Doesn’t this case come down to penetration or not? If penetration, then conviction (misdemeanor or felony, depending on whether there was consent due to the close in age law). If no penetration, then no conviction, right?
I for one believe that the prosecution did not establish lack of consent. The girl admits to shaving her pubic hair in preparation for the encounter, laughing during the encounter, and assisting Labrie with clothing removal, all of which may not have effectively communicated her real intentions. I DO believe that she intended to communicate “no”, but I can see how her signals may have been misinterpreted due to the youth and inexperience of both parties.
On the question of penetration, however, I am not convinced that the defense negated the prosecution’s scientific evidence that it did indeed occur. However, I’ve only read a few tweets on the evidence. Some above have said the evidence was weak. At this point, I’m tending to believe that there was penetration, but this is a tenuous belief based on very little information.
It’s hard to overcome my disgust at Labrie’s conduct overall, but I do find myself unsure of what exactly happened at the “critical moment”, and therefore unsure whether criminal behavior occurred.
“As others in this thread have said, she was way over her experience depth.”
That’s true but its a shame that a girl can’t trust an older classmate in a small, insular community, trust him to stop when she says stop.
““slaying” does not necessarily mean what I and other posters here have assumed”
Maybe. But we all know what boning and porking mean, as the prosecution rightly stated in their closing statements.
My understanding is that if penetration (of any means) occurred, he could be found guilty of misdemeanors given the victim’s age. This is probably why he did not want to say that penetration took place and it was consensual, or why he did not want to plea bargain.
I hope the jury is getting good direction. With 9 counts, it seems complicated. From tweets, it sounds like there have been several questions from the jury to the judge this morning.
An addendum to my post #552 regarding the physical trauma testimony: A tweet from allymanning on Aug 20 indicates that defense counsel cross-examined the ER doctor regarding a “1/4 centimeter superficial abrasion.” It is not clear from her tweets how the ER doc characterized it on direct examination.
It’s interesting. As the mom of two boys, I think at times I’m harder on boys. I might be easier on MY precious snowflakes, but I know too many boys of this age who are real jerks.
Susan Zalkind tweeted that the jury had a question about an hour ago and that after counsel left the judge’s chambers, the prosecutors looked pleased and the defense looked “stern”. Wonder what that was about? MidwestDad3, any thoughts on how long they might deliberate, given the murky waters of the evidence?
That being said, my guess is that a many young men don’t really understand that penetration with something other than their private parts is still penetration sufficient for rape (I’m not sure in how many states the crime of rape is defined as it is in NH). So, the defendant (until he read the statute) could have assumed he wasn’t raping her if he penetrated her (only) with a finger.
And we know ignorance of the law is no defense. Especially if one was trained in issues of consent.
Did anyone follow the Vanderbilt football player rape trial (2 or 3 football players assaulted the passed out girlfriend of one of them)? I believe one of the defendants (the one who carried his unconscious gf into the room and rounded up the others to come party) was convicted even though he was too impaired to actually go through with the act. If you read his mom’s FB page (which she definitely should have made private), you could tell that she didn’t think he did anything wrong because he didn’t have sex with her. The convictions were overturned because a male member of the jury had not disclosed during voir dire that he had been the victim of a sex crime (a age-related issue of consent with an older man). I’m not sure the status of a re-trial.
I am binge watching Friday Night Light’s. There is a scene in the show between the high school football coach and his daughter as they play table tennis. The daughter wants to date a football player. The dad says to his daughter that the guys don’t care about her. High school guys think about sex every minute. High school guys think about two things. Food and sex.
I think that is a slight exaggeration. Just slight.
This is a reasonable doubt case. We don’t have to be 100 percent sure. I don’t know what is going to happen in court but this guy is guilty. I don’t care what his mom says. My mom thinks I scored 5,000 on the SAT. She also thinks I had the ability to be a pro golfer. I have trouble breaking 100.
^ Ugh… His mom didn’t think he did anything wrong when he carried his unconscious GF into a room and invited friends to violate her?!! Who are these people?
And can one of our great CC legal analysts please spin out this scenario of the defendant suing SPS if he is acquitted:
When asked by NH1 News Thursday if Labrie would sue the school under a theory of lack of duty of care if acquitted, Carney said Labrie is just focusing on the charges he faces, which include three counts of felony-level rape.
Haven’t commented on this thread. Jay Carney is an excellent and expensive defense lawyer here. I think he’s done what was needed, which is to create reasonable doubt. Juries take that concept seriously.
I haven’t commented because the local media coverage has been so weird. I’m extremely sympathetic to the victim - father of daughters here - and I want to be clear I’m not commenting on her or even what happened. What has bothered me is the way the notion is being presented that older teens pursuing younger teens for sex is somehow an evil game, is somehow a special thing done at this “elite” - the word is used to death here - school. As a male human, it’s my recollection that this, meaning the pursuit of sex, is how it’s been done and probably has been done since humans started to recognize concepts like morality, etc. My word, I can remember guys sitting around talking about girls they wanted to go after, girls who would and wouldn’t, etc. Some of it was talk and some of it was real … because we’re humans and teenage humans think about other teenage humans and their sexual attractiveness almost all the time.
@Renaissance mom, if you google Vanderbilt football rape trial then look on FB, the mom of one of the defendants would post updates on her page - not sure what’s still up on it or if it’s private now. Lots of Bible verses about truth, etc. The dad of that same defendant shouted out in court when the jury read the verdict convicting his son. The entire attack was captured on video surveillance and cell phones so there was no doubt about what went on in the room.
Oh, dstark, I wonder what you mean by you knew I was a mom!
But, FYI, when I took the Buzzfeed “Which Friday Night Lights character are you?” quiz, I got Coach Taylor. Does that change what you think of me? I was so upset to not be Tami, but my friends assured me that Coach Taylor was right. WTH?
When I saw your analysis of the case, I knew you were a mom. There is nothing sinister about this. i have a mom. My wife is a mom. I hope my daughter becomes a mom.
However, if I was a female accuser, I wouldn’t want moms…especially moms of boys on the jury.
