OFF-LABEL USE OF iPHONES. I'm glad the rape charges were dropped. However this whole thing is confusing to me.
For example, what about HER iphone? If she had really planned to falsely accuse him of rape--why not just text to someone "he raped me!" or "I was attacked today!" All the article talks about is his iphone and all his deleted messages.
Okay well lets suppose she just didn't think of it...And the article says 'the charges against the man were dropped after some of her messages on his iphone appeared not to support it' (I'm paraphrasing here) To me, speaking objectively this seems very weak proof. I mean--is that all they needed? I realize they would be noting the exact time and day of the texts to him. So she texted after "I had a great time!" Yes--it looks incredibly suspicious. But what if he had threatened her, what if he had demanded she text him that exact message?
Because if this is the way it's going to go then you could have a guy who really really did rape someone on such-and-such a day. Say for example 11 pm on a Monday, that's when it actually happened. Does all he has to do is make sure to text his wife saying "hi hun am at Walmart northside b home soon" a half-hour before, half-hour after? Or if he was worried about location tracking he would be more careful and text that he's at that local McDonalds a block away. I suppose he wouldn't be able to make the times and store receipts gel completly---But still that will help to create a picture that he's innocent and was at a retail location?
And on top of that lets be real here. The reality is that any woman could suffer through an actual rape and lets throw the iphone in again. She could really text someone in panic, saying a guy just attacked her and please please what to do, please come pick her up. Or she actually calls 911. At at the end of the day she goes through the court system and the guy still gets off.
I have to admit I read this article several times and I hate it. It is theatrical and shoddy journalism where laziness takes a front seat over clarity. A well-known man was accused of rape by an 18-year old. In the end the charges were dropped. And false rape charges DO happen, so what's my problem?
1. A German Shepard worth twenty thousand dollars?? And he gifts it to her? This dog may have won at Crufts three times over, with a host of Best In Show ribbons up to his neck, be a male in prime breeding condition and from a famous kennel to boot---if so I can't see any responsible person just handing it over to some 18-year old. Not that there's anything wrong with being 18, but the dog is probably on an intense schedule with a lot of money to be made from breeder's fees. And most especially as it will show up publicly on records somewhere of ownership transfer and name of owner. The dog show circuit is a public one with media coverage of the major shows. I thought this man wanted to keep the relationship hidden?
2. The Catholic church fired this man from his church position and added that his presense in church was no longer welcome? I find this a little hard to swallow. MAYBE they would if the courts in the end had found him guilty.
But this? with their defense of the bad preists and everything else in the media? Meaning no disrespect but why would they be so harsh with this well-known respected realtor?
Maybe I'm just muddying the waters...I don't know.
