25
   

Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

 
 
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 09:58 am
Quote:
Blaming victim in teen rape case: Is this really 2014?
Jacquielynn Floyd
May 6, 2014

She said “no” and he ignored her. She said “stop” and he didn’t. That is rape.

It’s not “sort of” rape, and the 14-year-old girl in this case isn’t “kind of” a victim. A judge who doesn’t understand these elementary facts might be in the wrong line of work.

After hearing last week that state District Judge Jeanine Howard sentenced a 20-year-old man to probation without attaching even the minimum requirements routinely ordered for sex offenders, I thought there must be something about the case I didn’t know.

Maybe they were willing teenage partners, one of whom was underage. Maybe it was a murky, unclear case with vague, conflicting narratives.

What didn’t occur to me — not then, anyway — was that maybe it was an appallingly old-fashioned instance of girl-shamin,’ victim-blamin’ backwardness: She wanted it. She wasn’t a virgin. She didn’t cry enough.

This was apparently the essence of Howard’s reasoning in assessing the ludicrously lenient sentence for Sir Young. He was 18 at the time of the 2011 sexual assault in a deserted classroom at Booker T. Washington High School for the Performing and Visual Arts.

The sentence included deferred adjudication, which means the conviction will be erased from his record if he successfully completes probation. It’s the type of sentence often handed out for a speeding ticket or petty shoplifting.

In assessing Young’s sentence, the judge imposed the bizarre requirement that Young serve 250 hours of community service at a rape-crisis center — a sentence akin to making a child molester help out at a day care center.

No thanks, said the Dallas Area Rape Crisis Center, calling the order “inappropriate.”

Asked to clarify her decision Thursday, Howard told The Dallas Morning News that the girl “wasn’t the victim she claimed to be” and that Young “isn’t the typical sex offender.” She cited medical records that showed the girl had prior sexual experience and had traded racy texts with Young before the incident.

“I will always do the right thing,” Howard said. “My job is not to make people happy.”

She surely must have made the defendant happy in this case, since he might reasonably have expected to receive prison time for forcing sex on an underage girl.

The question of forcible rape is not in dispute. Here is how Young described the assault in a written statement to police:

She & I started kissing, so I started to put my hand in her pants. She said no twice before I stopped. Then we started to kiss again and & this time I took her pants off & mine as well. She kept saying “no” and “stop” but I just didn’t stop.

After the assault, Young continued, she said “Oh my god why did you do this?” I couldn’t even answer. I just said sorry numerous times because I couldn’t believe I had did that.

What does Howard require for a “typical” rape with a bona fide victim? A broken nose? A loaded gun?

Perhaps the girl just didn’t cry enough: During testimony, the judge asked the girl whether she cried during and after the assault.

The judge said last week that she would recuse herself from the case in order to address concerns about her decision. On Monday, her court coordinator said the judge had “no further comment” on the case.

An 18-year-old who has sex with a 14-year-old, even if it’s consensual, is already guilty of a crime. Young teens cannot legally consent to sex because they don’t have the experience and maturity necessary to make adult choices.

The fact that a 14-year-old had prior sexual experience — and, according to medical records, had given birth to a child (which her family denies) — doesn’t make her grown up. It might, in fact, suggest a naiveté that has made her vulnerable to exploitation in the past.

No matter: There is no number of babies, no amount of sexual experience, no skirt so short or text so flirtatious that a victim “deserves” or “asks for” sexual assault.

Those issues are moot. They’re irrelevant. What’s relevant here are these two words:

“No” and “stop.”

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/jacquielynn-floyd/20140505-blaming-victim-in-teen-rape-case-is-this-really-2014.ece
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 10:27 am
@izzythepush,
b
Quote:
out your private life, that you've already disclosed is disgusting enough.


Yes indeed being a cat lover is disgusting and being married for seven years and having a relationship with my now wife for 20 years before that is indeed disgusting and so on.

My life is about as boring normal as anyone life can be as a matter of fact.

Of course unlike you and firefly I have no problem with posting about my boring life.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 10:34 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
we don't renact retrospective laws.


Oh and you did not post that what should had happen in the case?

Next your nation have a history of passing restrospective laws and there is nothing at all unlike in the US that would stop your lawmakers from doing so in the future.



Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible, because the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes.

Retrospective criminal laws are prohibited by Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, but several noted legal authorities have stated their opinion that parliamentary sovereignty takes priority even over this.[13][14] For example, the War Crimes Act 1991 created an ex post facto jurisdiction of British courts over war crimes committed during the Second World War.

Taxation law has on multiple occasions been changed to retrospectively disallow tax avoidance schemes.[15] The most significant example known concerns Double-taxation Treaty Arrangements where the 2008 Finance Act with BN66 retrospectively amended 1987 legislation creating large tax liabilities for 3000 people where no liability existed before.


firefly
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 11:55 am
@BillRM,
Let us know when they do pass retrospective laws in the U.K.--until then, it's a non-issue and totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Meanwhile, your real gripe is that a man was convicted of sexual assults, following a quite legitimate trial, because the victims who testified against him were believed.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 02:19 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Meanwhile, your real gripe is that a man was convicted of sexual assults, following a quite legitimate trial, because the victims who testified against him were believed.


No my problem is that these "victims" did not come forward but was dug up from any a group of any female that had came near him for the last 30 years or at least that is my understanding of what had happen.

Seem at first look that if you screen hundreds of women to see if they will give the police what they are looking for a few of them will do so independent of the events/crimes happening or not happening.

Next if he was such a god awful sexual predator why would he just had stop 20 years ago or at least no "victims" was found in more recent times.

Next how do you proved that you was not anywhere near someone at the times claims if the events are 20 to 30 years in the past?

As far as the women being believes that is hardly surprising whether the man is guilty or not guilty

One more here is a video of a very very believable all together woman claiming a cop had sexual assaulted her and if I had been on a jury I might had found the cop guilty. Thanks god for a cop dash cam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_PdTyTTbE8

You can also go to the dr phil website to see a 17 years old girl last week claiming up and down that her father had raped her as a young girl and only after she fail a lie detector test did she come clean.

Once more she seems believable until the lie detector stated otherwise.


0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 02:32 pm
@BillRM,
Yes I did, it's a shame we couldn't put the creep away for life. Wanting something doesn't mean it will happen. I don't think we've ever had retrospective legislation, and that's got naff all to do with your constitution, which hasn't stopped capital punishment btw.

What you're doing is confusing Dr. Phil with a court of law. Clifford was found guilty in a court of law with a top defence team behind him. Your Dr. Phil (I always wondered what sort of person actually watched that) never even made it to a court of law.

izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 02:34 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

No I do not get upset when criminals are found guilty of their crimes I do get annoy when the process used seem all to likely to find someone guilty of a crime no matter if they are or are not guilty of a crime.


Absolute nonsense, Clifford got a fair trial, as did William Roache. Same legal system, totally different outcomes.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 05:36 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
I don't think we've ever had retrospective legislation


You do not know the history of your own nation!!!!!!!!!

The reason we have that ban in the constitution in the first place is due to your government applying such retrospective laws when we was still part of the Empire.

Quote:
Clifford was found guilty in a court of law with a top defense team behind him


Yes and how in the hell could that top defense team come up with evidence of innocent concerning events that was suppose to had happen 30 to 20 years ago!!!

The whole thing could not be anything but a swearing contest between a number of women that the crown had drug up and the gentleman.

Not the brightest example of your justice system.

izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 06:04 pm
@BillRM,
So what? That's a long time ago and has absolutely no bearing on what's going on now.

Try to have one conversation without bringing up the ******* revolution for once.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 06:07 pm
@BillRM,
It's a fine example of our legal system and only a paedophile worshipping lowlife could think otherwise.
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 06:42 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
The whole thing could not be anything but a swearing contest between a number of women that the crown had drug up and the gentleman.

Not the brightest example of your justice system.


That's exactly how our trial system operates as well, you idiot.

Both the prosecution and defense put on witnesses, and these witnesses are all subject to cross-examination. It's the cross-examination that attempts to impugn the credibility of a witness and raise doubts about the validity of the testimony. And that's the case whether the witness is a victim or an expert of some sort.

That's true in all our criminal trials. It's true in the U.K. as well.

Clifford's victims gave testimony--their testimony is evidence--and the evidence they provided was found to be credible and he was convicted.

You're the one who always asserts that trial verdicts are the last word regarding guilt or innocence. Is that only when you like the verdict--as in the Zimmerman case? Well, this man was found guilty of sexual offenses following a fair trial. You just don't like the verdict, because you don't like the fact his victims were found to be credible and they were believed.

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 06:52 pm
@BillRM,
And here's another man in the U.K. who is going to be put away because his victims were believed.
Quote:
Rapist Mark Anthony Thompson must serve minimum of 11 and a half years after judge says catalogue of offences is "truly horrific"
7th May 2014 in News
By Megi Rychlikova

A RAPIST described as “any woman’s worst nightmare” has been jailed for life for a catalogue of horrific sex crimes in York.

Mark Anthony Thompson, 37, prowled the city centre streets late at night looking for women to attack, Teesside Crown Court heard.

He abducted one and raped her repeatedly over a fivehour period, telling her it would be her “last night on earth” unless she did as he wanted.

He was stopped from attacking another in a Coney Street doorway by two doormen on their way home.

Thompson, described by a friend as a “big, bad wolf ”, also went into the homes and bedrooms of two further women. One managed to get him out of her house using a knife but he came back and she fled her home dressed only in her nightwear, fearing for her life.

Thompson left his victims so traumatised they are now scared to go out at night and the student is constantly looking over her shoulder, Teesside Crown Court heard.

Jailing him for life with a minimum term of 11 and a half years for nine offences, Judge Michael Taylor, pictured, said: "You have shown not an ounce of mercy or remorse. These offences amount to any woman's worst nightmare.

This catalogue of offences is truly horrific.

"You are in my judgment one of the most dangerous offenders I have ever had to deal with.

"You will pursue women in the early hours of the morning. You will go into their own homes. You will not take no for an answer. You will likely pose a considerable risk to women for many, many years into the future."

Each of his victims had to give evidence in court against Thompson because he denied every offence and, according to the judge, had the "audacity" to claim the two women he had attacked in the street had started the sex acts.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," the judge said.


The jury convicted Thompson, of Hospital Fields Road, Fulford Road, York, of sexual assault in Coney Street in 2009, trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence and attempted rape of the woman who fled her home in 2013, attempted sexual assault on a third woman in her home, and kidnap, three rapes and attempted rape of the student.

He showed no reaction as he was jailed for life. At the end of the hearing, he held one hand palm downwards over his clenched fist and held it first towards the judge and then to the jury who had returned to court to see him sentenced after they returned their unanimous verdicts on Friday.

The judge praised Det Con Cheryl Quinn of North Yorkshire Police, the officer in charge of the case and the rest of the police team for bringing Thompson to justice and excused the jurors from jury service for ten years.

No woman was safe from married painter and decorator who prowled the streets looking for victims to sexually abuse them

MARK Anthony Thompson was a married painter and decorator with children and a martial arts teacher.

But, as Teesside Crown Court heard, he was also referred to as a “big, bad wolf ”, prowling the streets of York in search of women so he could subject them to sex ordeals for his own gratification.

No woman was safe. He ignored their objections and those of anyone nearby and tried to terrify them into silence.

Detective Chief Inspector Maria Taylor, who led the investigation, said: “I would like to take this opportunity to praise the victims for their bravery for reporting these distressing crimes and having the courage to give evidence in court.

“Although this verdict can never undo the events they endured, I hope the fact that Thompson will now go to prison brings them some comfort.”

The crimes of the 37-year-old of Jamaican origin began when he was a hotel waiter and spotted a woman on her own in Coney Street late at night in 2009.

“It’s all right, she’s with me,” he told three men who saw him sexually abusing her in a doorway.

But she screamed in terror and he was arrested.

He bluffed his way through the police questioning and was released without charge. But after he was arrested for a similar, more serious offence four years later, police resurrected the case.

In the meantime, he had realised he would have to be more careful about witnesses and had changed to attacking women indoors.

In 2013, having become a painter and decorator, he was introduced to a 32-year-old woman by a mutual friend in a pub.

She rebuffed his advances.

When they went back to her house with a group, he tried to get into bed with her.

He was asked to leave, only to return when the woman was alone.

She used a knife to get him out of the house, only for him to come back again and she fled outside to hide.

On October 29, he tried to sexually attack a third woman in her bed as she slept, but was thrown out of her house at 1.30am. So he prowled the city centre streets looking for someone else to rape.

He followed a 21-year-old woman going home alone, grabbed her from behind, bundled her into his van, and drove her off to places where they could not been seen, in the Hungate development area and in a loading bay off James Street, and finally out of York towards Kirkham Priory.

Despite being terrified he would kill her, she managed to persuade him to take him back to York.

When he stopped at traffic lights, she jumped out and fled.

Her action in immediately contacting police led to his trial that proved his downfall.

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11193681.York_rapist_jailed_for_life_as_judge_brands_him__any_woman_s_worst_nightmare_/
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 07:27 pm
@izzythepush,
Well he might be a "pedophile" the rare rare rare kind that stopped over twenty years ago.

In any case we will never know if he is an innocent man or a guilty one given the time since he was supposed to had acted.

Still that is likely would be ok with you and firefly as better that a hundred innocent men are send to prison then one guilty pedophile escape

Bet using the same method you could convict almost any man who have contact with large numbers of women over decade such as doctors.
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 07:41 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
In any case we will never know if he is an innocent man or a guilty one given the time since he was supposed to had acted.

He was adjudicated, in a fair trial, and, under the law, HE IS GUILTY.

A long ago sexual assault/rape is still an assault/rape. The passage of time does not magically erase the crime.

Stop trying to make excuses for sexual abusers/rapists. The witnesses against this man were found to be credible, they were believed. This evidence against him led to his conviction. He has been found GUILTY.

https://larry5154.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/head-up-ass.jpg

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 08:14 pm
In today's news, yet another rapist found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman in her 90's.
Quote:
Update: Lincoln County Man Found Guilty Of Raping Elderly Woman

A Lincoln County jury on Tuesday found Kevin Higgins guilty of raping a 92-year old woman in June of last year, according to a report in The Interior Journal.

The jury recommended three life sentences, plus 20-years, according to the newspaper.

Higgins broke-in to a home on Star Avenue in Stanford and raped the woman, who suffered life-threatening injuries, according to the report.

Investigators said DNA evidence linked Higgins to the rape.

Higgins was accused of committing a burglary at another Star Avenue home after the rape, where the family found him asleep the next morning, according to the newspaper report.

Court records showed Higgins had been released from jail from an unrelated case just days before the rape.

The Interior Journal reported that Higgins was found guilty of the following charges:
•First-Degree Rape with Serious Physical Injury
•Two counts of First Degree Burglary
•Two counts of Theft
•Two counts of Being A Persistent Felony Offender
http://www.wtvq.com/content/localnews/story/Update-Lincoln-County-Man-Found-Guilty-Of-Raping/4uTFnyZLYEa2jA45mmKfew.cspx
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 08:44 pm
Another rapist who preyed on vulnerable women, hoping they'd keep their assaults secret or wouldn't be believed.
Quote:
Seattle lawyer pleads guilty to raping masseuses
By KOMO Staff
May 7, 2014

SEATTLE (AP) - A Seattle lawyer has pleaded guilty to reduced charges of raping masseuses in exchange for a 25-year sentence, avoiding a trial that could have earned him up to life in prison.

"Danford Grant carefully chose these women to be the victims of his violent rape ambitions," King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg said after the court hearing. "He counted on them being too afraid to call police."

Grant, a married father of three and formerly a partner in a Seattle law firm, admitted raping the five women in 2011 and 2012. He pleaded guilty Wednesday to third-degree rape, as opposed to original charges of first-degree rape. He also pleaded guilty to a burglary charge.

Grant's lawyer, Richard Hansen, noted that by pleading guilty to third-degree rape, Grant did not admit using force to coerce the women, but that he had sex with them without their consent.

The deal saves the victims from having to testify at his trial, Satterberg said.

"He knew that these women lived in the margins of a society where some did not speak English fluently, and where cultural shame surrounding sexual abuse is a powerful force mandating secret suffering," he said.

Grant believed many people would see the case as "commercial transactions gone awry," Satterberg added.

A business and employment lawyer, Grant previously worked in the Seattle City Attorney's Office. His sentencing is set for May 19.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Seattle-lawyer-pleads-guilty-to-rape-burglary-charges-258311641.html

Quote:
The plea deal, which enabled Grant to avoid an indeterminate sentence of up to life in prison, also ensured his five victims won’t have to testify about the details of their rapes, said King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, who called Grant a violent serial rapist.

“Frankly, they didn’t want to be in the same room with this guy again,” Satterberg said of the victims at a news conference in his office following Grant’s guilty plea. Noting that Grant is a white man of “power and privilege,” Satterberg said he preyed upon vulnerable women, some of whom live on the margins of society. By Grant pleading guilty to one rape charge per victim, it sent the message that the women — who didn’t know each other yet told strikingly similar accounts — were believed by the community, he said.

“We believe you. Even somebody who works in a massage parlor can be raped,” Satterberg said...


Satterberg said that while the defense has attempted to paint Grant’s crimes as “commercial transactions gone awry,” Grant’s conduct — “kicking in doors, and pulling knives on them” — was really about power and intimidation, not sex.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/05/attorney-pleas-guilty-to-5-reduced-charges-of-third-degree-rape/

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 09:05 pm
200,000 pounds each is one hell of a lot of reasons to come out of the woodwork.

Quote:
Max Clifford’s victims who are hoping to claim damages could find that £1million in his publicity firm’s bank account has vanished.

Figures released in 2012 showed Max Clifford Associates Ltd had £1,063,607 in cash in the bank and assets of £1,229,410.

But Clifford, 71, successfully applied to have the accounting period for the year to March 2013 extended until the end of September, meaning his latest books are not due until next month.

A respected accountant said last night: “There could be an innocent explanation or it could be that breathing space has been bought to take money out.”

Clifford’s firm is due to close after he was jailed on Friday for eight years for sex crimes.

His victims could claim up to £200,000 each.




http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/max-clifford-victims-hoping-claim-3496300#ixzz315cD3W76
| DailyMirror on Facebook
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 09:05 pm
200,000 pounds each is one hell of a lot of reasons to come out of the woodwork.

Quote:
Max Clifford’s victims who are hoping to claim damages could find that £1million in his publicity firm’s bank account has vanished.

Figures released in 2012 showed Max Clifford Associates Ltd had £1,063,607 in cash in the bank and assets of £1,229,410.

But Clifford, 71, successfully applied to have the accounting period for the year to March 2013 extended until the end of September, meaning his latest books are not due until next month.

A respected accountant said last night: “There could be an innocent explanation or it could be that breathing space has been bought to take money out.”

Clifford’s firm is due to close after he was jailed on Friday for eight years for sex crimes.

His victims could claim up to £200,000 each.




http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/max-clifford-victims-hoping-claim-3496300#ixzz315cD3W76
| DailyMirror on Facebook
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 09:20 pm
This is funny as all these "victims" could not even agree if the man had a huge or tiny penis.

Who can not say that the English do not have a sense of humor.

Quote:


http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/02/max-clifford-sex-politics-tabloids-simon-hattenstone


Then Horwell pulled out his trump card: Clifford's penis. He reeled off the contradictory evidence: it was tiny, two and a half inches erect, according to some; according to another complainant, it was huge. In fact, Horwell argued, it was average, at five and a quarter inches flaccid. This bombshell was introduced with a Cliffordian flourish: the PR man's perfectly ordinary penis had been measured by a medical expert called Dr Coxon.

There were other moments of manic humour. The witness who described Clifford's penis as huge rationalised her apparently contradictory evidence by pointing out that she had a small mouth: "My dentist always said so." At which point the jury had to be temporarily dismissed for giggling. There was the defence witness who constantly referred to him as Sir Max and believed he was the editor of the Daily Mail; when told he didn't have a knighthood, she said she was just being respectful. Clifford himself was sometimes deliberately funny (when talking about his education through Diana Dors sex parties), sometimes unwittingly so ("Why would I need to name-drop when I represented the Beatles?").

Max Clifford with David Mellor Sun cover
With a favourite tabloid scoop (and client files). He later admitted he'd fabricated the allegation about the Chelsea strip. Photograph: Michael Birt/Contour
The penis evidence was vital, Horwell argued, because it showed that the complainants had never seen it. Prosecution barrister Rosina Cottage counter-argued that size was in the eye of the beholder – and anyway, it wasn't the size of Clifford's penis that mattered, but what he did with it. This was courtroom drama at its finest: two contrasting QCs at the top of their game – the calm, meticulous Cottage stitching together disturbing patterns of behaviour; the waspish Horwell playing to the gallery. Cottage labelled Clifford a "master in the art of intimidation", who used his celebrity connections to "bully and manipulate" young women, treating his office as his "sexual fiefdom".

Horwell rubbished this. He said he'd hand his wig to any member of the jury who could make sense of one particular scenario, and rejected some allegations as "grubby voyeurism… fifth-rate fiction not even Mills & Boon would countenance". The reasons most of the women had given for not fighting back or going to the police at the time (they were scared, or shocked, or naive) were an insult to women the world over, he said: "Women are not stupid, were not stupid." Cottage's approach, he suggested, had been to "speculate like mad and hope the jury buy it".

This case was about more than the fall of one man. Bar
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 May, 2014 10:34 pm
Apparently, girls aren't safe from being raped even in their high schools. In addition to the 14 year old who was raped in her Texas high school by a fellow student, a 15 year old reported being raped in her Maryland high school this week.
Quote:
Parkside High Rape Suspect Out on Bail
May 7, 2014
By Bill Mich and Kye Parsons

SALISBURY, Md.- A 17-year-old student is out on bail after being arrested and charged with raping a 15-year-old female student in a hallway at Parkside High School in Salisbury.

Jocori Marece Scarborough, of Delmar, Md., is being charged as an adult with first- and second-degree rape, first- and second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, kidnapping, false imprisonment and molestation at a school.

Detectives with the Wicomico Bureau of Investigation said the incident happened at around 8 a.m. Monday at the school, located at 1015 Beaglin Park Drive. According to detectives, the victim stated she was walking with Scarborough when he began making sexual advances toward her. Detectives said video surveillance shows Scarborough grabbing the girl by the arm and then forcing her to an area of the school not captured by video surveillance. Investigators said the victim repeatedly told Scarborough, "No," but he continued to force her by holding her forcefully and grabbed her by the hips and dragged her down the hall.

Authorities said that once in the area outside the video surveillance, Scarborough pulled the victim’s skirt up and removed her underwear. Detectives said the victim continued to tell Scarborough "No," and tried to retain her clothing to prevent the act. However, Scarborough was able to control the victim and ultimately forced sexual intercourse on her, according to investigators.

"The initial travels were captured on video in the school. At this point, nothing indicating whether he did or did not know that he had moved to an area where he would not be captured by video," said Sgt. David Owens of the Wicomico Bureau of Investigations.

The incident occurred at a time when the students were supposed to be in class, the WBI noted. The victim was taken to Peninsula Regional Medical Center where she was examined and treated, investigators said.

After a warrant was issued for his arrest on the aforementioned charges, Scarborough was taken into custody Tuesday. He was released late Tuesday night on $100,000 bond. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for May 15 in Wicomico District Court in Salisbury.

A peace order was filed against Scarborough on Wednesday in Wicomico District Court. The temporary order states that Scarborough must stay away from the school. A final hearing on the order is scheduled for May 13...
http://www.wboc.com/story/25442167/teen-charged-with-raping-girl-at-parkside-high-school
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/08/2025 at 07:49:58