Discussion
  • Read More
    fighting polish is David Schwimmer as Rob Kardashian SrAnna Merlan
    6/23/15 5:38pm

    Now, I’m not one of those fancy lawyers you see running around these parts.

    BUT. It seems like an odd precedent (and a bit unbelievable) to believe that a person is incapable of being unbiased about an event assuming someone related to them was convicted of a similar charge. Is this only a condition for rape cases, or is it the case for ANY crime?

    Additionally, wouldn’t it possibly cut the other way? Like, “Oh, this guy’s brother was convicted of statutory rape, which he thinks is bullshit, so he’s going to look EXTRA CLOSELY at the facts because he doesn’t want to send someone away like his brother?”

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      RestingKitschfacefighting polish is David Schwimmer as Rob Kardashian Sr
      6/23/15 5:40pm

      If a potential juror answers that they were a victim of a crime, the follow-up is “can you remain unbiased?”

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Hairy Angstromfighting polish is David Schwimmer as Rob Kardashian Sr
      6/23/15 5:41pm

      The issue really isn’t that this particular juror can’t be fair because of his life experience, it’s that he failed to disclose that life experience when asked directly about it. This deprives the Defense of a fair opportunity to engage in the jury selection process. The Judge tied it all in a bow by saying that because he failed to disclose, the parties could not trust him when he stated that he could be fair in evaluating the case in general.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Ms.ChanandlerBongAnna Merlan
    6/23/15 5:35pm

    Vandenburg and Batey, who were due to be sentenced soon, could be set free, or Watkins could order a new trial.

    What??? Why would a judge NOT order a new trial given these circumstances. I mean, it’s not like it was tampered evidence or something. Then again, I know nothing of the law besides what I’ve learned from Law & Order. This sucks.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Tondahlaya.DelavintamigliaMs.ChanandlerBong
      6/23/15 6:00pm

      If the victim gives up because she doesn’t want to go through this shit again, they walk.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Stacy DMs.ChanandlerBong
      6/23/15 6:20pm

      I read this as:

      <i>Vandenburg and Batey, who were due to be sentenced soon, could be set afire,</i>

      And I was totally in favor of that.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Avada Yo MamaAnna Merlan
    6/23/15 5:47pm

    Easter’s credibility had been irreparably damaged by his failure to disclose the rape

    Wait...am I reading this right? We are forced to go to jury duty, and then, once there, we have to tell people, in a public place, on the public record, intimate details of our past? Including whether or not we have been the victim of sexual crimes? Can you remain silent or opt not to answer these questions?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      KahlanTwoPointOhAvada Yo Mama
      6/23/15 7:50pm

      Yes, you can, and then if they don’t like the answers, you get out of jury duty. :)

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ad infinitumAvada Yo Mama
      6/23/15 8:46pm

      You can ask to answer in the judge’s chambers and not in open court.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    gloriaestefanwasrightAnna Merlan
    6/23/15 5:39pm

    Oh. So we need to make sure to call to and validate rape victims ONLY when it serves us? This man has stated he doesn’t even see himself as a victim.

    Which is it? Are victims inconvenient or convenient? Fuck man.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Malciregloriaestefanwasright
      6/23/15 5:46pm

      Regardless though he still lied. He would have been listed as the victim for the statutory case. Some one up thread explains the questions better than I could. But if the judge doesn’t deal with it now it could come back in appeals later when people have all but forgotten about the case.

      But lets hope they hold them for the new trial were they hopefully will be found guilty.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Mr. Know It AllAnna Merlan
    6/23/15 5:32pm

    Oh hell! There is no hard proof to reason that the jury person’s rape clouded their judgement. So this privileged fuck dick may walk because of someone else’s past rape experience? Damn!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      CommenticusMr. Know It All
      6/23/15 6:09pm

      From what the story says above, it was consensual, so the juror thought, “No, I was not a victim of an act of violent, sexual assault.” This is, of course, completely different than what these fine, young Vandy “men” are accused of, but, as Louise says, “tomato, potato.”

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Carly SaganMr. Know It All
      6/23/15 7:18pm

      They’re definitely not going to walk. The first jury took just three hours to find them guilty I believe on all counts. It’s a slam dunk case for the prosecution.

      For anyone interested in some additional background, Bonnie Russell has written extensively about this case on her blog. https://bonnierussell.wordpress.com/tag/brandon-va...

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    MillieLuAnna Merlan
    6/23/15 5:48pm

    I haven’t had lunch yet and THIS IS FUCKING STUPID

    GIF
    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      College GranddadAnna Merlan
      6/23/15 5:38pm

      Just in case you were wondering “how the hell did they find out AFTER the trial” wonder no more:

      Vandenburg’s and Batey’s attorneys say that the juror did not disclose in jury selection that he had been the victim in a statutory rape case. They say they only found out when another man convicted of the crime came forward.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        gloriaestefanwasrightCollege Granddad
        6/23/15 5:41pm

        Came forward as in followed the trail of cash?

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        sallysassalotCollege Granddad
        6/23/15 5:49pm

        So the guy who was convicted of the juror’s statutory rape came forward to the defense?

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      sundaymorning6amAnna Merlan
      6/23/15 5:46pm

      OH HEY. LOOK IT’S RAPE CAUGHT ON CAMERA AND THE RAPISTS STILL WEREN’T CONVICTED. SURPRISE, SURPRISE, MOTHERFUCKERS.

      Seriously, fuck these universities and the people handling these cases. And fuck football frat boys who think they’re entitled to any woman’s body that they want.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Joofiesundaymorning6am
        6/23/15 7:04pm

        But they were convicted. Literally the second sentence of the article:

        Brandon Vandenburg and Cory Batey were convicted of the rape after portions of the attack on a fellow student were captured on a dorm surveillance video and in cellphone photos taken by Vandenburg.

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        jezbannedsundaymorning6am
        6/23/15 7:53pm

        They were convicted. They’ll probably get convicted again.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      QuanYinAnna Merlan
      6/23/15 7:21pm

      The old boys’ club remains firmly intact.

      I am disgusted. Truly beyond words.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        MariaVonTrappAnna Merlan
        6/23/15 6:17pm

        All I have to say is I can’t blame the survivor if she doesn’t want to go through it again. AGAIN.

        Wonder what the taxpayer burden is for a mistrial.

        Nope dot gif

        Reply
        <