The defense is claiming that his client will be denied his "constitutional right to confront his accuser" is she doesn't view the tape.

How?

She went to court; she answered questions. Why should she view something that will harm her even further?

If they weren't little spoiled rich white boys from the suburbs, this case would be over by now.

Give me a baseball bat, some wire and a pair of pliers. I'll save the justice system some time and money.    

I don't see why she'd have to watch it.

If she says that she was unconscious during the incident, then the video shows her talking lucidly, then the video itself would be enough to undermine her testimony.

That's the law. If your credibility is put into serious question, then the jury (or the judge) should treat EVERYTHING you say as not credible.

If someone could say that the only way to present the video to the jury would be for her to watch it, too, I could accept that. Not like it. But accept it.

But unless that's the case, she shouldn't have to watch it. That's needlessly cruel.    

this sounds terrible to me.    

I don't know what kind of friends you have, Mongo, but mine don't rape me, piss on me and write horrible things in marker on my naked, unconscious body.

This girl was taken to the hospital following this "party." Doctors and such ruled the damage to her body to be rape.

Do you think rape leaves a woman's genitals lightly moistened and happy looking like consensual sex? What do you think rape is?    

rape vs. sex with 5 men is usually pretty easy to tell.
The vagina is a muscle and if a woman doesn't want something going in there she can make it physically difficult for that thing to enter. Once that reaction happens scarring and brusing appears because the attacker has to force themselves.

I'm really trying to see where you are coming from mongo and I know you are well intentioned, but its a tough case to make that a woman would actively participate in 5 men forceably penetrating her and writing insults on her body.

The same case happened in california and one of the boys involved is the son of the town's chief of police. They tried to make the case that she was acting unconscious as a part of the "movie".    

I think the reason no one here was doing that is because it wasn't (for me anyway) about guilt or innocence, it's about whether or not the victim should have to watch the tape in court.    

I have three kids. Two out of the three are girls.
If someone did to either of my daughters,what was done to that girl...
Im turning family tree's into
stumps-
ENTIRE BLOODLINES.
YOU SAVE THAT PUNK WITH THE BIG SMILE FOR LAST-
THAT'S THE ONE YOU TAKE YOUR TIME ON...NO RUSH.....
AND WHEN YOU WRITE NASTY WORDS
ON HIS BODY,
YOU USE WHAT ANY SELF RESPECTING
PLUMBER WOULD USE...YOUR TORCH-    

I never said that you felt that way. You made the point that you were discussing the facts of the case and the possibility of their innocence and I was simply stating why I thought that hadn't come up.    

You're right, I was responding to the "friends" suggestion.

Normally, I wouldn't jump to conclusions, but there is a videotape, there was some very violent acts performed on an unconscious teenager, and this moron has managed to escape punishment for years due to wealth and privilege.

I'm sorry if I gave the mistaken impression I thought Mongo was pro-rapist or allowed his friends to pee on him.

I just think rape is still a very misunderstood crime.    

I guess what I meant to say, in a less critical tone, is that this crime seems much more about rage than lust, from the evidence we have seen.

And Mr. Pipewrench, I will be happy to join your angry mob. Just give me a call and I'll be there.    

Jesus. I leave for a while to go to a wake and everybody gets all mopey.

Miss Knit said it best. Can we all agree on that?

The point that I will pound into my boys' heads is:

"No means no."
"You are responsible for your actions."
and
"You are responsible for the actions of the people you're with."    

I want pie.