Slut shaming in the Buffalo News?

This is what should have accompanied the bar owner's observations in the news story:

In the eyes of the law, the events leading up to the sex act don’t matter.

“Consent is one of those things that can be removed at any time during the encounter,” explained Chris Moellering, visiting clinical assistant professor of law at the University at Buffalo Law School.

He spoke to The News generally about laws pertaining to rape in New York State and was not speaking directly about the Kane investigation.

“It really doesn’t matter what happened at the bar, what happened in the car,” he said, giving hypothetical examples. “It’s a question of ‘Did the victim withdraw consent?’ If that’s the case, the sexual act cannot legally continue.”

But cases that come down to consent can be difficult – though not impossible – to prosecute.

Lack of consent “can be hard to prove because there’s not always a lot of independent evidence,” he said.

 

I agree that type of information would have done wonders to buttress the biased bar owner's prejudicial description of a woman at the bar who may or may not have allegedly been raped later that evening.

 

This story ran on A-1 (with a jump), same as Sunday's Croce op-ed. IIRC, that's where they put even the original investigation reports. Other than a shared byline on the breaking-news story, looks like Sports is staying out of this one.

On that note...

Buffalo News Sports Columnists: Where Are You? | The Public

 

The bar owner does not know if the woman flirting with Kane was the same one who accused him of rape. The thread should have ended there.

 

Can you also be a dear and list for me all the evidence that the bite mark and scratch on the accuser came from a rape or just rough sex?

 

Why would I do that?

 

A bite mark, a scratch, an emergency-room visit, the next-day administration of a rape kit, and reports of emotional trauma are not enough to even investigate a rape accusation.

After all, Kane's buddy says some random woman, who may or may not be the accuser, wanted it. Case closed.

 

It seems like there is a lot more concern expressed when the unidentified accuser is subjected to the reporting of an ambiguous fact, spun by a named source with a clear agenda, than when the identified criminal defendant is subjected to the reporting of an ambiguous fact, spun by an anonymous source with a clear agenda.

 

Of course they are.

We're talking about what should be reported in the newspaper, right?

 

When I covered a school, there was a basketball player - a senior starter and one of the leading scorers on a BCS conference team - who was the subject of a rape investigation. It went on for a few weeks, I believe, but no charges were ever brought. We never reported it. The major metro that covered the team never reported it. The Web sites that covered the team never reported it.

What should have we done?

 

Yes. One is unconfirmed speculation, and the other isn't.*

* -- Assuming crime newsgathering hasn't substantially changed for the worse since I stopped doing it.

 

How the marks were obtained is unconfirmed speculation.