Um, according to the article, Kathleen Colton is the defense attorney, not the alleged victim.

Unless his saliva was found on his defense attorney's breasts. Then that might be something the local Bar Association might want to look into.

uhh.. looks he didn't do it. the inflammatory headlines as of late are really grating on me. this is becoming less interesting to read.

@madktdisease: what do you mean? The article does state that his DNA was found on saliva on her breast. Makes me curious as to how he was found not guilty.

OK -- I see you fixed the post.

So no one thinks I'm a big dope, there was an error in the original post, and I pointed it out in my earlier comment.

I AM a big dope, but for other reasons. ;-)

I'm sure the defense was probably that he spit while he was talking to her and she was wearing a low cut top.

Plausible? Yes

Was the plaintiff smart enough to realize that he spit on her and then claim she was raped because his saliva could be found on her breast? Probably not.

Licking/sucking on someone's breasts is not rape, it's sexual harrassment.

@Melov: Actually I believe it would be sexual battery but yeah, not rape.

"Cardenas maintained from the beginning that he did not touch the woman. However, his DNA was found on saliva on her breast. The possibility of consensual sexual contact was never raised in the trial."

If he insisted he didn't touch her at all, then huh?

@David Bixenspan: Of course he didn't touch her. I know exactly what happened. She had just bought a lovely new brooch and was experimenting with which top it best matches. She first tried a low cut blouse and being that her friends weren't around to offer their honest opinions, she asked the cable guy. As he leaned in for a closer inspection, her perfume made him sneeze, and he's a mouth sneezer, thus, spittle on the boobage. What's so hard to believe?

"At the woman's comment that Cardenas undid her bra from the back with one hand in one swift motion, Colton asked the jury to remember their teenage years and whether that was possible."

Am I just a stupendous badass? Because that's easy. Like, do-it-through-a-sweater easy.

My cable guy tried spitting on my chest once, it was so weird.

@Framling: totally easy! im a gay man and i can do it in under 3 seconds with one hand. (i have no idea how i learned this skill)

@snazz: Ah, the old left-handed bra release technique! Amateurs make the mistake of going back there with both hands, but the trick is in the left-handed pinch-and-twist... Maybe I should shoot an Instructable! :-P

he didn't rape her... he "lovingly applied his saliva to her breasts with his tongue"

Or she gave him a glass of water and then rubbed the glass against her breast. Or she was hot and bothered and made out with the guy and then changed her mind because her white boyfriend would kick her white ass for touching some hispanic. Or...

Either way, this article doesn't really have anything to do with Comcast or consumers, and certainly nothing to do with rape.

If he had claimed it was consensual and that she changed her mind after the fact, that is a defense I can see based on the facts in evidence. But his defense was he did not touch her and that she is lying about the whole thing. That is not supported by the facts at all. The jury went off on their own on this one.

Which baby animals is the cutest?

She could even have rubbed the saliva there herself, she could have got it for example from a drinking glass he used. The motive, of course, was money, as compensation for her for a crime that never happened.
This is of course improbable, but still possible.

i need a cold shower after this one..................

I think I see a new business opportunity:

Canned Comcast Saliva

that's fucking terrible .

Was this before or after she got free cable?

From the article it sounded like the defense won by pointing out minor inconsistencies in her statement. But then a police officer testified that victims, esp of esp traumatic events, often flux on such details.

Some people's response to descriptions of sexual violence is revolting.

Either way, this article doesn't really have anything to do with Comcast or consumers, and certainly nothing to do with rape.

@Black Bellamy: Oh yes, except for the fact that it's about a Comcast employee being accused of raping a customer.

@JTres: I agree.

You'd think she'd get some sort of compensation for being assaulted on the breasts by a Comcast tech's saliva. Like, I dunno, free tissues for life, or a big bottle of antibacterial hand solution. I mean, that's just gross.

@Rectilinear Propagation:

there's no rape anywhere in this story! it's not a rape case! jesus, do you people read, or just react?

Well, as a defense attorney I met once said, "It is not the principle of proving that he didn't do it, it is the principle of making the jury believe he didn't do it".

Even so, I have no idea how when Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid is sitting right on her breast (Which would still constitute sexual harrassment charges, if not full on rape charges), the jury can still be to obtuse to convict. I mean this is not O.J. We're talking about here. The glove fit, you must convict.