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...

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

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.

Why? Because of words? Because of mumbo-jumbo? I'm as clear as the day is light. I'm just a defense lawyer. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, remember?

I'm not saying anything...just raisin' the doubt. Your experts are wrong...it wouldn't be the first time.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

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.

Why?  Because of words?  Because of mumbo-jumbo?  I'm as clear as the day is light.  I'm just a defense lawyer.  Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, remember?

I'm not saying anything...just raisin' the doubt.  Your experts are wrong...it wouldn't be the first time.  

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. already agreed to that, but the DNA is completely damning here

You are saying some poorly based claims, not backed by any science

So again explain how he is the father of the child, through DNA

We have ruled out consent is not an option here

So what is your defense?

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

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?

Waiting for an answer Quill

Thor wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why?  Because of words?  Because of mumbo-jumbo?  I'm as clear as the day is light.  I'm just a defense lawyer.  Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, remember?

I'm not saying anything...just raisin' the doubt.  Your experts are wrong...it wouldn't be the first time.  

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. already agreed to that, but the DNA is completely damning here

DNA is only for identification. We are beyond that issue.

Here we are talking about the element of consent. Remember, the State must prove absence of consent. The sole witness says she consented.

Didge wrote:You are saying some poorly based claims, not backed by any science

So again explain how he is the father of the child, through DNA

I'm not making any claims at all. I'm just the defense lawyer, remember? Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm just raisin' the doubt.

Didge wrote:We have ruled out consent is not an option here

So what is your defense?

You can't change the facts. So now you are trying to change the law???

Didge, you can't change the hypothetical as you find it. The element of consent is still a part of the law. The defendant says she consented...period...end of...

You are the one who is raising all the 'scientific' and 'expert' mumbo-jumbo...all in the effort to raise indirect evidence to refute direct evidence.

Well, here we have a case of first impression. It happens. Experts are proven wrong all the time. The experts in this case were wrong. Clearly, I've done my job as a defense lawyer: raised reasonable doubt.

Original Quill wrote:

Thor wrote:

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. already agreed to that, but the DNA is completely damning here

DNA is only for identification.  We are beyond that issue.

Here we are talking about the element of consent.  Remember, the State must prove absence of consent.  The sole witness says she consented.

Didge wrote:No we are not alking about consent as i easily proved that this claim is preposterous

I'm not making any claims at all.  I'm just the defense lawyer, remember?  Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  I'm just raisin' the doubt.

Didge wrote:You seem to not then agree with his defense lawyers and still undable to answer my points medically and rely on faith

So what is your defense?

You can't change the facts.  So now you are trying to change the law???

Didge, you can't change the hypothetical as you find it.  The element of consent is still a part of the law.  The defendant says she consented...period...end of...

You are the one who is raising all the 'scientific' and 'expert' mumbo-jumbo...all in the effort to raise indirect evidence to refute direct evidence.

Well, here we have a case of first impression.  It happens.  Experts are proven wrong all the time.  The experts in this case were wrong.  Clearly, I've done my job as a defense lawyer: raised reasonable doubt.

Not changing the hypothetical. I am simple and easily rubbishing it, based on science

So again  

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?

She can't consent.
She can't consent.
She can't consent.
She can't consent.
She can't consent.

Maddog wrote:She can't consent.  
She can't consent.  
She can't consent.  
She can't consent.  
She can't consent.  

Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:She can't consent.  
She can't consent.  
She can't consent.  
She can't consent.  
She can't consent.  

Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.

Yes she can!
Yes she can!
Yes she can!
Yes she can!
Yes she can!

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.

Yes she can!
Yes she can!
Yes she can!
Yes she can!
Yes she can!  

Would you like to make a wager on this case counselor?

How about a 3 month ban to the loser.

I'm game, are you?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:She can't consent.  
She can't consent.  
She can't consent.  
She can't consent.  
She can't consent.  

Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Exactly.

Yes she can!
Yes she can!
Yes she can!
Yes she can!
Yes she can!  

How?

Listen to the testimony in the hypothetical. She woke up, fell in love with the guy, and demanded sex on the spot.

Unfortunately, she went back into a coma afterward, and he is the only witness. But that means he can't be contradicted by any direct evidence, either.

Remember, it is the burden of the State to prove it's case. The defendant is innocent until proven beyond a shadow of doubt, he is otherwise. Thus the onus is on the State to prove his story false. No one else was in the room.

Original Quill wrote:Listen to the testimony in the hypothetical.  She woke up, fell in love with the guy, and demanded sex on the spot.

Unfortunately, she went back into a coma afterward, and he is the only witness.  But that means he can't be contradicted by any direct evidence, either.

Remember, it is the burden of the State to prove it's case.  The defendant is innocent until proven beyond a shadow of doubt, he is otherwise.  Thus the onus is on the State to prove his story false.  No one else was in the room.

Would you like to make a wager on this case counselor?

How about a 3 month ban to the loser.

I'm game, are you?

"She woke up , fell in love, demanded sex" Are you for real Quill ?

Original Quill wrote:Listen to the testimony in the hypothetical.  She woke up, fell in love with the guy, and demanded sex on the spot.

Unfortunately, she went back into a coma afterward, and he is the only witness.  But that means he can't be contradicted by any direct evidence, either.

Remember, it is the burden of the State to prove it's case.  The defendant is innocent until proven beyond a shadow of doubt, he is otherwise.  Thus the onus is on the State to prove his story false.  No one else was in the room.

So he says.

Let me ask...would you fuck a women with a mental age of three? Would you fuck a woman who’d just woken up out of a coma and not call medical staff?

What do you think of a man who does these things?

Leave off Quill. You sound silly.

“She woke up and fell in love with the guy”??????

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Listen to the testimony in the hypothetical.  She woke up, fell in love with the guy, and demanded sex on the spot.

Unfortunately, she went back into a coma afterward, and he is the only witness.  But that means he can't be contradicted by any direct evidence, either.

Remember, it is the burden of the State to prove it's case.  The defendant is innocent until proven beyond a shadow of doubt, he is otherwise.  Thus the onus is on the State to prove his story false.  No one else was in the room.

So he says.

Let me ask...would you fuck a women with a mental age of three? Would you fuck a woman who’d just woken up out of a coma and not call medical staff?

What do you think of a man who does these things?

Leave off Quill. You sound silly.

“She woke up and fell in love with the guy”??????

You forgot "with a feeding tube".

I think any man that fucks a woman (and let’s ignore for the moment that she has the mental age of a toddler) who has just awoken from a coma...has to be slightly fucking weird.

eddie wrote:I think any man that fucks a woman (and let’s ignore for the moment that she has the mental age of a toddler) who has just awoken from a coma...has to be slightly fucking weird.

The same could be said about a man who thinks a woman in that condition is able to consent.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:I think any man that fucks a woman (and let’s ignore for the moment that she has the mental age of a toddler) who has just awoken from a coma...has to be slightly fucking weird.

The same could be said about a man who thinks a woman in that condition is able to consent.

Well exactly. It’s all a bit bloody odd.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The same could be said about a man who thinks a woman in that condition is able to consent.

Well exactly. It’s all a bit bloody odd.

No problem. It's the State's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. How are they going to prove lack of consent?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well exactly. It’s all a bit bloody odd.

No problem.  It's the State's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  How are they going to prove lack of consent?

How is any rapist convicted when there are no other witnesses?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No problem.  It's the State's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  How are they going to prove lack of consent?

How is any rapist convicted when there are no other witnesses?

That's why 60% of women don't report rapes.  It's all he said/she said.  This one is less than that.  It's all he said, period.  

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

How is any rapist convicted when there are no other witnesses?

That's why 60% of women don't report rapes.  It's all he said/she said.  This one is less than that.  It's all he said, period.  

Exactly, she cant speak....not even to agree to sex.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

How is any rapist convicted when there are no other witnesses?

That's why 60% of women don't report rapes.  It's all he said/she said.  This one is less than that.  It's all he said, period.  

That wasn't the question she asked.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's why 60% of women don't report rapes.  It's all he said/she said.  This one is less than that.  It's all he said, period.  

That wasn't the question she asked.

You're right. I forgot to say: They don't get convicted...that's why 60% of women don't report rapes.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


That wasn't the question she asked.

You're right.  I forgot to say: They don't get convicted...that's why 60% of women don't report rapes.

There are various reasons why women dont report rape.
Lets concentrate on the ones that do.
So....how is any man convicted of rape when there are no witnesses?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're right.  I forgot to say: They don't get convicted...that's why 60% of women don't report rapes.

There are various reasons why women dont report rape.
Lets concentrate on the ones that do.
So....how is any man convicted of rape when there are no witnesses?

66% of them are not reported. As to the other 34%, if there are not witnesses the prosecutor generally refuses to bring the case. Rape is a very hard crime to prove. So often, the report is just buyer's remorse.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


That wasn't the question she asked.

You're right.  I forgot to say: They don't get convicted...that's why 60% of women don't report rapes.

Actually, men are convicted of rape every day without any witnesses except the two people involved.  You're full of shit per as usual.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Well exactly. It’s all a bit bloody odd.

No problem.  It's the State's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  How are they going to prove lack of consent?

I know you are simple trying to engage mutiple ideas here, but they are not based medically

She has never understood or had the ability to uynderstand sex, being as this injury happened when she was a toddler

As I have explained many times to you and which you failed to answer

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

There are various reasons why women dont report rape.
Lets concentrate on the ones that do.
So....how is any man convicted of rape when there are no witnesses?

66% of them are not reported.  As to the other 34%, if there are not witnesses the prosecutor generally refuses to bring the case.  Rape is a very hard crime to prove.  So often, the report is just buyer's remorse.

Really?

"A record number of sex offenders were brought to justice in England and Wales last year, according to a report by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to new highs of 2,991 and 10,721 respectively, it says"



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41561656