The statute of limitations for rape in Massachusetts is 15 years

[EffieBlack]

Vanessa Tyson alleges that Justin Fairfax raped her in Boston in July 2004, so the statute of limitations to file a criminal complaint has not run out.

Should Dr. Tyson press charges and seek a criminal investigation and trial?

Is there any reason at this point that she should not?

Is there any reason that she should?

(Thanks to JBerryHill for first pointing to this statute of limitations).

[marylandblue]

1. Yes, she should press charges.

Only an independent investigation will resolve this and only the Boston police have jurisdiction.

The problem with the Kavanaugh situation is that there was no independent investigation and the SOL had long run out.

[jaysunb]

2. As an attorney, I'm sure you know the answer to this.

No DA is going to go within 10 miles of this. It pointless and a waste of time and money. He's been smeared and there will be no redemption in some peoples eyes, so the legal thing is moot and unnecessary.

[Gothmog]

3. But if a DA investigates and declines to go to a grand jury, it will be helpful

[marylandblue]

4. I am not an attorney, but I do know the answer.

Nonetheless, it will provide some closure. Alternatively, the Democratic Party could hire an independent investigator but that won't satisfy everyone either. However, they did that in the Keith Ellison case and it seems to have satisfied enough people to keep his career alive.

[LisaL]

21. You aren't supposed to be going to criminal trial to provide "closure."

That's not what criminal courts are for.

[marylandblue]

24. I answered in terms of what I think is best for the Democratic Party.

For her, the best thing is to do nothing.

[MineralMan]

5. It really would be unprosecutable.

He said; She said only. There is no evidence. Just a couple of people with conflicting stories.

[EffieBlack]

6. Maybe, maybe not.

But that can't be known until an investigation is done.

And if an investigation is done that, unlike carefully crafted dueling public statements, the two parties would speak under pain of perjury, more information could possibly come out that could make the case a little less fuzzy. And, if not, at least both Dr. Tyson and Lt. Gov. Fairfax can say that a thorough investigation was done.

[MineralMan]

11. Maybe. I don't think it's going to come to that, though.

I've known quite a a few politicians during my lifetime. The bulk of them were not people I would have as friends, frankly. A few were, but not the majority of them. It takes a certain personality to seek political office, in most cases. It also takes a powerful ego, in most cases.

Not in all, of course, and I know some who have had politics more or less thrust upon them. Most, however had a plan to become a politician and followed through with that plan.

There's something about politics that attracts people who have fairly serious flaws in their personalities, I think. Most of those flaws have to do with ego. That's been my experience with the politicians I have known. Some of them were strong proponents of things I supported, but were not people I'd have to dinner, if you know what I mean.

Since I have been involved with politics and elections since I was 15 years old and doing what I could for JFK, I've come in contact with a lot of Democratic candidates. They are not immune to those flaws. At first, I was somewhat shocked by that, but soon came to understand that it takes a certain mindset to put yourself forward as a candidate. A mindset that I have never had. That's why my entire political career as a candidate was one losing run for county supervisor long ago.

I'm not suited for that job, I learned. More's the pity, perhaps. But, I learned to focus on the positions held by candidates, rather than their personal characteristics. There really was no other option, except to remove myself from that environment altogether.

With very few exceptions, I've never been able to form any sort of personal relationship with any candidate I have supported. They're not compatible with my social and ethical point of view in most cases.

I do not know know Lt. Governor Fairfax, so I don't know what his character is like. I'm not in Virginia, so I haven't interested myself in the politics of that state. I'm a local politics sort of person.

How will this all end? Not well, I think. I suspect that all of the players are the kind of political person I don't care for personally, even though I might have supported their candidacies.

[pnwmom]

25. I've only known two personally, and they're both wonderful people. One has passed away

but the other is still in Congress, fighting the good fight.

[Blue_Tires]

7. If she rejects this and prefers to have her case tried

in the court of public opinion, then I'm perfectly within my rights to question her motives.

[EffieBlack]

8. That would be interesting

Since the point of trying it in the court of public opinion is to obtain some measure of vindication when legal avenues have been foreclosed.

[marylandblue]

10. The court of public opinion is arbitrary, capricious and often unfair to women.

Bad place to try. So far, the most thorough investigation was the Washington Post's. Choosing not to publish says something.

[EffieBlack]

16. True

But it's also very difficult for someone to recover from being accused of committing such a offense.

[marylandblue]

17. I think he will recover. Still a he said-she said. And no pattern.

Tyson may have thought other women would come forward. That would be bad for Fairfax. But nobody has so far. The men who have been brought down by #metoo had multiple victims, all with similar stories.

[atreides1]

9. Yes!

She should press charges and let the Boston authorities conduct an investigation.

Now the the question is, have her lawyers informed her of this information?

[Cattledog]

12. She obviously didn't want to press charges.

She went to the WAPO not the Boston DA.

[treestar]

15. And they did not want to publish it

Anyone can say anything ; it has to be vetted somehow. What prosecutor would take it after the number of years and the timing being rather convenient?

[ooky]

13. Yes, absolutely.

No reason to stop now, if he's guilty of doing what she said he did. She has every right to be heard and he has a right to establish his innocence if it isn't true. No better way to address this than to investigate.

[LisaL]

19. Prosecutor isn't supposed to take the case to trial unless there is a reasonable chance of

conviction. So I don't see that happening here.

[ooky]

22. Of course. If the prosecutor investigates and then doesn't think there is evidence to support an

indictment then it ends there and so should M$M's feeding frenzy and premature calls for his resignation.

[Igel]

28. And again, that's not the purpose of this sort of investigation.

First, it's entirely he-said/she-said at present.

And there's little more that can be added to it.

Even if she had a proverbial "blue dress" in the closet, he admits to sex. But says it was consensual.

Any witnesses that they spoke to nearly 15 years ago would be retrieving 15-year-old memories that have already been tainted. The only evidence that might be exculpatory is if there are witnesses where he met with her socially or they were seen amiably talking in the weeks afterwards.

No prosecutor without physical evidence or some sort of pretty good witnesses for something like this would take it to the jury otherwise. All we'd get is silence.

That silence wouldn't mean he was innocent. Just, as in legal cases in general, the prosecutor doesn't think that at present there's sufficient evidence for a jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's true of a lot of sexual assault cases.

[LisaL]

29. I don't believe she told anyone until 2017.

At least that's how her statement comes across.
So there wouldn't even be witnesses she spoke to 15 years ago.

[Jarqui]

14. The police or prosecutor or a grand jury decides if charges are going to be pressed

To press charges, they need evidence a crime has been committed - beyond a mere allegation - which is all we have here.

To date, this is a "she said vs he said" thing with no apparent evidence beyond that.

She can ask the police to look into it but without additional evidence, it is going nowhere in the criminal courts that require "beyond reasonable doubt".

I believe the statute of limitations (3 years) has long run out on civil action where the bar is lower but even there, she would have needed evidence that to date was so scant WaPo couldn't run with the story ... until Fairfax recently issued his statement.

I do not believe any public official should lose their position on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation - which to date, is all we have here.

[jaysunb]

18. + 1000. Nt

[LisaL]

20. Exactly. This supposedly happened many years ago,

she apparently told no one at the time that anything happened. There is presumably no corroborating evidence other than he said, she said. So a reasonable prosecutor presumably wouldn't want to touch a case like this with a 10 feet pole.

[KWR65]

23. Was that the law when this alleged crime happened?

A lot of States have changed the Statute of Limitations for sex crimes in the last 15 years.

[EffieBlack]

26. Yes, it was.

[IluvPitties]

27. If there was sexual assault committed, then she should.