Pantagraph.com | News | Woman sues ex-boyfriend, pals over sex tape

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

I am giving up wrote on Apr 25, 2007 10:20 AM:

" The point was absolution of responsible choices because of intoxication, not that someone's actions aren't wrong. You can't say one person is incapable of making a choice becaue of being drunk and another person can. If you do, then one person's defense becomes another's excuse and that can't become the norm. Read the post, don't react to it. "

frustrated wrote on Apr 25, 2007 8:50 AM:

" Trying to let the truth be known is a waste of time. So what is the purpose of this blog? To protect the guilty? "

kiss and tell wrote on Apr 24, 2007 8:53 PM:

" Now that those guy's names have been made public I guess they can forget having any self respecting gal around for a long time! hahaha "

for "giving up" wrote on Apr 24, 2007 8:44 PM:

" uh.... there seems to be a difference if a drunk goes out to hurt someone like drunk driving, robbing a bank or writing a stupid comment in the blogs. A drunk person being assaulted (VICTIM) isn't putting the public in danger. people like you probably think it is okay to beat homeless drug addicted people with ball bats because they are intoxicated. "

to OK it's news and his ilk wrote on Apr 24, 2007 6:01 PM:

" Okay- if this story is news let's see the Pantagraph give as much space to every lawsuit that's filed in the county. The question remains, why did this story see the light of day? Obviously for its titillating effect. That is beneath a newspaper like the Pantagraph but certainly not for a tabloid. Maybe the Pantagraph should create a spin-off... "

haven't had enough, eh? wrote on Apr 24, 2007 5:56 PM:

" Isn't there enough CRAP (on tv, computers, everywhere) masquerading as "news" that you folks need MORE of it? The remarks here are, in the main, as sick as the characters described in the article. "

to Ken wrote on Apr 24, 2007 5:52 PM:

" It wasn't necessary to read anything more than the headline to know it was TABLOID STUFF "

LMAO wrote on Apr 24, 2007 5:44 PM:

" Hey I was drunk on my wedding night. Maybe I can sue my ex for rape because I was drunk and there fore unable to make coherant decisions. Hmmm come to think about it maybe that is why there are kids also. "

curious wrote on Apr 24, 2007 4:11 PM:

" Are Jesse jackson and Al Sharpton working as editors @ the Pantagraph? "

FYI wrote on Apr 24, 2007 2:16 PM:

" Those men are the victims...the charges were found untrue...shame on you for not posting my earlier, in-depth explanation. This paper just loves to ruin peoples lives, which is what happens when you print a large article proclaiming their arrests etc, but little or nothing when charges are dismissed, or as in this case, found not guilty. "

actually wrote on Apr 24, 2007 2:11 PM:

" Crime is defined as an action prohibited by law, or a failure to act as required by law "

To Why: wrote on Apr 24, 2007 1:50 PM:

" You are calling these men "Victims?" Did you read the last paragraph in today's article? All of those other charges have nothing to do with the original woman and one charge involves a CHILD! Victims? Of what? And please don't forget that losing awareness isn't always because something was self-administered. "

Let's see wrote on Apr 24, 2007 1:23 PM:

" the tape! "

Have to be guilty wrote on Apr 24, 2007 11:52 AM:

" Of course there was a crime committed, someone made a complaint. A crime is not that some did something wrong, a crime is a formal complaint against someone for doing an illegal activity (and it has to be on the books). You can make all the criminal complaints you want, thereby alleging a "crime" has been comitted. The complaint can come from anyone, police officer, D.A., crazy man on the street, but someone has to make the complaint. Technically speaking, if you murder someone, but no one ever makes a complaint (including the state), no crime has been comitted. Something illegal has happened, but no crime. "

wow wrote on Apr 24, 2007 11:36 AM:

" Who cares if she was intoxicated!!! Dont really care if she was doing a keg stand right before. "

Give up wrote on Apr 24, 2007 11:02 AM:

" I wonder if every bank robber, gang banger, or deviated ignoramous could claim that they were 'too drunk' and had no memory of what ocurred and be absolved of responsibility. How can they prosecute DUIs if someone drinks too much and someone else asked them to drive? They would be able to claim ignorance and inability to choose clearly. "

Aquitted means.. wrote on Apr 24, 2007 10:53 AM:

" there was not enough proof to convict someone, not that there was no crime committed. There was a crime here, the suspects were found not guilty...which is not the same as innocent. "

To I'm Still wrote on Apr 24, 2007 10:29 AM:

" ha ha ha, thanks, needed that "

to BN Republican wrote on Apr 24, 2007 10:28 AM:

" They were praying, just not to the same "god" or "daddy" as you are! :) "

Wow, to: judmental wrote on Apr 24, 2007 10:21 AM:

" How stupid. You make the choice to get so drunk you 'lose awareness' and then decide later that whatever you did wasn't your fault even though you can't remember it. That's just great! I need to call my lawyer! I never realized my own stupidity made ME a victim! "

I'm Still... wrote on Apr 24, 2007 10:11 AM:

" ...waiting for someone to say it was on the WEST SIDE of town. LOL!! "

BN Republican wrote on Apr 24, 2007 9:54 AM:

" There'd be no tape if these sinful people were down on their knees praying, like their Almighty wants! "

Why wrote on Apr 24, 2007 9:28 AM:

" "The Pantagraph has not disclosed the woman’s identity in either court case because she is the victim of an alleged sex crime." No she isn't!! The only two people charged in this case were acquitted. That means no crime occurred according to our system. By filing a civil claim for $$$$, this woman has exposed herself to public scrutiny and her name should be revealed. The real victims here are those people who were forced into criminal court and now acquitted. Their lives are forever affected by this woman's claims. Yet the Pantagraph continues to protect the accuser! That is a real injustice! "

To the Pantagraph wrote on Apr 24, 2007 9:14 AM:

" Somehow, you're not getting your story straight. .. maybe you need to read the court records a little more carefully before you put a "victim" through Hell AGAIN! "

Ken wrote on Apr 24, 2007 8:28 AM:

" To (TABLOID STUFF) It sounds like you don't like the way the (PANTAGRAPH) tells the news. I think they do a fine job. Could it be your up set with the fact that you didn't get to see the(VIDEOTAPE)? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? "

Waffle of Justice wrote on Apr 24, 2007 8:04 AM:

" Welcome to America, land of the lawsuit. "

To Question: wrote on Apr 24, 2007 7:57 AM:

" Jeez are we supposed to be prepared for to protect ourselves from the unthinkable? While we're sleeping? It sounds like you're blaming the victim! "

judgmental wrote on Apr 24, 2007 7:50 AM:

" If a person is intoxicated, that person has less awareness. How many times have you bloggers been in a situation where you have had too much to drink. You would think you'd be safe with your boyfriend. Unfortunately this case was mishandled in criminal court by lack of preparation and the victim now suffers "

no name wrote on Apr 24, 2007 7:43 AM:

" eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww "

Ken wrote on Apr 24, 2007 7:35 AM:

" To (tabloid stuff) It sounds like you really have something against the (Pantagraph) I myself think they do a fine job of giving us the (NEWS) what I can't understand is why you bother to read it. (MAYBE YOU WANTED TO SEE THE VIDEOTAPE)????????? "

LetsSee wrote on Apr 24, 2007 6:08 AM:

" Well, perhaps the Pantagraph ought to File a "Freedom of Information" request, get the video and play it for all to see. Then, we could objectively decide if the woman has a case. Purely scientific & detective reasons only, of course. "

Question................... wrote on Apr 23, 2007 10:48 PM:

" How could you NOT be aware that another person had switched places with your boyfriend? I mean - wouldn't a woman kind of KNOW that? I'm not saying anything against this woman and I think it's a terrible thing to have happened, but I just don't understand. I've been married more than once and I'll guarantee you, I would definitely know if one hubby switched places with the other hubby. "

to: News it is.... wrote on Apr 23, 2007 10:31 PM:

" who is your comment directed to? "

News it is wrote on Apr 23, 2007 9:31 PM:

" If you don't want people to see your dirty laundry don't make a video tape while your washing it. "

If it's wrote on Apr 23, 2007 8:53 PM:

" in the court records then it is "

oh, it's news wrote on Apr 23, 2007 7:47 PM:

" How is it NOT news? It's an ongoing lawsuit in a public court in Bloomington about a sex crime that may or may not have happened. It's not like some Pantagraph dude was hanging around their house waiting for a story to happen. "

tabloid stuff wrote on Apr 23, 2007 6:45 PM:

" Come on, Pantagraph- is this really news? "

Ads by Yahoo!

Online Degrees

Weekly New Car Bargains

See Today's Mortgage Rates