Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the guy have multiple occasions to assault the girl? That’s not in the article I can access.

He was a relative of the girl. I don’t know why idiots like Bevin decide they know better than a judge and jury who listened to the trial.

Because there was no forensic evidence at all? Just her word?

So what? Forensic evidence isn’t a requirement if you have other types of evidence. But sure, you seem think it’s fine to let out a predator of young girls on a whim. I hope he moves to your neighborhood.

Forensic evidence is very important if you plan to put someone away. Without it, you don’t actually know if he is a predator of young girls.

How was rape prosecuted before DNA testing?

It pretty much wasn't, and still isn't way more than half the time that it's reported. We all know it's often not reported.

According to FBI statistics, out of 127,258 rapes reported to police departments in 2018, 33.4 percent resulted in an arrest.

The question you should be asking is how many were put away who were innocent prior to DNA?

No, that is ONE question. Justice is denied both when men are falsely convicted of rape and when rapists are not convicted. Anyone claiming to care about justice should care about both. Please go redpill somewhere else.

The problem is, without evidence, it’s just accusations, i.e. someone’s word. How on earth did their mother not know?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the guy have multiple occasions to assault the girl? That’s not in the article I can access.

He was a relative of the girl. I don’t know why idiots like Bevin decide they know better than a judge and jury who listened to the trial.

Because there was no forensic evidence at all? Just her word?

He was accused by two girls. Only the older one, the 13 year old, testified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the guy have multiple occasions to assault the girl? That’s not in the article I can access.

He was a relative of the girl. I don’t know why idiots like Bevin decide they know better than a judge and jury who listened to the trial.

Because there was no forensic evidence at all? Just her word?

So what? Forensic evidence isn’t a requirement if you have other types of evidence. But sure, you seem think it’s fine to let out a predator of young girls on a whim. I hope he moves to your neighborhood.

Forensic evidence is very important if you plan to put someone away. Without it, you don’t actually know if he is a predator of young girls.

How was rape prosecuted before DNA testing?

It pretty much wasn't, and still isn't way more than half the time that it's reported. We all know it's often not reported.

According to FBI statistics, out of 127,258 rapes reported to police departments in 2018, 33.4 percent resulted in an arrest.

The question you should be asking is how many were put away who were innocent prior to DNA?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the guy have multiple occasions to assault the girl? That’s not in the article I can access.

He was a relative of the girl. I don’t know why idiots like Bevin decide they know better than a judge and jury who listened to the trial.

Because there was no forensic evidence at all? Just her word?

So what? Forensic evidence isn’t a requirement if you have other types of evidence. But sure, you seem think it’s fine to let out a predator of young girls on a whim. I hope he moves to your neighborhood.

Forensic evidence is very important if you plan to put someone away. Without it, you don’t actually know if he is a predator of young girls.

How was rape prosecuted before DNA testing?

It pretty much wasn't, and still isn't way more than half the time that it's reported. We all know it's often not reported.

According to FBI statistics, out of 127,258 rapes reported to police departments in 2018, 33.4 percent resulted in an arrest.

The question you should be asking is how many were put away who were innocent prior to DNA?

Not nearly as many as the number of women who are raped by already accused rapists.

https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the guy have multiple occasions to assault the girl? That’s not in the article I can access.

He was a relative of the girl. I don’t know why idiots like Bevin decide they know better than a judge and jury who listened to the trial.

Because there was no forensic evidence at all? Just her word?

So what? Forensic evidence isn’t a requirement if you have other types of evidence. But sure, you seem think it’s fine to let out a predator of young girls on a whim. I hope he moves to your neighborhood.

Forensic evidence is very important if you plan to put someone away. Without it, you don’t actually know if he is a predator of young girls.

How was rape prosecuted before DNA testing?

It pretty much wasn't, and still isn't way more than half the time that it's reported. We all know it's often not reported.

According to FBI statistics, out of 127,258 rapes reported to police departments in 2018, 33.4 percent resulted in an arrest.

The question you should be asking is how many were put away who were innocent prior to DNA?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the guy have multiple occasions to assault the girl? That’s not in the article I can access.

He was a relative of the girl. I don’t know why idiots like Bevin decide they know better than a judge and jury who listened to the trial.

Because there was no forensic evidence at all? Just her word?

So what? Forensic evidence isn’t a requirement if you have other types of evidence. But sure, you seem think it’s fine to let out a predator of young girls on a whim. I hope he moves to your neighborhood.

Forensic evidence is very important if you plan to put someone away. Without it, you don’t actually know if he is a predator of young girls.

How was rape prosecuted before DNA testing?

It pretty much wasn't, and still isn't way more than half the time that it's reported. We all know it's often not reported.

According to FBI statistics, out of 127,258 rapes reported to police departments in 2018, 33.4 percent resulted in an arrest.

The question you should be asking is how many were put away who were innocent prior to DNA?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the guy have multiple occasions to assault the girl? That’s not in the article I can access.

He was a relative of the girl. I don’t know why idiots like Bevin decide they know better than a judge and jury who listened to the trial.

Because there was no forensic evidence at all? Just her word?

So what? Forensic evidence isn’t a requirement if you have other types of evidence. But sure, you seem think it’s fine to let out a predator of young girls on a whim. I hope he moves to your neighborhood.

Forensic evidence is very important if you plan to put someone away. Without it, you don’t actually know if he is a predator of young girls.

How was rape prosecuted before DNA testing?

It pretty much wasn't, and still isn't way more than half the time that it's reported. We all know it's often not reported.

According to FBI statistics, out of 127,258 rapes reported to police departments in 2018, 33.4 percent resulted in an arrest.

But some of his explanations have only intensified the outrage.
In an interview with a Louisville talk-radio host, Bevin defended his pardon of a man convicted of raping a 9-year-old girl, saying he found “zero evidence” and that the girl’s hymen was intact.
“This is perhaps more specific than people would want,” Bevin said. “But trust me. If you have been repeatedly sexually violated as a small child by an adult, there are going to be repercussions of that physically and medically.”
Scientists have rejected using the hymen alone as evidence of sexual activity.
“Now he’s saying that my daughter’s a liar,” the victim’s mother said in an interview with Cincinnati news station WCPO-TV. The station did not release her name to protect the victim.
“We just got to the point where we felt safe even in the house. Not having to look over our shoulders,” she said. “Shame on him. Shame on him.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And regarding the NYT article:

“ One of the difficult cases to land on the governor’s desk was the 2016 arrest of Mr. Schoettle, whose late stepfather was a former chairman of the Bank of Kentucky and whose mother served until recently on a state legislative ethics commission.

The girl accused Mr. Schoettle several months after she said the abuse had stopped, and all parties agree that there was no physical evidence or independent witnesses in the case.

Deanna L. Dennison, an appeals lawyer in his case, questioned why DNA testing had not been done in the bedroom where the abuse was reported to have occurred over several years. “What investigation did they do?” she said. “They took a 13-year-old’s word for it, and that was it.”

The Kentucky Innocence Project also believed there were “forensic issues,” but had held off on taking the case while the appeals process played out, the project’s director, Suzanne Hopf, said.

Prosecutors in Kenton County cited research that it was not uncommon for child victims to delay reporting, and that many abused children do not show signs of physical injury when tested. The girl testified from the stand.

“This little girl was raped repeatedly over three years, and I’m not about to call her a liar just because she didn’t call police as soon as it happened,” said Rob Sanders, the Kenton County commonwealth’s attorney. “I trust the collective wisdom of 12 citizens of Kenton County much more than I do the ignorant opinions of Matt Bevin.”

So, in other words, a 13 year old’s word was all that put this guy away. Insanity. The Innocence Project does not take cases lightly.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/12/kentucky-governor-bevin-pardon-convicted-child-rapist-schoettle.html#_ga=2.100973640.837340275.1576947565-1502014189.1507861627

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/790182205/ex-kentucky-gov-defends-controversial-pardons-for-child-rapist-murderer

One of the victims was 9 the first time in happened. 9 years old. Her sister was present and was also raped (and was the 13 year old testifying).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the guy have multiple occasions to assault the girl? That’s not in the article I can access.

He was a relative of the girl. I don’t know why idiots like Bevin decide they know better than a judge and jury who listened to the trial.

Because there was no forensic evidence at all? Just her word?

Anonymous wrote:And regarding the NYT article:

“ One of the difficult cases to land on the governor’s desk was the 2016 arrest of Mr. Schoettle, whose late stepfather was a former chairman of the Bank of Kentucky and whose mother served until recently on a state legislative ethics commission.

The girl accused Mr. Schoettle several months after she said the abuse had stopped, and all parties agree that there was no physical evidence or independent witnesses in the case.

Deanna L. Dennison, an appeals lawyer in his case, questioned why DNA testing had not been done in the bedroom where the abuse was reported to have occurred over several years. “What investigation did they do?” she said. “They took a 13-year-old’s word for it, and that was it.”

The Kentucky Innocence Project also believed there were “forensic issues,” but had held off on taking the case while the appeals process played out, the project’s director, Suzanne Hopf, said.

Prosecutors in Kenton County cited research that it was not uncommon for child victims to delay reporting, and that many abused children do not show signs of physical injury when tested. The girl testified from the stand.

“This little girl was raped repeatedly over three years, and I’m not about to call her a liar just because she didn’t call police as soon as it happened,” said Rob Sanders, the Kenton County commonwealth’s attorney. “I trust the collective wisdom of 12 citizens of Kenton County much more than I do the ignorant opinions of Matt Bevin.”

So, in other words, a 13 year old’s word was all that put this guy away. Insanity. The Innocence Project does not take cases lightly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the guy have multiple occasions to assault the girl? That’s not in the article I can access.

He was a relative of the girl. I don’t know why idiots like Bevin decide they know better than a judge and jury who listened to the trial.

Because there was no forensic evidence at all? Just her word?

So what? Forensic evidence isn’t a requirement if you have other types of evidence. But sure, you seem think it’s fine to let out a predator of young girls on a whim. I hope he moves to your neighborhood.

Forensic evidence is very important if you plan to put someone away. Without it, you don’t actually know if he is a predator of young girls.

How was rape prosecuted before DNA testing?

It pretty much wasn't, and still isn't way more than half the time that it's reported. We all know it's often not reported.

According to FBI statistics, out of 127,258 rapes reported to police departments in 2018, 33.4 percent resulted in an arrest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you imagine if this lunatic had been re-elected?

Yes, actually. We live in a strange time. It wouldn't surprise me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did the guy have multiple occasions to assault the girl? That’s not in the article I can access.

He was a relative of the girl. I don’t know why idiots like Bevin decide they know better than a judge and jury who listened to the trial.

Because there was no forensic evidence at all? Just her word?

So what? Forensic evidence isn’t a requirement if you have other types of evidence. But sure, you seem think it’s fine to let out a predator of young girls on a whim. I hope he moves to your neighborhood.

Forensic evidence is very important if you plan to put someone away. Without it, you don’t actually know if he is a predator of young girls.

How was rape prosecuted before DNA testing?