According to a police report obtained by the Stanford Daily, former Stanford freshman Brock Turner admitted that he had “sexual contact” with an alleged victim, but denies that it was rape.
Turner was arrested last week on allegations of raping an unconscious girl early in the morning of January 18th, when a pair of graduate students at Stanford University claim to have seen him “on top of” a young woman at 12:55 A.M. on a campus street.
When police arrived, the girl was unconscious. Turner admitted to having sexual contact with her, but says that he did not rape her.
Turner says that “his ‘intentions were not to try and rape a girl without her consent’,” the police report reads, going into graphic description of what Turner alleges happened. Turner claims to have had seven cans of beer and “a couple of sips of whisky,” and he says that he was intoxicated but could still remember everything that happened.
Turner has been charged with 5 felony counts, and is scheduled to be arraigned on Monday.
The alleged victim, later in the day after Turner’s arrest, agreed to the prosecution of the Turner and underwent a SART examination. The alleged victim does not claim to have the same memory of the events of the alleged rape as Turner does.
Editors note: SART stands for Sexual Assault Response Team, and involves providing sensitive medical care and evidence collection after a rape allegation. Read more about SART examinations here.
More details about both Turner and the alleged victim’s descriptions of the night can be read at The Stanford Daily. Warning: there are graphic descriptions.
What has NOT been discussed here and I suspect will be a very big part of the defense process is the actual time frame of events and how certain actions on the part of the alleged victim, specifically her ability to make two phone calls minutes before the alleged attack, could have possibly given the impression that even though she was drunk, she was still able to function at a reasonable level and thus the consensual nature of the incident was not called into question by the alleged perpetrator.
The Stanford Daily reports that the alleged victim made two cell phone calls approximately 20 minutes before the alleged attack. She was in enough of a state of mind to operate… Read more »
I would like to know if I can up arrow STRKSWIM’s 3 more times. But, beware – you WILL be attacked for being insensitive, an obvious idiot, or some other demeaning thing – all because you had the audacity to focus on facts (as opposed to speculating as to what happened).
The smoking gun will be those phone calls. Once the parties that received those calls are deposed and questioned I suspect a very different story will come to light other than what was reported from the two cyclists who arrived at the tail end of a very long and deeply regrettable evening.
Yeah man I’m sure the recipients of those 7 and 33 second phone calls will be able to claim with certainty that the girl was sotally tober.
It is NOT an issue of time. If the CONTENT of those calls confirm that she was willingly entering into a physical encounter with the alleged attacker then claims of memory loss/no consent hold no weight.If the content of the calls confirm her intent then the impression of consent on the part of the alleged attacker is validated.
More speculation: If she was given rohypnol (aka date rape drug) then it is completely reasonable to suppose that she could have been coherent at one moment, then lost consciousness very quickly afterwards.
I was struck by the fact that the report would seem to suggest rohypnol-poisoning (she remained unconscious for hours after the attack), but there has been no official mention of it in the charges. Would HIPPA (health information privacy) laws ensure that this was not public knowledge?
The police report contains no mention of the suspect giving her any drinks. She admits to drinking at home before the party and then having some vodka at the party. No one has accused the alleged attacker of giving her anything to drink, thus they have no reason to charge him with roofying her. I agree that rohypnol might account for her seeming ability to function and then suddenly pass out cold.
The way frat boys love to dump rohypnol in to women’s drinks at such parties doesn’t mean the perp had to be the one to dose her! I do wonder why I’ve found no mention of her blood being tested…anyone else know?
Some of you don’t seem to understand that even if she said “I want to have sex,” that doesn’t matter if she was black out.
For sensitive personal articles like this, I believe Swimswam should consider disabling the comments section.
Even well-intentioned comments can be inappropriate/unwelcome by the parties involved and assault survivors generally.
I agree. Stifle all discussion of any topic that someone objects to. In fact, someone should stop me from typing this response because I suspect that Floppy will not like it. However, on the off chance that I am able to successfully complete this comment, perhaps Floppy could indicate to me exactly how he/she proposes that we successfully build bubbles around everyone so that they never have to experience a moment of discomfort in their lives. P.S. I suspect that the “parties involved” are not likely interested in this string of comments and probably not surfing the internet to search out such discussions at this time.
I’m really shocked and upset to see multiple commenters who seem to think that if you are having a consensual encounter and the woman becomes UNCONSCIOUS, you have free license to do whatever you want with her lifeless body -or that it’s a “grey area.” How about if you’re with a person who becomes suddenly unconscious for any reason, you call 911? If you were at dinner with someone and they became unconscious, would you shrug and order dessert?
EST – Would be curious to know to which posters do you refer when you allege that “multiple commenters” have argued in favor of a woman’s slipping into unconsciousness presenting a “free license to do whatever you want with her lifeless body”? Perhaps if you stepped away from the Overly Dramatic precipice it might help. Do you find that people frequently accuse you of mischaracterizing what they’ve said?
Well, Sean and Harris seem to think that if she was all for it before she passed out cold, there is no problem continuing after she is unconscious.
That is not what I typed, nor what I “seem to think.”
If a man continues a sexual act knowing that the woman has passed out, that is indeed disgusting and should be classified as rape. But Hank’s original point was of legal gray areas, not moral ones. I should have asked more succinctly — will lawyers be able to challenge in any way the timing of her state of unconsciousness, or is that completely immaterial?
That may not be what you meant, and I understand that people sometimes misspeak, especially in areas they aren’t used to discussing, but your comment up thread makes no mention of the conscious person stopping as soon as they realize their partner is unconscious. The hypothetical you gave is that she consented, passed out, and then can’t remember.
EST – That isn’t what Sean said, either. He said absolutely nothing about “continuing” after she loses consciousness, let alone saying nothing about your characterization that he (?) advocated for “free license to do whatever you want” at that point. Words mean things and when you mischaracterize or misrepresent what someone has said, you undercut the strength of your argument.
EST appears to bear a slight chip on the shoulders.
Maybe she was into it before passing out, people drink way to much they pass out.
I could easily see a woman wanting to be sexually involved with a swimmer and hooking up at a party, we need all the facts before judging. I’ve been dragged out to some random ass places by drunk women wanting to do all kinds of boozed fuelled sexual madness.
But agree if he’s guilty then he’s a piece of ____ and should be judged accordingly. In that dept I’m Old Testament.
Chris, no, I don’t have much faith in the justice system really. It errs towards leniency most of the time. Look at the OJ Simpson murder trial. The burden of proof is extraordinarily high in criminal cases. I do think this will be a difficult case to prosecute successfully. I disagree with you on point #1. If he has a clean sheet, it will leave doubt with a jury as to his motives or intent to commit a crime, as opposed to if he had a history of sexual assault or rape. Re: Point #2- The defense will go after the defendant’s character, as well as the fact that she was making phone calls and just minutes later unconscious- at… Read more »
I am not an attorney, but a quick search shows that California trial conviction is by unanimous vote. One person in twelve decides a reasonable doubt, and the DA strikes out with no second at bat because of double jeopardy. Hank’s comments are being interpreted as some sort of advocacy of Turner’s defense, which is misleading. If the DA here has, let’s say a public relations skin in the game to really hammer down on a preppy Stanford boy, Hank makes a reasonable argument that the case is in peril because he may not have SART or other evidence hard enough to convict on. My family experienced something once where our son was physically mistreated at a private day care… Read more »
Not exactly. What you’re describing – one juror wants to acquit, 11 to convict – doesn’t result in an acquittal, it results in a mistrial for a hung jury. The defendant can be retried. The unanimity must go both ways – all vote to convict or all vote to acquit. But, yes, almost everyone takes a plea deal.
Thank you for the clarity on what the jury votes mean in California. Frankly, not everyone takes a plea deal. If a defendant is lawyered up — and is not some indigent making feared reliances on a public attorney — there is a lot of moxie to dare a DA to go or no go. In those instances the DA will often nolle prosequi a case, meaning the charges are dropped but could be later refiled, and hope the overhang of potential prosecution compels some cooperation by the defense attorney, who is at this point laughing. In truth it is very very expensive to take cases to trial and very very risky for the DA to lose on that public… Read more »
Hank-
1. Having a “clean record” does very little to “help” someone charged with a violent crime.
2. “If the victim can’t remember anything it weakens her credibility to testify as her own witness”
False. If she can’t remember anything that does not denounce her credibility. It could further bolster the argument she was too intoxicated to consent.
3. You don’t think he would do any hard time? Really? He’s charged with committing a violent crime and you think if he’s found guilty he’d get probation? Have you zero faith in the justice system?
Its a legal grey area not a moral one. The circumstances will impact sentencing even what charges the DA decides to press and what sentencing they pursue if ddfendant is found guilty on the charges. Many times they drop some of the charges of the case is weak or not a slam dunk. That is why many criminals are out on the streets instead of behind bars. Overcrowded prisons and State govt in the red don’t help. First time offender with a clean record is only going to help him here. If the victim can’t remember anything it weakens her credibility to testify as her own witness now they are dependant on other witness testimony, which seems to exist here.… Read more »