WoodenPupa - “I think we’re all wondering how Lloyd pulled off the Houdini act in the courtroom. We all know he’s guilty, and that his explanation is bullshit. But why did it succeed? This is my attempted explanation, and obviously it’s conjecture. But I’m conjecturing for a reason, because I think Lloyd’s limp-dick strategy could not have worked unless certain facts were in place in the courtroom.
Cliff Notes: Basically what I’m saying is that Lloyd’s strategy wasn’t planned ahead of time, before the matter went to trial, but instead a chess move played against his buddy (Terrence Gatling, whom the jury convicted of sodomy) once Gatling’s strategy was ascertained.
Again, I’m not a lawyer, so of course I could be way off. But I hate it when creeps escape justice, and when things don’t make sense to me I try to figure them out. So here’s my theory:
Since this was all before DNA evidence became standard in the courtroom, the lack of material evidence SPECIFICALLY implicating Lloyd in the rape forced the spotlight onto motive.
Now, claiming he wasn’t in the room at all probably wouldn’t have worked, since both the girl and at least one other defendant testified he was.
Lloyd must have figured that lying about being in the room wasn’t worth it, because if the jury doesn’t BUY that story, they WILL place him at the scene of the crime—-and if he LIES about not being there, it must be because he’s guilty of rape.
So Lloyd bypasses that gamble by admitting to being in the room, thereby avoiding being painted as a liar off the bat. But the problem is, his reason for being there must be the same as everyone else’s: to have sex with her. To deny THAT, while admitting to being in the room, would have been implausible. So enter the limp dick defense.
Now this defense might be shot down if BOTH Gatlin AND the girl testify that Lloyd did have sex with her. But ONLY the girl testified that Lloyd did. So my guess is that Gatlin, trying to be a “loyal friend”, said that he didn’t see Lloyd having sex with her, but only that he saw him in the room. And he (Gatlin) admitted to having sex with her, expecting Lloyd to do the same, on the less sophisticated gambit that if EVERYONE ADMITTED to having sex with her, it would look good for the defense’s case.
Lloyd’s limp dick defense can now work. Since Gatlin says he didn’t see Lloyd having sex, Lloyd runs with this testimony and explains WHY Gatlin didn’t see him doing so.
Since the jury had no physical evidence indicating who did specifically what to the girl, testimony was key. Lloyd surely realized that if the jury thought rape or “crimes against nature” was what in fact happened, they would find anyone admitting to sexual contact would be guilty by default.
So Lloyd’s limp-dick defense would work almost automatically, provided that no one besides the girl testified to seeing him have sex with her. Her testimony alone couldn’t work against anybody in particular unless they admitted to sexual contact. Since the doctor testified that there was evidence of sexual contact beyond what a single person would do, then multiple people clearly DID.
Gatlin, like his convicted buddies, figured they couldn’t escape this fact, and were better off admitting to it while painting a consensual picture. But Lloyd capitalized on this move in a way Gatlin never thought possible.
That’s my best guess as to what happened in the courtroom. At the very least, something very similar to it. Indisputably, Lloyd played the jury AND Gatlin, by playing a move that ONLY one person could play. Two limp-dick defenses wouldn’t have worked, nor would have two denials on ANY basis have worked. Classic prisoner’s dilemma gambit turning out well for the evil guy.
What’s really insidious about Lloyd’s limp noodle defense is that he imagines its effectiveness in the way that sociopaths/psychopaths do.
He clearly IMAGINES that, in the court of public opinion, his story about erection failure will be taken as evidence that, deep down, he had a problem with what was going on.
Now some people might think that since Irvin plainly testified that he *wanted* to have sex with her, he can’t possibly think his limp-noodle defense will have “deep down good guy” implications.
But this is just the way robotic sickos like Lloyd operate. They use language to confuse people, to have their cake and eat it too.
Since he testified that he “tried” to have sex with her, he creates the illusion that he didn’t think anything was morally wrong with the circumstances.
But since he *couldn’t* have sex with her, he can’t be guilty of rape by definition, since no contact was made.
But the *reason* he couldn’t get it up is supposed to mean that he DID have a problem with the situation.
So Lloyd is and isn’t guilty, does AND doesn’t take responsibility, did AND didn’t have a problem with what was going on, all at the same time. Which component he emphasizes will depend on who’s asking the questions and the context of the conversation.
You can bet your ass that throughout the entire affair, from preliminary questioning to conversations with friends and all the way up to the moment of testifying, Lloyd emphasized whichever aspect was convenient to the questioning.
Some people I think have in mind that it was possible that Lloyd really did have erectile dysfunction.
It’s possible in the trivial sense. What really happened is that he did rape her, along with Gatling. The girl testified that Gatling held her head and had oral sex, while Lloyd raped her.
If she weren’t sure of this, she wouldn’t have testified to it. The people she wasn’t sure about, she couldn’t and didn’t implicate with certainty. She testified that Lloyd DID rape her because it was something she remembered with certainty.
Between 7 and 10 men participated in the rape.
8 were arrested, including Irvin.
5 at least were found guilty (see below); charges against 1 dropped; Lloyd was acquitted.
Michael P. Thompson and Charles H. Smith Jr. were found guilty of rape and sodomy.
Terrence C. Gatling was found guilty of sodomy.
Derrick C. Evans was found guilty of attempted rape.
John H. Scales III - Pleaded guilty to rape.
Robert Ford —- charges were dropped after the victim said she couldn’t positively identify him.
Garret E. Miles— couldn’t find info on what happened in his trial, which was scheduled for June 2nd 1992.