The same goes for a majority of rape cases sadly - which is why the conviction rate is usually so low. I know someone who was raped and has never reported it to the police (despite knowing the name and details of the rapist) as the amount of hassle and trauma that would bring compared to the chance of the offender ever getting any sort of punishment for their actions was deemed not worth it, she'd prefer just to try and move on with her life instead.
Maybe he just grabbed her by the pussy, which, of course, would be fine. Wake up America. It must be time to attempt to restore some dignity to your politics soon
Hooter is mistaking the lack of liabilty for rape as negating the sexual assault. What the jury concluded was that the victim had been subject to a penetrative assault, but could not be clear if that also involved rape, during the struggle, as Carroll believed. Is that so hard to believe from someone who boasts about how you have to ‘grab them by the pussy?’ And of course there was the testimony of two other women. The jury simply had to find on the basis of probability.
No doubt it is horrible. Do you think she will write a book about naming the guy 20 years after it happened? Do you think she might remember the day and the date it happened? Failing that, do you think she might even remember the year in which it happend? And do you think if you spoke personally to the guy who she says did it, that you would simply ignore any plea he made to you that the act was consensual, and look him in the eye and call him a rapist? It is horrible. You make serious and appropriate points. But welcome to the real world. Women making false claims of rape is, in my opinion, just as bad as rape itself. Believing any person just because they say something is no-more a good thing to do than is any other form of guilty before proven innocent. I sympathise with your friend, but with nothing more than her word to go on, I cannot assume that what she says is all of the truth. The jury in this case judged Carrols rape testimony, at the lowest bar set for a rape judgement, to be a lie. If she had put a date on it, even a year, she may have been taken more seriously.
Not quite, as that wasn't the question put to the jury. They were asked if she proved 'by the preponderance of evidence that Mr Trump raped Ms Caroll' and the jury answered 'no'. They didn't judge it to be a lie, they simply concluded the allegation was not proven. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/09/nyregion/trump-liable-verdict-form-jury.html The point you're raising about the whole date thing must logically be irrelevant to their findings too, as they had no issues finding that he sexually abused her in the same incident. It's the exact nature of the incident the jury seems to have disputed, not whether or when it happened.
I think I've just read a very succinct account as to why the majority of rapes are not reported and why the conviction rate amongst those that are is so low. Especially if the victim has ever sent a racy text message to someone or went out on the occasion it happened 'provocatively' dressed (whatever that may mean). Even with some sort of forensic evidence, the victim is unwilling to subject themselves to the type of prurient cross-examination they will be subjected to. Obviously people are entitled to an adequate level of defence, but the whole approach to claims of rape needs to be rethought. An over-reliance on perceived sexual 'history', what constitutes 'consent', how the initial report is investigated....the current situation reads like a blank cheque for the aggressor.
Carroll's own testimony was that she couldn't be absolutely sure he raped her because she couldn't see....the implication being that she couldn't tell if it was an, uh, small member or a digit. I suspect that's what the jury's decision hinged on.
The dam is starting to break following yesterday's verdict. Former staffers Alyssa Farah Griffin and Stephanie Grisham speaking out about sexual harassment they witnessed during their time in the White House during the Trump administration. It was reported to the Chief of Staff in some cases, so presumably there is some record of it somewhere unless they covered it up (which isn't unlikely). https://www.newsweek.com/former-donald-trump-staffers-accuse-sexual-harassment-white-house-1799333
Her testimony was that he raped her. Her evidence was not that she was sexually assaulted. specifically, she said he put his thing in her watsit. That is rape. She gave no evidence to say it was anything else. If the evidence she gave, as the only witness, was good enough to get Trump for sexual assault, which she did not describe, then it is fair to say that the jury believed she lied about the rape; by exaggeration at the very least. So no, I disagree with your conclusion, I am sorry, and I believe a case can be made on appeal (though I believe predominantly they will go for the Judge’s peculiar behaviour) that the only evidence given was of a rape, and therefore a sexual assault verdict should not have been considered. Trump’s team would have to argue that it is a natural conclusion, that the jury’s decision was too incredible to imagine (given the eventual evidence) as they did not ask the judge to remove the sexual assault element from consideration (possibly deliberately, so as not to tempt the jury with a rape verdict as the only route to a guilty decision). The point being, regarding your above post, that the only evidence they had of an assault was from Carrol. By definition, they believed he did something to her, on her own word (making her word the height of the bar for acceptable evidence) but did not believe when she said he raped her. If there had been any other evidence to say it was a sexual assault but not a rape (that she was in some way mistaken) I would agree with you whole heartedly. But clearly there wasn’t. But in light of a guilty decision that rejected the main part of the only witnesses evidence, it is fair to say, on the preponderance of evidence , that the jury’s decision indicates she was lying about him raping her.
I believe she has referred to it as rape on many occasions as she did in her testimony. There was no evidence presented to the jury that it was not rape, even if she did say what you say. “I believe he raped me, but it could have been something else”, is still, unarguably, expressing that he raped her. With no one arguing that it was anything else, and the only witness’s opinion being that it was rape (no matter how confusingly small the member), the jury have nothing to point at any other situation, other than that put to them. Their decision demonstrates that they did not fully believe her.
In fact, she is the only person to bring the case and the case was for reparations for rape and defamation. A sexual assault decision should only be possible if another witness described something happening that was not rape. But no one contested her evidence. So it was literally a matter of “Do you believe she was telling the truth? Or do you believe she was telling a lie? The jury decided that based on her own evidence, she was lying, but not enough to miss the opportunity to take Trump for five million and some bad headlines. Everyone’s happy!!
Good point. Thank you! I don’t think so in New York, but, we must remember, the jury did not believe he raped her. So even if it is, the jury did not apparently believe he did what you described.
Nah. The point I was raising with the date was the credibility of the witness in the first place, and how that reflects on the decision. She has got 5 million in damages, yet she can’t remember when it happened. It is for the jury to make its decision, but given it is a civil case, it is for those that look upon it to decide the jury’s motivation. If you were to be accused of rape and sued on similar evidence, I suspect you would be less than happy. The only reason anyone finds this decision satisfactory is because it is Trump. Put any other name in there and you’d all be saying it was a fit up, and there is nothing you can say that would persuade anyone of anything else. No offence, but you guys are seldom likely to say anything that won’t get me and iamofwfc off our heads in a little forum bingo drinking game we play. There goes another double!
E.Jean.Carrol has shown herself to be an extraordinarily brave woman. We will never know exactly what Trump did to her but there is sufficient evidence for a civil court to find him liable for damages. His outrages claim that "celebrity" status means that "rightly or wrongly" men can get away with treating woman as sexual objects is enough to convince me that most, if not all, of the accusations made against him are likely to be based on fact. Anyone defending him should ask themselves how they would feel if his victims were their daughters, wife or mother. Somethings should transcend politics imho.
Which highlights the frequent disparity between the ethical and legal aspects of the issue. So many legal systems are so anthropocentric that it is no surprise women feel unable to report sexual assaults against them.
Yes, not surprising at all really. I once had to recount something to an inquest and it was extraordinarily traumatic, almost akin experiencing it all over again. A rape victim would be forced to relive it so many times I'm honestly astonished anyone attempts to prosecute at all. It must be horrifically traumatising.
I would be outraged, and first in line to cut his balls off. If it was evident that he had indeed raped my daughter. But if my daughter was a rabid anti Trumper, who didn't tell me that he had raped her until she wrote it in a book twenty years later when she he was running for President (she didn't tell any of her family about the assault at the time), and then sued him over it six years later when he ran again, I would question her motives, for sure. Wouldn't you? Replace the name Trump with the name sydney_horn with exactly the same evidence and result, and see if you still think the same about the case. You also misquote Trump. Who said that women let you do it (when you are a star), which, if you are going to say they don't, then you will only be pulling your own plonker. Not every woman to be sure. But enough to justify him saying that women let you do it. Read just about any pop/rock/tv/film/sport/billionaire star's biography for reference. Unsavoury, but true. You should watch the Anderson Cooper interview if you want to see her in her natural environment.
So she told her friends about the assault in 1990s just in case Trump moved into politics? Tremendous planning. But you carry on trashing a victim of sexual assault if that’s your thing.
JFC, is our resident Timmy Tinfoil honestly carrying water for a sexual predator? What a stupid hill to die on.
Where have I trashed her Moose? Once again your own fantacies of reality fail to match the real world. We can't even have a serious conversation without you crying some kind of imaginary High crime on someone who disagrees with you. Pathetic.
Oh yeah, he’s reached an indisputable verdict on the verdict, which, here’s the happy thing, agrees with his politics. The victim can be summarily dismissed as a flake and an enemy of former President Sex Case.
Not following the conversation totally but anyone blaming the victim because it suits their political bias needs to give their head a wobble. If Biden, Starmer, Davies or indeed any other "non-Tory" or "non Republican" had been found to have acted in the way Trump has my reaction toward them would be exactly the same. The reason Savile got away with it for so long was because he was politically protected. Why can't people just condemn the actions of sexual deviants without introducing politics into the equation?
Why do you have to make stuff up? You are lying to the group in order to smear me. Anyone can read what I have said, so you translating it into something I have not said is just shows you up for what you are.
Trump has not been found to have done anything. Check that out with UEA. Indeed, more specifically and uncontestably, the jury have clarified that there is no evidence to say that he raped her. Which is the only thing she described him doing. And I would say that false accusations of rape are as dreadful a thing for a man as rape is to z woman. And that bibble babble about putting politics into this, as if it is not you that is doing that exact thing, is ludicrous. If it wasn't Trump, and he hadn't offended you and the establishment by becoming President, this simply would not be a thing. So, when you are the ones who make this political (the subject was brought up by one of you rabid anti Trumpers in this political forum, after all) it is impossible to do anything other than laugh at your lack of self awareness, and complete absence of logical analysis, as you spout such pompous proclamations about the integrity of others. I think that people who would use what the jury has decided are false accusations of rape (that can fairly be concluded, because they believed every other uncontested claim she made) to smear a political figure because they don't like him is dispicable. For the record, a conviction by a jury in a criminal case can be treated and referred to as factual. But a decision made by a jury in a civil case is an opinion that is strong enough to be applied in order to award damages. Their decision does not make him guilty of sexual assault. It just means he can be held liable for it.
Right. "What about Bill Clinton?" The Trumpanzees like to blather. What about him? Prosecute him, send him to jail if guilty. I don't give a monkey's what political party he's in. F*ck rapists and sexual predators.
Totally agree. In fact his sexual exploitation of a junior employee alone makes him unfit for office imho. It's not political. There are sexual predators of all opinions and persuasions (see Cyril Smith for example). The only thing that is political about it is that there should be zero tolerance for such behaviour amongst our leaders. They should be held to a higher standard. Even without this court ruling, the evidence of his own words and deeds makes Trump clearly unfit to be President.
