<p>In my opinion, there is far too much emphasis on the alleged cases where a woman says yes to sex while drunk, but then later accuses the man of rape. Can anyone here even cite a case where a man was convicted of rape, where the undisputed facts are that a drunk woman said yes to sex (assuming that the woman was of legal age, and was not given drugs against her will)? </p>
<p>I’m talking here about a woman who actually said yes, not a woman who didn’t resist. In my view, “She didn’t resist,” is not a defense against sexual assault or rape.</p>
<p>There has been debate over whether “rape” has occurred as it is defined by Ky law.</p>
<p>I read a response on a website that stated: since both boys possibly penetrated her at the same time, the finger that does not belong to oneself could be classified as an object for the other. I don’t know whether this is a plausible application of the law. </p>
<p>“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.</p>
<p>A finger constitutes a foreign object, if it isn’t your finger. </p>
<p>I’m sure a jury would look at it that way too.</p>
<p>I actually really hate the acquaintace rape debate, particularly where alcohol has been consumed to severe inebriation by both parties. I have to say that I tend to believe that very few women will actually say it was “rape” if they were in any way intending to have sex, but I can also see where an entirely unexperienced guy who is drunk and doesn’t know that much about women could think he was just “getting lucky.” I don’t know.</p>
<p>But, I don’t think this case has anything to do with that debate. The issue of intent and action is located in what they did AFTER they were sober. In my opinion. If somebody believes they were under the impression that Savannah wanted them to show those pictures around, I wonder where anyone would get that idea. How would you arrive at that? So, because of how they used the evidence afterwards, it is easy for me to extrapolate motive backwards. What I arrive at is criminal intent to exploit Savannah.</p>
<p>Again, I’m so glad she refused to be silenced, not only for her sake, but for the sake of other young women, and also for the sake of other young men, who might be paying attention, as well.</p>
<p>I am not sure of the exact details of the request(s) that the boys destroy the pictures. I took a quick look on Lexis and the Commonwealth of Kentucky recognizes that destruction of evidence can constitute spoliation and is probative evidence inconsistent with innocence. </p>
<p>Was it the police that made the request? Was it the girl? Did she offer a civil release if it was the girl? Had the boys gotten legal counsel by the time of the request?</p>
<p>Likewise, a quick look on Lexis turned up Weaver v. Kentucy, 298 S.W.3d 851 (Ky. 2009). I suggest anyone who is interested in finding out if diminished capacity is a defensive issue that can be raised to any required mental state for a crime in Kentucky might want to check into this. My quick reading seems to indicate it is a defense. </p>
<p>Several posters touch on the point of why would the boys think the girl would be ok with them posting/sharing the pictures. That is a really important issue and IMO would come up in any trial of a civil claim for mental anguish damages. In my state there is no cause of action for negligent inflection of emotional distress. The case that made this holding was a case of filming sex between a college freshman girl and HS senior boy. The trial and the appeal looked at all that occurred after the girl found out the boy she had sex with was holding group viewings back in their hometown. </p>
<p>The trial and appeal focused quite a bit on the fact that it did not seem to keep her from having several more full sexual encounters beginning shortly thereafter. Intentional infliction of emotional distress also would get into this issue.</p>
<p>I saw a static that between 25 and 33% of US teen have been the sender in sexting. There is a 1 in 4 chance that the girl had photo’d and dsitributed her own genitals in the past. Believe me that will be looked into if there is a civil case.</p>
<p>Same thing about whether the girl was viewed as a popularity seeker, say with the lacross boys. If the girl set up the --at home alone get together and get drunk “party” and invited the boys, it would be consistent with one boys’s report that the girl was ok with what happened that night.</p>
<p>I totally agree with poetgrl that this is a parenting issue for parents of both boys and girls. For boys, I think that it needs to be stressed that no matter how forward and willing the girl seems, even if she has done this stuff before–it can go bad, very bad. Listen to your parents, stay out of these situations and remember-- do not drink.</p>
<p>For parents of girls, I’d ask the girl what price is a shot at popularity worth?</p>
<p>“For parents of girls, I’d ask the girl what price is a shot at popularity worth?”</p>
<p>This comment smacks of blaming the victim. Although drinking and providing alcohol was wrong, it in no way justifies or should be construed as “asking for” any type of assault.</p>
<p>A similar scenario happened at the University of Montana. Football player had sexual intercourse with a young woman after she went to sleep on his couch after drinking. A teammate allegedly raped another girl while watching a movie together in her dorm room–no mention of booze in that one.</p>
<p>And guess what…when there was an investigation, someone wanted to know whether one of the victims could be punished for violating the confidentiality of the investigation.</p>
<p>Montana is now requiring every student to watch a video on sexual assault and score 100% before registering for classes. If you fail, you keep taking it until you pass.</p>
<p>This has been the rumor of how the service academies deal with rapes - by threatening the victim with expulsion for violating rules on alchohol.</p>
<p>jonri, I hope you didn’t miss 07Dad’s brilliant conclusion that if Ms. Dietrich had sent out pictures of herself to her friends, that would totally mean that she would be OK with someone else sending out photos he took of himself sticking his fingers in her vagina without her knowledge or consent while she was unconscious. Because they are exactly the same! </p>
<p>Also, it’s all her fault, because she invited people to her house and drank, while having a vagina. Any time I invite people to my house and we have some alcohol, I’m consenting to their raping me. That’s the way it works, for us people with vaginas.</p>
<p>And that’s a big IF! Where did that even come from? Has it been stated anywhere that she previously sent pictures of herself? Because a study said “25 - 33%” of teens have? Would it be relevent to the case IF she had?</p>
<p>Before she went to the police, Ms. Dietrich asked her two rapists to stop showing the pictures around. They refused. That’s what impelled her to go to the police.</p>
<p>So I think we can easily determine that she wasn’t OK with them showing the pictures around.</p>
<p>That is absolutely a disgusting statement. The implication is that it’s somehow excusable since she’s already done it. Sorry, in no way is that OK. </p>
<p>So you’re telling me that if I sent a picture of myself to my boyfriend, that that somehow makes it ok for someone WITHOUT my permission to send a picture of me to strangers? Are you kidding me?! I have no words.</p>
<p>And if you weren’t saying something along those lines then you wouldn’t have mentioned anything about it. Sick.</p>
<p>07DAD – I only wish I knew who you were so I could tell my daughter to stay away from your sons. </p>
<p>Reasoning like yours is support for prosecuting these young men to the fullest extent, including federal charges of distribution of child pornography. </p>
<p>She asked them to get rid of the pictures – if they had legal concerns, they should have discussed with a lawyer how to resolve. Dollars to donuts, they didnt, or their parents and attorneys never would have let them talk to the police. </p>
<p>^ kay, to be fair, the sons could be nothing like the father. My ex’s dad was the most sexist pig I’ve ever met in my life. My ex even refused to call him his dad because he hated him so much for what he did to my ex’s mom and all of his subsequent SOs. My ex on the other hand had nothing but respect for women and even wanted to take my last name because matrilineal families made more sense to him.</p>
<p>07 sometimes takes these “innocence” debates to the nth degree as a type of excercise. I don’t think they represent his general feelings about women in real life.</p>
<p>Jonri-- I’m very encouraged to see that type of education taking place at Montana. I wish it were taking place, also, at Yale, and various other colleges with a publicly sordid track record in this area. </p>
<p>Part of what has appalled me the most about this case, as well as several others, is the shocking lack of understanding on the part of the boys as to what does and does not constitute criminal sexual behavior. I believe at leaste one of these boys, had he had the correct knowledge, would have refused to participate on the simple grounds that it was not legal, which would have given him a firm and concise way to “just say no.”</p>
<p>07Dad, erasing the pictures would generally not be considered destruction of evidence, because it was not considered evidence at the time the request was made. She had not complained to the police about the events of that evening, or about the pictures.</p>
<p>If they had not destroyed the pictures, but not shared them either, she might not have felt the need to file a complaint. </p>
<p>If the pictures are evidence of anything, they are evidence of what the boys did, and that is not in question - they admit to doing it. They only became evidence when she filed a complaint. At that point, the police should have confiscated the pictures, and they should have been removed from the boys’ possession - by deleting them from the phones.</p>
<p>She offered the boys a plea bargain of her own - destroy the pictures and this ends without involving the police. One accepted that bargain, the other didn’t. He obviously felt entitled to keep the pictures, and figured he would get a better bargain with authorities - and it looks like maybe he did.</p>