The Maid’s story was that she entered a room that was thought to be unoccupied. Upon entering a man attacaked her and focrebley incerted his penis in her mouth, afer restisting to the best of her abilities; she ran into the hall way and saw the man leave. After which, she reported the incedent to several emplyiess and later police invovemtn occurred. The Facts that can be claimed to completely ture, are the DNA samples that the maid spit out, containg both her saliva and his sperm. The other facts, unfortunately, are aginst her; being she has doubious ties to criminals and has shown habbits of liing to government orgainiztions and authroites. Beyond these two concrete details all other facts are here-say and have little legitimancy compared to hard evince.
…show more content…
Is he a violent lover, does he pay for sex. How often does the man have sex with indoviduals who are not his wife. The sexual history of the defendant cannot be relied upon because of the evidence agist her abilities to keep with the truth wholey. In regards to consent, it is hard to say, under rape law consent only occurs when she explicitly denies intercourse and force is used; along with her sexual history. Though other cases vary, such as abilities to communicate “no,” this case would suggest that she had the abilite to say no. With that said, consent was given unexplicably, his account of making “rough” love is one that is of a personal nature, and she had full ablates to say no. Though it is understood that she feared loosing her job, the law is outlined so as to protect indivdials and proscute those who do wrong. Her inability to say no stemed form a source not completely affiliated with the man, and thus in the eyes of the law would not allow her fear to be used as substantial testormy or casue for not saying
Is he a violent lover, does he pay for sex. How often does the man have sex with indoviduals who are not his wife. The sexual history of the defendant cannot be relied upon because of the evidence agist her abilities to keep with the truth wholey. In regards to consent, it is hard to say, under rape law consent only occurs when she explicitly denies intercourse and force is used; along with her sexual history. Though other cases vary, such as abilities to communicate “no,” this case would suggest that she had the abilite to say no. With that said, consent was given unexplicably, his account of making “rough” love is one that is of a personal nature, and she had full ablates to say no. Though it is understood that she feared loosing her job, the law is outlined so as to protect indivdials and proscute those who do wrong. Her inability to say no stemed form a source not completely affiliated with the man, and thus in the eyes of the law would not allow her fear to be used as substantial testormy or casue for not saying