Slut shaming in the Buffalo News?

What's this?

Her "behavior" at a bar has no bearing on how a sexual encounter went later in the night.

 

Well Dick it seems we've brought you around a bit.

First you thought the bar owner's quotes would be a "central part" of the defense's case.

Now you're not sure it would be admissible.

I think sj should open its own online law school.

 

The contention that people here have said that flirting equals consent to sex.

It has some bearing. It appears that defendants mount this argument quite a bit in cases, regarding whether the testimony about the alleged victim's behavior is relevant or precluded under the rape shield law.

 

I'm not sure I could pass the SkyBar exam.

 

If it was held to be admissible, which I think it would, it would constitute a central part of the defense's case.

 

It seems like a lot of these cases involve flirtatious behavior toward other men, not the accused.

I'm guessing that behavior with the accused would be considered admissible, probably uncontroversially. The fact sections of the cases often include the narrative of events leading up to the alleged incident, which means those facts were admitted.

 

Where the bar owner's "testimony" definitely didn't belong was the Buffalo News.

 

Again Dick you assume the accuser and the flirtatious woman are one and the same.

Some acknowledgement from you that it remains an open question would be nice.

 

I've acknowledged it.

 

Great.

Now to your question about journalists' professional and moral obligation not to prejudice a potential jury pool...

Absolutely.

We have a code to practice responsible journalism... A set of standard operating procedures.

That doesn't mean everyone does it. There are bad doctors who violate the Hippocratic Oath... Bad lawyers who violate ethics... Bad teachers...

But when even Deadspin calls you out as irresponsible... Time to rethink what you did.

 

I don't buy this. I need more evidence of this. Nobody seems to have an issue with the leak that she had bite marks and a scratch. Isn't that "tainting the jury pool"?

 

Please. A Gawker site called the first person to question the Rolling Stone story an "idiot" in a headline.

So, again: Please.