Sex In The Public Square - rape - Comments

Media putts a "spin" on it...

Sandra — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:38:59 -0700

This is a true case of the media putting a “spin” on cases and not reporting facts in cases. Without knowing more about this case, I certainly would have been outraged that this women’s voice was not heard. For those who have followed this case, we all know that this was just a simple case of blackmail in which Mr. Day did not surrender. If you read the facts, there was absolutely no evidence what so ever.
For example, "A judge determined lacerations do not prove rape, and that she had to list her past sexual partners, since only virgins can bring a case for sexual battery in civil court."
- Lacerations do not prove rape when there is a 0.5mm cut near you anus in which the plaintiff herself said in all probability came from shaving. Also, virgins are not the only ones who are allowed to bring sexual battery cases to civil court. For civil cases, the plaintiff does have to testify about her past sexual history which hurt Miss Ross in several ways. First, she had an extensive past sexual history and secondly, Mr. Day and Miss Ross had recently broken up after being in a relationship for several months. The judge ordering payment of attorney fees, further to the defendant just proves the frivolous nature of this case.
Frivolous cases such as these truly hurt those women who were sexually assaulted.

Amanda Farahany responds

JanieBelle — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:58:18 -0700

Same thread, Ms. Ross' attorney speaks to some of the accusations and counter-accusations raised in that thread:

The Mercer Police - private employees of Mercer University (of which Mr. Day's family is the largest single contributor to the school)- chose not to pursue the criminal case. They have never produced their investigative file, if in fact there is one, to show what they did or did not do after Ms. Ross called the police. Ms. Ross came to me only after she had turned to everyone else and asked that Mr. Day be held accountable - and neither the police or the school did anything. As far as the anal lacerations - Ms. Ross does NOT shave her anal area, nor was there ever any testimony from her that she did. That was simply made up by Day's attorneys, as was the allegation that Ms. Ross has a checkered sexual history (she does not) and the allegation that this was extortion. To this date, Ms. Ross has never made a monetary demand of Mr. Day and has asked only that a jury of her peers be allowed to listen to her FULL story and make a decision based on the real facts and evidence in the case. Ms. Ross does not deny that she dated Mr. Day - but she had broken up with him months before, had asked that he be kept away from her that night and awoke the next morning - with no memory after she asked her friends to keep Day away - but with pain in her rectum. Later that day, the hospital records show that she had anal lacerations, bruising and abrasions - consistent with a sexual battery.

Some things that Mr. Day has not told you - Mr. Day went to drug rehabilitation three months after this incident, and had been in drug rehabiliation during high school and before in college, and that Mercer admitted him after he graduated from an Internet high school while in drug rehabilitation is as relevant to the issues in this case - of whether Mr. Day sexually battered Ms. Ross.

Mr. Day speaks

JanieBelle — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:44:36 -0700

For what it's worth, I found this via Google...

Yesterday, Daniel Day said on Topix.com :

This is funny. I'm the guy they're talking about and they didn't bother contacting me. Well, let me clear a few things up that Ms. Farahany failed to mention. First of all, Melanie was my girlfriend. Second, Melanie is the same girl who thought that Jimmy Carter was an actor. With the immature stuff out of the way, let me give you the full story about what has happened the past three years with this case. First of all, women involved in CIVIL lawsuits DO have to disclose their sexual histories. That's the law. The only people protected are those involved in CRIMINAL cases. Think about it. Imagine a girl with numerous sexual partners sleeping with an exboyfriend, getting mad at him for not calling her back, and then files a lawsuit a year and a half later for sexual assault. Should she disclose her sexual relationships? Absolutely. Another point I'd like to make (that Ms. Farahany also forgot to mention) is that she has lost every single battle in this case. She expected me to settle out of court, but panicked when she realized that my family sticks together and wont be bullied by professional extortionists. She was constantly late filing documents and constantly failed to show up to court. The only reason you are hearing about this story is because Ms. Farahany and Melanie Ross are desperate to have the attorney fee ruling overturned. While this story makes me out to be the bad guy, please understand that I have yet to have my voice heard and you are only being shown one side to this story. Let's face it, the only reason this is news is because Amanda Farahany made it news. She put an angle on the story to make her and Ms. Ross look like victims. Believe me, it's the other way around. When this story first hit papers in January of 2005, I couldn't walk to class without having a panic attack. Because of an exgirlfriend's accusation, people thought of me as the guy who sexually assaulted a girl. In the fall of that year, fraternities on campus made photocopies of the AJC article and handed them out to freshmen, solely so they could have a bigger pledge class.

Please, give me a chance to tell my side of the story. If the media is supposed to be fair and balanced, then this is their shot to prove it.

I'm starting to wonder...

Elizabeth — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:20:20 -0700

...if the reporting was a bit off. The only court documents I can find refer to a civil suit brought by Melanie Ross against Mercer University. I can find no case brought directly against Daniel Day.

Here is a link to the order to dismiss a "motion for reconsideration" in the case against Mercer University, made by Ross's attorney in light of new evidence. (PDF, if you prefer, here.)

I'm sure there is much that is hard to find via a regular Google search, so again, if anybody has links to official documents or better info about this case I'd love to know about it.

WTF? I'm a practicing

Jen — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:04:14 -0700

WTF? I'm a practicing attorney in Georgia and I have NEVER heard of some virginal requirement for civil suits. Granted I only do criminal defense, but I would suspect there's some sort of civil equivalent to the Rape Sheild Statute which prevents introduction of the victim's past sexual history (with limited exceptions).

But Georgia judges do unconstitutional crap all the time, so it wouldn't surprise me one of them just made up the law.

Utter shock.

Chris — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:08:54 -0700

What the hell?

That's all I can say right now. Just.... what the hell?

It sounds to me like someone's pulling stuff out of their ass -- either the judge or the reporter. I want to hear more about this.

Saudi rape victim pardoned?

Elizabeth — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 04:47:36 -0800

The AP is reporting that King Abdullah has pardoned this poor woman even though, in his words, it was clear that the sentence was fair.

One wonders how he can possibly believe that. Is this a combination of face-saving for the court and attempt at getting justice for the woman?

In any case, I'm pretty sure she'd have been jailed and lashed were it not for the international outcry and sustained attention brought to the case, which supported the efforts of those who were protesting the sentence inside Saudi Arabia to continue their own lobbying for a reversal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_justice

not just about 'dem foreigners...

sdmonty — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:04:03 -0800

Thanks for posting this - I think I originally caught wind of it via NYT online, and it's an important news story to take note of...

As shocking and appalling as this is, let's just remember that far from being an isolated incident, or something that is a cultural issue (even though, yes, there are definitely religious, regional, cultural, and ancient moral systems at play here), that there is a connection to attitudes in our own culture that reinforce the belief that women are responsible for what men do when we get aroused (or even act violent).

I get afraid that many men would read about this case and say "that's appalling" (and they'd be right) without necessarily drawing the connection between the religiously-rooted, archiac condemnation of Saudi women and their own support of American attitudes that reinforce the concept that women "deserve" to have certain things done to them or "asked for it" by virtue of having worn something/said something/drank something/or walked somewhere, etc.

A good article to post, and definitely fodder for a larger conversation about consent, victim-blaming, and cross-cultural attitudes about sex, gender, and sexuality.

Thank You Elizabeth

JanieBelle — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:27:18 -0800

I read about this over at Skepchick and wanted to post about it, but I'm so insanely pissed off that I just can't discuss the subject without blowing a blood vessel.

tragic...

tracya — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:23:29 -0700

i am really saddened to read about this woman's tragic death, but thinking about it i'm not that surprised. i was in the US air force 1978-1982 and while most of the guys i worked with were very protective of me, i also have never felt more vulnerable and threatened. i can remember a few incidents where i felt sure that i was in danger of being raped and violently assaulted.

it's a difficult situation for people who have never in the military to understand, logic says men and women are equal and should be able to do the same job, but the military is an abherrant organization. it requires people to live and work in close proximity under very stressful conditions. normal social conditioning goes out the window.

there is no excuse for the violence that this woman has been subjected to...none at all... i plan to keep up on this case, she deserves justice.

Safi's Innocent?

ImaginePeace — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:55:51 -0700

Well truthalwayzwins, you are challenging my misguidance! Wow, you must have one hell of a clairvoyant power to know what actually happened that evening. They should have called you and there wouldn't have even been a trial. However much you think you may know, there is reason to believe that Ms. Bowen may be innocent as well since there's the possibility that she was drugged at the bar.

Regardless of guilt or innocence, the point your trying to make is not only infuriating it's barbaric! I would like to be the first to welcome you to the year 2007, where women have rights and are allowed to go out by themselves! I know this is a big concept for you to imagine but try. Regardless of your small mindedness, it isn't an issue of guilt. It's about the freedom to be able to express in your own words what happened, to be able to call things what they are. If we begin to limit what we're allowed to say in a court room, the trend will continue to an uncontainable point. The possibility that of not allowing such words as "robbed", "child abuse" or "kidnapped" is not far fetched. These banned words in Nebraska are unfortunately now common law which may now possibly be a law followed in all States. California has already banned such words as "family values".

The balance of justice in this case however, is definitely tilted. The judge did not allow the victim to express what had happened to her because of the implication it forms in the jurors minds. If this is case, then why is the accused allowed to express his words of what occurred. When he claimed that he had "consensual sex" is that not implying to the jurors the victim allowed this to happen to her or that she agreed? Shouldn't these words be banned as well? Let’s play fair.

Judge was correct

lrbinfrisco — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:55:15 -0700

It's difficult to testify what happened in a time period that you don't remember. The accuser claims to not remember the time period when intercourse was initiated and several hours of activity before that. She concludes that because she doesn't remember that she didn't consent or if she did consent that she was too incapacitated by alcohol or drugs to knowingly consent. According to NE law it is not rape if she consented and the accsued did not know that she was too incapacitaed by alcohol or drugs to conciously consent and if he could not have reasonable known this. If is up to the jury to decide if they believe beyond any reasonable doubt that consent was given or if the accuser was incpacitated to the point that she could not conciously consent and the accused should have reasonably known this. NE law prohibits witnesses from testifying to conclusion that the jury is charged with making. Therefore the judge was legally correct in the decision that he made.

The accused can testify that the only concious memories she has begin in the middle of intercouse that she has no memory of consenting to. She can testify that she had several drinks the previous night and remembers nothing form the time she left the bar until she awoke naked and in the middle of intercouse. The jury then has to take this information along with any other testimony and conclude whether this meets the legal charges of Sexual Assault (under NE law rape is legally covered under a section for all Sexual Assault crimes.)

It doesn't matter if he's guilty or innocent

linuxelf — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:25:08 -0700

The point here is that she is unable to properly mount an accusation against him. Even if she pulled him into the bedroom, ripped her clothes off, and had her way with him (and I'm definitely not saying she did, but even if she DID), she should still be able to speak about her accusations in the court using the actual terms that define her accusations! It's the lawyer's job to show that the accusations are true or false, and the jury's job to listen to the arguments and make a decision. It's the Judge's job to ensure that the trial is fair, to both parties. This clearly is not.

Our First Troll

Chris — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:04:40 -0700

*sniffle* I'm so proud. Our very first troll... Our little web site is getting all grown up.

But seriously. This is such boilerplate misogynist bullshit that I don't even know where to start out. It's like trying to debunk someone's claim that the earth is hollow and houses Nazi UFO's. The basic assertions are so far out, so completely divorced from consensual reality that the two people might as well be talking completely different languages. In the above example, the two could agree that there's something called the Earth, and there's people called Nazis, but that's about it.

Maybe the best place to start here is the idea of consent. Consent is always revocable. Even if a woman goes to a bar hoping that by 11:00 she'll be on her back getting fucked hard, she can look around the bar, decide that she'd rather catch up on her Tivo watching, and walk out again. Even if she goes home with a guy, planning to have sex with him, she might decide that he's a creep halfway there and hail a cab. Even if she winds up naked on his bed, legs wide open and just burning to have him fuck her pussy, mouth and tits, she can change her mind because he refuses to wear a condom, because he insists on fucking her in the ass, because she feels uncomfortable for some reason, or just because.

This isn't an idea of consent that's unique to sex, or to some mistakenly chivalrous conception of women; it's the same when you go to a doctor or a lawyer, or engage in any other complex relationship. With every step in medical treatment or a legal action, you need to keep on being informed about what's going to happen and consent to it.

Guys like our troll up here are completely invested in the virgin/whore idea of female sexuality. If she's not chaste, if she's interested in sex, she's essentially signed an immutable contract to be used, and god help her if she decides she doesn't like it. I'm constantly amazed by how many men (and women) continue to cling to ideas like this. Maybe I shouldn't be, but goddamn me, I am. And as hateful as these ideas are, I feel kind of sorry for our troll and his compatriots, because such intense hatred for women's sexuality can't exist without a corresponding hatred for your own sexuality. Male sexuality is typically seen as a corrupting influence on men that has to be held in check by chaste women. Paradoxically, as vile as it is, sexuality is also seen as the source of male strength and virtue, so the only possible solution is to direct it towards women who become tainted by their lack of chastity. It's a weird, impossible cycle to keep going through, and toxic to all involved. I feel sorry for anyone who lives in a world where this kind of hurtfulness can make sense.

safi is INNOCENT

truthalwayzwins — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:05:50 -0700

as far as i can comprehend this...bowen is guilty and she should be the one going to jail. when a girl goes to a bar wearing little cloths...getting drunk and going to a stranger's house..sex is the ultimate reason. thats what bowen did and now to cover her guilt she is playing with someone's life. SHE WILLINGLY LEFT WITH SAFI AND WENT TO HIS PLACE AND WOKE UP THE NEXT MORNING, REGRETING HER ACTIONS AND BLAMED AN INNOCENT MAN FOR HER FAULT...i wonder how would she ever forgive herself for doing what she is doing?

SAFI IS INNOCENT............