The only problem with this smug response is that the dropping of these charges means no more than the prosecution doesn't believe it can convince a jury of the rape charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Just because you can't prove to a jury that a particular crime was committed by the defendants doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed. Will all those who shouted, "Innocent until proven guilty" give this alleged victim the same protections and assumptions of innocence as they still demand for the Duke lacrosse players?
From The Smoking Gun's copy of the document filed in court:
In an interview with DA Investagor [...] on December 21, 2006, the victim in this case indicated that, while she initially believed that she had been vaginally penetrated by a male sex organ (penis), she can not at this time testify with certainty that a penis was the body part that penetrated her vagina. Since penetration of the vagina by a penis is one of the elements of this offense that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and since there is no scientific or other evidence independent of the victim's testimony that would corroborate specifically penetration by a penis, the State is unable to meet its burden of proof with respect to this offense.As this story is being related, the information provided here has already been distorted into a recantation by some people.
Technorati tags: rape crime politics sexual violence sexual assault feminism