butters
High on a Hill
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2009
- Posts
- 86,038
i might be wrong, but i think i read the reason he didn't get convicted of rape was the fact Carroll was unsure whether it was his finger/s or his dick that he penetrated her with and where he was being tried it has to be agreed that penile penetration occurred: in a lot of other states rape is counted in both instances, and some also include non-con penetration with an objectJust a minor legal point - he was convicted of sexual abuse and for defamation later. What he did was rape - somehow the law has some grey shades to how much the woman resisted. Otherwise, you got this right.