Weberman update | Imamother

ora_43

Sun, Jul 22 2012, 4:17 am

black sheep wrote:

ora, I cannot believe I need to explain this to you, but taping a girl having s-x is in itself violating. it is s-xual abuse to film your daughter having s-x. you are trying to argue that he had pure motives for this act of s-xual abuse, but it is what it is, whatever the motives might or might not be.

I think that you have a view on adult men having s-x with teen girls that this man probably didn't share. You call it "having s-x," he clearly considered it a form of rape.

I think you're taking the motivation factor too lightly. Motivation, as understood by the child, is often what determines the psychological effect of something, whether it's experienced as abuse or not.

I also don't quite get your argument anymore - do you disagree that he might have had good intentions? Do you disagree that trying to catch a rapist on tape is not the same as making a s-x tape for personal gratification? I've already said a few times that I think it was a bad idea, so you can't be arguing that.

rosehill

Sun, Jul 22 2012, 12:28 pm

I might be missing something here, tell me if this is a really bad idea.

If the father wanted to prove that his daughter was in an intimate relationship with this boyfriend, and have the young man arrested for statutory rape, would it not be sufficient to provide DNA evidence? Could he not just collect her undergarments, sheets etc and provide that to the DA? Certainly icky, but not as bad as a video tape!

Or better yet, why not go to the police, explain the suspicions, and ask them how best to collect evidence that would prove admissable and useful?

There are so many things wrong with this story. I'll submit the father may have been clueless about how to proceed with his daughter, but it leaves me with grave doubts about the person from whom he was seeking advice.

black sheep

Sun, Jul 22 2012, 12:28 pm

ora_43 wrote:

black sheep wrote:

I think that most people are not either pure good or pure evil. a perverted man with a twisted mind can also have good intentions. or he could be using the facade of good intentions to promote his perversion. either way, it doesn't matter. a violating act is a violating act, regardless of intentions behind it.

marina

Sun, Jul 22 2012, 1:29 pm

fyi- as far as I know, there are specific evidentiary rules that prohibit a victim's prior s-xual relationships to be brought up in court at all. No reasonable doubt, no prejudical value, nothing. It will not be addressed in court at all.

The only exception is if Weberman argues that she was coming on to him, that it was consensual. Or if he argues she has a prior legal history of accusing people who were later proven innocent. Otherwise no jury will even hear about it. This discussion is totally moot.