As much as I hate to hear news like this, thanks for posting it and linking to the petition. I can’t believe that women who bring rape cases to trial haven’t been raped because of the emotional rollercoaster that the process entails, not to mention the humiliation that they will inevitably endure from their community.

A friend of mine was on the jury for this case. I’ll bring this post to her attention so she can comment if she’d like to. It’s not as straightforward as it seems, according to her.

Kat, I would love to hear about any unreported details to support the claims of the suspects. Based on what I’ve read, it’s hard to see the logic of the verdict. Thanks.

Kathleen,

Please do (have your friend comment). The trial verdict absolutely does sound fucked up but it is difficult to believe that the jury would vote against her.

I also served on the jury for this case. Please note that we sat as a jury for 4 weeks, listening to testimony and evaluating the evidence presented to us. I would urge anyone who wishes to question or condemn the decisions of the jury to take the time to first read and understand the facts of the case. Reading a paragraph of an LA Times article and forming an opinion based solely thereon does justice to no one, including the young lady who was allegedly sexually assaulted. I feel no duty to explain the results of our deliberations to anyone, especially those who have not taken the time to read or understand the evidence. You are undoubtedly some of the same people who have made up your minds as to the guilt or innocence of Kobe Bryant based on nothing more than what you’ve heard in 30-second sound bytes on the 11 o’clock news. All 15 members of the jury (including the 3 alternates) worked long and hard to do be the best jurors possible. The task was difficult and, at times, very emotional. I sincerely hope none of you have to endure such an experience. But, to be sure, we walked out of that trial with our consciences clear that we performed our jobs to the best of our collective ability.

Actually Scott, you should know that not only did I read the entirety of the LA Times article, I read each of the Daily Bruin articles, as well. I also did various news searches for other coverage of the story but I did not find any other new information.

I am sure that each of the jury members worked hard to make sure the justice system worked in this case. I am not condemning the decision of the jury because I do not know what evidence was presented which resulted the verdicts. I am saying that based on everything I’ve read, I cannot understand it.

If there is something I missed, or something that was not reported which could help me understand the verdict, an explanation from someone who was privy to that information would be appreciated, if you are so inclined.

And by the way, I have no opinion on the guilt or innocence of Kobe Bryant.

Thanks.

Unlike the Times, the Daily Breeze covered the trial extensively nearly every day. Their reporter did an excellent job conveying the complexities of the trial. I don’t know if they still have it on their Web page, but you should hunt them down for a detailed look at what went down.

Forgive me. I may have been a bit too defensive after reading the comment that the verdict sounded “fucked up.” As I said before, it was (and still is) a highly emotional issue. Re explaining the decision, I really do not want to speak for the jury as a whole. That would be unfair. But I will give you some central facts that may help you to better understand the situation. One of the primary issues concerned whether the 3 defendants had knowledge that what took place happened against the will of Jane Doe. First, let me be clear that she had absolutely no duty to resist, say “no,” or anything of the sort. This is the law. Consent, however, is a legal defense to rape. Many jurors, especially with respect to Defendants Dawson & Anthony, felt there was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendants knew that what happened took place against Jane Doe’s will. Although it may seem anomalous on it’s face, several of the jurors believed that Jane Doe was actually raped by Dawson & Anthony. But those jurors did there best to follow the law (I think correctly) and voted for acquittal based on this very reason. Jane Doe testified that there were no weapons, threats, etc. by any of the defendants. Yet, beyond saying “no” to Defendant Stringer’s initial verbal overtures (when Dawson and Anthony were not even present in the room), she testified that she never gave any of them any verbal or physical indication that she was an unwilling participant. Perhaps she was too scared to do so, but was there reasonable doubt? She sat in her room and conversed with the various defendants both before and after the incidents occurred. She gave her phone # to Defendant Stringer AFTER he allegedly raped her. She was able to say “no” when asked for food, etc, but not when it came to the sexual acts. She initially testified that she had lifted her hips to facilitate Defendant Anthony’s pulling her pants off. She performed oral sex on all 3 defendants. With respect to both Jane Doe and the defendants, there was changed testimony between preliminary hearing and the trial. There were also a number of “strange” actions by Jane Doe later that day, although many could obviously be attributed to being in a state of shock/denial. The bottom line is there was reasonable doubt as to what occurred. I truly understand that it’s shocking to most people that a young lady would have consensual sex with 3 strangers within minutes of meeting them. Or that a woman would put herself through the pain and stigma that comes from reporting a rape unless a rape actually occurred. Nevertheless, we as jurors were bound to follow the law and determine the case based on the evidence presented to us, not on conjecture or supposition. I hope that helps somewhat. I know I’m still struggling with it, but we did the best we could with the facts given to us. I think we can walk away with some pride in our efforts, if nothing else.

Scott, thanks for posting as much as you could. When I initially said “sounded fucked up”, I meant to emphasise, “sounded” which is why I wanted to read about more info (should have googled the facts). There just seemed to be more than meets the eye.

Is it true that all the jurors are Black? When I heard that they were, I immediately felt that Kobe Bryant’s situation affected the outcome of this case. Am I right? I see that someone claiming to be a juror mentions Kobe when no one else has here.

This is a petition started by us, friends of Jane Doe: http://www.petitiononline.com/janedoe/petition.html

As someone who knows Jane Doe personally and attended one of the days of the trial and has been following up on this case since day one, I would like to ask: what were members of the jury doing while Gail Abarbanel, rape expert and director for the Santa Monica Rape Treatment Center, was testifying? Were they all sleeping? She confirmed that Jane Doe’s actions and sustained injuries were consistent with that of many rape victims, keeping in mind that rape victims respond in a myriad of ways after an attack.
And what was one of the jurors, 23-year-old teacherís aide Nkechi Odili-Obi thinking when she commented: ìIt’s not so far-fetched to me that today a female would go and have consensual sex with three men after 10 minutes of meeting them.î I don’t know where she is coming from and what she has been doing with her sexual life but I didn’t think jurors were supposed to project their own personal experiences when making a decision on the verdict.

As a clarification for Dinna, five people on the jury were black. One of the verdicts was hung 11-1 favoring not guilty. The one lady who voted guilty later told the DA that she stood her ground while other jurors attempted to change her decision. The other jurors even tried, unsuccessfully, to kick her off the jury for NOT changing her mind! What kind of jury is this?! Trying to kick off another juror because she stood her ground. Because she was the only one who not only believed and saw the facts for facts, but would not allow herself to be swayed by others.

First, I would like to extend my deepest sympathies, and sincerest praise to the young lady that has to bear the memory and emotional trauma of this vile experience, possibly for the rest of her life. In speaking out against her assailants, she has demonstrated uncommon courage and strength in the face of cold public scrutiny and flawed justice. As such, I am truly inspired by her will to endure and fight on.

Secondly, I am outraged that such a blatant trespass and violation of an individual’s property, and body can be so readily excused in a court of law. Whatever evidence and interpretation may have been propogated in the defense of this disturbing crime, it could not have warranted dismissing these attackers without punishment.

Hearing the wholly inadequate explanations from another jury member for the decision that he and others reached simply angers and disturbs me further, and I can only express my fear for the day that any of my loved ones or friends would ever have to be judged by a like-minded jury, should one of them fall victim to such a perverse crime.

Whatever the future may hold for the victim, my full support goes out to her, and I hope that she might soon see the justice she deserves in one way or another.

Scott,
It seems that you contradict yourself when you say that “she had absolutely no duty to resist, say ‘no,’ or anything of the sort,” and then go on to say that because she gave no indication that she was unwilling, there is reasonable doubt that the defendents knew they actually raping her. I see this point. I also understand you were trying to go by the law, but the law is subject to interpretation. I don’t have all the evidence but if the defendents were acquitted by the jurors who actually thought they were guilty of rape because of a TECHNICALITY such as “they didn’t know if they were raping her,” then justice was not, cannot and never will be served.

Perhaps not. May a greater power save us all. But, just for fun, go read the law. You can’t convict people of a crime when there’s reasonable doubt. The law says consent is a defense. If they assailants believed they were taking part in a consensual act, then where does the contradiction lie? Look, we tried to do our best as jurors with the facts before us. If you want to ignorantly condemn, then condemn. I sure as hell hope nobody ever judges you as you have chosen to judge us: based on misinformation, lack of information, conjecture and blind emotion. Sad. Very sad.

I am no expert on the law and never claim to be, but I think I understand, as well as anyone else what constitutes reasonable doubt. I realize the term to be open to interpretation, and although ignorant of every detail of this case, I find it appalling that any shred of doubt could exist in your mind regarding the victimization of this young woman by these men.

From what you argue, and please correct me if I am mistaken, there was reasonable doubt as to the lustful intentions of the three defendants on the day in question, when one had allegedly groped another female student earlier in the day, and all three had, without permission or invitation, entered the girl’s dormitory under false pretenses.

Perhaps there is some reasonable doubt in your mind as to whether the defendant, an assumingly rational young woman who had been studying in the confines of her own quarters, did not willingly invite these three, physically dominant (and from what I’ve seen rather imposing-looking) strangers into her room to have their way with her without any thought as to the risk of AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases that might result.

Perhaps you saw reasonable doubt in the claim of the defendant having rejected the advances of the intruding trio with the word “no” (a word that I understand to mean negation and denial), on at least one occasion, when they offered to have her give them oral copulation, and more.

I don’t want to sound belligerent in stating my opinion, but what you consider to be “reasonable” sounds to me an awful lot like “slim to none”.

I’d like to know why the juror “SCOTT” had to bring up Kobe Bryant and if “SCOTT” is accusing himself of “conjecture.”

I have heard of several major crimes at UCLA and witnessed one-myself. This one is seriously a major dissappointment just like the-rest…

I have read everyones arguments and the evidence. I personally can’t agree with the Jury who obiviously like most were manipulated. The evidence is compelling…oral sex and giving phone number after the incidents.

I have “double-teamed” a girl with another guy and it took her 3hours after “lots-of-play” to tell us to take her to the bedroom to get things going…. If this girl was working on a paper and then decided to suck and fuck 3 guy’s you have got to be kidding me. If she took the guys up to her room then I could be convinced. But it sure sounds like they found their own way to the victims room.

Whoever initated the contact It is impossible to believe she concented. The only way I would beleve it is if she is the type of person who wants to be popular and was-not and did such a thing to become more popular when the “football” players transferred to UCLA…witch they did’nt and lied to her about…. It could be possible she reported the rape after she discovered that they were not going to be UCLA but they were highschool…

she figured she fucked up and got angry.
that is the only possiblity other than rape.
I guess with the evidence that it was a simple defence to use this type of argument to defend the rapeists..

Was the victim also Black?

where was the nyt or la times ? I would also like to know more about the defendents hx of priors. Was the Jane Doe White, Asian or Black. Was she a foreign student and did not know Eng. etc.

I am also curious to know if the victim was also black or another ethnic background. I heard rumors that the victim was Asian. It makes me wonder if culture was a factor in not resisting very strongly.

Unbelievable that these rapists would be aquitted.
She was on trial and not them. They were clearly rapists and anyone who would justify aquitting the rapists for reasons that theoretically, it’s not ‘inconceivable’ that a woman would have sex with a man within minutes of meeting him? How does that theoretical possibility fit into a student studying for finals when three Black men (was she white?) bust into your dorm and rape you? Sickening. Men are raping and killing women all over the ploace and getting away with it. WOMEN FIGHT BACK.

Men are disgusting.

Consent is not the absense of resisting.
Mysogynist jurors.

So Scott, you believed they are assailants but you failed to convict them.

You believed them over here nad I beleive you had her on trial, not them.

And Scott, expressly HOW WAS IT CONSENSUAL? HOW? In what way was it consensual or re you Scott just another rapist?

Scott wrote: “If they assailants believed they were taking part in a consensual act, then where does the contradiction lie?”

I have worked for criminal law firms and a clerk for the DA’s office. Volunteering at many women organizations, I have also come across many women who claimed they were raped (Karen, I wouldn’t be surprised if you were, not to offend you or anything). I’ve talked to some of the greatest experts on rape from my Alma Mater, Harvard University. I can only say my opinion as to what I experienced and know. Given this, my opinion would probably be more in accordance with reality than some random juror or someone interested in this case.

Jurors – Defense attorneys honestly pick the twelve stupidest people there are, people that “are too stupid to get out of jury duty” (this is a common joke). Neither the prosecution nor the defense (much more the defense) want an educated or knowledgeable person to sway the other jurors. I myself have been dismissed about four times after reaching a jury panel. It doesn’t surprise me that Scott and the jury made some questionable logical fallacies and flawed foundations as to the trial (i.e. It doesn’t matter if Jane Doe was actually raped. It matters if the defendants thought he was raping her. i.e. Cictim moves up so Anthony could remove victim’s pants equals consent instead of the general expert testimony about the tendency of rape victims to follow orders. No decent judge would allow the former argument to stand).

Victim – Defense attorneys tend to employ a tactic the prosecutors called “dirtying the victim.” Because social science proves that the perceived virtue and actions of an alleged victim affect the result at trial and to destroy credibility, defense attorneys attack the actions of the alleged victim and the logic behind it. Defense attorneys essentially hold victims to a high standards as to how logically they would act. So does the jury. Of course, the underlying assumption is that while being raped, a victim should act completely logically. Although this sounds completely sound as an assumption, it does not suit the needs of justice nor the victim. This assumptions doesn’t meet the truth at all.

I hate to say this, but Jane Doe’s problem was that she acted like a regular victim, which is why about 90% of rapes go unreported and only about 60% of those who commit rapes are prosecuted. Juries expect alleged rape victims to scream and such, which probably only happens in about five percent of all cases. Most rape victims suffer from “frozen shock.” They are also afraid that the rapists would hurt them if they don’t comply with the demands. Rape victims try to go on with their life often obsessively – why most do not report the crime. If they do, it is often too late to pursue the crime, often late enough after the seven year statue of limitation law has passed. Jane Doe showed courage in pursuing the trial – something that most rape victims would not do. The problem is that juries and defense attorneys expect “this and that” (in this case reporting the crime right away, screaming, saying no, etc.), but this and that is such a rarity that only a couple of cases that contain “this and that” result in a conviction.

With an examination of the evidence and testimony given to me, I submit this scenario: Stringer raped Jane Doe. Then he told Anthony and Dawson that she was a willing participant (maybe to get away with it? who knows), so much so that Anthony and Dawson raped her without realizing half-way (when I mean half-way, I mean that they definitely knew something was wrong with the way she was having sex and performing oral sex with them). All this time, Jane Doe is in shock and does whatever the men tell them, because she is not only in “frozen shock” but is also scared for her safety. Now that I have taken Scott’s advice in “reading the law” (I read code laws and cases all the time), I can only suggest to Scott that he read and research the area of rape in social science. I will go onto law school soon; and whether I become a defense attorney or prosecutor, I only hope that juries would be more informed about what generally happens so the interests of justice could be served.

“Stringer entered the room and supposedly forced the woman to have oral sex and intercourse with him after Dawson and Anthony left.

Dawson and Anthony returned to the room soon after Stringer left, and also allegedly forced the woman to have oral sex and intercourse with them ñ sometimes at the same time.”

Nevermind, I smell rape for all three. What a pathetic jury. No wonder people like O.J. get off.

WHAT a pathetic jury for sure.

Robbery victims aren’t called ALLEGED victims.

Murder victims aren’t called ALLEGED victims.

ONLY rape victims are called ALLEGED victims.

Men are never called ALLEGED victims.

FACT:
A woman was in her own room studying when three Black men imposed upon her and within minutes she was orally copulating and having sex with all three.
On it’s face it is rape.
That she didn’t scream is what?
And of course she “obeyed” her perpetrators, in an attempt to stave off further harm, as all police departments warn victims to do that.
Now those very directions are held against her.

And the men are laughing and free to rape again.

And males in society call it a little fun and games with the girls and condone rape as okay.

Where is the outcry from men?

there isn’t any because they collectivelly hate women and male bonding is founded on trashing and dehumanizing women.

These three Black monsters straight up walked in a girl’s dorm who was studying , repeatedly sexually assualted her, left and now the jury walks them.

It’s a free for all mysogynist society against women.

No one, no one I repeat no one calls a robbery victim an “alleged victim”.

Why are rape victims the only category of alleged victims?

Because of the hatred for women in our society.

All women are in grave danger in this society.

There exists a double standard when women are victims of crimes perpetrated by men.

They are not allowed to be caleld victims.

They are on trial.

Their behavior and state of mind is impugned, scrutinized and weighted.

The suspects are not treated as suspects and the defense, not the prosecution has to prove it’s case.

If the woman victim is not a 90 year old virgin nun she is the suspect.

Unbeleivable that these Black rapists walked.

What race was the victim?

“With her being a tawinese girl who is not familiar with american culture and society I surely doubt these football players didn’t include typical “asian female” stigma stereotype when they raped her.”

I got that off a ucla guy’s website.

Unbelievable. Why wasn’t this information released if it’s true? A foreign Taiwanese student who does not understand American society is on a different level than an American girl. It also explains why she studied and finished her paper after the rape. Asian culture is so big on grades that some students commit suicide over grades. These things affect culture and perception. I can completely understand that now, considering that I also am Asian, although American. Had I been in the same situation, I do not doubt that I would have tried to finish my paper as well. These boys went to school at Carson HS with a high population of Asian girls. I’m sure that they know exactly what they were doing when they committed their alleged crime.

She is not foreign. She is Asian American.

I am a doctor and I have treated women patients who had been victims of sexual assaults. I have been intrigued by the development of this trial, and am frankly amazed by how this one juror, Scott, is “still struggling” with his vote while trying to stand tall with self-serving rationalization. It doesn’t matter how much pride he’d like to have and how dignified he tries to look, when a juror makes a poor choice and propogates injustice, he knows it, and we know it.

Is there reasonable doubt that the woman was raped ? How does that weigh against the reasonable doubt that the woman wasn’t raped ? The answer is that there is overwhelming reasonable doubt that she was raped than there is reasonable doubt that she wasn’t. This is the case to most sane and reasonable minds.

If there is overwhelming probability that these three men committed a heinous crime against a woman, then what is the public duty of the jury to not to let them go free ? My opinion is that, even if there is any, any reasonable doubt that these men committed the crime, the jury should not hand down a verdict that says, “you are free to go”. While it is one thing to say, “we don’t know if you are 100% guilty”, it is quite another to say “even though we know that there is a much greater reasonable doubt that you are guilty, we are going to rescue you poor sexual assault suspects and release you into the society”. By being poorly informed and rely completely on a lay understanding of what criteria warrants acquittal, such jury propogates injustice and is a menace to law abidding citizens everywhere.

All graduates of college and grad/professional schools:

Haven’t you noticed that whenever you make the jury panel the defense always objects to your being on the jury? Former DAs and ADAs tell me that the defense wants 12 idiotic people to make stupid assumptions about situations, much like how rape victims are suppose to act in this case. Hence, there is a common joke that denfese attorneys want “12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.” Scott, have you read the studies of how rape victims acted yet? I kept my end of the bargain by reading laws.

Karen, you need to get the fuck off this board, you ignorant femi-nazi. Males are not a huge woman-hating fraternity. Most of them want to meet a normal girlfriend or wife, and most of them despise rape. And you are an idiot.

Just out of curiousity…why is the race card bringing brought up?? Does it matter the race of the defendents or the race of the victim? Karen is already calling these men “black monsters” as if their dark skin cognitively made them attack this girl. Why the race card people?! I agree that this case seems like an injustice. But Scott stated that she gave them fellatio and her phone number after the alleged attack. Explain that? But again I’m writing this post because of the racial implications. It’s already bad enough that there are few black males on campus as it is, and the ones that are, are now under a cloud of suspicion as if they’re on the prowl for sexual deviancy. So please people (I’m assuming that the posters are white/asian) please stick to the “event” and the evidence and leave race out of this…if you can’t then please visit http://www.stormfront.org for potential recruitment. Have a good day everyone.
-Jason

As a Sexual Assault Victim Advocate for seven years, it doesn’t surprise me the verdict. In the military we see alot of associate/date rapes, including ones similar to this. Society wants to believe that 3 men would not go into a womans room and rape her. The defense attorneys in this case play on “buyers remorse” if you will. A woman was brutally raped, by three men. We shrug our shoulders, find any excuse to let them off, and pat ourselves on the back for what a just society we are. I firmly believe, if you are raped, if you want justice you better “look” like you got raped. Of course, any sensible person would know that if three people come into your room, resist to a degree, but ultimately if you can’t escape without being raped, at least try to get out with your life and limbs.