Former Boyfriend of Dr. Vanessa Tyson: Due to Her Trauma Over Being Sexually Molested By Her Father, She Would Never Have Consented to Oral Sex
BILL KRISTOL DEFENDS WITH THE RACE CARD

This is now less of a he-said, she-said and now a he-said, she-said, and he agreed with what she said.

Doesn't mean Justin Fairfax is guilty. But given that this former boyfriend is saying, if you read between the lines a bit, "No, she absolutely refuses oral sex because her father forced that on her," it does suggest that she would not have volunteered to commit the same act on a near-stranger.

You really can't prove this kind of serious sexual assault just by testimony, but as far as stories go? This is a really strong one.

You know why you're not allowed to ask about prior sexual experiences, in order to establish that if she said "yes" before she's more likely to have said "yes" now, in a rape trial?

Such questions are ruled to be impermissible by the Rules of Evidence due to public policy considerations -- singing the reputation of a woman who says (and just might be) a rape victim -- but not because they're irrelevant. They are relevant. It's always noted that it would be relevant that a woman had never before consented to sex before, because that would suggest it would be less likely that she would consent on any particular occasion.

And so while previous instances of granting consent would, then, logically suggest that a woman would be more likely to grant it later, they had a look a this question and decided yeah, but this sort of thing tells us so little -- it's barely relevant, in other words -- and the capacity to intimidate a complaining witness is so high, that for public policy reasons we won't let defense lawyers attempt to prove that a claimed victim of rape has had sex before. The slight probative value of such information is greatly outweighed by the public policy considerations of scaring rape victims from bringing forward complaints at all.

The reason I bring this up is because this ex-boyfriend's claim -- that she never engaged in oral sex, she was horrified by it due to a past history of abusive incest -- is pretty much that paradigmatic example of why past sexual history actually could be relevant (indeed, very relevant) in a rape trial in which consent is at issue.

Again, none of this means this story is true. And Justin Fairfax has not made any claims about what the sexual encounter consisted of; I imagine at this point he might just say "Yeah we didn't have oral sex."

I'm just saying: in a trial, this would be very probative testimony, if you believed it.

This is a tough call because this happened a long time ago and she did not make contemporaneous complaints about the alleged incident, either officially to the police or unofficially to friends. Fairfax finds himself in the position of having to defend himself against a charge where there is no physical evidence that can be collected to prove it one way or the other, and no contemporaneous witnesses to question.

The only thing that it seems could be checked is his claim that she contacted soon after, showing continued romantic interest, versus her claim that she never contacted him again, but even those records are almost certainly now unavailable. It would be very unexpected if proof of either claim could be found.

That's why there are statutes of limitations for almost all charges. It's not about letting criminals walk if they can evade the law for a long enough time; it's just recognizing that it is nigh-impossible to adjudicate claims about the remote past after all physical evidence has been lost, all documentary evidence has been lost, and all memories have faded and mutated.

But, as I said: The claim that she never performed this act willingly, sworn to by a separate party, is strong evidence, if you believe the other party, and if you believe that this is the act being complained about.

And then, of course, there's this breaking allegation:

CNBC story here.

Democrats remain silent. Corey Booker says he only wants to talk about Ralph Northam's blackface and, after this, I bet he won't want to talk about that, either.

Believe all women.

Zero tolerance.

Trump said women let famous guys kiss them and grab them by the p*ssy and that was totally serious and therefore Rape.

But this guy?

No big deal.

It's Chinatown, Jake.

Democrats, Five Days Ago: Blackface is a racist hate-crime for which we must have zero tolerance

Democrats in Five Minutes: Blackface is good-natured, frisky fun for the whole family!!!

Northam: I'm Not Resigning. And the Democrats who demanded he resigned will now start arguing he shouldn't resign.

OMG: Northam is gonna read "Roots" and Ta-Naheshi's books to redeem himself, guys.

And re-orient his governorship to be all about race.

So, there you go. Like Clinton, he's doing a lot of praying now. This time, to the Gods of Diversity and Human Resources.

Bill Kristol Plays the Race Card to Defend a Democrat Now Accused of Rape By Two Women:

He's a True Conservative, guys.

He's going to teach this party some manners and some proper respect for our moral and intellectual betters.

In fairness to Bill, he played the race card to defend the candidates he supported when Justin Fairfax only had one credible allegation of rape against him.

Just the one.

And... rumors is about to be a #3, a #4, and a #5.

Rumors, mind you.

But this is the same guy who said "Stay tuned" the other day.

posted by Ace of Spades at 04:35 PM

| Access Comments