- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Allegedly, Madison Brooks had sex the day before incident that caused that caused injuries
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:08 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think they have abrasions on the lower back but where are you getting the anal bruising/abrasions? I don't think there is any evidence of vaginal or anal trauma. There are a million stories/leaks so if there is an update, feel free to post it.
Isn’t that what it says in what the poster that I quoted above says is in the motion?
1
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The issues with consent are from her alleged intoxication. I don't think there are any allegations she did not "consent" to the alleged sex. It's a question of whether that "consent" was legal or not.
I am saying they can go after the anal part as well
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:09 am to tigerskin
quote:
It seems people are skipping over the details here.
I think the issue is going to be the “anal” part.
1)They have autopsy evidence of abrasions and bruising around anus.
2) The supposed “night before guy” hasn’t agreed to testify
3) Even if he does and testifies no anal activity, that should still go back to the car guys
4) Especially with video of “flipping her over” like was claimed in a video.
5) Anal sex is still rape when only vaginal sex was consented to
It seems your details lack truthful accuracy, or common sense.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:09 am to captainpodnuh
Yep.... You knew they were going this way when they were granted access to her phone. I really feel horrible for her family. Whether the 4 guys are found guilty or not. They have to sit and listen to this if it goes to trial.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:10 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
It seems your details lack truthful accuracy, or common sense.
Such as???
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:14 am to JDPndahizzy
quote:
This is the crux of the entire case..
Some people are still imagining it's a different type of rape.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Some people are still imagining it's a different type of rape.
Answer my question
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:16 am to tigerskin
quote:
Isn’t that what it says in what the poster that I quoted above says is in the motion?
LINK
quote:
An abrasion and bruising on Brooks' back side prompted a forensic pathologist conducting the autopsy to note it was "highly suspicious for a sexual assault," but the separate lab report said there was insufficient male DNA present and no indication of when an assault might have occurred.
I do not think "back side" in that story is a euphemism for "anus". I think it means literal "back" side (as opposed to abdominal).
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:19 am to SlowFlowPro
That link is old. Did you read the motion he claimed he is getting this info from?
I don’t know if he is right or not. Just responding to what he says is in the motion.
I don’t know if he is right or not. Just responding to what he says is in the motion.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:21 am to tigerskin
quote:
Did you read the motion he claimed he is getting this info from?
No. He didn't link it, either.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:22 am to SlowFlowPro
I assumed as a lawyer you could find it in 2 seconds
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:24 am to tigerskin
quote:
Such as???
around the anus. not in the anus. big difference.
They seem to already know the guy from the day before PIIHB. If he were to testify, why would he lie? And i'll admit i'm assuming here but i would imagine the reason they are wanting to get to him is b/c there are text messages that say they did the butt secks, and they want his confirmation.
what video you claim to have seen or know about? flipping a girl over doesn't constitute rape. It's a normal part of having sex.
quote:
5) Anal sex is still rape when only vaginal sex was consented to
so you just assume consent for the vaginal sex, but if a guy slips it in her arse, it's automatically rape b/c they didn't have the express written consent for it?
anal sex isn't auto rape.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:28 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
They seem to already know the guy from the day before PIIHB.
Maybe but where does it hint to that?
quote:
so you just assume consent for the vaginal sex, but if a guy slips it in her arse, it's automatically rape b/c they didn't have the express written consent for it? anal sex isn't auto rape.
Like you said we are all making assumptions, but this where I assume she wanted to get out. And let’s not forget Carver admitted it wasn’t all bliss in that back seat. And I rightfully assume the 2nd guy is a terror.
This post was edited on 3/13/24 at 9:29 am
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The way it has been reported, she wanted to be let out and was basically demanding that. As was posted on this page, keeping her in the car longer could have become a separate serious felony (kidnapping).
None of this precludes the options listed.
If they were on say I-10/12 in the middle lane and she demanded to be let her, do they just lock up the brakes, stop, and usher her out into traffic so they don't get accused of kidnapping?
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:47 am to SixthAndBarone
quote:
How is it dirty? Prosecution is claiming physical evidence of sex which may not be proper evidence in a trial. Don’t you want the trial to be fair? If the guys are guilty, then there will be more evidence that isn’t questionable.
Classic rape apologist.
Let’s keep br a shitehole thanks to you and all the other dumb fricks
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:48 am to AlwysATgr
I think some of you need to prepare yourselves for the possibility that no rape occurred and the guys aren't liable for her death.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:50 am to tigerskin
quote:
Maybe but where does it hint to that?
well i literally said i was making that assumption, based on what is being reported and common sense. WHy else would the defense want this guy to testify? I doubt they are going after him so he can make up a story that they had anal sex.
quote:
Like you said we are all making assumptions, but this where I assume she wanted to get out.
that makes no sense, and you have no idea. This is a legal case that has to have facts presented, not assumptions.
and i'm not saying your assumption is wrong, but there's no point in assuming it from a legal standpoint if you have zero evidence to help prove that assumption.
quote:
And let’s not forget Carver admitted it wasn’t all bliss in that back seat.
He's an idiot and you can't believe anything he said. his statement was taken at a time where he would say anything to not get any blame b/c he thought he was getting arrested. witnesses lie all the time and are unreliable as evidence more often than not.
Unless there's video evidence to back up what he said, then i take his statements with a grain of salt. And i'm not saying his statement is false, just that witnesses lie and guys being accused of crimes with other guys will say what it necessary to protect themselves. He might be telling the truth, but i think you need some supporting evidence to back up his statements as truth.
It's no different than assuming the guy from the day before had anal sex with her. If he's the only one saying he did it, then why believe him? what evidence is there to suggest he's telling the truth? but if they have text messages of her saying she let him PIIHB, and he confirms that is true, then it's not really an assumption anymore or just a witnesses story, it's fact.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:54 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
WHy else would the defense want this guy to testify? I doubt they are going after him so he can make up a story that they had anal sex.
To paint her as a whore wanting to have sex with everyone.
[/quote]
quote:
but if they have text messages of her saying she let him PIIHB, and he confirms that is true, then it's not really an assumption anymore
Talk about an assumption. Yeah if she has text messages that say she loved him putting it up her arse, then this case is a wrap.
This post was edited on 3/13/24 at 9:55 am
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:55 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
and the guys aren't liable for her death.
they were never liable for her death. That was something that was made up on here b/c people were claiming they threw her out of the car in the middle of Burbank, which is not what happened.
If they were hit with some kind of charge invloving her death, than anytime an Uber drive drops off a rider and the rider is killed after the drop off, the Uber driver can be held responsible.
Is a bus driver responsible for the death of a passenger that gets off the bus and decides to run across 3 lanes of traffic, gets hit and is killed?
They obviously could have been more gentlemanly with how they handled dropping her off where they did, but they aren't gentleman at all obviously, but that doesn't mean what they did constituted some kind of manslaughter charge.
Posted on 3/13/24 at 9:58 am to tigerskin
quote:
To paint her as a whore wanting to have sex with everyone.
well you have to do that with facts, not lies.
quote:
Talk about an assumption. Yeah if she has text messages that say she loved him putting it up her arse, then this case is a wrap.
why do you think they are trying to get this guy involved? that's my point and the reason for the assumption. Again, i have no idea if they have those text messages, but it seems like a pretty safe assumption they have something along those lines. How else would they even know about this guy having sex with her the day before?
Page 18 of 41
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News