If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WPTV)   Bad: Woman was molested by a cousin when she was 13. Good: She has gone through therapy and now helps others who are in the same situation. FARK: The molester is now suing the woman for defamation and stalking   (wptv.com) divider line 133
    More: Asinine, defamations, stalks, cousins, therapy, sex crimes  
•       •       •

9450 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2014 at 8:35 AM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-04 08:08:38 AM
He was never convicted of anything. He might have done it, he might not have. Since just the accusation will destroy his life there needs to be some protection.
 
2014-05-04 08:39:18 AM
Does it count as irony that the cure for rape is called the rapy?
 
2014-05-04 08:40:39 AM

EvilEgg: He was never convicted of anything. He might have done it, he might not have. Since just the accusation will destroy his life there needs to be some protection.


Yup. Sounds like she needs to learn how to use the word "allegedly".
 
2014-05-04 08:41:04 AM
I notice WPTV is careful not to mention his name.
 
2014-05-04 08:41:19 AM
60 days past the statute of limitations when she finally went to police? Ouch...
 
2014-05-04 08:45:16 AM
I smell Duke.
 
2014-05-04 08:45:33 AM

EvilEgg: He was never convicted of anything. He might have done it, he might not have. Since just the accusation will destroy his life there needs to be some protection.


Yes. Don't get me wrong, if he did it: a$$hole.

The problem being he was never convicted so being tagged like this isn't right either.
 
2014-05-04 08:47:49 AM

rebelyell2006: EvilEgg: He was never convicted of anything. He might have done it, he might not have. Since just the accusation will destroy his life there needs to be some protection.

Yup. Sounds like she needs to learn how to use the word "allegedly".


Not really:

Foster had a strong case against her cousin with help from investigators at the Boynton Beach Police Department. But they could never prosecuted because the statute of limitations had run out.
 
2014-05-04 08:49:19 AM
"She has a right to say his name and talk about it and warn people of it and that's exactly what she did," said Darlene Foster, Ashley's mother.

For a second there I thought to myself oh ok here's the legal bottom line...until I got to the last word.
 
2014-05-04 08:49:26 AM
Haw, haw.
The psychos be psychin'.
It's what they do.

/Stay far far away from the drama, guys and girls.
//Trust me on this.
 
2014-05-04 08:50:57 AM
It's funny cause people on both sides of the issue will use this same instance as a shining example of how the system is broken.

A bunch of people will use this as an example of Rape Culture.  A sexual deviant using the legal system to abuse and re-violate the poor, innocent victim.
A bunch of other people will use this as an example of how fearful our culture is.  All it takes is a completely unfounded accusation, with no evidence, with no court case, with no conviction to completely destroy a man's life - just because she wants her 15 minutes of fame or to jump start a political career or some such nonsense....
 
2014-05-04 08:52:18 AM

BeerBear: rebelyell2006: EvilEgg: He was never convicted of anything. He might have done it, he might not have. Since just the accusation will destroy his life there needs to be some protection.

Yup. Sounds like she needs to learn how to use the word "allegedly".

Not really:

Foster had a strong case against her cousin with help from investigators at the Boynton Beach Police Department. But they could never prosecuted because the statute of limitations had run out.


So she says. It's likely she's right, but it's not certain. The ruling will have to apply to all people in this situation, whether the cops think they had a strong case or not, and I know Fark thinks the police are wrong 99% of the time.

/I think that's how it works
 
2014-05-04 08:54:14 AM

inglixthemad: EvilEgg: He was never convicted of anything. He might have done it, he might not have. Since just the accusation will destroy his life there needs to be some protection.

Yes. Don't get me wrong, if he did it: a$$hole.

The problem being he was never convicted so being tagged like this isn't right either.


Fortunately in the USA, truth is a defense in defamation cases. So if he did it, he has zero case (on the defamation charge at least). She just needs to prove that he molested her. The standard of proof in this case would be a preponderance of evidence, which should be pretty simple with the testimony of an investigator from the BPD or two.
 
2014-05-04 08:56:33 AM

CruJones: BeerBear: rebelyell2006: EvilEgg: He was never convicted of anything. He might have done it, he might not have. Since just the accusation will destroy his life there needs to be some protection.

Yup. Sounds like she needs to learn how to use the word "allegedly".

Not really:

Foster had a strong case against her cousin with help from investigators at the Boynton Beach Police Department. But they could never prosecuted because the statute of limitations had run out.

So she says. It's likely she's right, but it's not certain. The ruling will have to apply to all people in this situation, whether the cops think they had a strong case or not, and I know Fark thinks the police are wrong 99% of the time.

/I think that's how it works


There would not be any binding precedent in a civil case like this, particularly one that will probably decided on the facts.
 
2014-05-04 09:02:14 AM
It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.
 
2014-05-04 09:08:03 AM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.


I would expect the burden would be for the victim to prove she was raped. Otherwise I could say you stole from me and if you couldn't prove otherwise you'd have to pay up.
 
2014-05-04 09:08:19 AM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.


I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. He doesn't have to prove he didn't do it. He merely has to claim it, she then has to prove it by preponderance of evidence (criminal court, beyond reasonable doubt, civil by preponderance). I didn't read the article, but based on this thread she claims there was enough evidence to go forward w/ a criminal case it was just a time limit issue. That evidence would be more than enough for a civil court. She should also counter sue his ass, its as close to justice as she'll be able to get.

Hope the truth, whatever it is, comes out.
 
2014-05-04 09:08:54 AM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.


I don't know. The courts can be pretty farked up. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2008/08/16/janecrane.AR T _ART_08-16-08_B1_T0B1RSR.html
 
2014-05-04 09:08:55 AM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.


And you don't see anything wrong with this picture?  Including that you're already defining them as the "rapist" and "victim"?
 
2014-05-04 09:11:08 AM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false


Pretty hard to prove a negative.
 
2014-05-04 09:16:19 AM
So she went before the state legislature and used his name and picture to convince them to pass a longer statute of limitations.

Dude still has to prove he was damaged, but yea, I 'd say he has a case.
 
2014-05-04 09:21:22 AM

EvilEgg: He was never convicted of anything. He might have done it, he might not have. Since just the accusation will destroy his life there needs to be some protection.


/True, even tough she might have "proof", the statute of limitations has run out, and he in this regard is UN-procecuteable.  Or, she just might be pissed at him and trying to fark with his life.  Who knows? It's one of those he said she said things.
 
2014-05-04 09:25:25 AM

Abox: "She has a right to say his name and talk about it and warn people of it and that's exactly what she did," said Darlene Foster, Ashley's mother.

For a second there I thought to myself oh ok here's the legal bottom line...until I got to the last word.


/Even if it HAD come from a lawyer, it's slander and you can be taken to court. You can't just go around saying "This guy is a pedo rapist and everyone should run because he did this and that".  If he had never been convicted, you are destroying his reputation, and that's against the law.  Now, if it's true, and he had been convicted, no problem.  You are just stating facts. Otherwise, you are in some legal trouble.
 
2014-05-04 09:27:59 AM

skinink: even though the only reason he was never bought to court is due to the Statute of Limitation? Finding it hard to sympathise with someone who escaped a trial on a technicality.



So says Ashley.  If she really had a good case, she why didn't she bring it earlier?
And it's not like she's some unsophisticated rube, either.  She's got a Facebook page, she's lobbied the Legislature, she's gotten media attention.  She can do all that, but she can't get it together to have charges filed within five years?

What's happening to alleged molester is really unfair.  What if he's innocent and Ashley's just some batshiat crazy biatch. How's alleged molester supposed to defend himself?  I guess he could ask her specifics of when and where and then disprove them by showing phone records or social calendars that he wasn't there?  Oh, no, he can't.  More than five years have passed, and nobody remembers now when alleged molester arrived at the event, or if he even showed at all, and the phone company deleted those records four years ago.

When something happened that long ago, it always devolves into a "did too," "did not" situation, and the defendant is in a bad position, because he can't get the proof he'd need to clear his name.
 
2014-05-04 09:29:30 AM
He hasn't been convicted.  It doesn't matter what evidence she has, she's presently publicly labeling an innocent person as a sexual predator.  Given the stigma that comes with being even accused of a sex crime, this cannot be allowed.  I'm sorry she waited too long to alert authorities but...she waited too long to alert authorities.

(How long is the statue of limitations for sex crimes in Florida, anyway?)
 
2014-05-04 09:33:23 AM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.


pbs.twimg.comblog.angelatung.com
 
2014-05-04 09:33:25 AM

EvilEgg: He was never convicted of anything. He might have done it, he might not have. Since just the accusation will destroy his life there needs to be some protection.


Yeah, such a lawsuit is in effect arguing that she can't even prove it to civil standards.

Sometimes these cases reported way late are true, sometimes they aren't.  I wouldn't take it as a given that she was molested in the first place.

Moopy Mac: Fortunately in the USA, truth is a defense in defamation cases. So if he did it, he has zero case (on the defamation charge at least). She just needs to prove that he molested her. The standard of proof in this case would be a preponderance of evidence, which should be pretty simple with the testimony of an investigator from the BPD or two.


Exactly.  If she's telling the truth she'll easily win the case.

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.


No, the burden will be on her to prove it--but only to a preponderance of the evidence standard.

TuteTibiImperes: Statutes of limitations aren't exactly technicalities. They exist because after a certain amount of time has passed evidence and even witness accounts become unreliable.


Exactly.  The one change I would support is in cases where an attempt is made to keep a minor quiet that the statue is tolled until age 18.
 
2014-05-04 09:33:49 AM

arcas: He hasn't been convicted.  It doesn't matter what evidence she has, she's presently publicly labeling an innocent person as a sexual predator.  Given the stigma that comes with being even accused of a sex crime, this cannot be allowed.  I'm sorry she waited too long to alert authorities but...she waited too long to alert authorities.

(How long is the statue of limitations for sex crimes in Florida, anyway?)


This!
 
2014-05-04 09:34:42 AM
Mr. Cash would like a word.....
i1280.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-04 09:34:45 AM

TuteTibiImperes: skinink: So this guy J.R. Johnson is suing to have his name taken off of places like Ashley Foster's Facebook page because of the negative effects of being associated with molestation, even though the only reason he was never bought to court is due to the Statute of Limitation? Finding it hard to sympathise with someone who escaped a trial on a technicality.

[fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net image 727x960]

Statutes of limitations aren't exactly technicalities.  They exist because after a certain amount of time has passed evidence and even witness accounts become unreliable.


You assume that even fresh witness testimony is reliable. (It isn't.)
 
2014-05-04 09:36:58 AM

HighlanderRPI: 60 days past the statute of limitations when she finally went to police? Ouch...



"Statute" is such an odd word.
lowres.jantoo.com
 
2014-05-04 09:37:06 AM
Is the alleged molester willing to waive the statute of limitations and have the original rape charge heard in court?  If not STFU.
 
2014-05-04 09:37:48 AM
As someone who survived molestation by a family member, all I can say is that it takes a huge amount of courage and will to actually talk about this happening. I still have difficulty discussing my experience when my identy isn't hidden by a keyboard.

Of course, I'm operating on the assumption that this accusation is true.
 
2014-05-04 09:38:17 AM

Loren: Exactly. If she's telling the truth she'll easily win the case.


This is a little naive don't you think?
 
2014-05-04 09:39:27 AM

mamoru: corn-bread: So she went before the state legislature and used his name and picture to convince them to pass a longer statute of limitations.

Dude still has to prove he was damaged, but yea, I 'd say he has a case.

If there is a taped confession, as per Skinink's linked picture, then wouldn't the "it's not defamation if it's the truth" defense work out pretty well for the defendant?



Assuming the tape can be properly authenticated *and* it says what she says it says.......maybe.  "Truth" is an affirmative defense that she will need to raise at trial.

I guess on one level she should be thanking him.  By filing suit he has given her an opportunity she otherwise wouldn't have.
 
2014-05-04 09:39:37 AM
Chester approves....
 
2014-05-04 09:44:05 AM
Ye Gods, what a mess.

SOMEBODY has been horribly wronged, and SOMEBODY is an evil lying scumbag.

Is there any evidence other than the apparent taped confession?

Under what conditions was that confession extracted? With enough time and "persuasion" I bet the police could get anybody to confess to any crime.

The lawsuit probably isn't going to get very far-- the burdon of proof lies heavily with the one bringing the case, and as somebody said up thread, you can't prove a negative.
 
2014-05-04 09:44:52 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: arcas: He hasn't been convicted.  It doesn't matter what evidence she has, she's presently publicly labeling an innocent person as a sexual predator.  Given the stigma that comes with being even accused of a sex crime, this cannot be allowed.  I'm sorry she waited too long to alert authorities but...she waited too long to alert authorities.

(How long is the statue of limitations for sex crimes in Florida, anyway?)

This!


truth is defense against defamation, not conviction . It doesn't matter if he is ever actually convicted if she can prove he did it.

If he raped her it would mean he never has to go to jail but she can call him Mr. Rapey Rapist McAsswipe all she wants.
 
2014-05-04 09:48:06 AM
they look pretty similar in age to me...I think there is likely more to the story.
 
2014-05-04 09:52:27 AM

Bertuccio: Mid_mo_mad_man: arcas: He hasn't been convicted.  It doesn't matter what evidence she has, she's presently publicly labeling an innocent person as a sexual predator.  Given the stigma that comes with being even accused of a sex crime, this cannot be allowed.  I'm sorry she waited too long to alert authorities but...she waited too long to alert authorities.

(How long is the statue of limitations for sex crimes in Florida, anyway?)

This!

truth is defense against defamation, not conviction . It doesn't matter if he is ever actually convicted if she can prove he did it.

If he raped her it would mean he never has to go to jail but she can call him Mr. Rapey Rapist McAsswipe all she wants.


No, She can't. It's on her to prove he did it. That's her only defense in this case.
 
2014-05-04 09:56:11 AM
Countersue his ass for the cash. If the prosecutors had enough to go on but ran out of time, that evidence is just as good to nail him in this proceeding.
 
2014-05-04 10:02:08 AM

edmo: Countersue his ass for the cash. If the prosecutors had enough to go on but ran out of time, that evidence is just as good to nail him in this proceeding.


If you buy her story. We don't know they had enough. We are only hearing her side of it. I doubt there's any physical proof. At best it's she said/he said at this point. I doubt there's a strong case.
 
2014-05-04 10:07:43 AM
But hey, there's no such thing as rape culture
 
2014-05-04 10:10:00 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: Bertuccio: Mid_mo_mad_man: arcas: He hasn't been convicted.  It doesn't matter what evidence she has, she's presently publicly labeling an innocent person as a sexual predator.  Given the stigma that comes with being even accused of a sex crime, this cannot be allowed.  I'm sorry she waited too long to alert authorities but...she waited too long to alert authorities.

(How long is the statue of limitations for sex crimes in Florida, anyway?)

This!

truth is defense against defamation, not conviction . It doesn't matter if he is ever actually convicted if she can prove he did it.

If he raped her it would mean he never has to go to jail but she can call him Mr. Rapey Rapist McAsswipe all she wants.

No, She can't. It's on her to prove he did it. That's her only defense in this case.


You aren't disagreeing with him. He doesn't have to be convicted for her to legally call him a child molester. You are both saying the same thing.
 
2014-05-04 10:11:37 AM

arcas: He hasn't been convicted.  It doesn't matter what evidence she has, she's presently publicly labeling an innocent person as a sexual predator.  Given the stigma that comes with being even accused of a sex crime, this cannot be allowed.  I'm sorry she waited too long to alert authorities but...she waited too long to alert authorities.

(How long is the statue of limitations for sex crimes in Florida, anyway?)


OJ Simpson has a lot of money coming to him from all those defamation cases he will win.
 
2014-05-04 10:14:01 AM
What is done in the dark will always come to light.

The problem here is, does it qualify as slander, since no formal charges were ever brought?

Frankly, until the lady brings her evidence to court, we will never know.

(FTR, I expect a sealed settlement)
 
2014-05-04 10:18:40 AM

Mid_mo_mad_man: arcas: He hasn't been convicted.  It doesn't matter what evidence she has, she's presently publicly labeling an innocent person as a sexual predator.  Given the stigma that comes with being even accused of a sex crime, this cannot be allowed.  I'm sorry she waited too long to alert authorities but...she waited too long to alert authorities.

(How long is the statue of limitations for sex crimes in Florida, anyway?)

This!


Well, this is 100% legally incorrect.
 
2014-05-04 10:19:48 AM
CruJones:

So she says. It's likely she's right, but it's not certain. The ruling will have to apply to all people in this situation, whether the cops think they had a strong case or not, and I know Fark thinks the police are wrong 99% of the time.

/I think that's how it works


I'm not sure it's as high at 99% but it is pretty high.  You have to account for the stories that are presented here.  There are fewer cases like here where the cops are trying to help a dumdum who waited until after the statute of limitations had expired before seeking help;  and more cases like the cop who ran a stop sign, broadsided a woman's car which broke her neck in 4 places and then he arrested her for drunk driving because she couldn't perform a field sobriety test with a broken neck.  Or the cop who put a repo man in a choke hold b/c his car was getting repossessed.  Or the cops who pulled over the wrong guy and then arrested him anyway while joking about planting drugs in his car.

Those are just what is on the main page right now.  1 story about cops attempting to do the right thing depending on what your idea of the right thing is and 3 stories about cops going out of their way to be total and complete assholes, depending on what your idea of being a total and complete asshole is.
 
2014-05-04 10:26:25 AM
Reminds me of the O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake cases. Both got acquitted of the crime, but civilly liable for huge judgements. Either they were innocents robbed by the system, or murderers who got away with nothing but a fine. No justice either way.
 
2014-05-04 10:29:41 AM

Bertuccio: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: It's not defamation if it's true. The burden of proof will be on the rapist to prove what the victim said is false. Not being arrested/convicted for it doesn't count as proof.

I would expect the burden would be for the victim to prove she was raped. Otherwise I could say you stole from me and if you couldn't prove otherwise you'd have to pay up.


In no event will he have to "pay up" - he isn't being sued. And she does not have to convince a judge or jury that he is guilty by the standard of the criminal courts - she need only show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she is telling the truth the burden of proof falls equally on both parties to a civil suit - and it is he who is alleging that she is lying.
A criminal conviction is not even peripherally necessary to a finding in civil law.
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report