On a Penn State forum someone felt the need to write the following about Running Back Austin Scott's alleged rape victim:
Seems this is the second such accusation in 4 years....do with this information what you wish.
This information is meaningless as credible evidence in this case, but it is meaningful as character assassination. Because it is phrased as "information" whoever wrote this would likely claim that it is not intended as a premeditated attack meant to imply criminality on the part of the alleged rape victim.
That person would be a liar.
The situation of raping someone after they've been drinking is a common one that usually results in the rape victim being denied justice. If reporting rape and being denied justice means no later rapist will be convicted of rape, that is a result that has rapists everywhere cheering.
Scott's attorney, John P. Karoly Jr. of South Whitehall, said today the earlier case shows the woman is "pathological" and has a history of falsely accusing men of rape.
Mr. Karoly knows full well that the earlier case shows no such thing. He knows that an acquittal is not proof of a false report of rape. Yet someone who likely repeats "innocent until proven guilty" to shield his client has no qualms about violating this principle against someone never charged with any crime.
Defense by hook or by crook.
Talk about not being credible. Yet many people will accept his statement as fact or at least accept it as reasonable doubt. Most of these people accept this defense attorney's statements because he is reinforcing their bigotry.
The reality is that only if this woman had been convicted of filing a false rape report would it be credible evidence. If that were the case, that fact would be stated clearly.
A pattern of the same person reporting 2 separate rapes under similar conditions speaks more to our pathology as a society than it speaks to anything meaningful about the honesty of the alleged victim.
Update (10/22): The judge issued a gag order that bans prosecutors, the defense and the alleged victim from talking to the news media. Considering this defense attorney's tactics, this was a necessary move.
EvidenceProf blog talks about the likelihood for admissibility of details from that previous case.