Another prove your innocence case
Discussion
La Liga said:
saaby93 said:
La Liga said:
’m a little confused about that one with the details.
The key issue is one of consent, not age. If she consents at 15 or 19 it’s not rape. If she doesn’t it is.
if shes 15 doesnt the law say she cant consent ( even if she says she does)The key issue is one of consent, not age. If she consents at 15 or 19 it’s not rape. If she doesn’t it is.
She cant consent if shes under 16 but there's a defence where its belived she's over 16 i.e. she was a convincing 19 year old
Under 13 she still cant consent and there's no such defence
La Liga said:
saaby93 said:
La Liga said:
saaby93 said:
La Liga said:
’m a little confused about that one with the details.
The key issue is one of consent, not age. If she consents at 15 or 19 it’s not rape. If she doesn’t it is.
if shes 15 doesnt the law say she cant consent ( even if she says she does)The key issue is one of consent, not age. If she consents at 15 or 19 it’s not rape. If she doesn’t it is.
She cant consent if shes under 16 but there's a defence where its belived she's over 16 i.e. she was a convincing 19 year old
Under 13 she still cant consent and there's no such defence
For example. Say A, an 18 year old, has consensual sex with B, a 15 year old. A is not guilty of rape as B consented. A is guilty of sexual activity with a child (as A is at least 18) unless A believes B was at least 16.
Under 13 there is no such defence available.
It just got worse
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42441745
If you were the b/f would you like that?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42441745
beeb said:
The woman said she had given the story to journalists 15 hours after she and Mr Armstrong had sex in Mr Mackinlay's office.
She sent a message to her boyfriend: "Keeping you in the loop. I've given it to Harry Cole who works for the Sun. It will either be in the Mail on Sunday or the Sun front page on Monday."
A later message said: "The media already knew so this is my way of controlling it to ensure I get a sympathetic writer."
What woman tells her boyfriend shes doing it with someone so as to take to the press?She sent a message to her boyfriend: "Keeping you in the loop. I've given it to Harry Cole who works for the Sun. It will either be in the Mail on Sunday or the Sun front page on Monday."
A later message said: "The media already knew so this is my way of controlling it to ensure I get a sympathetic writer."
If you were the b/f would you like that?
There's still something not quite right with all of this
In theory the defence could sit there saying nothing throughout a trial and the prosecution has to put forward evidence to prove your guilt
If it does then youre banged to rights
All this business about having to disclose to the defence shouldnt matter, there could be cases where they find nothing to disclose, it seems to be only luck something is found on a mobile phone somewhere.
Whether its found or not if youre innocent the prosecution evidence shouldnt be strong enough to convict
So whats going wrong on the prosecution side that everyone believes there is enough evidence to convict in these cases?
In theory the defence could sit there saying nothing throughout a trial and the prosecution has to put forward evidence to prove your guilt
If it does then youre banged to rights
All this business about having to disclose to the defence shouldnt matter, there could be cases where they find nothing to disclose, it seems to be only luck something is found on a mobile phone somewhere.
Whether its found or not if youre innocent the prosecution evidence shouldnt be strong enough to convict
So whats going wrong on the prosecution side that everyone believes there is enough evidence to convict in these cases?
Dr Jekyll said:
EG another sexual assault case when the prosecution produced DNA evidence showing the suspect had been in contact with the complainant. .
DNA gets transferred by all sorts of means, there are also false positives. It has its place but its not a 'it was him/her' finger pointerBesided in may of these cases isnt there acknowledged contact between the complainant and the alleged victim/defendant
irocfan said:
And while we're at it another case is re-opened and quashed (after 4 f
king years in prison!!)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-42...
Again it's not a defence issue. You shouldnt need to miraculously findking years in prison!!) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-42...
beeb said:
Danny Kay's sentence was quashed by the Court of Appeal after deleted messages were found in an archived folder backing his version of events.
What was there about the prosecution evidence that it could falsely convict?There may be other people that arent in the position of having an archived facebook page they can call upon
Why arent these on the BBC front page?
Edited by saaby93 on Friday 22 December 13:50
Youre still worrying too much about the lack of disclosure
In these few cases it was lucky there was something to disclose
That isnt the problem - other cases may not have such luxury
The problem is that the evidence from prosecution is being treated too strongly
Why was it seen to be sufficent when it was plainly wrong
Pesty said:
New evidence came to light found by his sister in law after being jailed for 3 months,
Police and cps believed an edited face book transcript by the so called victim but didn’t look at his face book to see the full meassages?
It took two years for his appeal trial.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5223567/Ma...
Looks like she broke up with her so to get him back accused him of rape.
Wonder how many more innocent men are in prison
The headline says it allPolice and cps believed an edited face book transcript by the so called victim but didn’t look at his face book to see the full meassages?
It took two years for his appeal trial.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5223567/Ma...
Looks like she broke up with her so to get him back accused him of rape.
Wonder how many more innocent men are in prison
DM said:
Yet ANOTHER rape case disgrace: Man, 26, has his conviction quashed after spending two years in jail after bombshell Facebook messages missed by police prove his innocence
You shouldnt need to prove your innocenceYou should only be found guilty if the evidence stacks up
Why did it stack up in this case when the guy was innocent?
How many others are in the same boat but unable to find a get off the hook facebook page
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 31st December 19:44
Mojooo said:
So once again the archived facebook record shows things are not what they seem.A lot of weight was placed on the presumably accurate facebook record yet when he disputed that he was not believed
Where's the taking into account reasonable doubt
richie99 said:
Thorodin said:
The issue here is surely the authorities, in this case the investigating police, had the evidence at their disposal and a basic routine of examination of it either was or was not followed to establish 'the whole truth'. If that routine was not followed the police were negligent in their investigation and therefore should be held culpable in a miscarriage of justice and if it was followed they were prejudiced in the investigation. The focus here should not be on the CPS as they were presumably unaware of the mitigation. Another reason for a totally independent examination of all evidence following a charge and before prosecution.
As to what you say about 'how far' the investigation should go is relatively simple - thoroughly ie all available evidence.
They didn’t even have to go looking for it. The police had apparently seized his technology (thus making it hard for him to prove the woman was conspiring to pervert the course of justice). They either looked and decided they didn’t like the way it looked which makes the police co-conspirators, or they didn’t bother, which is, at the very least, gross negligence. As to what you say about 'how far' the investigation should go is relatively simple - thoroughly ie all available evidence.
Edited by Thorodin on Tuesday 2nd January 11:00
Almost identical to the case of the poor Mr Allam.
Venturist said:
andy_s said:
It was the transcript of conversation between the accuser and accused at the relevant time, the modern equivalent of a phone conversation transcript, so very relevant. The accuser redacted the transcript, the police didn't check.
No need to light the afterburners just because the term 'social media' was used in the generic sense.
I think there probably still is, if the police are recommending for conviction on the basis of doctored evidence supplied by the complainant!No need to light the afterburners just because the term 'social media' was used in the generic sense.
Isnt it for the Judge and Jury to decide whether or not it's wholesome
irocfan said:
and another...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/18/oxford-...
what is particularly frightening to me (as a non-lawyer) is:
"... Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, raised eyebrows when she said photographs and social media accounts do not necessarily need to be fully checked in rape cases.
She insisted she does not believe anyone is in jail after being wrongly convicted because of failures to disclose evidence.
She might be righthttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/18/oxford-...
what is particularly frightening to me (as a non-lawyer) is:
"... Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, raised eyebrows when she said photographs and social media accounts do not necessarily need to be fully checked in rape cases.
She insisted she does not believe anyone is in jail after being wrongly convicted because of failures to disclose evidence.
The problem in all the ones gone so far is that judge/jury have been too wiling to extrapoltae from the 'evidence' given by the prosecution
You shouldnt need to rely on there being some defence evidence, or some evidence not disclosed, beacuse there may not be any available
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff