re: DNA expert, NAACP weigh in on evidence in Maddison Brooks case

Yes Haley already said they were “consensual sexual acts”

“It shows that she “willfully got into the car” after being abandoned by her friends — then getting out to grab an Uber before she was fatally hit by another car, the attorney stated.

Before then, she had “consensual sexual acts” with two of the accused — which was “absolutely not a rape,” Haley told WAFB.

LINK

quote:

---

The question is, now, consent to what?

quote:
they raped her

The physical evidence now argues the opposite. Not having DNA destroys a lot of the proof of rape.

The prosecution's case just got exponentially harder.

---

they admitted to raping* her you idiot

quote:

---

they admitted to raping* her you idiot

---

Again, can be possibly explained away with alternative, reasonable hypos.

quote:

---

The question is emotionality, not subjectivity. They're not directly related.

---

My friends at PNAS say differently:

quote:

---

Emotion as a Core Dimension of Subjective Feeling. Nearly all subjective feelings were imbued with emotional qualities. During emotions, the benefit versus harm associated with external and internal events triggers an integrated blend of good or bad feelings, or vigorous activation or relaxation. Such affective sensations involve cognitive, perceptual, and physiological processes and thus constitute the core of human subjective experience in general

---

It’s ok

quote:

---

The state's case proving penetration took a big hit

---

why? Bc no dna?

quote:

---

why? Bc no dna?

---

Yes.

It's an essential element for rape and now the defense has a HUGE angle regarding evidence of penetration (or the lack thereof).

Without penetration you can't get any form of rape. You can get sexual battery, possibly.

quote:

---

It's an essential element for rape and now the defense has a HUGE angle regarding evidence of penetration (or the lack thereof).

---

but that refers to my very first question to you - there was evidence of anal penetration - just bc the defense ignores that tidbit of evidence - doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist, right?

quote:

---

“Front seat driver says they did it, t

---

I don't think he ever said he saw the penetration, which is probably going to be a big issue.

quote:

---

attorney says they did it…

---

Not evidence to be considered at trial.

What about this:

quote:

---

an autopsy for Brooks found no DNA from the suspects internally, though there was unspecified genetic material from one of the suspects on her genital area

---

Or was this discussed and I missed it?

quote:

---

there was evidence of anal penetration - just bc the defense ignores that tidbit of evidence

---

I doubt they ignore it, fully. They'll likely have theories and get experts to support those theories.

quote:

---

doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist, right?

---

As I already told you, the evidence all has to be weighed against each other.

Evidence that she had sex doesn't automatically mean it was evidence that she had sex with those 2 guys. See how the evidence isn't limiting for the defense?

What we do know is that there isn't any DNA evidence that either of those 2 guys penetrated her. That eliminates a lot of avenues for the prosecution.

You have to remember the state is the party with the burden and they have to present the evidence to create a single narrative. The defense just has to poke enough holes in that case to tell the jurors that an alternative, reasonable scenario existed that led to the evidence. They DO NOT have to established what that alternative scenario is, just that it can exist.

When the prosecution has a huge gap in one of the essential elements, they are relying on creativity and narrative, and not evidence, for an essential element.