Aren’t you missing the fact that the sex could not be proven to be non consensual. That’s different than saying the sex was consensual.
The girl is not from CT but none of that is relevant anyway. He knew the rules in the state he was in at the time. He had training on it.
She wasn’t days away from 16, either.
“She went willingly but regretted it the next day.” That is your opinion not a fact. Besides, even if she was willing up to a certain point, she is allowed to become unwilling. I hope if you have sons, you explain that to them.
The jury finding him not guilty for the other felony counts does not indicate that it was consensual. It indicates that the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t consensual. There IS a difference. He was found not guilty. They didn’t claim he was innocent.
@MichiganGeorgia Yes, I realize that. I’m not sure how many 18 year-olds in New England are aware of the slight variations in sexual consent laws in each of the 6 states. In one state you are luring a minor via computer while in another, perhaps a mile away, you are asking for a date.
Labrie wasn’t asking the victim for a date.
@baseballmom - But he was aware of the age of consent. The school gave them instructions on that.
@MichiganGeorgia I also agree with you that he should leave well enough alone since her age at the time of the sexual act is not going to change.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/details-emerge-prep-student-owen-labries-life-jail/story?id=38197929
Meanwhile, new details of Labrie’s life behind bars have emerged. The once Harvard-bound Labrie is currently assigned to solitary confinement for his own safety and is only able to leave his jail cell for one hour per day.
While his close family and friends visit regularly, he has been passing the time by reading and writing, his new defense lawyer, Jaye Rancourt, told ABC News.
@dstark The jury decided the sex was consensual. That’s why he was found not guilty of aggravated sexual assault.
@MichiganGeorgia I wonder what the instructions were. For example, according to NH law, due to her age, and his (Romeo and Juliet law), they could have engaged in all kinds of sexual activity that did not involve penetration of any kind and there would be no sexual assault and no sex with a minor, no luring, etc.
A close friend of my youngest daughter was sexually assaulted by her long time coach just after her 16th birthday. Too bad the idiot pervert made his move during a competition in the state of NY where the age of consent is 17 not 16. His main crime was assaulting a minor, something that has no he said-she said gray area. Is it his fault or the fault of the state of NY for having a more stringent law? I say it’s his fault and that’s why laws like this are enacted.
@baseballmom Several close friends warned him to back off because she was too young. They surely understood what the laws were in NH. Labrie is a smart guy. He had training multiple times. It’s not that hard to comprehend.
Your post #1547, with all due respect, is just wrong. A not guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt is what it was. Nothing more or less. The jury did not state, “Yup, it was consensual.”
@dstark Date or Senior Salute, she went willingly and if she was 16 there would be no sexual assault, based upon the jury verdict. The jury did not believe her testimony that it was not consensual. If they had, he would have been found guilty of aggravated sexual assault. The jury did not believe his testimony that there was no penetration and that’s why they had to find him guilty. If they had believed him that there was sexual contact, but no penetration, he would have been found not guilty. No penetration = no luring. Penetration = luring.
If it did go to a retrial, how do they possibly find jurors who haven’t heard of details of the case by this point??
@doschicos Yes, that is my opinion based upon her comments. She told another student, immediately after the event “I think I just had sex with Owen Labrie.” (Not, Owen Labrie just raped me.) She told the school nurse that it was consensual. Either she lied right away or she lied later. Yes, she is allowed to become unwilling at any point, but there is no evidence that she did. It is her word against his and the jury that heard all of the evidence believed some of what she said and some of what he said. They believed him that she consented and they believed her that there was penetration.
“They believed him that she consented and they believed her that there was penetration.”
You’re still not getting it. You’re letting your opinion get in the way. They don’t opine on whether they believe her or him. They either find guilty (State proved beyond a reasonable doubt) or not guilty (State didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt). That is different than finding him innocent, or saying that is was definitely consensual, or that they believed some of what he said. Plus, unless we were in the courtroom, we didn’t hear or see everything the jury did. Do you see the difference here?
From the link in post 155.
One thing I have found eye opening to me throughout the process of following this case both before and after the trial, is how different attitudes can be between men and women. When I first heard that the jury that had been selected was predominantly men, I was concerned and felt that perhaps the victim had the deck stacked against her and wouldn’t get a fair shake. But then I did a lot of research and read a lot of studies that really surprised me. Repeatedly, I read that, in general, men are bigger supporters and believers of the victims in rape trials. Based on my following of the case, my following of the media coverage, and comments to it, it often does appear to be true. That fascinates me in a way. Perhaps men are more cognizant of what men are capable of?
@dstark, thanks for your post above.
There are differing opinions on this case. This links to two editorials that resulted from the writers being unable to agree on how to interpret the verdicts in this case.
http://www.valleyadvocate.com/2015/11/16/owen-labrie-rapist-or-simply-a-jerk/