Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Asinine, defamations, stalks, cousins, therapy, sex crimes  
•       •       •

9528 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2014 at 8:35 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-04 06:18:40 PM  

corn-bread: I guess on one level she should be thanking him.  By filing suit he has given her an opportunity she otherwise wouldn't have.


Not really.  If she wants a day in court, she can always file civil suit against him for damages, no?
 
2014-05-04 06:20:44 PM  

namegoeshere: Clearly he did not think his cunning plan all the way through, and his lawyer sucks for not discouraging him from doing this.


Either that, or he's not afraid of testifying.
 
2014-05-04 06:28:57 PM  
Let him sue her.  Let her go to court and finally present her evidence.  He may not be convicted criminally, but he might end up looking like a huge ass and proving himself to be a rapist.
 
2014-05-04 06:29:03 PM  
I dunno, why would she lie about something like that besides "biatches be crazy"?
 
2014-05-04 06:35:15 PM  
Oh, good grief.

As some of the folks above have pointed out, defamation is an old common-law cause of action in each of the 50 states.  Accusing someone of committing a criminal offense (like, say, child molesting) is considered to be defamation per se, which means that the plaintiff is presumed to be damaged as a matter of law.

As plaintiff, the cousin needs to show that he was accused of a criminal offense.  That's his burden of proof in this case.  I'm pretty sure the website Ashley put up will do a bang-up job of carrying this burden.

One a plaintiff has established his burden of proof, the defendant has the ability to raise affirmative defenses, such as truth in a defamation case, but THEY have the burden to prove that the allegations are, in fact, true, and not just defamatory.  So, if Ashley wants to argue that her cousin molested her, yes, she is absolutely going to have to prove that in court.  It's her burden.

Now, it's true that both parties only have a burden of preponderance of the evidence, but they both have burdens: he has to prove that she defamed him (easy), she has to prove that he molested her (not easy at all).  For everyone crowing that the cousin "hasn't thought his cunning plan all the way thru", the law is VERY much in his favor, and I suspect that he's going to come out of this far better than she is.

/Lawyer
 
2014-05-04 06:54:55 PM  

jackrazz: Oh, good grief.

...  For everyone crowing that the cousin "hasn't thought his cunning plan all the way thru", the law is VERY much in his favor, and I suspect that he's going to come out of this far better than she is.


She has already come out ahead in the sense that she has established herself in a community of supporters for victims of childhood sexual abuse.  Being sued for being brave enough to speak up should cause the community to rally to her defense, whatever the true facts may be.  That could include a legal defense fund.  He on the other hand, if in fact he has a defense other than expiry of the statute, faces a long slog probably with no community support.  He may fold up after he gets the first couple of invoices from his professional services provider, because who would take this for him on contingency?  To say nothing of the Streisand effect.  So the big picture for him may not be so rosy.

Bertuccio: 4tehsnowflakes:

Is an accusation of rape always damaging?


Yes?

And is the fact that he wasn't convicted any defense for him?

No, as someone said up-thread the cops/DA did not clear him, they just declined to charge him, maybe because it was too late.
 
2014-05-04 07:05:06 PM  

jackrazz: Oh, good grief.

As some of the folks above have pointed out, defamation is an old common-law cause of action in each of the 50 states.  Accusing someone of committing a criminal offense (like, say, child molesting) is considered to be defamation per se, which means that the plaintiff is presumed to be damaged as a matter of law.


Does that standard change if the person being slandered is a public figure?  We had a thread a few weeks ago, and I got dogpiled when I suggested you can't just accuse someone of running a Ponzi scheme, even if he's a public figure; it could open the door to a defamation claim.  (high-profile CEO, iirc)

/lawyer
//not my field
 
2014-05-04 07:22:50 PM  

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

they really need to extend the limits on abuse ... 
And dont get me started on rape. 
WHY is there a statute of limitation on rape? FFS

csb
Some counties are making charges against the DNA, stopping the clock from running out.
Once they discover the owner of the DNA, the case can move forward.
/csb


Because defendants are presumed innocent and having to recall witnesses from twenty years ago is generally an unreasonable burden to make them meet. Absolutely, criminals can escape justice by waiting out the statue. But innocent people would be significantly more likely to be falsely convicted if they had to use their own resources to prepare a defense against the infinite resources of the state when evidence has disappeared and witnesses died.
 
2014-05-04 07:31:56 PM  

Mugato: notatrollorami: "I think it's more likely that the accused is guilty than innocent but I'm not certain" wins a lawsuit but loses a prosecution. It's not a difficult concept.

It's not difficult, it's just not logical.


You think that plaintiffs in civil lawsuits should have to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt? Ugh.
 
2014-05-04 07:35:19 PM  

jackrazz: Oh, good grief.

As some of the folks above have pointed out, defamation is an old common-law cause of action in each of the 50 states.  Accusing someone of committing a criminal offense (like, say, child molesting) is considered to be defamation per se, which means that the plaintiff is presumed to be damaged as a matter of law.

As plaintiff, the cousin needs to show that he was accused of a criminal offense.  That's his burden of proof in this case.  I'm pretty sure the website Ashley put up will do a bang-up job of carrying this burden.

One a plaintiff has established his burden of proof, the defendant has the ability to raise affirmative defenses, such as truth in a defamation case, but THEY have the burden to prove that the allegations are, in fact, true, and not just defamatory.  So, if Ashley wants to argue that her cousin molested her, yes, she is absolutely going to have to prove that in court.  It's her burden.

Now, it's true that both parties only have a burden of preponderance of the evidence, but they both have burdens: he has to prove that she defamed him (easy), she has to prove that he molested her (not easy at all).  For everyone crowing that the cousin "hasn't thought his cunning plan all the way thru", the law is VERY much in his favor, and I suspect that he's going to come out of this far better than she is.

/Lawyer


Tighten this up a little bit or risk losing a few points on the final exam.
 
2014-05-04 07:37:57 PM  

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

they really need to extend the limits on abuse ... 
And dont get me started on rape. 
WHY is there a statute of limitation on rape? FFS

csb
Some counties are making charges against the DNA, stopping the clock from running out.
Once they discover the owner of the DNA, the case can move forward.
/csb

Because defendants are presumed innocent and having to recall witnesses from twenty years ago is generally an unreasonable burden to make them meet. Absolutely, criminals can escape justice by waiting out the statue. But innocent people would be significantly more likely to be falsely convicted if they had to use their own resources to prepare a defense against the infinite resources of the state when evidence has disappeared and witnesses died.


yes .... but in the case of stranger rape, when a rape kit was done at the time, a case opened, and the case goes COLD .... well, I have no problems with the case being kept open and charging the DNA ...

I certainly understand the need for limitations on non-capital cases.
It is long past time to move rape into the capital case column.
 
2014-05-04 07:45:40 PM  

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

they really need to extend the limits on abuse ... 
And dont get me started on rape. 
WHY is there a statute of limitation on rape? FFS

csb
Some counties are making charges against the DNA, stopping the clock from running out.
Once they discover the owner of the DNA, the case can move forward.
/csb

Because defendants are presumed innocent and having to recall witnesses from twenty years ago is generally an unreasonable burden to make them meet. Absolutely, criminals can escape justice by waiting out the statue. But innocent people would be significantly more likely to be falsely convicted if they had to use their own resources to prepare a defense against the infinite resources of the state when evidence has disappeared and witnesses died.

yes .... but in the case of stranger rape, when a rape kit was done at the time, a case opened, and the case goes COLD .... well, I have no problems with the case being kept open and charging the DNA ...

I certainly understand the need for limitations on non-capital cases.
It is long past time to move rape into the capital case column.


Who did the rape kit? Can you subpoena the lab tech? The police? The investigators? Can you review the methods used? You have multiple Sixth Amendment issues when your evidence goes stale.

Why should rape be a capital offense? Why should you face death when you are not yourself a killer? Why should the punishment exceed the crime?
 
2014-05-04 07:48:43 PM  

jackrazz: Oh, good grief.

As some of the folks above have pointed out, defamation is an old common-law cause of action in each of the 50 states.  Accusing someone of committing a criminal offense (like, say, child molesting) is considered to be defamation per se, which means that the plaintiff is presumed to be damaged as a matter of law.

As plaintiff, the cousin needs to show that he was accused of a criminal offense.  That's his burden of proof in this case.  I'm pretty sure the website Ashley put up will do a bang-up job of carrying this burden.

One a plaintiff has established his burden of proof, the defendant has the ability to raise affirmative defenses, such as truth in a defamation case, but THEY have the burden to prove that the allegations are, in fact, true, and not just defamatory.  So, if Ashley wants to argue that her cousin molested her, yes, she is absolutely going to have to prove that in court.  It's her burden.

Now, it's true that both parties only have a burden of preponderance of the evidence, but they both have burdens: he has to prove that she defamed him (easy), she has to prove that he molested her (not easy at all).  For everyone crowing that the cousin "hasn't thought his cunning plan all the way thru", the law is VERY much in his favor, and I suspect that he's going to come out of this far better than she is.

/Lawyer

Isnt he kind of screwed, if he actually abused her?
Wont he have to take the stand to assert the damages? And wont he be opened up to questioning about the alleged abuse?

Sure, he can lie. But the defense could ask about case after case after case, effectively smearing him just by asking the questions? 
did you touch her on this date? were you with her on this date? did you talk to her about sex? etc etc
At some point the streisand effect alone has had to make things worse for him in at least some sense.

Worst part is that assuming that he is completely innocent, there is almost no way to clear your name, short of her recanting.
This is why claims of false rape make me so completely nutty.
 
2014-05-04 07:52:39 PM  

The Only Jeff: Who did the rape kit? Can you subpoena the lab tech? The police? The investigators? Can you review the methods used? You have multiple Sixth Amendment issues when your evidence goes stale.


truth, which is an issue for the state to maintain the evidence and sworn testimony, etc

Why should rape be a capital offense? Why should you face death when you are not yourself a killer? Why should the punishment exceed the crime?

meh - I am willing to forgo death, but life without parole is a fitting sentence for rape rape.
FFS - in the current system, drug dealers and users (possession distribution weight ) get longer prison sentences than rapists. sigh
 
2014-05-04 07:57:22 PM  

Gunboat


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?


Since the article says "molested" instead of "raped" or "sexually assaulted"I'm presuming that the alleged abuse took place when she was a kid.

Thunderpipes: I smell Duke.


Why does this come up in literally every thread about rape? Why do people always insist that the alleged victim is lying despite statistical evidence to the contrary about false rape accusations?

If I ever meet Crystal Gail Magnum I'm going to punch her for making the lives of real rape survivors even more difficult.
 
2014-05-04 07:57:26 PM  

The Only Jeff: Why should the punishment exceed the crime?


this question is both funny and disingenuous.
the 3 classic consensual crimes harm no one and therefore should have zero punish and in fact should be legal given that question.
 
2014-05-04 08:01:01 PM  

namatad: truth, which is an issue for the state to maintain the evidence and sworn testimony, etc


You can't maintain evidence that isn't gathered. If the state says 20 years ago this lab tech (who is now dead) ran a rape kit (that has since been discarded) that resulted in a match to you, what do you do? The risk of false conviction is too high. The obvious violation of the Sixth Amendment is impermissible. 

meh - I am willing to forgo death, but life without parole is a fitting sentence for rape rape.
FFS - in the current system, drug dealers and users (possession distribution weight ) get longer prison sentences than rapists. sigh


As I understand it, you can get life without parole for rape rape in numerous jurisdictions, including federally.

As far as the disparity between drug dealer sentences and rapist sentences, that sounds like a greater problem with drug law than with rape law.
 
2014-05-04 08:01:55 PM  

namatad: The Only Jeff: Why should the punishment exceed the crime?

this question is both funny and disingenuous.
the 3 classic consensual crimes harm no one and therefore should have zero punish and in fact should be legal given that question.


To what crimes are you referring/when did I refer to those crimes?
 
2014-05-04 08:06:03 PM  

The Only Jeff: namatad: truth, which is an issue for the state to maintain the evidence and sworn testimony, etc

You can't maintain evidence that isn't gathered. If the state says 20 years ago this lab tech (who is now dead) ran a rape kit (that has since been discarded) that resulted in a match to you, what do you do? The risk of false conviction is too high. The obvious violation of the Sixth Amendment is impermissible.


Of course.  If you dont have the evidence any more it is pretty much impossible to present a case. But some states have no limits or very long ones:  http://www.rainn.org/pdf-files-and-other-documents/Public-Policy/Lega l -resources/2012/Statute%20of%20Limitations%20Summary.pdf
So we can assume that state makes every effort to keep the needed evidence required to present a case if and when the accused is ever caught. No different than a murder case.


meh - I am willing to forgo death, but life without parole is a fitting sentence for rape rape.
FFS - in the current system, drug dealers and users (possession distribution weight ) get longer prison sentences than rapists. sigh

As I understand it, you can get life without parole for rape rape in numerous jurisdictions, including federally.

As far as the disparity between drug dealer sentences and rapist sentences, that sounds like a greater problem with drug law than with rape law.


In both directions. The drug sentences are embarrassingly high and the rape sentences are embarrassing low. Which makes it two separate issues. but still.

/I am also confused. You are some kind of adult and havent called me an idiot yet. Is this some alternative fark.com I have fallen into? :D
 
2014-05-04 08:08:57 PM  

The Only Jeff: namatad: The Only Jeff: Why should the punishment exceed the crime?

this question is both funny and disingenuous.
the 3 classic consensual crimes harm no one and therefore should have zero punish and in fact should be legal given that question.

To what crimes are you referring/when did I refer to those crimes?


prostitution, drug use, gambling.
victimless crimes
 
2014-05-04 08:12:26 PM  
Truth is an absolute defense against defamation.  I don't believe someone has to be convicted in order to prove in that court that it happened.  If she has the recording of him admitting to the abuse she says she has, she'll probably win.
 
2014-05-04 08:17:39 PM  

namatad: Of course.  If you dont have the evidence any more it is pretty much impossible to present a case. But some states have no limits or very long ones:  http://www.rainn.org/pdf-files-and-other-documents/Public-Policy/Lega l -resources/2012/Statute%20of%20Limitations%20Summary.pdf
So we can assume that state makes every effort to keep the needed evidence required to present a case if and when the accused is ever caught. No different than a murder case.


You misunderstand me, my apologies. Absolutely, the state will maintain ITS evidence. But it will not maintain evidence the defense needs to show reasonable doubt. The state will say that so-and-so did such and such on this date and therefore the defendant is guilty. It will not cross examine so-and-so like the defense needs to in order to provide an effective defense. The defense cannot try to discredit an expert who cannot appear in court because he or she is dead. The defense cannot question the validity of the testing methods when everyone connected with them has forgotten about them or died. So at trial, all the judge and jury will see is that the last word on the matter was guilt.

The flexibility from state-to-state on statutes of limitations is understandable. Not every crime is equal and not every mistake is fatal. But I personally feel that with extremely rare exception, statutes of limitations prevent more harm than they cause.

In both directions. The drug sentences are embarrassingly high and the rape sentences are embarrassing low. Which makes it two separate issues. but still.

But a large part of that is that a person is more likely to be convicted multiple times for drug infractions than for rape. The rapist either learns his lesson or gets better about hiding it.

/I am also confused. You are some kind of adult and havent called me an idiot yet. Is this some alternative fark.com I have fallen into? :D

I haven't put your name in red, so you haven't said something totally ridiculous yet :P

prostitution, drug use, gambling.
victimless crimes


Although it's strawmanny, I'll tackle it. I think prostitution should be largely legal, perhaps regulated so you don't have street walkers or brothels across from a day care, but men and women should largely be allowed to boink whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

Drug use is tricky. The guy who tokes or shoots up and vegges out on his couch all day isn't really a problem. The guy who does those things then gets in his car and kills someone is. I think that overall, drugs should be more in line with alcohol laws. But some drugs like LSD and PCP are much more difficult to use safely. Maybe bring back the opium dens of yore?

Gambling I think should be relaxed as well. You shouldn't let someone gamble who obviously has a problem, just like you can't serve alcohol to someone obviously drunk. But overall I agree with you that your victimless crimes are more harshly punished than justice requires.
 
2014-05-04 08:48:26 PM  

The Only Jeff: Although it's strawmanny, I'll tackle it. I think prostitution should be largely legal, perhaps regulated so you don't have street walkers or brothels across from a day care, but men and women should largely be allowed to boink whoever they want for whatever reason they want.


I think you're underestimating how difficult prostitution will be.  We've got a thriving sex slave trade in the U.S., and well regulated brothels won't get rid of guys who want to pay a fraction as much at a "massage" parlor with fewer rules and condoms.  That would have to be planned for.
 
2014-05-04 08:53:36 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: jackrazz: Oh, good grief.

...  For everyone crowing that the cousin "hasn't thought his cunning plan all the way thru", the law is VERY much in his favor, and I suspect that he's going to come out of this far better than she is.

She has already come out ahead in the sense that she has established herself in a community of supporters for victims of childhood sexual abuse.  Being sued for being brave enough to speak up should cause the community to rally to her defense, whatever the true facts may be.  That could include a legal defense fund.  He on the other hand, if in fact he has a defense other than expiry of the statute, faces a long slog probably with no community support.  He may fold up after he gets the first couple of invoices from his professional services provider, because who would take this for him on contingency?  To say nothing of the Streisand effect.  So the big picture for him may not be so rosy.

Bertuccio: 4tehsnowflakes:

Is an accusation of rape always damaging?

Yes?

And is the fact that he wasn't convicted any defense for him?

No, as someone said up-thread the cops/DA did not clear him, they just declined to charge him, maybe because it was too late.


Thanks you and jackrazz for the clarifications.

And on whether she wins in the meta-game, FTFA her goal in lieu of prosecuting him was to change the statute of limitations, which she did. So winning this would just be icing.
 
2014-05-04 08:54:37 PM  

msqualia: I think you're underestimating how difficult prostitution will be.  We've got a thriving sex slave trade in the U.S., and well regulated brothels won't get rid of guys who want to pay a fraction as much at a "massage" parlor with fewer rules and condoms.  That would have to be planned for.


Why should condoms be mandatory? If a person can consent to condomless sex for free, why shouldn't they be able to consent for condomless sex when they're being paid for it?

And categorically, sex slave trade is bad and not something we should do.
 
2014-05-04 11:06:26 PM  

PunGent: jackrazz: Oh, good grief.

As some of the folks above have pointed out, defamation is an old common-law cause of action in each of the 50 states.  Accusing someone of committing a criminal offense (like, say, child molesting) is considered to be defamation per se, which means that the plaintiff is presumed to be damaged as a matter of law.

Does that standard change if the person being slandered is a public figure?  We had a thread a few weeks ago, and I got dogpiled when I suggested you can't just accuse someone of running a Ponzi scheme, even if he's a public figure; it could open the door to a defamation claim.  (high-profile CEO, iirc)

/lawyer
//not my field


I can't remember the exact case, but there is a US Supreme Court case directly on point that discusses slander and libel against public figures.  Effectively, the slander has to be made with reckless disregard for the truth.  So, yes, if the New York Times ran an article (possibly even an editorial) outright calling a public figure a criminal, the NY Times would be facing a nice little defamation suit.

Papers like the National Enquirer and the Weekly World News get a pass, IIRC, because they're very careful to use innuendo rather than outright accusation.  This hasn't kept them from getting sued in the past, however.
 
2014-05-04 11:15:14 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: jackrazz: Oh, good grief.

...  For everyone crowing that the cousin "hasn't thought his cunning plan all the way thru", the law is VERY much in his favor, and I suspect that he's going to come out of this far better than she is.

She has already come out ahead in the sense that she has established herself in a community of supporters for victims of childhood sexual abuse.  Being sued for being brave enough to speak up should cause the community to rally to her defense, whatever the true facts may be.  That could include a legal defense fund.  He on the other hand, if in fact he has a defense other than expiry of the statute, faces a long slog probably with no community support.  He may fold up after he gets the first couple of invoices from his professional services provider, because who would take this for him on contingency?  To say nothing of the Streisand effect.  So the big picture for him may not be so rosy.


I will concede that the knee-jerk reaction of victim's rights groups will be to support Ashley, no matter what the real truth is.  To that end, sure, she "wins".

This is what ticks me off about these rape cases.  In no other body of law will you find a group of people who will unquestioningly and automatically accept an accuser's word with nothing else to go on, because NOBODY would ever make something like this up.  Except all the cases where people DO make it up.  Like my client's step-daughter, who got him thrown out of the house by telling CPS that he touched her in the naughty place.  No other evidence, just her word.  He own mother caught her on tape a month later bragging that she'd call CPS again and accuse Mom of helping Dad touch her inappropriately if Mom went thru with a threat to ground her.  We've turned that tape over to the prosecutor, and his response is to insist on the trial going forward.  Justice in action, people.

But just be careful if you ever critically ask about someone's motivations in making an accusation like this, lest you get tarred as a supporter of so-called "rape culture".
 
2014-05-05 01:38:24 AM  
From another article about her, it says prior to the law being changed, the statute of limitations for molesting a child older than 12 was 3 years from the abuse.  The abuse allegedly started at 13, when her cousin was 23, until she was 19.  She went to police when she was 21.
 
Skr
2014-05-05 03:59:36 AM  

bpsoup: From another article about her, it says prior to the law being changed, the statute of limitations for molesting a child older than 12 was 3 years from the abuse.  The abuse allegedly started at 13, when her cousin was 23, until she was 19.  She went to police when she was 21.


3 years seems way too short of time considering the head games that kids can go through while being abused.
 
2014-05-05 04:15:36 AM  

jso2897: Just as an aside:
"My picture appeared on Facebook as 'a predator', which I have never been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of," Foster's cousin writes In Broward County court documents."

Anybody notice anything conspicuously absent from his statement?


The presumption of innocence?

Guys. All this talk of burdens gives me a headache. As a plaintiff, in order to make it to trial, you have to make a prima facie case to survive summary judgment

Summary judgment is what lawyers move for by saying "Even if you accept everything in the plaintiffs complaint as true he will undoubtedly lose at trial because he's failed to allege some element of the claim"

So yes. There are burdens in a civil case on the plaintiff to prove each element of his claim to a preponderance (51% likely)
 
2014-05-05 09:04:09 AM  

jackrazz: PunGent: jackrazz: Oh, good grief.

As some of the folks above have pointed out, defamation is an old common-law cause of action in each of the 50 states.  Accusing someone of committing a criminal offense (like, say, child molesting) is considered to be defamation per se, which means that the plaintiff is presumed to be damaged as a matter of law.

Does that standard change if the person being slandered is a public figure?  We had a thread a few weeks ago, and I got dogpiled when I suggested you can't just accuse someone of running a Ponzi scheme, even if he's a public figure; it could open the door to a defamation claim.  (high-profile CEO, iirc)

/lawyer
//not my field

I can't remember the exact case, but there is a US Supreme Court case directly on point that discusses slander and libel against public figures.  Effectively, the slander has to be made with reckless disregard for the truth.  So, yes, if the New York Times ran an article (possibly even an editorial) outright calling a public figure a criminal, the NY Times would be facing a nice little defamation suit.

Papers like the National Enquirer and the Weekly World News get a pass, IIRC, because they're very careful to use innuendo rather than outright accusation.  This hasn't kept them from getting sued in the past, however.


Yeah, that was my take on it.  Other FarkAttorneys seemed to disagree, however...quite vehemently :)
 
2014-05-05 11:19:18 AM  

Babwa Wawa: corn-bread: I guess on one level she should be thanking him.  By filing suit he has given her an opportunity she otherwise wouldn't have.

Not really.  If she wants a day in court, she can always file civil suit against him for damages, no?


I don't know what the statute of limitations is in Florida, but typically it's far shorter for civil cases than criminal ones.  While the SOL for the felony may be 25 years or more, it wouldn't at all surprise me if the civil SOL was only four or five years.
 
2014-05-05 12:02:10 PM  
Bullshiat...I hope he sues the fark out of her and wins...
SO DAMN TIRED of all these farkin wimps claiming whatever happened to them DECADES ago...
But NOW...NOW...after decades have passed...
NOW they want their "justice", their time in the sun...
Again...bullshiat...
I have nothing but disdain for rapists and child molesters...
But I also have nothing but disdain for victims that keep quiet, continue being victims, then a hundred years later...they wanna bring it to light.
NO!
Accuse the attacker, press charges, and get your justice at the time of the incident.
Right now, this story is nothing but "he said/she said"...there's no evidence, there's no witnesses, there's nothing but her stupid voice ruining this man's life because SHE SAID IT HAPPENED! Nothing more.
I hope she pays him a lot of money and keeps his name out of her mouth/off the internet.
Ridiculous!
Imagine this happening to you...innocent as the day is long...
All of a sudden, you find out there's a Facebook page dedicated to ruining your reputation.
fark THAT!!!
 
Displayed 33 of 133 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report