MovieChat Forums > Day of the Woman (1978) Discussion > Any jury would convict her

Any jury would convict her

posted 12 years ago by samstraper
30 replies | jump to latest

The tagline of the movie was, "No jury would convict her."

But that's wrong.

Because after she'd done killing all those men, she would be facing serious time. They wouldn't buy her excuse that it was revenge for rape, because -

There was no evidence of rape!

Think about it. Her body is back to normal, without a trace of physical damage to her, or any rapists' DNA on her. If she had immediately gone to a hospital to get a rape test done, maybe she could have proven rape. But as it is, there's no way she can prove that those guys raped her. It's her word against four dead men.

She's going to prison for life, if not the death penalty.

http://crookedfingerfilmreviews.blogspot.com/search/label/I%20Spit%20On%20Your%20Grave

[–] novastar_6 12 years ago

If there was a single woman on the jury or a single man with a wife or daughter, she would get acquitted and a parade and a pink toy poodle...on a keychain.

[–] samstraper 12 years ago

No, they would think she was a crazy woman who just made it all up.

[–] novastar_6 12 years ago

Why? Because women don't get raped? Because men never gang rape a woman and leave her for dead? Because all men who ever commit crimes are white collar clean cut choir boys?

[–] samstraper 12 years ago

Because, you moron, there was NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of rape.

Do you have reading comprehension skills?

[–] novastar_6 12 years ago

You can get a murder conviction without even having a body or cause of death, hence NO EVIDENCE physical or otherwise of murder.

[–] samstraper 12 years ago

Do you know anything about rape convictions? It is a difficult crime to prove unless a woman shows physical damage to her body, hence most rape allegations are not found guilty. Most of the time the jury will let the accused get off free because the alleged victim is unable to provide enough evidence of rape. Short of actual physical evidence, it comes down to he said she said and that is not enough to convict anyone.

That is the way justice should work. Otherwise, any woman could accuse any man of rape and he would sit behind bars for a crime he didn't commit. You need actual evidence to convict anyone of any crime, not just an accusation based on one person's word. It is a crime of injustice otherwise.

[–] novastar_6 12 years ago

You need actual evidence to convict anyone of any crime, not just an accusation based on one person's word.

And there are a lot of people doing life in prison who would say otherwise.

No jury would convict her, maybe she has no proof of being raped, but women are the weaker human species, they're nice and sedate, they're not evil, they're not murderers, they don't kill anybody in cold blood. They may poison somebody, they may shoot somebody, but there would be no reason for a woman who was not attacked to brutally kill a whole group of men. Unless she was psychotic of which there would be no previous history, so for her to snap and kill a bunch of men, SOMETHING had to happen to drive her to that breaking point, and if not rape, then what? It takes a lot of planning to figure out how to lure men off one by one and mutilate them, and women simply don't do that, men might do it because they're naturally aggressive and violent, but why would any woman? That she did all this without provocation is simply not believable, and a 70's jury would especially see it that way since back then there were far more people saying what women did and didn't do even if they did.

[–] samstraper 12 years ago

" women are the weaker human species, they're nice and sedate, they're not evil, they're not murderers, they don't kill anybody in cold blood."

Are you joking? None of what you said is remotely true. Women can and have done all of those things. They can be just as nasty and violent as men if they want to be. You obviously know nothing about real life women.

[–] novastar_6 12 years ago

Of course it's not true, but people believe it. A jury wouldn't convict Lizzie Borden either.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nypiscesgirl 10 years ago

While she did wash away most of the evidence of rape, she still had cuts and bruises on her body suggesting a violent assault. I'm sure if she did go to the hospital shortly after she had bathed, they would do an internal examination and still be able to see the evidence of rape and possibly get DNA depending on how soon after she sought medical attention.

[–] Pania8407 12 years ago

I agree with the OP.

She was healed by then. Didn't go to the police, no witnesses.

It's just like the lady who Charlize Theron played in "Monster". Sorry i can't remember her name or know much of the real story, but all i heard was that she was attacked by every single one of the men "apparantly" and she got the death penalty.??? Is that right??

[–] novastar_6 12 years ago

I never saw that movie so I wouldn't know. But juries are known for letting some of the most obvious-looking guilty people go scot-free, women especially, so you never know.

[–] ElectricWarlock 12 years ago

I don't think she would've been convicted. Psychologists would have probably been brought in and explain what goes on in the mind of rape victims to show that she wasn't in the right state of mind after what happened to her. They would probably use a temporary insanity defense, I think. And also, I think Jennifer herself would testify and explain what they did to her. Her testimony would be so heartbreaking and emotional that the jury would see there was no way she could have been making all of it up. There is no way they would put someone in prison after going through all of that, and rightly so.

Come, fly the teeth of the wind. Share my wings.

[–] novastar_6 12 years ago

In the 70s people were not quite as big on psychological defenses as they are today, but they did have them, irresistible impulse as a defense though rare goes back to the 1800s.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] novastar_6 12 years ago

Your average woman isn't going to sit home premeditating fantastic ways to kill 4 complete strangers who didn't do anything to her either. So how would that one be explained? For her to take that much rage out on those men, SOMETHING had to be done to her and they had to be involved.

[–] Suskis 11 years ago

Even with DNA all over her, she deserved to be jailed simply because when you accept to live in a civilized nation, you let the LAW act upon those who broke it. You are NOT entitled to take your own revenges.
At least, this is what is civilization about in Europe. I hope this is the same in USA.

'What has been affirmed without proof can also be denied without proof.' (Euclid)

[–] whitespirit26 11 years ago

Europe, lol.

[–] Suki_Akbar 10 years ago

Yes, Europe is more civilized; that's why you send your murderers and rapists to holiday facilities only to let them back out in society five years later or so.

"I'm here to kick ass and chew bubblegum!"

[–] whitespirit26 11 years ago

Oh, there was evidence of trauma. No DNA, but you think the body heals that fast? She would have had slow-healing injuries for a good while, no telling what internal damage.

[–] I_hatenazis 11 years ago

If you want to be so legalistic about it, she would not be arrested for murder because there were no witnesses.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] novastar_6 11 years ago

Very well put. It just wouldn't happen.

[–] maximusveritas 11 years ago

Yeah, I assumed at the end she was going to flee in the boat and leave town. I don't think anyone knew she was there.

If they tied her to the murders, she would probably be convicted. Her body may not be completely back to normal depending on the injuries, so she could maybe have evidence to show she was assaulted. And there might still be forensic evidence in the woods where she was raped. If none of that was there, then she would be convicted, especially when they showed the brutality of the murders and brought up that at least one of them was a married vet with kids.