Brag: I got accused of rape.

Beat: It was by an 89 y/o grandma.

Variance: At least I got laid?


Anyways, cops came, not sure if charges will be pressed against me, gonna go play some poker now before jail.

#yolo

Defendant obviously has incentive to lie and say that he was in control so that his testimony has more weight, but what are the probable facts of the real case? Did he drink to the point of blacking out? He ran from the bikers so maybe he knew what he was doing / wasn't blacked out. Who is the witness (not the bikers, the other one) and what is the personal relationship between the witness and the defendant? I just grunched the details but I want to know basically was it likely this guy had mens rea (he left the bar or party or whatever fully intending to rape her) or not. From initial account it seems that way, which if true is pretty sick to only get 6mo, but I haven't seen all the facts. Also we actually know very little from the letter because she says she doesn't remember anything. Apparently his BAC was 2x legal, (and hers was 3x and she doesn't remember.) If for example he was blacked out, then I think a light sentence (but still more than 6mo) is ultimately correct even though it obviously sucks for the victim. From these facts I think he was not blacked out, but just 'pretty drunk' and more importantly still had full intent to rape.

Btw we basically can't trust any of the defendant's testimony unfortunately because he made it with full prior knowledge of the situation and the situation is ripe to be exploited. Basically since he knew that the victim doesn't remember anything and there are virtually no witnesses, he can basically claim whatever he wants. From Bayes theorem the chance that he bluffed the testimony is extremely high because he (read: his lawyer) would always bluff this spot (near 0 calling range) and the natural chance he "has it" (actually she consented etc.) is very slim.

Was she still warm?

If yes; it’s ok imho

nope