OK, read the article. Riddle me this? How is it that Mr. Simon is unable to penetrate her vagina but had no problem with her anus? 99.9% of the time, it's the other way around unless she's a porn star. I call bullcrap.

OK, read the article. Riddle me this? How is it that Mr. Simon is unable to penetrate her vagina but had no problem with her anus? 99.9% of the time, it's the other way around unless she's a porn star. I call bullcrap.

 

I believe that's what spindoc was alluding to earlier....

Correct

I believe that's what spindoc was alluding to earlier....

 

Sorry. I never pay attention to that guy. :sssh:

Could be she just hates pasta sauce. Possible ....

Seriously, I'm surprised that we don't here of these things almost daily. Women know these men are wealthy and looking to cash in. Plus, many of these athletes are not exactly alter boys and are not beyond doing these kinds of things. I suspect it happens a lot and plenty of hush money is doled out to keep it quiet. Sounds like the Big Pasta may have a naughty noodle..

Edited April 25, 201412 yr by Science Friction

I am with everyone on the type of entry but I am sure they are going to claim it was the orientation of her body (on her stomach) that made it easier. Still, I have a very hard time believing that. It would have made much more sense to flip her over and go with his first choice.

 

The Jane Doe part is bull too because if her name was everywhere we just might find out this isn't her first rodeo. I don't necessarily mean with rape, but with anything that could call her integrity into question. And that is VERY important because this is classic he said - she said.

 

Furthermore, we need to know why prosecution was declined. The common joke is the grand jury can indict a ham sandwich only not Simon!?

 

I guess the private negotiations didn't involve enough money so here we are in court. If I was Simon, no way in the world would I give her a penny now, she has to go all the way.

I am with everyone on the type of entry but I am sure they are going to claim it was the orientation of her body (on her stomach) that made it easier. Still, I have a very hard time believing that. It would have made much more sense to flip her over and go with his first choice.

 

The Jane Doe part is bull too because if her name was everywhere we just might find out this isn't her first rodeo. I don't necessarily mean with rape, but with anything that could call her integrity into question. And that is VERY important because this is classic he said - she said.

 

Furthermore, we need to know why prosecution was declined. The common joke is the grand jury can indict a ham sandwich only not Simon!?

 

I guess the private negotiations didn't involve enough money so here we are in court. If I was Simon, no way in the world would I give her a penny now, she has to go all the way.

 

Is there a statute of limitations on rape?

Is there a statute of limitations on rape?

 

Not in Kentucky. Don't know about Ohio.

 

The Jane Doe part is bull too because if her name was everywhere we just might find out this isn't her first rodeo. I don't necessarily mean with rape, but with anything that could call her integrity into question. And that is VERY important because this is classic he said - she said.

 

That is Simon's attorney(s) job, not the general public's.

Everytime he throws that backdoor slider now, I will sadly be reminded of this story! Hope Chef Boy Alfredo keeps his noodle in his trousers and his bullets in his gun and keeps throwing quality innings.

Not in Kentucky. Don't know about Ohio.

 

I have a question, what is needed in a civil trial to get a judgement against if the burden of evidence isn't as stringent as a criminal case? Is it basically dependent upon testimony and jury deliberation? Help us lowly non-legal types out.

That is Simon's attorney(s) job, not the general public's.

 

You and I know both know the Jane Doe status gives her a huge advantage. It is not even close to fair.

But it's cool to name and criticize Simon?

 

I'm not saying that either. My guess is this was consensual but if it wasn't he's a sick criminal. If it was consensual which we'll probably never know she should be prosecuted. I will say I don't know too many women that are open to back door stuff like that with their significant other or spouse let alone one night stands.

I have a question, what is needed in a civil trial to get a judgement against if the burden of evidence isn't as stringent as a criminal case? Is it basically dependent upon testimony and jury deliberation? Help us lowly non-legal types out.

 

In a criminal case, in which the state is the part alleging wrongdoing instead of a plaintiff, you're held to that famous standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", which means that if common sense allows for a real doubt of the allegations made against a defendant based on the evidence presented, then a jury ought not to convict. It's not the same as there being no doubt at all, but it's still a pretty high standard.

 

In a civil case, on the other hand, usually all that is needed for a plaintiff to win is to demonstrate her case by a "preponderance of the evidence" which simply means that she has to get a jury to accept the proposition that what she's claiming is more likely to have happened than not to have happened.

 

It was filed in DC so I don't know the exact nature of the allegations but I can probably guess. Basic tort stuff like a battery based on the unwanted contact and infliction of emotional distress. There's probably also a specialized statute regarding a civil right of action based on a sexual assault, but I don't know for sure.

 

What this woman needs to present to the court in order to win is that it is more than 50 percent likely events occurred in the manner she alleges than that they didn't.