Profile Of A Serial Rapist

[Guest kath]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/09/ben-roethlisberger-tapes-_n_606080.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Roethlisberger

Apparently, there are other cases where Ben did inapproprate things to women, some didn't result in the criminal charges.

I had tried to post a long discussion of what I have found out from the case, but my computer locked up and the text was lost

in short, the girl he attacked in georga , did go and have a rape kit done, but there was contiamination issues, and they said there wasnt enough male dna to prove who did what, (may be hair but no folical)

I actually believe the girls, and dispite his suspention, and the classes he was told to take, this will happen again, and again.

I believe that he did rape the girl in Tahoe and that the other person was ether paid to say it, or did so because the 15 min of fame she got.

Read, and decide for yourself.

[Earthnut]

For me, I'd have to look into both his and her eyes to see if they are lying. You can deceive people in their minds and emotions, but the spirit sees and remembers everything in living color. For all we know they both played a part. Consider how young girls dress and act these days, and he somewhat well know, so the ego plays a part.

The thing to remember about rape is that it's not a sexual crime, it's a violent one. It has nothing to do with sex, it's violence.

All are innocent, all are guilty, "All have sinned."

[Libby]

I am truly disturbed at that video being released to the public. And that the interviewing officer was a male. I couldn't watch very much of that video because I was so struck by what I consider to be an inappropriate dealing with that case. In the case of the wikipedia page, again I'm disturbed that one of the alleged victim's name was publicly known.

In the UK, alleged victims of sexual violations are permanently anonymous by law, even if the defendant is found not guilty; and no statements either on video or paper are released to the public. The only time anyone knows their identity is if the victim waives their right to anonymity after a finding of guilt. Alleged victims are also protected in the court room. Special rape centres have been set up, and protocols instituted to enable women who report sexual violations to be dealt with sympathetically and carefully, especially in terms of forensic evidence. All those changes in law and protocols were made to deal with the low reporting and even lower conviction rates in terms of sexual offences.

However, there was a case recently where a man was found not guilty of rape, and then it was revealed that the woman had made similar allegations before, and she was either a liar or a fantasist. Now there is discussion whether those accused of rape should have anonymity until found guilty.

It's a difficult situation, and I don't suppose we'll ever get it right.

Apologies if this offends, but I don't believe for one moment that anyone could look into the eyes of either an accuser or a defendant and expect to find the truth there. Sometimes that works, especially if the investigating officer is experienced, but there have been too many cases where serial killers and rapists have gone on to commit further crimes because they are convincing liars. There's a reason why lie detectors are not admissable evidence here in the UK and, I believe, in some jurisdictions in the US, and it's because even that "scientific" method is flawed.

People who are propelled into the public arena, without sufficient support, can sometimes end up believing the media hype. And some members of public also buy into that.

What is the truth here? I honestly can't tell. All I can say is that from the photograph in the Huffington Post, that man doesn't look well. If I were to be shown that photograph without any details, I wouldn't think he was living a healthy lifestyle.

[ethsnafu]

I don't know anything about the case and I'm not going to presume to pass judgement based on instinct or intuition (I believe the only judgement worth its salt is that of a jury of twelve good men and true) but I wanted to pick up on the issue of anonymity for rape victims. I believe this is an essential aspect of rape cases and should be maintained without question.

In the UK our government is considering extending this anonymity to the accused as well. The rationale behind this is that there have been a number of cases where individuals have used an allegation of rape as a weapon against another individual. Usually accusations such as these break down before they reach the courts but as the accused is often known the damage to their reputation is already done whatever the outcome. The old adage that there is no smoke without fire being the reason for this.

Those opposed to this idea proffer the argument that this would create an assumption that when a case of rape is reported an immediate shadow of doubt would be cast upon the accuser as measures are already in place to protect the reputation of the accused if the accuser turns out to be lying.

I fear it is going to be difficult to get the balance of this right. The arguments for and against the anonymity of the accused are compelling. Each side can produce evidence and reports that conclude that their options is to the betterment of all concerned and in the interests of the pursuit of justice.

Despite my own party opposing this I can actually see a case for its merits. As long as the right to anonymity is maintained up until such time as the case goes before the Crown Prosecution Service and is then wavered should the evidence suggest a case is there to answered then I don't see how this could prejudice the jury. If the case is thrown out of court then then the accused, who would otherwise have had his reputation tarnished regardless of a conviction, has been afforded a degree of protection that some studies indicate is needed.

Still it's a thorny one isn't it?

Eth

[Guest kath]

An interesting point to note is that in the US, the age that someone can legaly have a drink of alcohol is 21. While underage people *can* get into bars, they are not allowed to be served, as well , after 9 pm, they must leave the establishment.

The girl in question was just 20. No one has addressed the fact that she was drinking, that the bar was serving her the drinks, and while there were police on hand (his body guards) they ALLOWED her to do shots with Ben, who encoraged an underage person to drink.

He has since stated that he was *young, dumb, and trying to live up to the Big Ben image*

Interesting is that Law and Order had an episode of a foot ball player who had suffered short term memory loss due to multipul concussions. He could remember long term memory things, but short term, he was shot. Ben has had a series of concussions, and was out for a while. ergo, combined with the alcohol, and the concussion, he probably has no memory of doing it.

Normally, yes, the rights of the rape victim are protected, but they still have to face them in court, and they won't press charges unless they have sufficiant evidence to prove that the person did it beause of something called double jepordy. you can only be charged once for any given crime. If they say your innocent, and you confess to it, there isnt any thing that they can do. on the other side, if you are convicted of a crime, and found innocent, they can over turn the conviction.

Ben does look a bit spacy. The teath in front are replacements, and yes, it does look like no one is home behind those eyes. he's had some reconstructive surgery as well, and he is over weight.

As for the girl, she was 20, and in awe of him. she wasn't asking to be raped, and the way a girl dresses, is the way a girl dresses. Men can find any type of clothing sexie, including plain cotton socks, to a nuns outfit, so no, what she was wearing wasn't important. How she acted, wasn't important. What he did, how he handled himself,and what followed, is.

Kath