Any juror is going to be very bothered by the fact that the accuser told police shortly after the incident that she went to AJ's bedroom with the intention of having sex and then the accuser denying that intent on the stand.
It’s not got one whit to do with emotion. You’ve yet to name a single or valid reason to support your belief that she lacks credibility - except that she slept with several people in the past, had the audacity to get a new phone, and doesn’t have a timely backup of her messages from the old one. I’m not assuming anything, at all, but am merely re-stating your im/explicitly stated reasoning back to you. If you don’t like how that looks and feels, maybe the problem lies in your own stated beliefs, and might be best re-considered. Have I missed or misstated any? Point them out and correct me, if so. Because nothing that you’ve said thus far makes any sense - much less explains how she’s somehow not credible, or that the paltry and misapplied reasoning you’ve poorly pieced together somehow then allows her to be raped by two men, and with impunity. That is, if she’s telling the truth. IF.
Fair. But only if they struggle to understand that agreeing to have sex with Person “X” is different than consenting to sex with Person “X” + Anyone else who is also in the room. It doesn’t matter if she boned Person X 1000 times before. It doesn’t matter if she entered that room to have sex for the 1,001st time. It doesn’t matter if she writes a blog fantasizing about “having a train ran on her” for The NY Times, or has actually participated in 1000 such acts before - including, even with AJ & Williams, themselves. And it doesn’t matter if she sent Williams 10 bajillion texts begging him to have sex with her at any point after saying “No” or at any time before failing to say “Yes”.
I honestly don’t know, but will have to trust the jury to decide. As an uninvolved bystander, I can’t fathom why she’d make this up, or persist in saying it - after her life has already been upended, when her lawsuit has been settled, when significant damage has already been done to all involved, and when such requires her to sit in an open courtroom and recount what some believe to be these purely fictitious events. And which includes her having to hear testimony about “having a train ran on her”, and with her family sitting in the front row, and which allows strangers on the internet to debate whether or not this makes her a whore, or suffer silliness that suggests that she somehow deserved to be raped.
That is not how I read it. What I read (I will try to find it) in the KNS was tht the accuser testified that she went into AJ's bedroom that night in order to look at the fish tanks. That the intent to have sex was not the reason. On cross the defense team pointed out that she had told the police officer that she definitely wanted to have sex. Now she did testify on cross that she did say that about having sex with AJ and AJ only while the attorney tried to claim that the plural pronoun applied to Williams as well. But from a credibility standpoint that is immaterial. Why make the claim about the fish tanks? Or better yet, why not say she said she wanted to look at the fish tanks as a ruse to get in the bedroom and have sex or something like that? It makes her look like she is hiding something. I don;t think that in and of itself makes everything she says a lie. Its just a hit on her credibility in my eyes, and I imagine others feel similarly.
I think her friend's testimony is somewhat harmful to the defendants. Although it does sort of mess with the accuser's timeline.
I didn’t think there’s any issue with her having sex with AJ. She, in fact, stated in more or less words that nobody would be there (in court) if it has just been him. The issue is is when Mike joined in and she told the jury she said no to both.
I don't need to persmission to form an opinion. You want to think she went up there to do a fish study, fine with me.
But she testified that she went to the room to see his fish tanks not with the expectation of having sex. but she told police shortly after the incident that he wanted (or something to that effect) to have sex with AJ. Her testimony and her statement to the police seem to conflict.
But she’s not taking issue with the fact she had sex with AJ, whether she went up there with the intention of doing it or just looking at fish. She said he had no way of knowing. The rape, as they are trying to prosecute it (I think) was when Williams came in and joined. She said she definitely told them no that.
it does when you start with "a phone number means its ok to rape?" Don't make up shit and go there. Her testimony is all over the place, inconsistent and damages credibility. Unable to remember if she gave a number out 5 minutes prior to knowing if a guy is wearing a condom or not, damages credibility. Going to see a fish and have a deep conversation, yeah i'm sure that was her plan. Destroying text messages and a phone, damages credibility. Lying about her drunken state does as well. Screwing multiple dudes under someone else's roof with others around and in the room does as well. Having already hooked up at least twice with the supposed rapist. Plenty of valid reasons. You're one and only reason is that she says at some point she told Mike Williams no and they forcibly raped her. I don't believe that's how it went down.
I get that. But why testify that she went to the room to look at fish and not with the intention of having sex, when you seemingly told the police something different? It has nothing to do with Williams, I know. It has to do with credibility imo. Anyway - just to be clear, I don;t think that in and of itself means these guys should get off free. Its one thing. But it is troublesome for the State, imo.
She’s testifying she didn’t consent to both. Good gravy. Of course she had an idea she was going to go to town with AJ, she said as much. This shouldn’t be complicated
