Disturbing Rape Case

[dmp]

Here's what gets me:


http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/14/D8I825980.html

Evalyn Ursua, the woman's lawyer, said earlier that Smith's admission of having had sex with the woman was an important boost to the case against the Marines, and that Smith would need to prove his claim it was consensual sex.

Emphasis Mine.

WTF? Since when does somebody have to PROVE innocence? Are not Citizens INNOCENT until proven guilty? The burden of proof is squarly upon the shoulders of the plantif.

 

[jillian]

Here's what gets me:


http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/14/D8I825980.html



Emphasis Mine.

WTF? Since when does somebody have to PROVE innocence? Are not Citizens INNOCENT until proven guilty? The burden of proof is squarly upon the shoulders of the plantif.

He doesn't have to prove his "innocence". He admitted to one of the elements of the case, which is sex with the woman. If she can prove, by her testimony, that it was against her will, the burdern of proof then shifts to the Defendant to show that it was consensual, by his testimony and/or the testimony of the witnesses.

 

[dmp]

If she can prove, by her testimony, that it was against her will, the burdern of proof then shifts to the Defendant to show that it was consensual, by his testimony and/or the testimony of the witnesses.

Nobody's testimony is 'proof' - it's 'evidence'.

 

[GotZoom]

Here's what gets me:


http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/14/D8I825980.html



Emphasis Mine.

WTF? Since when does somebody have to PROVE innocence? Are not Citizens INNOCENT until proven guilty? The burden of proof is squarly upon the shoulders of the plantif.

Not in the Philippines. Especially when it comes to the U.S. Forces stationed/visiting there.

I had a friend named Rudy when I was there. He was a communications analyst. He was scheduled to go to the National Security Agency for a very exclusive class. A month before he was supposed to go, he was driving his motorcycle down the mountain from a resort called Baguio. The locals liked to stage accidents in order to get the U.S. military members to pay up cash on the spot to make the accident go away. They would threaten "International Hold" if you didn't. You could be stuck there forever if you were on International Hold. Didn't matter if you had orders or not.

Anyway..this local jumps in front of Rudy's bike. Rudy smacks him and they both get thrown about 20 feet. Rudy checks the guy out and can't find a pulse. Rudy is sure he killed him. He gets on his bike (it was still operable) and rides down the mountain to the next town; tells the local police what happened and they all go back to the scene. Once they get there, the body is gone. There is blood on the road but no body. They search all over and can't find anything or anyone. Speculation is that there were two "jumpers" and the other guy drug the first body away.

Bottom line. Even though there was no body or proof other than Rudy saying he hit someone, Rudy was put on International Hold and kept in the country; for a year after his rotation date. No class at NSA, no change of station, no leave, no nothing.

This is also the country who during a Status of Forces agreement negoation, held out signing the paperwork until the U.S. government agreed to give every local who worked on the base an extra bag of rice (agreement was for 2 each, the government wanted 3 each.

 

[jillian]

Evidence: Any form of proof legally presented at a trial through witnesses, records, documents, etc.

http://www.ndcourts.com/court/glossary.htm

I'm talking about "burden of proof", though. Different issues.

 

[GotZoom]

http://www.ndcourts.com/court/glossary.htm

I'm talking about "burden of proof", though. Different issues.

Toto...you aren't in North Dakota anymore.

Philippines, Toto...forget about rules that make sense.

 

[Mr. P]

Nobody's testimony is 'proof' - it's 'evidence'.

I’m no attorney, but I think sometimes 'evidence' = ‘proof', or am I missing something? No don't think so..many times the only thing regarding 'proof' is the
'evidence' from testimony. I could be wrong..but I don't think so.

 

[Mr. P]

Philippines? my bad...didn't even look at where it was...nevermind.:scratch:

 

[jillian]

Toto...you aren't in North Dakota anymore.

Philippines, Toto...forget about rules that make sense.

Heh! Didn't see that either. :huh:

 

[Mr. P]

Guess this is the "when in Rome" thingy.

 

[dmp]

I’m no attorney, but I think sometimes 'evidence' = ‘proof', or am I missing something? No don't think so..many times the only thing regarding 'proof' is the
'evidence' from testimony. I could be wrong..but I don't think so.

Evidence is most certianly NOT proof (of guilt). Evidence leads a judge or jury to delcare Guilt or Not. Is there PROOF of evolution? No..there is evidence which leads some people to buy into the theory. Is there PROOF OJ killed two people? IMO yes, but a Jury didn't agree.

 

[GotZoom]

I read a few articles (some from Philippino newspapers) and really think these guys are getting railroaded.

They met the girl in a bar. She "dirty danced" with him, grinded against his crotch, and sat in his lap making out. Then they go outside to the van the military members has contracted to drive them around town. Even the van driver (a local) said she was a willing participant.

There are two women who work in the bars. Girls who were hookers and those who weren't. The ones who weren't usually worked as bar tenders or servers. They would send money home telling their parents that they worked as sew girls or housegirls. If the parents knew the money came from working in the bars, they wouldn't take it.

Of course..we know what hookers do.

If she did all this with him, she was definitely hooking. Maybe she wanted more money because the other guys were watching and he said no. Maybe she wanted each one to pay since they got to watch and they all said no.

Whatever the reason..I'm betting it was consensual.

Unfortunately, the truth doesn't matter over there.

 

[dmp]

doesn't matter so much over here either.

 

[Nienna]

Moral of the story: Don't do it with hookers. Or women who act like hookers.

 

[Mr. P]

Evidence is most certianly NOT proof (of guilt). ....

:rotflmao: Video of a crime is not proof? Tis evidence, right? Eye witness accounts are evidence too, sometimes right? You lose, now run the speed limit, else they will use radar as evidence yer speedin.:rotflmao:

 

[dmp]

:rotflmao: Video of a crime is not proof? Tis evidence, right? Eye witness accounts are evidence too, sometimes right? You lose, now run the speed limit, else they will use radar as evidence yer speedin.:rotflmao:

Video of a crime is 'evidence' a crime occurred - not irrefutable. Eye Witness accounts are notoriously BAD/WEAK evidence.

For something to be proven, evidence must be shown as a way to lead to the conclusion of proof.

 

[jillian]

Video of a crime is 'evidence' a crime occurred - not irrefutable. Eye Witness accounts are notoriously BAD/WEAK evidence.

For something to be proven, evidence must be shown as a way to lead to the conclusion of proof.

I know this might sound a bit like semantics, but evidence and proof are pretty much synonymous. Whether that evidence leads to a "finding of fact" is what you're really looking for, I think.

 

[Gunny]

He doesn't have to prove his "innocence". He admitted to one of the elements of the case, which is sex with the woman. If she can prove, by her testimony, that it was against her will, the burdern of proof then shifts to the Defendant to show that it was consensual, by his testimony and/or the testimony of the witnesses.

I disagree. Not with "how it is," but that ISN'T how it is supposed to be. The defendant should not have to prove innocence at all. That goes against the basic principle of US law, as written.

 

[manu1959]

He doesn't have to prove his "innocence". He admitted to one of the elements of the case, which is sex with the woman. If she can prove, by her testimony, that it was against her will, the burdern of proof then shifts to the Defendant to show that it was consensual, by his testimony and/or the testimony of the witnesses.

you have to prove a crime....consensual sex is not a crime....she has to prove it was against her will....burden of proof lies with the prosecutor not the defendant

 

[Mr. P]

you have to prove a crime....consensual sex is not a crime....she has to prove it was against her will....burden of proof lies with the prosecutor not the defendant

I most cases yes...in one like this, just create doubt..Done..