I should start off by saying that I do think Kenneth Frank is a warped rapist. Is anyone else uncomfortable by the first victim's account, at least as it was portrayed on UM?

Think about it. She goes to the bathroom (without a cold), finds her friends left, decides that the doctor who agreed to help her with a job would drive her home...once at his place, she develops cold symptoms? He (very likely) slips her a drugged remedy.

Sounds like there might be something (like consensual regretted sex) that might be at play here. I mean, the victim is back out at a bar seven days later (where she re-encounters Frank).

Frank's credibility is entirely destroyed by the second incident with another woman. I just find problems with the initial event.

Yes, I too had my doubts about the 1st incident. I do not doubt Kenneth Frank is a rapist, I just have doubts that he raped the first woman. It is hard to prove or disprove. Remember, that Kenneth Frank was convicted back in the day but he was allowed to remain free on bail pending sentencing. He had been free on bail before and during trial but more often than not, if convicted in a case like this, bail would be revoked. But the judge allowed Frank to remain free on bail pending sentencing and he fled. That is why he was sentenced to 12 years in prison when he was apprehended. He was convicted under 1980's laws so he had to be sentenced under the old laws. Frank is due to be released in 2012.

I thought the story told by the first victim was plausible. It was consistent with the 2nd victim's story.

I think Kenneth Frank convinced the couple to leave while the victim was in the bathroom (Maybe that's obvious).

To me, the fact that the second victim's account was so similar to the first victim's account totally validates her story.

Going back to the bar to get him to admit what he did took a lot of courage.