Another prove your innocence case

[Gameface]

saaby93 said:

Remember the defence would unlikely have known what was available.

What did you mean by available?

His client, the accused, would have told him that there were numerous texts begging for sex etc, would he not?

[Gameface]

La Liga said:

ow do you know the defence weren't the cause of the material eventually being disclosed? You don't. They could have made a section 8 (defence applications for further disclosure) application which promoted the prosecutor to look at the material.

If that's the case, doesn't that lay the blame for this fiasco more squarely at the door of the police?

[saaby93]

ATG said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Scotland yard said:

'We are aware of this case being dismissed from court and are carrying out an urgent assessment to establish the circumstances which led to this action being taken.

'We are working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service and keeping in close contact with the victim whilst this process takes place.'

Which victim would that be?

Am I the only one who thinks this reads as though they think it's the dismissal of the case that's the problem and they are investigating to see why the evidence was released rather than why it was suppressed in the first place?

That's a bit paranoid. It's exactly the wording you'd expect if they currently haven't got a clue what's going on.

It might be expected these days but surely instead of 'close contact with the victim' 'close contact with both parties' would be more appropriate

[saaby93]

Gameface said:

saaby93 said:

Remember the defence would unlikely have known what was available.

What did you mean by available?

His client, the accused, would have told him that there were numerous texts begging for sex etc, would he not?

possibly
ok assume he had but no records were available or telephone calls or face to face
How do you substantiate one word againt another
In theory it wouldnt matter if this hadnt come to light as there cant be enough prosecution evidence to convict on something that isnt true

[bstb3]

saaby93 said:

possibly
ok assume he had but no records were available or telephone calls or face to face
How do you substantiate one word againt another
In theory it wouldnt matter if this hadnt come to light as there cant be enough prosecution evidence to convict on something that isnt true

In theory.. but the fact it was in court would suggest that without this late evidence the CPS thought they had enough for a reaslistic chance of conviction.

For example - it is stated in the Times article the woman in question held fantasies around violent sex / rape. Perhaps they were acting them out, she then had some injuries as seen by others / doctors that would be consistent with her claim. The chap admits to the police that they had sex on the occasions, then its just about his word 'it was fantasy / role play' against her word it wasn't - backed up by injuries. What would the realistic outcome be then, for a jury confronted with no evidence that she held such fantasies?

Edited by bstb3 on Friday 15th December 11:33

[anonymous-user]

Gameface said:

La Liga said:

How do you know the defence weren't the cause of the material eventually being disclosed? You don't. They could have made a section 8 (defence applications for further disclosure) application which promoted the prosecutor to look at the material.

If that's the case, doesn't that lay the blame for this fiasco more squarely at the door of the police?

Yes, the person in charge of disclosure should have judged the material to be relevant as per the definition on the previous page. They should also be investigated to see if their actions amount to misconduct / gross misconduct.

It never hurts to be cautious and take advice from the CPS if unsure with something so important.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 15th December 12:39

[ATG]

bstb3 said:

ATG said:

That's a bit paranoid. It's exactly the wording you'd expect if they currently haven't got a clue what's going on.

I'd be hoping they would be keeping in touch with all parties - the accuser, accused, CPS and the defence team - at this point. Victim isn't an appropriate wording once the case is dismissed, surely?

Until they've analysed what's gone wrong with the case it's quite understandable that their default response is to continue to refer to her as a victim. It's going to take them a while to figure out what has happened. They can't wait for that analysis before making a press release. I'd say the wording they've used is entirely predictable. The contact and relationship they have with an accuser and the accused is very different. I wouldn't expect a press release to give any other impression.

[robinessex]

If I was the accused, I'd be well on my way to a multi million payout lawsuit in compensation, and then bugger off out of this country, build a new life.

Edited by robinessex on Friday 15th December 11:52

[Halb]

bstb3 said:

In theory.. but the fact it was in court would suggest that without this late evidence the CPS thought they had enough for a reaslistic chance of conviction.

For example - it is stated in the Times article the woman in question held fantasies around violent sex / rape. Perhaps they were acting them out, she then had some injuries as seen by others / doctors that would be consistent with her claim. The chap admits to the police that they had sex on the occasions, then its just about his word 'it was fantasy / role play' against her word it wasn't - backed up by injuries. What would the realistic outcome be then, for a jury confronted with no evidence that she held such fantasies?

Edited by bstb3 on Friday 15th December 11:33

Maybe acted them out, it went too far, she said 'stop' and it wasn't? Is a possibility. Does the article mention if the victim had informed the cops of the messages, relationship?

[Dr Jekyll]

ATG said:

Until they've analysed what's gone wrong with the case it's quite understandable that their default response is to continue to refer to her as a victim. It's going to take them a while to figure out what has happened. They can't wait for that analysis before making a press release. I'd say the wording they've used is entirely predictable. The contact and relationship they have with an accuser and the accused is very different. I wouldn't expect a press release to give any other impression.

They shouldn't have even started referring to her as a victim until there was a conviction. It's tantamount to referring to the accused 'the rapist'.

[saaby93]

bstb3 said:

In theory.. but the fact it was in court would suggest that without this late evidence the CPS thought they had enough for a reaslistic chance of conviction.

For example - it is stated in the Times article the woman in question held fantasies around violent sex / rape. Perhaps they were acting them out, she then had some injuries as seen by others / doctors that would be consistent with her claim. The chap admits to the police that they had sex on the occasions, then its just about his word 'it was fantasy / role play' against her word it wasn't - backed up by injuries. What would the realistic outcome be then, for a jury confronted with no evidence that she held such fantasies?

Isnt it up to the defence lawyer to show just by looking at dating websites, how prevalent that is - wasnt it similar with a footballer on appeal about 12 months ago? So long as theres reasonable doubt they shouldnt convict

[Halb]

According to the defence lawyer on now, the complainant walked into the cop shop and handed in her phone, and then when the lad was arrested he gave his version.

The defence lawyer said she had exhausted her options...ultimately the prosecution handed over the evidence with 40,000 odd texts.

[bstb3]

ATG said:

Until they've analysed what's gone wrong with the case it's quite understandable that their default response is to continue to refer to her as a victim. It's going to take them a while to figure out what has happened. They can't wait for that analysis before making a press release. I'd say the wording they've used is entirely predictable. The contact and relationship they have with an accuser and the accused is very different. I wouldn't expect a press release to give any other impression.

Well there is the investigation into what is happened, and absolutely they should take time to get that understood and nailed down. But there is also the fact that the Judge dismissed the case - in light of which it does not take any time to realise the sensible course of action would be to use more neutral language. That is semantics though, really, they have far more to worry about than wording a quick press release.

saaby93 said:

snt it up to the defence lawyer to show just by looking at dating websites, how prevalent that is - wasnt it similar with a footballer on appeal about 12 months ago? So long as theres reasonable doubt they shouldnt convict

Yes, but they can only find and do that if such evidence exists. It may not, or they may not be able to find it if it does. Then its up to the Jury - as you say reasonable doubt says no conviction, but CPS presumably thought they had enough to avoid that. The fact they chose not to present any evidence at all now perhaps means we will never know... Another unfortunate for the chap because there may always be that doubt.

[saaby93]

Halb said:

According to the defence lawyer on now, the complainant walked into the cop shop and handed in her phone, and then when the lad was arrested he gave his version.

The defence lawyer said she had exhausted her options...ultimately the prosecution handed over the evidence with 40,000 odd texts.

Even if she hadnt handed her phone, where was the evidence to convict?

[jesta1865]

robinessex said:

If I was the accused, I'd be well on my way to a multi million payout lawsuit in compensation, and then bugger off out of this country, build a new life.

Edited by robinessex on Friday 15th December 11:52

I'd like to think that's what would happen.

however, knowing someone who this has happened to (a friend of my sons) the bright, funny, jack the lad is now a shell of his former self, barely goes out.

it's drastically affected the entire family, they used to cover their house in festive lights to raise money for charity, now not even a fairy light.

worse to me is that despite all the forensic evidence supporting his story (grass stains on the back of his clothing etc) the cps only dropped the prosecution when her friend came forward to the defense and said she'd accused another guy before when she had cheated on her boyfriend and he had found out.

thankfully my son has taken this episode on board and is not quite so cavalier about hooking up with girls on nights out now.

[Dr Jekyll]

saaby93 said:

Even if she hadnt handed her phone, where was the evidence to convict?

Her word against his, that's normally enough for the CPS to give it a go.

[Pesty]

wsurfa said:

Gameface said:

A criminology student who didn't tell his brief that she'd been texting him begging for sex and ask him to look into it?

A real loss to the justice system, he is.

Given that his lawyers had repeatedly been refused access to records from the woman’s telephone because police insisted that there was nothing of interest for the prosecution or defence, I'd guess he had told his lawyers exactly this. However for whatever reason the police kept refusing.

Interesting though that they supplied it once the prosecution barrister required it. It will be enlightening to find out why they would supply the evidence to prosecution, but not defence.

Ok s why could they look at his phone records.

Does it on store sent texts not received ? I suppose they must.

[nyxster]

Best be careful out there chaps

http://bit.ly/2yAJpZ0

[Solocle]

It wasn't that long ago we were discussing Piers Morgan and falsely accussed men.
I know people love to hate on Piers, but this case just goes to show.
Both Women and Men can be absolute twunts. Unfortunately, there seems to be an attitude of "women would never make false rape accussations". A load of bks.

[gooner1]

Apologies if I have missed the answer to this
but why should it be the Prosecution, or the Investigating officer,
who decides what evidence is relevant or not to the defence?