FKA Twigs Condemns Shia LaBeouf’s Request for Private Records Ahead of Trial

[hewontgo]

In a new filing, FKA Twigs says Shia LaBeouf’s attorneys are ‘improperly’ seeking private medical and financial records ahead of his October sexual-assault and battery trial. https://t.co/RzwKf24l3d
- Vulture (@vulture) June 26, 2024

Lawyers for FKA Twigs have filed a motion condemning Shia LaBeouf’s request for her private records.
"LaBeouf’s

Comments

[xdecadentx]

Sadly I wouldn't be surprised if the court grants this, because they don't seem to gaf about the woman's privacy when it comes to DV and SA.

The UK I think has a rule that basically says if you don't willingly give up your phone to forensics as a SA victim they can drop charges or something. It might be a bit more in depth than that but it bugged the fuck out of me when I saw it.

[insomniachobs]

There's no rule that says charges will be dropped if an SA victim doesn't turn over their phone, but in practicality the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service, the ones who decide if charges proceed to trial) are reluctant to pursue cases without the phone records. And with the police leaning so heavily on the possibility in order to coax victims into turning over their phones... it's not a rule but it might as well be.

The excuse I generally hear is that so many SA cases are he said/she said, so many of them have little objective forensic evidence, that without the records it's felt there's little prospect of conviction. I have little time for that excuse. It's basically saying that rapists get to escape accountability because they choose to commit their crimes in intimate settings.

[eva_hagberg]

How would phone records support or deny the charges anyway? Grr.

[insomniachobs]

Because so many rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim is dating or at least knows, there are often text conversations etc which are deemed relevant. Particularly any that occurred after the rape has taken place.

The whole thing uncomfortably smacks to me of hunting for things the defence is likely to use to undermine the victim - "they had a history of consensual sex," "she kept talking to him after," all those things that people take to mean sex was more likely to be consensual despite there being any number of reasons why that's not necessarily the case.

[eva_hagberg]

Exactly. My question was basically:"So they had talked prior or knew each other, so what?".
My kid was taught at school that sex should be "FRIES": Freely given Retractable (you can take your agreement back at any moment) Informed Enthusiastic ("ok, whatever", shouldn't fly) and Single-use (If I said yes to a certain activity before it doesn't mean I said yes forever), and I found it so ingenious, that I can't get why as adults we don't use assessment of rape cases on that.