Slut shaming in the Buffalo News?

It's legally relevant because it makes it more likely they she would have later consented. How much more? I don.'the know. That's why we have juries.

 

Not only did he say it was relevant, he said it would be a central part of the defense's case.

 

Amy showed it is not relevant under NY law. It can be presented by defense in court, I guess, but under that law, it shouldn't be considered relevant to consent.

 

She didn't show that.

 

To be clear, as explained earlier:

• The flirtation is not consent.
• The flirtation does not replace consent.
• The flirtation does not negate non-consent.
• As we will likely face a he-said, she-said argument over what happened in the room, flirtation is relevant because it makes it incrementally more likely that the woman may have later granted consent.
• If there was testimony that Patrick Kane was being sexually aggressive or boorish at the bar, that would also be relevant evidence because it would make it incrementally more likely that he did rape someone later.
• In fact, the reporting that the woman didn't want to go to his house is relevant for largely the same reason. It makes it incrementally more likely that she would not have been apt to consent later. Is it possible she still would have? Yes. Does her attitude earlier in the night negate content later? No. But her earlier mind frame is still relevant, because it helps us determine some rough probabilities.

 

Isn't the accused the one who is doing the interpreting? The woman knows whether she is giving consent or not. It is the man who is interpreting whether consent was given and whether he can proceed with the sexual act.

But, again, the story being reported here is that the accuser claims to have been overpowered and raped. There's no interpretation going on as to whether consent was given. It's a matter of whether she is telling the truth or lying and whether she can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was raped by Patrick Kane.

 

I use "believe" in each instance because in each instance, the woman thinks she was raped, but in some cases she actually was not. I don't think the woman in category 4, for example, "know" any less than those in category 2 that they were raped.

 

That's correct. The woman knows whether she gave consent. The question is whether she conveyed non-consent or not.

 

Oh, I think that's highly interpretable, given the limited facts that we have to this point.

"Overpowered and raped" may mean that he came into the room, attacked her, and had sex with her while she said no or otherwise resisted.

"Overpowered and raped" may also mean that he came into the room, thought they were going to do it, and began kissing and touching her aggressively. There's not always a lot of talking when one-night stands are consummated. And maybe he then started having sex with her before she said "yes."

"Overpowered" is interpretable, definitely. We need more to go on.

Do we even know that they had penetrative sexual intercourse? I don't think we do.

 

And I wanted to say that I hate that I used the term "defendants' rights advocate" earlier. I don't mean that I'm going to defend the defendant's innocence (unless he or she was my client) until the bitter end. If and when I think Kane is guilty, I'll say so. I'm not there yet, and I think he has the right to have his side heard.

 

Do you believe he believes he is not guilty?

 

I have no idea.