I can understand that logic. However, in this case, I imagine paramedics were called on site to reports of an unconscious woman. You would think just as a matter of course (needing information in order to properly treat her) that a comprehensive drug screen would have been appropriate.
Wow, I had not heard that before. It sure sounds like she was drugged and perhaps even Brock that did it. Ugh.
The victim was heavily intoxicated at the time of the assault and does not dispute that fact. But the BAC testing was not undertaken until 6 hours later. At that time the tests showed a BAC of .13 and a back extrapolation to the time of the assault estimated her BAC was .24 - 3 times the legal limit. Of course that has no relevance to Turner’s own actions that evening excepting that it rendered her incapable of consent.
It is unclear if she was also tested for other substances or if they would even have registered in her system 6 hours later.
Yes, she wasn’t tested for drugs.
An issue is that she was more heavily intoxicated than what she ‘should’ have been but she granted it may have been related to losing the habit of partying. Drugs, a spiked drink, or high alcohol content drinks could be equally responsible.
None of it exonerates Brock though.
^^^Nope, it sure doesn’t
Most decent humans (male or female) would say “OMG, this woman is unconscious! Someone please call 911!” But no, this animal thinks, “Hmm, she’s unconscious. Good opportunity here. What she doesn’t know won’t hurt her!”
Thank you for providing the additional information from the trial, MYOS1634. I had not seen that before. So my previous post should have ended with"not known to me," rather than with “not known.”
Someone spiking a victim’s drink makes it worse, not helpful in any way to Turner.
Well, NO ONE knows about spiking the drink or anything - I am not saying it was spiked, as I have no way of knowing, nor does anyone, just that something from the trial made you seriously wonder whether it was. Even if you didn’t follow the trial there must still be articles online. You can also read from Pr.Dauber’s statements. There’s still a lot of stuff online.
I really don’t understand why Brock Turner is doing this. Is he hoping to get the conviction vacated? To disappear off the sex offender registry? He could ask for his “right to be forgotten” that I think Google has decided to grant everyone not just citizens from the European Union.
Yes I do not believe there was any evidence introduced at trial that her drink was spiked. A BAC of .24+ could definitely render a woman unconscious.
Here’s the appeal…all 170 pages of it. There is not much related to the BAC level other than that which establishes that she was drunk but to her friends not drunk enough to need assistance as one of their group needed so centers mostly on whether or not she was unconscious at crucial points in time and helped pull her own underwear down because of the lack of his DNA on the underwear.There are other points of contention in the appeal. With all the hoohaa over the judge I can’t imagine what would happen in the media if they were to get and win appeal. Oh my goodness what an uproar that would be.
https://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/documents/4320710-H043709-Aob-Turner-1.html
Well of course there is little about her BAC in his appeal. That’s why he was convicted. She lacked capacity to consent. Her BAC 6 hours post assault and the back extrapolation along with the statements of the Swedes tells the story quite well. His appeal is a total waste of time.
I have no idea. I imagine it is more about the lifelong sex registry than anything else. I feel sorry for the girl if the media follows this. I’d almost vote for take him off the registry so she can move on in all seriousness. Skimming the appeal, even the stuff that may not fly only convinced me that the recalled judge and probation officer probably called it right. Short jail time and a hundred pound weight around his neck for the rest of his life.
All three counts that he was convicted of have to do with her being intoxicated or unconscious. A curious thing to leave out of the appeal.
Of course, I do not know whether the victim’s drink was spiked or unusually heavy in alcohol content. But according to the information above on this thread, she drank “little,” yet she had a blood alcohol content of 0.13 six hours after the assault. These two situations are generally inconsistent with each other, absent something else.
The statement that the victim “drank little” is inaccurate by her own admission.
I’m surprised that people are now saying the victim “drank little.” Reports at the time said just the opposite, that she was very drunk by her own admission.
Really, the focus belongs on the DEFENDANT and HIS behavior. His actions were adjudged criminal. How much or little the victim drank does not change his actions to legal.
Defendant was NOT charged with drug Gung the victim. The charges were pretty clear.
Yes and no because assault cases also have a huge consent component. So while yes trials are about the accused criminal the proof falls the prosecutor so in that respect the prosecution is the victim’s story. The BAC was never questioned although the appeal touches on the fact that her friends were more concerned about another friend whom they thought was in worse shape than the victim.
In this case, there was no consent from the unconscious victim, and Turner was caught in the act by two witnesses, so it is not just the victim’s story.
It absolutely is the victim’s story at heart, everything surrounding it is proof/corroborating evidence and statements. The trial is over and now the appeal – so the prosecutor’s already put everything out there on record. The appeal isn’t a do-over, it has to be about specific aspects of the prosecution and judicial management of the original trial and trial record. did the prosecutor do anything they shouldn’t have, were the instructions to the jury accurate, was any aspect denied that accused that legally should have been allowed, the details. There’s been so much bad media and mis-printed stuff about this case, a judge recalled even though his judgement followed the advice of probation and fell in the guidelines, people and legal pundits spouting all kinds of things that are not in the trial record or investigative reports that hopefully an appeal lost or won will at minimum put closure on it once and for all.
It does not matter in the least with regard to Turner’s culpability how much or how little the woman he assaulted had been drinking, with the exception that she could not possibly give consent when she was very, very intoxicated.
I relied on the information in #95 to say that the woman “drank little” (above). I generally assume that reasonable posters (MYOS1634 is one) try to be pretty accurate.
This may just have meant that she drank less than she sometimes did in the past. Some variety of illness, or the amount of food she had, or the amount of sleep, or other factors might have affected how she responded to the drink.
Generally speaking, though, it is not an unknown phenomenon for college students throwing a party to give women drinks with more alcohol per drink than the woman believes (or is led to believe) is in each drink.