the jury will have doubts.

We should watch this case.  It will be fun.

You really are quite sick in the head...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's not in hypothetical.  The hypothetical supposes that the jury is hung.  I think the members of the jury will have doubts.

We should watch this case.  It will be fun.

You really are quite sick in the head...!

I agree with you Tommy

Its completely sick to view this as some how fun
Which I guess only comes from a lawyer mentality

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's not in hypothetical.  The hypothetical supposes that the jury is hung.  I think the members of the jury will have doubts.

We should watch this case.  It will be fun.

You really are quite sick in the head...!

What??  You aren't interested?  Or, afraid to look?  Then why are you checking into the thread?  

So you are afraid of contemplating some of the consequences?  Fine lawyer you would turn out to be.  Whaa...whaa, I can't look!  Imagine a surgeon who was scared to see blood.  Too afraid to look out for your client's interests?

It's a competitive game, mate. If you can't pee in the tall grass, you can't run with the big dogs.  You would be lunch.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


You really are quite sick in the head...!

What??  You aren't interested?  Or, afraid to look?  Then why are you checking into the thread?  

So you are afraid of contemplating some of the consequences?  Fine lawyer you would turn out to be.  Whaa...whaa, I can't look!  Imagine a surgeon who was scared to see blood.  Too afraid to look out for your client's interests?

It's a competitive game, mate.  If you can't pee in the tall grass, you can't run with the big dogs.  You would be lunch.

Quill, I dont think anyone here but you professes to be a lawyer, but if you seriously think a jury, after hearing the clap trap of  imaginary scenario's you keep offering up in defence of this man, would be  the teeniest bit swayed that he is not  a perverted, evil, scum of the earth  rapist of the worst kind...….you must be deluded.

She has a mental age of three, is in a vegative state, no reports say she was ever NOT in a vegatative state in the 26 years she has been there'
He had the opportunity, the time, he was often alone with her....Oh, and his dna matches that of the baby.

She has the mental age of a three year old - how does she know what sex is - to give her consent?

I think Quill knows he is talking shite but cannot back down now....and I am betting it’s all because he didn’t read the article properly.

Syl wrote:... if you seriously think a jury, after hearing the clap trap of  imaginary scenario's you keep offering up in defence of this man, would be  the teeniest bit swayed that he is not  a perverted, evil, scum of the earth  rapist of the worst kind...

People like absolutist, even simplistic solutions.  It's like a warm blanket, it gives them comfort.  Hence, the temper tantrums given by tommy and didge when I try to stretch their mental faculties a bit.

When you teach law, you give students ‘hypotheticals’ that delve into the unusual, in order to see if the student can recognize legal issues in everyday life, and if he can work himself out of a quandary, applying (already learned) law to the situation.

One answer that will surely get a student a FAIL is to resist the factual pattern, and effectively run away from the question.  One, it indicates you are not very good at analyzing the pattern.  Two, it shows your answer is to run away from problems rather than confront them.  (It’s very much like Trump does, when he recreates facts that are not to his liking.)

Here, I gave some posters some twists to the hypotheticals in order to stretch thinking about a situation.  Instead of serious analytical thought, I got back a couple of temper tantrums.  A lawyer is handed a problem in the form of a set of facts.  He cannot respond to the pattern by displaying intolerance or going into a temper tantrum.  He’s got to be prepared to deal with reality.

Nor can he rearrange the facts to his liking.  Saying, simply, a jury won't do that, is called avoidance: suppose a physician opened up a patient and found cancer that had matascized throughout the body.  Could he respond by giving a temper tantrum, or by saying: that’s not there…I’ll ignore it? Nor can a lawyer simply do nothing…although, all to many do.

So, I gave some creative ideas for a lawyer to play out in defense of the guy, whoever he is.

Common-law or forcible rape is sexual intercourse against a person’s will.  Generally, the essential elements of a common-law or forcible rape are;

US Legal wrote:
• Sexual intercourse,
• Force or threat, and
• Lack of consent of the victim.

Going through the check-list of elements, we find that the state must prove a lack of consent.  A-hah…it’s obvious: with an unconscious person you can have neither consent, nor non-consent.  Let’s contrive a law school exam question about defending the guy.  (Didge kept going into the DNA question, but I avoided that like the plague.)  Simply put: how are you going to deal with consent?

I know…who am I to test other posters?  Well, all too many threads are filled with tsk, tsk…and, let’s all find some cozy, mutual consensus somewhere, to make us feel better.  But I say, better to pose the problems that come at one in life, rather than try to find some rose-colored glasses to put on.

She is unable mentally to give consent, as she is intellectually disbaled and unable to speak.

Which medical experts can easily prove

Thor wrote:She is unable mentally to give consent, as she is intellectually disbaled and unable to speak.

Which medical experts can easily prove

But, the only testimony is that she woke up and consented. That's direct, on-the-spot testimony, whereas the experts are only giving indirect testimony. Just because they are experts doesn't mean anything; after all, so-called experts once told us the world was flat. You've got a contradiction between direct and indirect evidence.

How do you deal with that?

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:She is unable mentally to give consent, as she is intellectually disbaled and unable to speak.

Which medical experts can easily prove

But, the only testimony is that she woke up and consented.  That's direct, on-the-spot testimony, whereas the experts are only giving indirect testimony.  Just because they are experts doesn't mean anything; after all, so-called experts once told us the world was flat.  You've got a contradiction between direct and indirect evidence.

How do you deal with that?

Again you failed to understand reality of someone in such a state

She is awake at many times as she is able to respond to to sound with facial expressions and can at times move her arm/ legs

She is unable to speak and is intelectually disbaled

You simple cannot switch this on, off and on again

So being in such a vegitative state, she is unable to give consent, as she has severe brain damage

On top of that, she has the mental mind of a 3 year old, where no law allows a 3 year old to give consent to sex

"Again you failed to understand reality of someone in such a state" = rearranging the facts.

Didge wrote:She is awake at many times as she is able to respond to to sound with facial expressions and can at times move her arm/ legs

She is unable to speak and is intelectually disbaled

You simple cannot switch this on, off and on again

The direct testimony is she awoke and verbally consented.  It's testimony uncontradicted by any other direct witness.

Original Quill wrote:"Again you failed to understand reality of someone in such a state" = rearranging the facts.

I am trying to help you understand neurology here in regards to the limitations with someone that has suffered severe brain damag. Which has left them Intellectually disabled. Unable to speak, left only with limited body movements. She is sadly and litterally never going to recover from this

Hence she is unable and incapable of giving consent

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:"Again you failed to understand reality of someone in such a state" = rearranging the facts.

I am trying to help you understand neurology here in regards to the limitations with someone that has suffered severe brain damag. Which has left them Intellectually disabled. Unable to speak, left only with limited body movements. She is sadly and litterally never going to recover from this

Hence she is unable and incapable of giving consent

Clearly, the experts are wrong.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

I am trying to help you understand neurology here in regards to the limitations with someone that has suffered severe brain damag. Which has left them Intellectually disabled. Unable to speak, left only with limited body movements. She is sadly and litterally never going to recover from this

Hence she is unable and incapable of giving consent

Clearly, the experts are wrong.

Based on what?

You see its you making the claim and thus would be required to disprove the science here.

Hence where throughout I have said you would require medical experts

Though once her condition has been explained to the jury in ways they understand, they will understand she is incapable of giving consent

Didge wrote:On top of that, she has the mental mind of a 3 year old, where no law allows a 3 year old to give consent to sex

Ah, now here's an issue.

In addition to the direct testimony, how is the defendant to know a woman in her 30's is actually a 3-year old? He's never read nor consulted the medical records. He doesn't know anything about the patient.

Perhaps this was all just an inadequately informed staff. Let's sue the home.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:On top of that, she has the mental mind of a 3 year old, where no law allows a 3 year old to give consent to sex

Ah, now here's an issue.  

In addition to the direct testimony, how is the defendant to know a woman in her 30's is actually a 3-year old?  He's never read nor consulted the medical records.  He doesn't know anything about the patient.

Perhaps this was all just an inadequately informed staff.  Let's sue the home.

Well judging the by the fact all staff are made aware of the conditions of the patients they are treating. Plus the fact this woman has been in the exact same state, since suffering severe brain damage. Being also the fact she is unable to speak since then. Plus the fact such nurses are trained to understand and help patients in said conditions. Would be easily shown by the Prosecution, that the suspect is lying.

There is such a thing as training records.

Also ignorance of someones condition is not an excuse to think you can sexually abuse someone without their consent

Didge wrote:Well judging the by the fact all staff are made aware of the conditions of the patients they are treating.

The defendant says he was never informed about the patient.

Original Quill wrote:

Clearly, the experts are wrong.
Based on the sole witness's testimony.
To the contrary, a lawyer cannot be a witness.  It's the sole direct testimony of the defendant, who is making the claim.
If your so-called expert witnesses are believed.  Remember, experts once told us that the earth was flat and that it was a geocentric universe.  The jury must consider the possibility, however remote, that the experts are wrong.

[/quote]


OMG, this really now has descended into a farce

So now, you want to entertain the possibility, that someone severely brain damaged. Became undamaged momentarilly enough for the victim to give consent?

And you want to base this on the testimony of the suspect, and not medical experts.

So show me scientifically how that is possible?

Its like claiming that Jesus walked on water

Didge wrote:Plus the fact this woman has been in the exact same state, since suffering severe brain damage. Being also the fact she is unable to speak since then.

Apparently, things have changed. She recovered...wonderful news.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Plus the fact this woman has been in the exact same state, since suffering severe brain damage. Being also the fact she is unable to speak since then.

Apparently, things have changed.  She recovered...wonderful news.

Has she recovered from her severe brain damage?

[quote="Thor"]

Original Quill wrote:

Clearly, the experts are wrong.
Based on the sole witness's testimony.
To the contrary, a lawyer cannot be a witness.  It's the sole direct testimony of the defendant, who is making the claim.
If your so-called expert witnesses are believed.  Remember, experts once told us that the earth was flat and that it was a geocentric universe.  The jury must consider the possibility, however remote, that the experts are wrong.

OMG, this really now has descended into a farce

So now, you want to entertain the possibility, that someone severely brain damaged. Became undamaged momentarilly enough for the victim to give consent?

And you want to base this on the testimony of the suspect, and not medical experts.

So show me scientifically how that is possible?

Its like claiming that Jesus walked on water

I would add to this, being as this happened whilts she was a toddler, that she suffered said severe brain damage. That even if a miracle happened and that she recovered and her brain was fixed. How would she even understand what sex is? She has never grown up learning this or understanding this. So even based on the farcical claim she had a miracle. That her brain became undamaged. How could she be capable of consent? Then  you would have to prove how someone can go from severe brain damage to none and back to severe brain damage.

You are making yourself look really silly quill

Didge wrote:So now, you want to entertain the possibility, that someone severely brain damaged. Became undamaged momentarilly enough for the victim to give consent?

And you want to base this on the testimony of the suspect, and not medical experts.

The defendant is the sole direct witness.

The science of comas is not very advanced. Things happen and we make progress. Remember, experts once told us the earth was flat.

Didge wrote:So show me scientifically how that is possible?

Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn't have to "show" anything.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So show me scientifically how that is possible?

Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The defendant doesn't have to "show" anything.

I agree that innocent until proven guilty, which is basically a forgone conclusion, based on the DNA match that he is guilty

As how else did he become the childs father?

Didge wrote:I would add to this, being as this happened whilts she was a toddler, that she suffered said severe brain damage. That even if a miracle happened and that she recovered and her brain was fixed. How would she even understand what sex is? She has never grown up learning this or understanding this. So even based on the farcical claim she had a miracle. That her brain became undamaged. How could she be capable of consent? Then you would have to prove how someone can go from severe brain damage to none and back to severe brain damage.

Miracles happen everyday. It's called the progress of medical science.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So now, you want to entertain the possibility, that someone severely brain damaged. Became undamaged momentarilly enough for the victim to give consent?

And you want to base this on the testimony of the suspect, and not medical experts.

The defendant is the sole direct witness.

The science of comas is not very advanced.  Things happen and we make progress.  Remember, experts once told us the earth was flat.

She is not in a coma, but a vegitative state, with severe intellectual disabilities, for the tenth time

This is why you are struggling with all of this.

Didge wrote:You are making yourself look really silly quill

This isn't about me. But, you are making yourself look really frustrated.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I would add to this, being as this happened whilts she was a toddler, that she suffered said severe brain damage. That even if a miracle happened and that she recovered and her brain was fixed. How would she even understand what sex is? She has never grown up learning this or understanding this. So even based on the farcical claim she had a miracle. That her brain became undamaged. How could she be capable of consent? Then  you would have to prove how someone can go from severe brain damage to none and back to severe brain damage.

Miracles happen everyday.  It's called the progress of medical science.

They are then not Miracles if they are explained by science

Though I am yet to see, how you think someone severely brain damaged. Can go from this to being fixed and back again to severe brain damage. Hence scientifically you would need to prove this.

You would also have to prove, how she could be capable to give consent to sex, never knowing or understanding this, since she suffered this injury as a child?

Are you going to address this scientifically or simple act on faith?