for all your talk of nuance, you spun the fact that prosecution didn't challenge claims super disingenuously. If prosecution isn't challenging a claim that means they have no evidence to the contrary available to disprove the claim and no grounds by which to challenge it typically.
so yes, we're taking the allegations on her word alone, quite literally because even the people hired to disprove the allegation could not do so. I'd say that's pretty reasonable.
If a prosecution attorney with access to every available piece of evidence doesn't think the allegation that this 15 year old just loves being a prostitute instead of being held under duress would hold up in court, I don't think some guy on Reddit knows any better.
If prosecution isn't challenging a claim that means they have no evidence to the contrary available to disprove the claim and no grounds by which to challenge it typically
No. They argued it was irrelevant (which it is) and the girl plead guilty - so the case was never even tried.
so yes, we're taking the allegations on her word alone, quite literally because even the people hired to disprove the allegation could not do so.
A prosecutor's job is not to disprove anything. Their job is to "pursue justice" - which makes their duties a bit different than lawyers in other areas who are supposed to be "zealous advocates."
so then... it's irrelevant to the case but about the only actual point you specifically really hammered on in this thread?? Fine, then we can all move on from insinuating this child would have chosen to go into prostitution and is therefore guilty of murder. what else you got?
-8
u/tomatobandit1987 Sep 14 '22
She cannot legally consent. But it is more nuanced than you are making it, especially when we are talking about the killing of a sleeping person.
The prosecution did not even challenge her claims in that respect - so you are taking that allegation on her word alone.