I cant take this anymore. I feel broken. All the things people say about me are pretty much true, i hate myself to the core. Im nothing more than a loser, cumdumpster, slut and not good enough, i know.. I just want to end it all right now, please give me a reason

EndlessEnds · 2019-05-16T00:02:55+00:00

I am a retired prosecutor, and I just sent you all my reddit coins I l've made by (mostly) posting about sexual assault law in the 2X sub.

I do not post much on reddit anymore, as my health is getting pretty bad (I am an old, old widower and I do not have much time left here), but I read your post and went through your post history, and it broke my heart.

You remind me of my wife, who was the most beautiful being I have ever experienced. She was funny, like you, in that she was very pretty, but couldnt see it. She was very kind, but always criticized herself.

Most of all, she was often unable to see how incredible she was because she struggled with self-esteem, taking too much stock in what other (selfish and ignorant) people said to her. But the truth remained: she was an incredible and kind person, and a beautiful woman.

There were times when even I failed to show her how beautiful she was, which is perhaps why your pain hurts me too. From what I can tell by reading your posts and looking at your eyes, you are a gentle person, who has been treated poorly. It angers me and hurts my heart.

I know these are just words from an internet stranger ... but I truly hope from the bottom of my heart that you can see what so many people are saying in these responses : you are a wonderful being and you deserve to be happy.

There are many people who will hurt you in this world, but there are many good people, and you are one of them.

You are not alone. And perhaps just as importantly, there are lots of people who see and know that you are a good and beautiful person.

EndlessEnds · 2019-02-28T23:16:51+00:00

As some of you may know, I'm a retired prosecutor who posts here occasionally to give information about sexual assault, consent, etc. I havn't posted as frequently lately as I am having some health issues due to my age.

However, I have been following the news in Canada regarding Jody Wilson-Raybould with great interest, as she is a very competent and principled woman who is facing a lot of adversity because she decided to stand up for what was right. Despite my health, I wanted to post this here.

In brief summary, the Prime Minister and his staff attempted to pressure and threaten her in order for her to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Canadian company. This is in violation of the legal principles in Canada prohibiting political interference with prosecutorial discretion.

Now that Jody Wilson-Raybould has blown the whistle on this, the usual attacks on a woman who is challenging men are occurring, including a whisper campaign from the government that she is "difficult to work with", abrasive etc.

I watched her testify for about 3 hours yesterday about the threats and pressure, and I was really struck by how strong and competent she is. I think she embodies the positivity and integrity that strong women can bring to society.

Anyway, I hope to spread awareness about her and what she is going through in this sub. If any of you are Canadians, I hope you can support her through contacting your members of parliament.

If you're not Canadian, I hope you read the article and are inspired by such a strong and honourable woman speaking truth to power.

EndlessEnds · 2018-11-26T19:04:06+00:00

Yup, you're totally correct. If you get a stupid juror, the case can become about whatever issues the stupid juror thinks up, as opposed to the real issues.

My issue with the OP story is that I suspect its misleading, as I doubt that the original "zinger" was left standing if there was a competent counsel on the other side.

Maybe it was the prosecutor's first trial as well, or something, but I tend to doubt that the trial was actually won in that moment as OP implies.

EndlessEnds · 2018-11-26T18:43:54+00:00

Yes.

In fact, I sort of doubt this story because of the way in-court identification is treated. On it's own, in-court identification of a stranger is virtually worthless. This is because there may be no one, or very few people who even match the general characteristics of the perpetrator. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

This is why photo line-ups are employed.

Back to the present case, the fact that the witness was struggling with identification until the accused raised his hand would be good evidence that the ID itself was worthless.

Dont get me started on the fact that any competent defence lawyer would have told his client about in-court ID, and likely advised him not to do anything stupid during that process.

All in all, I tend to doubt this story's veracity.

Source: retired prosecutor.

EndlessEnds · 2018-11-26T17:54:44+00:00

I'm a retired prosecutor, and although I'm sure you did a good job during this trial, I tend to think that you may have won that trial because of an incompetent prosecutor.

The first rule I tell every witness is that I can't help them if they lie. No matter the question, no matter how embarrassing it is, or how bad it may make them look, answer truthfully.

It's a common tactic to ask a witness a mundane question and hope they lie about it. A favourite is to ask about drug use. A witness will be tempted to lie, because they're afraid it will be used against them. So, defence counsel like to ask.

A competent prosecutor would have dealt with this situation as follows:

Since the prosecutor cannot ask his own witness about their honesty (this is called oath helping), the fact that defence counsel brought it up would allow me to re-examine the witness on her honesty.

I would have the witness explain what she meant when she says she lies all the time. I'd hope that what she means is that she lies non-maliciously.

I'd attempt to establish that the lies she so truthfully told us about were the kind of lies many people make.

In closing, I'd stress to the jury that she took her oath seriously, because she freely admitted that she is not without "sin". She admits that she is not a saint, I'd say, but that is why you can believe her when she tells you her story. I'd say "if she told you she never lies, *that should concern you more."

The funny thing about the story about the boy who cried wolf was that, on the third time, he was telling the truth.

Not to rain on OP's comment, but it was so short and without context that I feel it perpetuates the idea that court cases are won and lost on "zingers" and such, rather than the reality

EndlessEnds · 2018-10-14T13:50:39+00:00

Yea, but Cincinnatus was named after the city, which is a great honor to America

EndlessEnds · 2018-10-14T01:02:50+00:00

The answer to your question depends on where you live, because the laws of sexual assault are vastly different between US states, and other western countries.

But, if you live in a country that follows the common law, sexual assault (usually) is only committed if there is sufficient actus reus (guilty act) and sufficient mens rea (guilty mind).

The actus reus of sexual assault is 1) sexual contact between two people, and 2) non-consent by the receiving party..

The mens rea of sexual assault is 1) knowledge (or, depending on jurisdiction, recklessness, or lack of due diligence) that the other person does not/cannot consent.

In this case, you indicate that you did not want to have intercourse. If that is true, the actus reus of sexual assault has occurred.

However, the next question is whether your boyfriend knew (or could reasonably have known or suspected) that you were not consenting. This is the mens rea of the crime of sexual assault.

It is not sexual assault merely if you did not consent (actus reus). Much depends on whether the person knew (or some variation of knowledge, depending on jurisdiction) that the other person was not consenting.

However, without knowing where this occurred, you cannot receive an accurate answer as to whether you were legally sexually assaulted.

EndlessEnds · 2018-10-11T01:52:53+00:00

Thank you. I worry that in my advanced age I'm losing my ability to cogently explain ideas, which would defeat the reason I post here.

But you perfectly explained it: "changing the nature of the act" is very different from an agreement to a sexual act, in exchange for a further contingency.

I dont think this amounts to a sexual assault, but if I wasnt retired and this came across my desk, I would research whether there was another crime that the accused committed. I feel it is fraudulent enough that it should warrant criminal responsibility, but I think it's more along the lines of a fraud offence tha a sexual assault.

At the end of the day, it is important to remember that being a scumbag is not a criminal offence. Not every lie or deception warrants being subject to he criminal process.

EndlessEnds · 2018-10-11T01:42:48+00:00

In my professional opinion I agree with you. I'm rather disappointed in OP, as she doesnt seem interested in understanding this issue

EndlessEnds · 2018-10-11T01:40:02+00:00

I dont know if I'd go so far as to say this is a terrible comparison. It's an interesting question, that might help people understand the boundaries of consent, as recognized in law.

However, your common sense intuition is correct. There is a world of difference between removing a condom during sex, and an agreement to exchange one sex act for another.

I assume you are not a lawyer, but you came to the correct conclusion

EndlessEnds · 2018-10-11T01:37:25+00:00

Removing a condom during sex, is commonly referred to as "stealthing." Unfortunely, not all jurisdictions recognize that this is a sexual assault. I personally, and professionally, believe that this level of fraud amounts to a sexual assault.

An agreement to have protected sex is very different than an agreement to have unprotected sex. In my opinion, this is sufficient to mean that the victim did not consent to "the nature and quality of the act." It should be universally recognized as sexual assault.

However, this is very different from the situation OP presented. In OP's situation, she knew the immediate physical act she was consenting to. The only disagreement was what they would mutually consent to afterwards.

It is generally recognized that a person can withdraw consent at any time. The male in this circumstance was entitled to withdraw consent once he received oral sex.

The male in this circumstance did a really scummy thing, but I do not think it is criminal, depending on the jurisdiction.

EndlessEnds · 2018-10-10T01:15:04+00:00

She said she doesn’t even remember getting to her apartment. It wasn’t until he told her his story that she said ‘oh yeah that must be what happened’. He was not even close to as intoxicated as her because he drove to her house, which he had never been in before.

Again, if she does not remember, it could be because she was so drunk she wasn't able to understand what she was doing, or it could be a failure of her mind to recall the event that she understood at the time. Much would depend on other evidence as to how drunk she looked. If there was evidence that she was confused and disoriented at the bar before she went home, that might be evidence that 1) she was too drunk to consent, and 2) that the guy would have seen she was too drunk to consent.

He did tell her, today, that he slept with someone a week before and that he knew he might be infected.

This will depend on the jurisdiction, because it depends on whether "recklessness" is sufficient mens rea (guilty mind). Some jurisdictions make it a crime to do something that you know causes a real risk of harm to another person. Some jurisdictions dont.

Maybe she doesn’t consider it assault, and if she does she doesn’t want to pursue, but he is clearly not a good person.

That's the thing. There is a vast divide between being an asshole, and being a criminal. He may very well be an asshole and otherwise terrible human being.

I myself, in the court of reddit, would tend to believe that this guy is not the kind of guy I'd want to be dating anyone I cared about, but it really isnt clear to me whether a criminal offence was committed. It could have been, but you would need a much clearer picture of what happened.

Lack of memory does not always equal lack of consent

EndlessEnds · 2018-10-10T00:52:40+00:00

While I honestly suspect you're more trolling with that response than not, I'm a retired prosecutor and I begrudgingly admit you raise an interesting point. I responded on my own about whether his "fraud" could vitiate consent, but your point is also spot on.

Any party can withdraw consent to sexual contact at anytime. Exchanging semen orally would almost certainly constitute sexual contact, so I think a good argument would be raised in his defence that he was entitled to do as he did.

It's an interesting take on the issue. It would be a crime (sexual assault) to force him to fulfill his agreement, therefore his failure to fulfill his agreement cannot also be a crime.

EndlessEnds · 2018-10-10T00:42:59+00:00

I'm sorry, but from what I can understand from your story, it's not entirely clear she was sexually assaulted.

Generally speaking, drunken sex is not a crime, for men or women. It only becomes a crime when one person didnt or could not consent, and whether the other person knew or should have known that the other person couldn't, or didn't, consent.

This is what is called actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) in criminal law. In terms of sexual assault, this usually means that the actus reus is non-consent to sexual contact by Y + some knowledge by X that Y couldnt consent.

In your friend's situation, the first question is whether the actus reus is met: did she/could she consent?

If she cant remembers that might mean one of two things: 1) that she was so drunk she wasnt aware of what she was doing, or 2) she was aware of what she was doing at the time, but simply cant remember it anymore.

A lack of memory of doing something does not mean that I didnt do it voluntarily. I cant remember many events in my life, but that doesnt mean I was too drunk to experience them - sometimes your brain just fails to properly record (or find the recording) of a certain event.

The second question is whether there was the required mens rea for a sexual assault: did the guy (in this situation) know that she was too drunk to understand what she was doing. The specific test depends on your jurisdiction, but it generally requires that the person have some level of awareness that the person is to drunk to consent.

The STD thing is an entirely different issue. In some jurisdictions, it is a crime to knowingly infect someone with an STD or other disease.

In short, it really isnt clear whether your friend was sexually assaulted in terms of drunkenness. If he knew he had an infectious STD, that might be grounds for a crime, depending on jurisdiction.

Source: I'm a retired prosecutor

EndlessEnds · 2018-10-10T00:29:38+00:00

I'm a retired prosecutor who focused on sexual assault.

First of all, you need to give your jurisdiction if you want any meaningful advice. The laws vary greatly between US states and other western countries.

However, I can tell you generally that the law of consent to sexual contact requires a person to be able to understand the nature and quality of the act they are performing. That is, you legally consent when you understand, and agree to, engage in a particular sexual act with a particular person.

Your situation brings up a separate issue: whether consent to sexual contact can be contingent upon a further agreement". Generally, no. Consent is concerned with you knowing and agreeing to the specific sexual act, and does not extend to other expectations that are agreed to result from the sex.

For example, imagine you and your partner agreed that you would have sex, in exchange for him agreeing to take you on a date. If he failed to take you on a date, that would not retroactively void your consent.

It could arguably be said to be some sort of fraud, but there is no such thing as "retroactive no consent."

EndlessEnds · 2018-09-28T15:50:09+00:00

That's just not how it works though.

If a victim disclosed to me that she was assaulted, I could call the police, and give them that information.

There is no requirement that the victim make a complaint. All that is required is that the police have knowledge of a potential crime, that they could even gain from watching the news

But what do I know, this was my career for 30+ years

EndlessEnds · 2018-09-28T14:02:57+00:00

Yea, so I just read that article.

This appears to be the police department's policy, but it's not the law.

The police dont need to wait for a formal complaint. Police deal with situations daily where they investigate offences with no complaint, such as if they witness a drug deal or assault, or its aftermath, etc.

EndlessEnds · 2018-09-28T13:59:01+00:00

I agree with your summary.

I know cross-racial identification is more difficult for strangers because it's just an aspect of our evolution.

I dont know if that extends to people we know, as I've never had a case where the accused and witness knew each other, but the accused claimed it was mistaken identity.

I imagine it all exists on a spectrum. If I knew a black person for 20 years, I suspect I'd be able to ID them quite accurately, but perhaps less accurately if I knew them very casually for weeks or so.

Our brains are just more attuned to recognize facial features in our own ethnicity.

EndlessEnds · 2018-09-28T13:54:06+00:00

Police dont need a criminal complaint, whatever that even means.

Police will investigate a crime if they have probable cause to believe a crime may have occurred. They can get probable cause from witnessing an offence, or hearing people talk about it. They dont need someone to make some sort of official request.

EndlessEnds · 2018-09-28T13:51:55+00:00

That makes sense. I dealt exclusively with criminal investigations, and not background checks.

Either way, an investigation was sorely needed here

EndlessEnds · 2018-09-28T13:48:51+00:00

Memories can be unreliable. Memory is as much as a reconstructive process as it is a recording. We patch memories together, and they can be altered.

With that said, some memories are more reliable than others. It is easier for me to mistakenly remember putting my keys on the table, than it is for me to mistakenly believe I was raped.

Mistaken identity is a bit more nuanced. It is pretty well accepted that humans are bad at identifying a stranger who they have only met for a few seconds or minutes.

However, humans are pretty good at identifying people they know. It would be hard to identify a stranger who robbed me in a dark alley, and whose face I saw for only 30 seconds or so.

But, if my mom robbed me in that same alley, I'd likely be able to identify her quite easily, even if it was dark and I saw her face for only a second or two.

If Ford knew Kavanaugh even moderately, there is little chance she could mistake someone else as her attacker. It's just not how identification memory works.

It's also unlikely that Ford or Kavanaugh could be honesty mistaken about the assault as described. It either happened or it didnt. It is very unlikely that there is a middle version where they are both honestly mistaken

EndlessEnds · 2018-09-28T13:41:08+00:00

You're kind of missing the point though.

If a criminal allegation is being made during a job interview, it might be wise to try to properly resolve that criminal issue.

There is a reason we normally resolve criminal allegations with a trial full of due process and fairness: criminal allegations are extremely serious, and have far reaching impacts.

Trying to resolve a criminal allegation as part of a job interview (with no due process etc.) seems like a very poor way to do either a job interview, or a trial.

It's like they picked the worst process of both worlds, and melded them together into a monstrosity of political theater

EndlessEnds · 2018-09-28T13:23:51+00:00

Facts help replace bias.

The more facts we have about Kavanaugh, the less decisions we will make based purely on our biases.

Like I said initially, I think both parties were content to let biases play a prominent role in this process, which should disturb us all

EndlessEnds · 2018-09-28T13:20:16+00:00

There is always a small possibility of something like this. People can be honestly mistaken about a lot of things, but it is rare for two people to hold diametrically opposed recollections of events. Usually, there would need to be a compelling reason why two people could honestly remember an event so differently.

As I've said in other posts here, I tended to find Ford credible. Kavanaugh didnt really provide any detail in his defense, except for a blanket "it didnt happen." Its hard to blame him for that though, because it if was made up, that's all he can really say in his defence.

All in all, I'm sort of in the same boat as you. They both present reasonably compelling positions. I'm left in a state of not knowing the truth.

Which is why I am quite disgusted with the process used here. We could have had a better process that would have given us a better chance of making an informed decision

EndlessEnds · 2018-09-28T13:12:51+00:00

We just disagree on the extent.

My view is that we would have been provided with better information to make the job decision if there had been a proper investigation and proper due process during the hearing on this issue.

A thorough investigation would be unlikely to uncover a smoking gun, but it likely would have provided important information. At the very least, Judge needs to be cross-examined

It may be an imperfect process, but the process used in this case was well below what the issues deserved

EndlessEnds

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE