Another prove your innocence case

[mjb1]

moanthebairns said:

mjb1 said:

In the Liam Allen case, he'd been charged with 12 counts of rape and sexual assault. How do the number of charges work exactly - is that 12 separate occasions they had sex, or could all 12 counts have happened in the same meeting (1st count holding her hand, 2nd count hugging her, 3rd count kissing, etc, etc)? Because if it happened over several meetings, that in itself suggests that there must have been consent at the very least some of the time?

It'll be ever time his penis has allegedly entered her vagina, mouth or anus forcefully without consent. Not joking thats the wording they use.

So probably shagged 12 times. They will argue that women can be in a relationship but still be raped numerous times as they are trapped, fragile etc.

On balance though, it must weaken the prosecutions case. I can understand the 'being trapped' explanation when co habiting, but when not living together? "Yes, he raped me, and I went back to his place the next weekend and he raped me again, and then the same happened the next time as well".

[moanthebairns]

mjb1 said:

moanthebairns said:

mjb1 said:

In the Liam Allen case, he'd been charged with 12 counts of rape and sexual assault. How do the number of charges work exactly - is that 12 separate occasions they had sex, or could all 12 counts have happened in the same meeting (1st count holding her hand, 2nd count hugging her, 3rd count kissing, etc, etc)? Because if it happened over several meetings, that in itself suggests that there must have been consent at the very least some of the time?

It'll be ever time his penis has allegedly entered her vagina, mouth or anus forcefully without consent. Not joking thats the wording they use.

So probably shagged 12 times. They will argue that women can be in a relationship but still be raped numerous times as they are trapped, fragile etc.

On balance though, it must weaken the prosecutions case. I can understand the 'being trapped' explanation when co habiting, but when not living together? "Yes, he raped me, and I went back to his place the next weekend and he raped me again, and then the same happened the next time as well".

My ex who was pregnant with our child, living with her parents on the same street as a police station still came back to mines every day and even got engaged to me during my "raping spell".

I asked the police wtf, is this really the actions of a woman whos been assaulted. I dropped her off every night at her folks, she could see the police station from her window, she didn't have to stay with me for a roof over her head, and she got bloody engaged to me, she's now only came forward 5 years later when I report this to you as she's been spreading malicious rumours and refusing me to see my child, how the hell do you explain that.

police - "She got engaged because things were going well she said".

My reply was - "she has accused me of raping her less than a month before we got engaged, seriously".

police - woman do all sorts of things when they get raped. Their actions aren't always clear.

I remember hitting them back with stuff like this all the way through the interview, they'd change their demeanor and get very assertive give a pish excuse for anything that a lawyer in court would tear for arse paper.

[Moonhawk]

Has this one been posted?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5491241/boy-cleared-...

My question is, in some of these cases, it's clear the allegations were false/malicious - so why aren't the women/girls in question being prosecuted for perverting the course of justice or wasting police time?

[saaby93]

Moonhawk said:

Has this one been posted?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5491241/boy-cleared-...

My question is, in some of these cases, it's clear the allegations were false/malicious - so why aren't the women/girls in question being prosecuted for perverting the course of justice or wasting police time?

Expelled from school on basis of the allegations
How does that affect the rest of your life?
At what point are things going to change so the witch hunt begins after youre found guilty rather than before?

[saaby93]

Which way is this one going to go?
http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,sti...

[amusingduck]

saaby93 said:

Which way is this one going to go?
http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,sti...

http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,rape-complainant-sure-shes-identified-right-man-court-told_25520.htm

If this article is accurate, he'd better walk free.

Our memories are way too unreliable to convict somebody based solely on that. Especially after 10+ years.

10 year old memories do not constitute credible evidence, no matter how sure she feels about it. I hope she can find peace, but you cannot throw a man in jail without sufficient, objective, evidence.

[Sway]

fking hell. They're struggling to make a verdict decision?

[Thorodin]

Sway said:

fking hell. They're struggling to make a verdict decision?

Nobody outside the jury room knows of course. But it's possibly due to one or more members of the 'women are always right' die-hards who refuse to follow the arguments come what may.

[Brave Fart]

Just thinking aloud here: does anyone think there's a case for rape cases being tried by a trio of learned judges, rather than by a jury? It seems to me that rape verdicts often come down down to he said / she said. Which means that the verdict reflects jurors' prejudices given the absence of cold hard facts. Presumably experienced judges would be immune from this flaw.

[saaby93]

amusingduck said:

saaby93 said:

Which way is this one going to go?

http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,sti...

-
http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,rap...

If this article is accurate, he'd better walk free.

Our memories are way too unreliable to convict somebody based solely on that. Especially after 10+ years.

10 year old memories do not constitute credible evidence, no matter how sure she feels about it. I hope she can find peace, but you cannot throw a man in jail without sufficient, objective, evidence.

Surely there must be more to it than that though, as it wouldnt have got past the CPS public interest test
If you have someone say 'it was him that did <choose crime> 10 years ago' and he says 'It wasnt me'
what other evidence do you need?

[amusingduck]

saaby93 said:

amusingduck said:

saaby93 said:

Which way is this one going to go?

http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,sti...

-
http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,rap...

If this article is accurate, he'd better walk free.

Our memories are way too unreliable to convict somebody based solely on that. Especially after 10+ years.

10 year old memories do not constitute credible evidence, no matter how sure she feels about it. I hope she can find peace, but you cannot throw a man in jail without sufficient, objective, evidence.

Surely there must be more to it than that though, as it wouldnt have got past the CPS public interest test
If you have someone say 'it was him that did <choose crime> 10 years ago' and he says 'It wasnt me'
what other evidence do you need?

I have no idea what evidence they have, I couldn't find much information about this case.

Ideally, DNA, CCTV or some other form of evidence that is not as fallible as the human mind.

Failing that, enough circumstancial evidence which, when put together, proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

To be honest, I think "reasonable doubt" is the key here. Somebody's memory is not reasonable doubt, it's huge helpings of overwhelming doubt. Or at least, it should be.

[moanthebairns]

amusingduck said:

saaby93 said:

amusingduck said:

saaby93 said:

Which way is this one going to go?

http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,sti...

-
http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,rap...

If this article is accurate, he'd better walk free.

Our memories are way too unreliable to convict somebody based solely on that. Especially after 10+ years.

10 year old memories do not constitute credible evidence, no matter how sure she feels about it. I hope she can find peace, but you cannot throw a man in jail without sufficient, objective, evidence.

Surely there must be more to it than that though, as it wouldnt have got past the CPS public interest test
If you have someone say 'it was him that did <choose crime> 10 years ago' and he says 'It wasnt me'
what other evidence do you need?

I have no idea what evidence they have, I couldn't find much information about this case.

Ideally, DNA, CCTV or some other form of evidence that is not as fallible as the human mind.

Failing that, enough circumstancial evidence which, when put together, proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

To be honest, I think "reasonable doubt" is the key here. Somebody's memory is not reasonable doubt, it's huge helpings of overwhelming doubt. Or at least, it should be.

there will be no physical evidence, "likely" after 10 years, certainly no DNA.

The woman's statement is evidence, if she has a relation/friend/stranger who corroborates her story in anyway this can be enough in certain cases to proceed with it going to cps.

[Sway]

saaby93 said:

amusingduck said:

saaby93 said:

Which way is this one going to go?

http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,sti...

-
http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,rap...

If this article is accurate, he'd better walk free.

Our memories are way too unreliable to convict somebody based solely on that. Especially after 10+ years.

10 year old memories do not constitute credible evidence, no matter how sure she feels about it. I hope she can find peace, but you cannot throw a man in jail without sufficient, objective, evidence.

Surely there must be more to it than that though, as it wouldnt have got past the CPS public interest test
If you have someone say 'it was him that did <choose crime> 10 years ago' and he says 'It wasnt me'
what other evidence do you need?

Notice where the case is - could this be an example of 'lessons being learnt', and 'action being seen to be done'?

I'm surprised, based upon the available information, that the judge hasn't instructed the jury.

[richie99]

saaby93 said:

Surely there must be more to it than that though, as it wouldnt have got past the CPS public interest test
If you have someone say 'it was him that did <choose crime> 10 years ago' and he says 'It wasnt me'
what other evidence do you need?

That doesn't appear to be a very big challenge based on current reporting of completely unfounded cases being prosecuted. If there was a special, undocumented test being applied to these cases it could hardly be worse.

[saaby93]

What about this one based on allegations
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43065165
No need to rerun the whole story found in another thread

[amusingduck]

saaby93 said:

What about this one based on allegations
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43065165
No need to rerun the whole story found in another thread

Not sure what the issue is here, he's not facing any kind of criminal charges is he?

If his Employer has dismissed him without any evidence of wrongdoing, presumably he has the option to take them to court for unfair dismissal?

[saaby93]

What about this one
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-431...
Sets up a fictitious 14 yr old to trap people - he's outed on social media - goes for suicide as the only way out.

[techguyone]

Mixed feelings, on one hand it's good that an 'alleged' paedophile will be questioned and dealt with, got no problem with that.

The police too, don't seem to be discouraging these groups of people and there's a fair bit of publicity in the news etc about them.

Then again...

Borderline vigilantism is that ever a good thing? especially when the brain cell challenged of Facebook get a sniff, you're pretty much there with torches and pitchforks territory then.

I'm quite surprised that people still get caught like this given all the publicity you'd have thought anyone with half a brain would steer clear of chatrooms where anyone could be well, anybody really.

So yea... mixed feelings

[Pesty]

saaby93 said:

If you want to play the game of saying someone has said something they havent just to create some argument, there's a new youtube video on it first posted in the BBC pay thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cls8ZURQRK4

Ha love the computer noises.

[saaby93]

techguyone said:

Mixed feelings, on one hand it's good that an 'alleged' paedophile will be questioned and dealt with, got no problem with that.

The police too, don't seem to be discouraging these groups of people and there's a fair bit of publicity in the news etc about them.

Then again...

Borderline vigilantism is that ever a good thing? especially when the brain cell challenged of Facebook get a sniff, you're pretty much there with torches and pitchforks territory then.

I'm quite surprised that people still get caught like this given all the publicity you'd have thought anyone with half a brain would steer clear of chatrooms where anyone could be well, anybody really.

So yea... mixed feelings

The problem is we dont know how the trap was set up and what happened, and it hasnt been before a court to prove one way or the other
At what point was he told about age, and at that point was he in friendship mode or had he been strung along
You only have to see reports of people losing their life savings, how they can be taken in.
But assumed guilty, by quite a few