TLDR at bottom
Some choice bits from the article;
Victim #1 *“She looks healthier now than back then,” said the witness. “Not like she has been drinking for days and days.”
He told the court how he met Murphy as she came along and flirted with him out of the blue as he sat drinking beer on the steps of his downtown area rooming house.
After some beers and marijuana, they went to his room and had sexual intercourse, once with a condom and once without a condom."*
So some obviously strung-out chick starts hitting on him and he chooses to get her more wrecked and then fuck her.
She spent two nights with him…
Wanna bet they had sex more than twice? Also, that’s lots of time for him to ASK. I’ve asked, I’d bet most men have. Almost all of my partners have asked. If you are going to go without then you ask or accept the consequences.
- “Would you have had sex with Miss Murphy had you known she was HIV-positive?” asked Crown attorney Bhavna Bhangu.
“No,” he answered." *
This seems to be the linchpin - and where arguably Miss Elizabeth has a valid, albeit somewhat strident - point.
If the important question is “would you have done it if you had known?” Then why wouldn’t that same standard apply to a woman sleeping with a married man who told her he was single?
“Would you have done it if you had known?”
Add to that the fact that he is a convicted sex offender (“Would you have had sex with him if you’d known he’d raped a 13 year-old girl?”) and his “Don’t ask don’t tell” attitude toward that; and it is hard to justify his being a “victim” of her committing a lie of omission. Just my opinion and I know the law sayeth otherwise.
Victim #2 *Murphy had left his room that morning and went around the corner to a convenience store where she met a man in his 60s who paid her $20 to perform oral sex on her in his vehicle.[/]
This guy had unprotected oral sex with a hooker - who was clearly in rough shape. 'Nuff said?
Victim #3 “It was a nice, sunny day. We chatted about the weather,” he said, smiling on the witness stand. He said suddenly she cheerfully jumped into his van.
“I thought, well this is interesting, I guess we’re going to have sex,” he said brightly. He said they drove to a parking lot in Barrie and removed their clothes in the back of his van, where they had “unprotected” intercourse."
It was a nice sunny day when some bedraggled floozy said “nice day”, took off everything but her smile and hopped in my van. "…Well this is interesting. I guess we’re going to have sex.” I see nothing whatsoever about this situation that should make me wary, nay even give me pause. No harm can come of this “interesting” little escapade. Ahh, blessed serendipity.
Frankly, in the first case the guy should be prosecuted too since he admitted that she was absolutely blitzed when they fucked. Don’t you have to be sober enough to give informed consent? <– Honest question of Canadian legal folks.
Second guy is guilty of paying for a sex act. Last I heard that’s illegal.
The only non-criminal in the bunch is the 50 year-old dipshit whose “interesting” dalliance ought be prosecutable as aggravated stupidity.
TLDR Two criminals and an oblivious moron fuck a strung-out chick and get an HIV scare. Sux to be them.
