Article here and please read. A young American nursing student studying in Antigua was date-raped by a (now former) British cop. He put something in her wine, she passed out, and he raped her. She texted him in a friendly manner because she hoped he’d reveal exactly what had happened. He first denied, then admitted the sex but said she’d initiated it. An Antiguan jury believed her, found him guilty, and sentenced him to 15 years, minus time served.
Will date-rape doubters here believe her account? Maybe. After all
•She’s a devout Christian who was planning on becoming a missionary nurse.
•She was a virgin who was saving herself for marriage.
•She had bruises and a bite mark.
OTOH, they could argue, as they have in other threads re: other cases:
•She shouldn’t have had any alcohol.
•Since she didn’t go to the police immediately (She was still trying to figure out what had happened.), she obviously made it up out of regret.
•She shouldn’t have invited him to her apartment. (She trusted him. He was a cop.)
•Since she texted him in a friendly manner afterward, she was OK with what had happened.
•He claimed she initiated sex by climbing on top of him and “bouncing.” I mean, it’s he-said/she-said, right?
So date-rape doubters, do you agree with the verdict? If so, how is this case different than hypothetical cases in other threads?*
If not, would you argue that Martin-Cramp’s (the defendant’s) whole life has been ruined by her accusation? That he’ll spend years in prison, years he’ll never get back? That he could have been out fighting crime for years, but no, this vindictive woman who’s only accusing him for the attention or to cover her own decision to lose her virginity has made that impossible?
If the fact this happened in Antigua and not the US is an issue for you, “innocent until proven guilty” is a legal principle there, too. Or pretend it happened in the US–same circumstances.
I’m trying to avoid inserting politics into the discussion by eliminating comparisons or contrasts to CB Ford or EJ Carroll.
To be honest, I’m unclear as to what point you’re trying to make. My take on this is that it’s horrible all around – from the young woman’s POV, she will suffer long-term emotional trauma, and from the young man’s POV, well, fifteen years in an Antiguan jail is a horrifying prospect for a young man.
But is the point supposed to be that his guilt is absolutely clear-cut? I have no idea, I wasn’t on the jury. And even if it was, are we to draw conclusions that therefore in every such case of uncertain he-said she-said, that the woman is always the one who must be believed without evidence? That seems like an awfully dangerous legal precedent to set that runs fundamentally counter to basic concepts of justice. As was extensively discussed in the thread about Chris Hardwick, it appeared after being vindicated following extensive investigations that the most he could be accused of is being a domineering jerk. He more or less acknowledged that fact, but it appeared to me and many others that he was nevertheless harassed and accused by a vindictive ex-partner leveraging the MeToo movement purely for revenge.
To be clear, it’s turning out that a surprisingly high proportion of men appear to be aggressive jerks in their relations with women, and I believe the vast majority of the accusations against famous people that have made the news are probably true. I just hope we never fall into the trap of believing they’re always true. I would also never engage in any of the arguments you allege that “doubters” would make, about what the victim “should not have done” – she should not have had alcohol, etc. That line of argument is downright misogynistic. My position here is simply that we must always fairly weigh the evidence and, most importantly, that we must always value justice above the aims of any particular social agenda.
So they had a trial in a real court and not via social media? A real court, not a college kangaroo court or a few people on a random forum, engaged in due process and reached a verdict? That’s how things should be done.
I don’t know much about the Antiguan criminal justice system, but assuming the prosecution established all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, yes, I agree with the verdict.
Depending on which hypothetical cases in other threads you mean. In this case, it isn’t a hypothetical - the prosecution established all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
You lost me with the part about she was a devout Christian- is that a fact that should really come in to play in any trial? Like her testimony should be seen as more believable than if she worshipped Baphomet?
My reaction to the OP was much the same as wolfpup’s, though his response was more clearly written than mine would have been. (I skimmed the linked article but did not read it carefully.)
Was the OP trying to use this incident to make a point about all date-rape accusation cases in general? If so, what?
Not necessarily that her testimony is more believable. It was one of the pieces of evidence (presumably) that went to establish that she didn’t consent. If Baphomet worshippers didn’t engage in premarital sex on principle, it would have equally relevant.
I think the distinguishing factor is not how bad the act is. Date rape is real rape. It’s the same crime. The difference is how easy it is to prove the crime to a legal standard.
If someone shows up at a police station with obvious wounds, a sign of struggle, and a clear account of someone violently assaulting her, there is a lot of clear physical evidence that can lead to a criminal conviction.
If, as happened in this case, two people mutually spend time together socially, one drugs the other to rape her, then the victim takes some time to figure out what really happened, etc. The evidence is often a lot sparser and less conclusive.
I’m also not sure what the OP’s point is here. Do crimes like this happen? Absolutely. Did this specific case happen as claimed and was justice done? I don’t know. Probably? I don’t know enough about the specifics or the Antiguan court system to have much of an opinion.
I don’t see why people who are “doubters” in general would not be doubters in this case. Maybe if there’s evidence of the drugging, which is presented as a fact in the OP, that would be unusually strong evidence. Otherwise this is a rather standard case.
A JUDGE SITTING ON THE ROOFIE
Later that Wednesday night, 27.05.15, KH went to the hospital, and on 02.06.15 was formally examined by Dr Rasheeda Gilbert Charles, where she was found to have: global erythema of the vulva; multiple shallow ulcerations to the labia majora, labia minora, introitus and vagina; purulent bloody discharge from the vagina; 4-6 ulcers around the perianal region, severe tenderness to digital examination of the vagina and rectum; and her hymen was not intact. In evidence on 17.05.19, the doctor said these injuries would require very rough sex.3 Cramp was the subject of an extradition request from the UK to Antigua filed on 16.10.17. He had sight of KH’s statement, dated 02.06.15, and he prepared a typed written response of 169 lines dated 09.01.18. In it:a.He admits tosexual intercourse with KH.b.He says he put on a condom,which later ripped.
. . . .
This court is aware that in the UK, from where Cramp comes,there is frequent complaint anecdotally and often in the press, well known to the police there, Cramp being a police officer, that a drug called rohypnol 2 (colloquially often called ‘the date-rape drug’), is widely used, criminally, to render a woman utterly incapacitated, by spiking her drink, so that sexual intercourse, and worse, may then be inflicted on her, she has little or no memory of events the night before, and the drug is quickly expunged from the victim’s body so that it is rarely traced.6 From the evidence heard from KH, it is quite clear the issue in this case is whether Cramp drugged her. Both agree she was not drunk. So either she was drugged or she is lying about her memory loss.7 Crown Counsel Jones-Gittens submits the prepared statement is wholly ‘exculpatory’, created having read KH’s statement, and is therefore self-serving, meaning if so it is inadmissible. Defence Counsel Dr Dorsett countersit is ‘mixed’, as containing an admission to intercourse, but offering a defence, so that it is not wholly exculpatory, meaning it is admissible. My foremost task is to decide which is it.I am sure it is mixed, for the reason Dr Dorsett offered, and furthermore because it is plainly inconsistent with the whatsapp text messages and therefore may be incriminating:2See for example:Rohypnol: Effects, Hazards & Methods of Abuse - Drugs.com.
5a.In the texts KHwas frightened they had not used protection and he did not say he had put on a condom, whereas he said he did in the statement, suggesting what he said in the statement about using a condom may be a lieto make a court think better of his behavior.b.In a text Cramp describes his memory as a ‘big blur’, suggesting he was very intoxicated, when in his statement he describes only having four glasses of wine and a vodka, which is likely wholly inconsistent with being so intoxicated, suggesting the text was a lie.c.In his statement, Cramp describes KH drinking at most only three glasses of wine and a vodka, which everyday experience suggests would not likely lead to such severe memory loss, at all, and in the teeth of the injuries received. In the statement, he specifically says she was in control of herself, leading, and joking, which would point to how, if true, there could be no memory loss. He finally admitted to sex on the Wednesday. i.However, hesent texts after the Sundayto suggest they should have sexbefore he left, implying they had not,but it appears knowing they already had, and specifically denying earlier on the Wednesday they had sex on the Saturday night. ii.That denial there had been no sexcould only be because he knew she could not remember having sex, begging why and how could he know, as from his statement this would not arise on so little alcohol, strongly suggesting he knew she had been rendered memoryless, in turn strongly suggesting he knew he had spiked her drink. iii.In short, his statement may point to how he knew he could lie to her they did not have sex because he knew from the effect of spiking her drink she would not remember, while in parallel always knowing as he said in his statement she never drank much.8It is plain the prepared statement, viewed alongside the texts,is arguably highly incriminating as pointing to some lies, and as containing an admission KH could not have been drunk, so that if the jury accepts she cannot remember, then they may easily conclude he drugged her. If sure he drugged her, so she had no capacity to resist or consent, he will be convicted of rape. In this context it is puzzling the Crown have thought the statement wholly exculpatory. This assessment
6 is quite simply wrong and shows inexperience. The statement if deployed intelligently alongside the texts is good evidence against the defendant.9Crown Counsel Jones-Gittens