Insufficient Evidence to Prove a Negative

by matttbastard

Via Polly Jones, the ultimate judicial Catch-22–drunk teen rape “sex” not a crime: Justice Peter McIntyre claims victim was too drunk to prove she didn’t consent:

Having sex with a drunken 14-year-old he had plied with alcohol was not a criminal offence by former Calgary man, a judge ruled yesterday.

Justice Peter McIntyre said there was insufficient evidence the girl didn’t consent to having sex with Trevor Byron Niebergall.

But McIntyre did find Niebergall guilty of sexual assault for placing his genitals on the girl’s face after she passed out — an act the offender captured on his cellphone camera and showed to co-workers.

McIntyre said the fact the teenage complainant didn’t remember her sexual encounter with Niebergall at a December 2005 New Year’s Eve party did not mean she hadn’t consented.

He noted one witness said she appeared to have the capacity to consent when she and Niebergall went to a washroom in his brother’s apartment, where they had sex. And the Queen’s Bench judge said the girl willingly consumed large amounts of alcohol supplied by Niebergall even after he made lewd sexual comments.


“The accused’s lewd comments towards her did not compel her to leave,” the judge said. “The complainant was not forced to consume alcohol — she drank … beer willingly and then switched to alcohol. It is not at all clear why she drank so heavily.”


McIntyre said because the girl drank so heavily and had little recollection of events at the party, he could not accept her claim she didn’t agree to have sex.

“Her evidence was not reliable after she started drinking,” he said

I have much more to say about this at Shakesville.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

7 thoughts on “Insufficient Evidence to Prove a Negative

  1. Sweet dancing Jesus, is this judge for real? Because she was drunk, he rules that her evidence is “not reliable”.

    What if she’d been sober but dressed like a slut … at least in his beady little eyes. Would her poor choice of outfits also render her evidence “unreliable”?

    I need a fucking drink.


  2. Oh Jesus on his pogo stick got hit by a truck and plastered to a cracker, this is just as idiotic. So the young woman drinks and can thus be assumed to have consented to have sex, while the asshat who was convicted of the sexual assault that could be proven because of his camera is assumed to have asked politely if he could please rape her. Well, she was drunk. Of COURSE, she would say “yes”. Oh love a drunken duck they’ve got to appeal this one.


  3. Stupid shithead! And what about supplying alcohol to a minor or luring? This just encourages others to come forward, doesn’t it?


  4. great so now if you have too much to drink you cannot be raped. It seems that daily there is some new justification that allows men to sexually assault women. You didn’t mention what province this occurred in. Was it Alberta by any chance?

    Things like this are becoming more and more common and yet there are women who beleive that feminism is useless. Pay close attention colluders this could be you and without an engaged feminist moment attempting to fight rulings like this things will escalate.


  5. I agree Renee. The fact that she was drinking is no freaking reason to dismiss this sexual assault. Nor is it a question of her age as many so-cons keep crowing about (in that “well before Harper, it was legal to have sex with 14 years old” line of delusional reasoning). Rape is not the same as consensual sex and it’s up to the prosecution to prove that she agreed to it period.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s