Thread by @brendatracy24

Since my TL is FULL of ppl calling me a racist cunt & a stupid bitch over this article from @BSO. Let’s look at everything he claims “proves” the victim is a liar and that she ruined Shawn Oakmans life with a false accusation.

Let’s start w the link to the original article and I will break each part of it down in this thread blacksportsonline.com/2019/02/ex-bay…

I agree, physical evidence is important & the victim got a rape kit done which is an invasive forensic exam given by a trained professional. Documented injuries - vaginal tears, abrasions, bleeding, bruising - and BOTH sides agreed the injuries were “significant” & “concerning”

The prosecution said the injuries were indicative of assault & the defense said they were not. That’s a predictable outcome when each side calls their own experts. Nothing surprising there, but for @bso to say “most of the physical evidence” was on his side? Absolutely untrue.

And here’s where we get to the breakdown (according to the article) of the “evidence that led to his acquittal”

This is more of a statement, but the victim had documented redness on her left arm that was witnessed by police. She says she was drunk, there were witnesses that testified she wasn’t. She said once in the room she felt like she couldn’t leave.

In court she states they had a prior sexual relationship. If she previously stated that they didn’t - ok. Previous consensual sex DOES NOT mean rape can’t happen during another encounter. Previous consensual sex is NOT consent. Consent on Friday isn’t consent on Saturday.

Many rape victims are forced to perform oral sex. If she was drunk or passed out he could have placed his penis in her mouth. This is NOT proof of consensual sex.

As far as proving she lied, this is a “he said she said” example. She says he was there. He says he wasn’t. He could be covering for his friend. She could be drunk & confused. Either way - him on the couch doesn’t determine a lie was told or rape or consensual sex happened.

Comments about having sex & conversations prior to sex are NOT consent. I can intend to have & talk about sex with someone and then change my mind. Consent is ongoing & affirmative and it can be revoked at any time. I can even start having sex w someone & ask them to stop.

Inviting someone to the bar doesn’t mean you’ve consented to sex and they can do whatever they want to your body. Why did she delete texts? Idk. Maybe bc ppl don’t understand consent & they’d say “you invited him to the bar, that means you were asking for it”

She can be around him, hang on him, go home with him, smile, smirk, flirt, but in no way does that mean she HAS to have sex with him. Flirting is NOT consent.

Agreed. The amount of false accusations are low. Research puts them at 2-8% and that number includes unfounded cases which are “he said, she said” cases. It’s more likely that up to 98% of cases are true.

“The accuser will never do time” nor should she based on the evidence provided in this article & at trial. The woman reported a crime & the state decided there was enough evidence to bring charges & go to trial. If you have an issue, bring it up w the DA.

As we all know, he was found not guilty, but NEVER in any circumstance of any crime does a not guilty verdict mean a crime was not committed or the crime victim lied. It means the state didn’t meet their burden of proof.

This is NOT a false accusation case.

And to conclude, here’s a great article about conviction rates for rape. It’s less than 1%. And ftr, I’m not planning to engage in this thread with trolls so save your energy. Thx 😊google.com/amp/s/www.wash…