<p>How the FBI defines rape is irrelevant. The FBI isn’t a legislative body.<br>
The definition of rape that is significant is the one under state law. I don’t know Ky. law but I know that most states distinguish between sexual intercourse rape, digital penetration (as in this case), and inanimate object penetration. States also distinguish between the age of the victim and the attacker. It would not surprise me if Ky. makes similar distinctions. Your hard and fast rule is overly simplistic.</p>
<p>CF is right. And seriously…do you think that if it was passed on all the people who got it were told that the girl in the photo was under 18? It’s awfully hard to tell the difference between a 16 year old and an 18 year old in a photo.</p>
<p>Part of what upset Savannah is that she asked the prosecutor to force the defendants to supply a list of the names of everyone they gave copies of the photos to…and, as far as we know, the prosecutor reached the plea bargain WITHOUT getting this info.</p>
<p>Given the publicity of this case, I’d think that students would delete any emails from this guy.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This sounds like something the police should do as it would be investigative work. Perhaps a civil suit would be the best way to work it on the student side.</p>
<p>IN REALITY, Savannah did NOT claim that the boys were rapists. Defense counsel says she did. He also said she claimed the boys videotaped the acts. Savannah herself NEVER said either of those things. Commentators and news stories and internet posts have said them. SAVANNAH did not.</p>
<p>She did say that the court seemed more interested in protecting rapists than in protecting the victim. Meija says that means she called the boys rapists. I don’t buy that. I have absolutely no knowledge of Kentucky law, so it’s POSSIBLE he’s right, but most states have VERY strict standards for libel cases.</p>
<p>If you go back and actually look at Savannah’s tweets…they are attached to the contempt motion…in the tweet in which she names Frey and Zehnder she says they “sexually abused” her. Those are the words SAVANNAH actually said. That statement is 100% true.</p>
<p>BC …how are you missing the fact that there could be people who got these photos who did NOT get them directly from Will Frey and do NOT even know that Will Frey took them? The pictures were taken in August 2011. The first publicity was in late June/early July 2012. </p>
<p>When you email someone a photo…which is what it seems one of the defendants did…you have no control over what the recipient does with it. Cardinal is exactly right.</p>
<p>And, how do you think police find out who got the photos!!! They START by asking the defendants who they sent them to…which is what Savannah asked have happen. </p>
<p>Plus, police do NOT gather info for civil cases. They only gather info for CRIMINAL cases. Since these files were going to be sealed, even if the cops got the info, Savannah would not be given it UNLESS the prosecutor required it as part of the plea deal and he did NOT do that.</p>
<p>razorsharp, In talking about whether the boys are rapists, we are not discussing what they pled down to.</p>
<p>Let’s say I say that Frey and Zehnder are rapists. (I do say that.) And let’s say Meija decides to come after me for libel, for accusing his client of rape. He’s going to be out of luck. All I have to do is point to the definition of rape as penetration of the vagina by an object without consent, and point to Frey and Zehnder admitting they penetrated her vagina with their fingers without consent. They admitted to raping her, so I get to say they raped her. Truth is a defense to libel, and it’s also a defense to lying.</p>
<p>I found particularly vile Zehnder’s admission that when Ms. Dietrich was lying on the floor drunk and unconscious somewhere downstairs, he and his friend took off her top, pulled down her pants, stuck her fingers in her, photographed her, and “She was fine with that… I mean she could have definitely been like, stop don’t do this and we would have stopped, but she didn’t so…” Yeah. Right. You contemptible little swine. After the photos, they put her clothes back on and carried her upstairs, dropping her once along the way. I’m not seeing her active participation in this little photo shoot.</p>
<p>And my point is that they are not rapists unless and only unless they meet the definition of having committed rape under Ky law, not some FBI definition. No one is a rapist unless he violated an applicable criminal law. </p>
<p>Maybe you could cite the Ky law to support your arguments.</p>
<p>I don’t assert that they were convicted of rape. I assert that they are rapists.</p>
<p>My point is, they are rapists if they raped someone. And if they admit to raping someone, then I am entitled to say they raped someone, which makes them rapists. I can say they are rapists. I am entitled to use the normal understanding of English when I speak English.</p>
<p>There is a difference between whether somebody can be convicted as a rapist under Kentucky law, and whether it is libel to call somebody a rapist or not. If an act is widely considered rape under (for example) federal law, it is probably not libel to call the person a rapist even if it doesn’t fit the specific standard of state law.</p>
<p>Just to add, I would not want to be the plaintiff’s lawyer in this particular imagined libel case: “My client didn’t rape the defendant; all he did was…”</p>
<p>SAVANNAH NEVER CALLED THEM RAPISTS. The ATTORNEY for one of them SAID SHE DID. You are believing his claims. Savannah actually said they “sexually abused” her. They plead guilty to sexually abuse. They told the cops that they took off her clothes and inserted their fingers into her vagina. the LAWYER for one of them called her a liar. Do you think that saying someone “sexually abused” you when they did that is a lie? </p>
<p>Even if she had…and remember, she did NOT… I doubt that the law is so much of an ass that it provides that to call someone a rapist you have to comply with all the elements of the crime under Kentucky statutes. Thus, were I to post that George Huguely murdered Yeardley Love…I doubt anyone is going to say I libeled him because he was only convicted of first degree manslaughter.</p>
<p>The attorneys for the boys have crossed the line and are contributing to many people wanting to see them punished more severely. Trashing the victim doesn’t work. The arrogance of the boys, the parents and the lawyers will come back to haunt them. It seems that one boy may be somewhat contrite, but the overall image is one of I have money, I can do whatever I want. Time will tell.</p>
<p>I don’t know about that. If Ky is like many other states then accusing someone of a crime for which he or she has not been convicted is per se libel. Those are often slam dunk cases with treble damages. </p>
<p>The more I read about Ky. law, the more it looks like the boys did not rape the girl under Ky law. </p>
<p>Kentucky statute 510.040 and following define rape in the first, second, and third degree and all require sexual intercourse. </p>
<p>Kentucky statute 510.010 states:
(8) “Sexual intercourse” means sexual intercourse in its ordinary sense and includes penetration of the sex organs of one person by a foreign object manipulated by another person. Sexual intercourse occurs upon any penetration, however slight; emission is not required. “Sexual intercourse” does not include penetration of the sex organ by a foreign object in the course of the performance of generally recognized health-care practices; and</p>
<p>Cotton v. Commonwealth, No. 2008-SC-000516-MR (Ky. 5/20/2010) (Ky., 2010) is an unpublished case but it seems to say rape is sexual intercourse and digital penetration is not sexual intercourse.</p>
<p>(6)“Physically helpless” means that a person is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act. “Physically helpless” also includes a person who has been rendered unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate an unwillingness to an act as a result of the influence of a controlled substance or legend drug;
(7) “Sexual contact” means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party;
(8) “Sexual intercourse” means sexual intercourse in its ordinary sense and includes penetration of the sex organs of one person by a foreign object manipulated by another person. Sexual intercourse occurs upon any penetration, however slight; emission is not required. “Sexual intercourse” does not include penetration of the sex organ by a foreign object in the course of the performance of generally recognized health-care practices; and
(9) “Foreign object” means anything used in commission of a sexual act other than the person of the actor.</p>
<p>So by admitting to what they did, by the law of Kentucky, they admitted to rape (Even if they choose to not call it what it is)</p>
<p>OMG are people seriously debating wether Savanah was raped or not? I don’t think pleading ignorance holds up in court! Posters shouldn’t waste their time explaining the basics.</p>
<p>I think the issue is that a finger is defined as not a foreign object - “Foreign object” means anything used in commission of a sexual act other than the person of the actor. - per (9) above</p>
<p>In Cotten, it seems that there was a foreign object involved in addition to the finger.</p>
<p>All that being said, I do not think it is libel to describe these young men as rapists in a generic sense, as they fall within the FBI defintion. </p>
<p>Further, dictionary.com includes one defintion of rape as "an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside. " Within that definition, I would be inclinded to include Mr. Meija.</p>