Jury believes husband in sex-slave lawsuit

[GrammarNazi82]

Wow....

A federal jury today sided with the ex-husband of a woman who had filed a lawsuit claiming he turned her into a sex slave.

Her attorneys had claimed wealthy Wisconsin businessman Kenneth Anderson manipulated his vulnerable wife for years, building her up and tearing her down until she was so emotionally scarred he was able to inflict his sick sexual fantasies on her at his whim.

Anderson’s attorneys, meanwhile, painted a picture of Kimberly O’Brien as an unstable “gold digger” who initiated the kinky sex herself and schemed to take her husband’s money.

A jury of four men and four women began deliberations this afternoon in the unusual federal trial, which seems taken from the pages of the best-selling novel "Fifty Shades of Grey," before finding for Anderson.

O'Brien's lawsuit alleged sexual assault, battery, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress and accused Anderson of forcing her to parade around their homes naked and in heels, sleep on the floor next to their bed at night and address him as "master."

The sexual assault allegedly occurred in 2005 while they were on their California honeymoon. According to the lawsuit, Anderson stunned O'Brien with a blow to the head, tied her up, sexually assaulted her, took photographs — which were shown during the nine-day trial — and left her bound overnight. The suit also alleges Anderson forced her to abort their child before he would agree to marry her.

.....In his closing argument, Anderson’s attorney, Charles Cole, said the case was nothing more than a toxic relationship gone wrong. He said that if O’Brien thought she was being abused, she had every opportunity to get away from her husband or go to the authorities, especially when he was out of town or she was staying at her lakefront condo in Chicago.

“This is not a vulnerable woman under anyone’s control, locked up in some dungeon,” Cole said. “This story just doesn’t hold water.”

Full story.

 

[Farooq]

Sounds like the kind of stuff I read in hentai mangas.

 

[Laura]

Wow. So the guy abuses his wife and somehow it's her fault. Misogyny at it's finest.

 

[GrammarNazi82]

Wow. So the guy abuses his wife and somehow it's her fault. Misogyny at it's finest.

If it's true that she initiated the "kinky sexual acts," that she aborted their baby behind his back and that she set it up to be his abusive doing in a case to try to get money from him, as a jury found to be the case, then yes it's her fault.

 

[Aids Johnson]

WISCONSINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

I live in a fucked up state, this shit isnt irregular. DUde has money, she married him without generating income (painted as gold digger) and therefor had every opportunity to leave the dude she planned on spending her life with. $$$ = not guilty. shameful.

 

[CrayJ Lee]

Regardless of the state, I think this happens a lot more than we like to acknowledge. Despite the woman being victimized, some men get away with their crimes despite the conclusive evidence against them. There's still rampant misogyny in our culture. It's disgusting that despite how we're supposed to have equal rights and treatment, women are still treated at times like secondhand citizens.

 

[Aids Johnson]

Regardless of the state, I think this happens a lot more than we like to acknowledge. Despite the woman being victimized, some men get away with their crimes despite the conclusive evidence against them. There's still rampant misogyny in our culture. It's disgusting that despite how we're supposed to have equal rights and treatment, women are still treated at times like secondhand citizens.

yeah im cool with your last sentence.

 

[Laura]

If it's true that she initiated the "kinky sexual acts," that she aborted their baby behind his back and that she set it up to be his abusive doing in a case to try to get money from him, as a jury found to be the case, then yes it's her fault.

IF it's true. But how can you know it's not just a story weaved by the defense in order to distract the jury? Which is quite likely, considering that is exactly the defence's job.

The article was kind of vague. They didn't mention if there was any proof this abortion. It mostly seems a case of his word against hers. And apparently his word is more plausible. Which why I mentioned misogyny. The jury seemed very eager to believe the woman in question was a submissive gold digging whore rather than a victim of abuse. So do you, it seems.

But like I said, I don't know the details. I could be totally wrong, I don't know. Just giving an observation based on the article. Who cares anyway? She's a slut, he's a bastard. It's not really something worth analyzing.

 

[Farooq]

Everything goes both ways. While there are cases where men are treated higher then women, there are others where women are treated higher then men. It's all discrimination and fear of a public reaction for a lot of these reasons. Equal rights is something that we will probally never see in this lifetime, or many to come.

 

[GrammarNazi82]

IF it's true. But how can you know it's not just a story weaved by the defense in order to distract the jury? Which is quite likely, considering that is exactly the defence's job.

The article was kind of vague. They didn't mention if there was any proof this abortion. It mostly seems a case of his word against hers. And apparently his word is more plausible. Which why I mentioned misogyny. The jury seemed very eager to believe the woman in question was a submissive gold digging whore rather than a victim of abuse. So do you, it seems.

But like I said, I don't know the details. I could be totally wrong, I don't know. Just giving an observation based on the article. Who cares anyway? She's a slut, he's a bastard. It's not really something worth analyzing.

By all means, please show me where I said that. I said if everything the JURY found to be the case is true, then yes, it is her fault. "Innocent until proven guilty" is all fine and good. This case, however, has already been settled and closed. I come from a long line of women in abusive relationships, thank you very much. I'm a southern woman, after all. So fuck no. If the woman was genuinely abused then by all means, hang the guy up by his nutsack for all I care. I wasn't on the jury. Neither were you. I wasn't in the courtroom. Neither were you. Cast stones and make blind judgments about me all you wish, but the fact remains that the jury who was present and heard all testimony from BOTH sides saw enough evidence to side with the man. Do I believe women are abused and that the males who abuse them should be properly punished? Abso-fucking-lutely. Do I believe some females play the vagina card and try to manipulate others to get what they want, thinking being a female automatically means they gain sympathy and win whatever they're going after, playing the victim in a relationship with a man? Again, abso-fucking-lutely. As the article states, she had plenty of time and opportunities to leave her husband if she was indeed being abused. In this instance, given what the full article reveals and how the JURY found the case, then yes, I'm inclined to believe that the ex-wife purported to be a victim of abuse to get money. Why? Because believe it or not, in this fucked up world we live in, that is just as likely a scenario as the ex-husband abusing her sexually. Also, again given my history, as pissed off as I get about women being abused, I also get pissed off about females claiming to be abused and making that shit up.

 

[Aids Johnson]

By all means, please show me where I said that. I said if everything the JURY found to be the case is true, then yes, it is her fault. "Innocent until proven guilty" is all fine and good. This case, however, has already been settled and closed. I come from a long line of women in abusive relationships, thank you very much. I'm a southern woman, after all. So fuck no. If the woman was genuinely abused then by all means, hang the guy up by his nutsack for all I care. I wasn't on the jury. Neither were you. I wasn't in the courtroom. Neither were you. Cast stones and make blind judgments about me all you wish, but the fact remains that the jury who was present and heard all testimony from BOTH sides saw enough evidence to side with the man. Do I believe women are abused and that the males who abuse them should be properly punished? Abso-fucking-lutely. Do I believe some females play the vagina card and try to manipulate others to get what they want, thinking being a female automatically means they gain sympathy and win whatever they're going after, playing the victim in a relationship with a man? Again, abso-fucking-lutely. As the article states, she had plenty of time and opportunities to leave her husband if she was indeed being abused. In this instance, given what the full article reveals and how the JURY found the case, then yes, I'm inclined to believe that the ex-wife purported to be a victim of abuse to get money. Why? Because believe it or not, in this fucked up world we live in, that is just as likely a scenario as the ex-husband abusing her sexually. Also, again given my history, as pissed off as I get about women being abused, I also get pissed off about females claiming to be abused and making that shit up.

bitch shh.

 

[GrammarNazi82]

bitch shh.

:

 

[Farooq]

By all means, please show me where I said that. I said if everything the JURY found to be the case is true, then yes, it is her fault. "Innocent until proven guilty" is all fine and good. This case, however, has already been settled and closed. I come from a long line of women in abusive relationships, thank you very much. I'm a southern woman, after all. So fuck no. If the woman was genuinely abused then by all means, hang the guy up by his nutsack for all I care. I wasn't on the jury. Neither were you. I wasn't in the courtroom. Neither were you. Cast stones and make blind judgments about me all you wish, but the fact remains that the jury who was present and heard all testimony from BOTH sides saw enough evidence to side with the man. Do I believe women are abused and that the males who abuse them should be properly punished? Abso-fucking-lutely. Do I believe some females play the vagina card and try to manipulate others to get what they want, thinking being a female automatically means they gain sympathy and win whatever they're going after, playing the victim in a relationship with a man? Again, abso-fucking-lutely. As the article states, she had plenty of time and opportunities to leave her husband if she was indeed being abused. In this instance, given what the full article reveals and how the JURY found the case, then yes, I'm inclined to believe that the ex-wife purported to be a victim of abuse to get money. Why? Because believe it or not, in this fucked up world we live in, that is just as likely a scenario as the ex-husband abusing her sexually. Also, again given my history, as pissed off as I get about women being abused, I also get pissed off about females claiming to be abused and making that shit up.

Better pull out something vintage for this post...

Spoiler

 

[GrammarNazi82]

Better pull out something vintage for this post...

Spoiler

:yay: I missed that gif!

 

[Farooq]

:yay: I missed that gif!

I only save it for the most intense moments :mog: