Why do some athletes get a pass from the press?

[mbw]

We prosecute every other kind of crime without eyewitnesses. Why should rape be any different? If you went to a prosecutor and said I saw my neighbor come into my house and steal money, could you imagine a prosecutor refusing to prosecute because all he had was YOUR word about what happened?

I could certainly file a police report and report my neighbor but beyond that I doubt it would go any further in regards to prosecution without any witnesses or evidence.

I can not imagine any prosecutor willing to take a case where there was no evidence or witnesses. If I said my neighbor walked into my house and stole money the first thing they would ask is were there witnesses or any evidence. Now if I knew the serial numbers of all the bills and my neighbor's house was searched and he just happened to have those same bills in his possession that would lend credibility to my accusations.

I do not feel that if a woman says she was raped and someone denies it that there should not be an investigation. BUT, if the investigation brings no evidence then I think a prosecutor would be remiss in pursuing a case. There has to be something definitive that ties the accused to the victim - be it DNA or witnesses.

If Roethlisberger had a prior criminal CONVICTION of sexual assult, I might feel differently. The fact that he is rich and hired the best criminal attorney out there doesn't convince me that he did it - I know if I would advise anyone who could possibly be charged with a crime to get the best legal help they could afford ASAP.

eta..fixed my spelling - yikes!

[Jeannie]

In your example, there is a witness - YOU.

In a rape, the victim is the witness. That's sufficient evidence to prosecute.

The standard you advocate for prosection is not practical and it is not the law. In fact, many cases are prosecuted without any direct evidence at all. You can prosecute (and win) on circumstantial evidence alone.

[mbw]

In your example, there is a witness - YOU.

In a rape, the victim is the witness. That's sufficient evidence to prosecute.

The standard you advocate for prosection is not practical and it is not the law. In fact, many cases are prosecuted without any direct evidence at all. You can prosecute (and win) on circumstantial evidence alone.

Ok, so you have a witness, the victim. Then you have the defense witness, the defendent who contradicts the witness. There's no proof to back up either and the burden rests on the prosecution to prove their case. Seems pretty much like a no win there for the prosecution.

And getting back to that ER rape exam and lack of evidence. I can understand no semen if he wore a condom but if you mean to tell me that they had sex and not ONE pubic hair of his was found? Man must have one heck of a brazillian wax.