A woman complained that she was raped by a man when she was given a ride to Fiesta Island. Using a description of a man given by the woman, police arrested a landscaper who admitted that he engaged in consensual intercourse with the woman. At the accused's arraignment, the accuser told the judge that the accused was not the man who raped her.
"This man is not the man at all, and I'll stick with that for as long as I live," said Laura C. in court on Monday.
As a former prosecutor and current defense attorney, I find it odd that the man admitted sexual intercourse with the woman, but the women claims that he wasn't the man who raped her. One thing I noted in the article was this: "A spokesman for the District Attorney's Office said the office cannot comment on a pending case except to say they do not file charges unless they believe they can prove them beyond a reasonable doubt." If true, then this accused should take solace that the DA should believe that they cannot prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt based on the accuser's exclusion of him as the man who allegedly raped her.
What does this sound like? Man picks up woman walking on the street in his vehicle, and they drive to a secluded place where they have intercourse in said vehicle. It appears that Linda Vista is an area known for drugs and prostitution and that two acquaintences of the alleged victim say that she is a prostitute.
So, is it possible that Linda Vista Road is this accuser's turf where her business model consists of her picking up a customer who drives her to Fiesta Island where they consummate the deal? Perhaps she had more than one customer that night and another man raped her, but not this man.
Strange case indeed.