Two boys aged 10, 11 found guilty of attempted rape of girl, 8.

prinz

rovert wrote: »

*facepalms*
Think about this

Yeah I have thought about it. I still see no reason why someone would apologise.

Joey the lips

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I'll just throw up a quick summary. Two days ago a story broke in the british press about 2 10 year old boys who were on trial for raping a 8 year old girl. The tone of the article was very damning on the two boys, the scenario presented was that the 3 children were playing in a field area near their homes in West London. The boys brought the girl to a secluded area and told her to remove her knickers. She complied because she didnt want them to damage her bike (or something like that). A short time later they returned to their housing estate and the girls mothers was suspicious something 'had happened'. The three told her 'nothing' had happened but later the girl told her mother 'they put their thingies in me'. Thus 2 years later (now) the 2 boys were on trial for rape.

The tone of the article was very damning basically implying the boys, although claiming innocence, had basically molested the girl. The girl was given court evidence.

Cut to about 8 hours later and a new article jumps. On cross examination on video interview, the girl admitted she had 'made up' the bit about being 'raped' and under closer scrutiny by the defence and the judge she basically said she lied so she wouldn't get into trouble with her mother (who would withhold sweets). The last time I checked, the boys and girls had gone over to a seculded area and all threw showed each other their private parts.

Thus, the first 100 posts in this thread are concerned with scenario one - boys are basically guilty of rape. we all jumped to that conclusion with only a few token references to their innocence. Reacitons ranged from shock, indignation and the calls for serious reprimands (castration, life imprisonment). the later part is concerned with the reaction to her lying to social services and the previous premature and in some cases vehement calls for 'off with their penises'.

Thus, the thread title has been changed to reflect the facts and this is a form of confusion.

Makes sense now.... I thought afterhours had reached a new weirdness..... Hold on....

rovert

prinz wrote: »

Yeah I have thought about it. I still see no reason why someone would apologise.

Yep the fact it is innocent until proven guilty and that the parties involved were children is totally immaterial here :rolleyes:

arybvtcw0eolkf

Sykk wrote: »

Just a question.. How does a fúcking 8 year old know about sex and rape? I wasn't, and my kids won't be told about that kinda of stuff until they are much older.. She should be thinking of Unicorns and Dolls.. Not rape.. Sheesh

A unicorn has an awfully big horn.

prinz

rovert wrote: »

Yep the fact it is innocent until proven guilty and that the parties involved were children is totally immaterial here :rolleyes:

Oh please this is AH not the Legal Discussion forum. You might as well finish the forum now as it appears to be entirely based upon personal thoughts, conjecture and unfounded opinions. You can be sure if this case had occured in this jurisdiction there would not be a thread like this on AH precisely for the reason you outlined above, but it didn't and people can presume anything they like.

mikom

Lucia Scary Self-possession wrote: »

A unicorn has an awfully big horn.

You're living in a fantasy world Lucia Scary Self-possession.

Love the new avatar by the way.

Banned Account

I told you so. The whole idea of the death penalty sucks ass - I would be heartened indeed if there were not so many "hang 'em high" posts the next time a kiddie crime thread is raised - though I think I expect too much.

Sykk

Lucia Scary Self-possession wrote: »

A unicorn has an awfully big horn.

Oh snap....

Dr. Feelgood

Mods deleted my "They were probably just playing doctors and nurses" comment. Turns out I was right lol

rovert

prinz wrote: »

Oh please this is AH not the Legal Discussion forum. You might as well finish the forum now as it appears to be entirely based upon personal thoughts, conjecture and unfounded opinions. You can be sure if this case had occured in this jurisdiction there would not be a thread like this on AH precisely for the reason you outlined above, but it didn't and people can presume anything they like.

I know this forum and your explaination of it only goes so far. Pretty sad reflection of this forum where the lynch mob came out soley based on the word of 8 year old girl.

syklops

Sykk wrote: »

Just a question.. How does a fúcking 8 year old know about sex and rape? I wasn't, and my kids won't be told about that kinda of stuff until they are much older.. She should be thinking of Unicorns and Dolls.. Not rape.. Sheesh

Much older than 8? Id strongly advise you clue them in on things fast. They will find out most of it from people in school anyway, but if they get it from you at least they will get all the facts and hopefully none of the myths.

IMO there wouldnt have been as many child abuse cases in Ireland if the victims had been more clued in around sexuality(obviously not their fault).

arybvtcw0eolkf

mikom wrote: »

Love the new avatar by the way.

Your a princess, thanks

mikom

rovert wrote: »

Pretty sad reflection of this forum where the lynch mob came out soley based on the word of 8 year old girl.

What age would you prefer she be Trevor?

prinz

rovert wrote: »

I know this forum and your explaination of it only goes so far. Pretty sad reflection of this forum where the lynch mob came out soley based on the word of 8 year old girl.

Do you not see the irony in the fact that you are using solely the word of that very same 8 year to conduct a witchhunt of your own?

Delirium

rovert wrote: »

Which is rather sad, what a bunch of gobby morons if that is the case.

As it would be better than wishing death on them, YES OF COURSE what a dumb question. Particularly when we are talking about children.

so it's alright to wish death on 2 ten year olds as long as a certain criteria is met?

Still don't see why they should apologise. It's an emotive type of story for a lot of people, why are you surprised they have an emotional response?

rovert

mikom wrote: »

What age would you prefer she be Trevor?

Double the mental age of the average AH poster.

koth wrote: »

so it's alright to wish death on 2 ten year olds as long as a certain criteria is met?

Very strange way of reading what I wrote. Keep trying.

koth wrote: »

Still don't see why they should apologise. It's an emotive type of story for a lot of people, why are you surprised they have an emotional response?

Where did I say I was surprised by emotional responses?

Sid_Justice

rovert wrote: »

I know this forum and your explaination of it only goes so far. Pretty sad reflection of this forum where the lynch mob came out soley based on the word of 8 year old girl.

No, you miss the point. We all assumed there had been medical evidence and a very thorough interview by a child psychologist on all parties to make sure there was a genuine case. But it would appear that there was no medical trauma or medical information recorded (didn't check notes though). Thus it did eventually come down to the word of the children. At least I assumed it wouldn't have got that far based on so little evidence.

Girl - They did it
Boys - No we didn't

Also a lot of people found it absurd that a girl so young could invent the concept of rape.

mikom

rovert wrote: »

Double the mental age of the average AH poster.

You old charmer you.

Banned Account

Sid_Justice wrote: »

No, you miss the point. We all assumed there had been medical evidence and a very thorough interview by a child psychologist on all parties to make sure there was a genuine case. But it would appear that there was no medical trauma or medical information recorded (didn't check notes though). Thus it did eventually come down to the word of the children. At least I assumed it wouldn't have got that far based on so little evidence.

Girl - They did it
Boys - No we didn't

Also a lot of people found it absurd that a girl so young could invent the concept of rape.

The only point is that you assumed incorrectly. As I posted way back, people lie, people make mistakes - this is why we should not have knee jerk calls for chemical castration etc. etc.

rovert

Sid_Justice wrote: »

No, you miss the point. We all assumed there had been medical evidence and a very thorough interview by a child psychologist on all parties to make sure there was a genuine case. But it would appear that there was no medical trauma or medical information recorded (didn't check notes though). Thus it did eventually come down to the word of the children

Girl - They did it
Boys - No we didn't

Also a lot of people found it absurd that a girl so young could invent the concept of rape.

They simply assumed hence the problem as I already said in reply to you:

people in this thread werent talking in scenarios or hypotheticals hence the issue Ive been raising.

People should at this stage be aware of all the difficulites involved in rape cases and all the permutations that can cause.

If people found it absurd then sadly they are sadly out of touch.

prinz

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

The only point is that you assumed incorrectly..

Says who? The trial hasn't finished.

Banned Account

prinz wrote: »

Says who? The trial hasn't finished.

The final finding of the trial will not cahnge the fact that the girl has admitted that she lied over this.

rovert

prinz wrote: »

Says who? The trial hasn't finished.

Still holding out?

me_right_one

IIRC there was a case a while back where this female 20 something year old solicitor went out, got hammered, scored, and tried to accuse her one-night-stand of rape. She lost! It reminds me of this case +15 years

Nevyn

Joey the lips wrote: »

Can someone please explain why this is sickening and not just kids fooling around.... Truthfully I am lost why this is such a big thing...

Cos people don't like to talk about kids fooling around, they see kids experimenting playing 'mummies and daddies' as being wrong, rather then acknowledging that it natural and normal for a lot of kids growing up.

prinz

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

The final finding of the trial will not cahnge the fact that the girl has admitted that she lied over this.

So even if it turns out that there was physical evidence/other evidence that rape had occured because she said she lied then it didn't? Do you realise how often people change their evidence when cases come to court? They might be found innocent that doesn't mean they were.

Banned Account

prinz wrote: »

So even if it turns out that there was physical evidence/other evidence that rape had occured because she said she lied then it didn't? Do you realise how often people change their evidence when cases come to court? They might be found innocent that doesn't mean they were.

Ahh, I get you - so to hell with the findings of the court, it's all immaterial as we are free to make up our own minds anyway and mete out punishment accordingly - I do not want to live in this place.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

rovert wrote: »

Wut x 2

Neither make any sense nor are rooted in reality.

When did I say they were innocent here?

Iamxavier your post is a bit mental.

I mean you should be attacking the people doing the influencing, i.e. the newspapers and the OP. The reactions of people were based on what they claimed/said.

People are only people.

rovert wrote: »

Good summary but people in this thread werent talking in scenarios or hypotheticals hence the issue Ive been raising.

That's an assumption. I doubt anybody would want to punish these kids if they were innocent

prinz

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Ahh, I get you - so to hell with the findings of the court, it's all immaterial as we are free to make up our own minds anyway and mete out punishment accordingly - I do not want to live in this place.

The trial isn't over. You have no more an idea of what other evidence may be presented to the court than I do. This girl's testimony might not even be central to the prosecution's case.

Banned Account

prinz wrote: »

They might be found innocent that doesn't mean they were.

This is the part of your post to which I was referring - is there another interpretation that one may pick up?

28064212

rovert wrote: »

Double the mental age of the average AH poster

So, 26?

Dudess wrote:

I don't think an eight-year-old would have the capability to be this scheming without influence from elsewhere - would she?
In the same way as I didn't believe the girl in the Michael Feichin Hannon case wasn't put up to it by her family (she was 10)...

I don't understand the people who think the 8 year old must have been coached and pressured to lie, or that it's shocking that an 8 year old knows what rape is. It's not like she came in claiming she had been raped, her quote was that they had "put their thingies in me". She clearly didn't understand the ramifications of what she was saying, only that she had done something 'bold', so tried to claim it wasn't her idea. From her point of view it was about on a par with claiming that "it wasn't me who broke the vase mammy, it was Michael". It's more likely than not that once it started to snowball and she started to realise the amount of trouble it could bring down, she kept quiet out of fear that she would be the one in trouble. If anything, it just emphasises her naivety that she thought the boys would just get told off.

This is a very different case from the Michael Hannon one, the girl's family in that case had been in a long-running dispute with him and had reason for wanting to hurt him. There is no similar factor in this case*

* That has come to light so far

prinz

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

This is the part of your post to which I was referring - is there another interpretation that one may pick up?

You mean you've never heard of anyone getting off on a crime they committed?

Banned Account

prinz wrote: »

You mean you've never heard of anyone getting off on a crime they committed?

If one is found innocent then, de facto, they have not committed the crime. If one has been freed on a technicality, this is a different issue. I suggest you re-read the relevant part of your post, and see which category it falls into.

prinz

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

If one is found innocent then, de facto, they have not committed the crime..

No one is found innocent of committing a crime. One is found not-guilty which is slightly different. Being found not guilty does not mean you never committed the crime. Have a read...

http://hwlawfirm.blogspot.com/2007/11/not-guilty-vs-innocent.html

Delirium

rovert wrote: »

Very strange way of reading what I wrote. Keep trying.

I asked:

koth wrote: »

Would you be happier if they prefaced their posts with, 'on the assumption that they're guilty'?

I.E. on the presumption they're guilty, I want them dead.

You responded with:

rovert wrote: »

As it would be better than wishing death on them, YES OF COURSE what a dumb question. Particularly when we are talking about children.

So, you misundertood my post or you're okay with wishing them death if they're found guilty.

which is still wishing them death!

Feel free to clear up my misunderstanding.

Where did I say I was surprised by emotional responses?

I didn't. I'll rephrase, are you surprised they responded in such an emotional way.

Hannibal Smith

Thaedydal wrote: »

Cos people don't like to talk about kids fooling around, they see kids experimenting playing 'mummies and daddies' as being wrong, rather then acknowledging that it natural and normal for a lot of kids growing up.

when I was a kid playing mummies and daddies consisted of a baby doll, a younger siblings baby clothes and whatever hand me down buggy you could get your hands on

doncarlos

prinz wrote: »

You mean you've never heard of anyone getting off on a crime they committed?

O.J.?

walshb

There was a similar case to this where a ten year old girl in Ireland had accussed
neighbours of a sex crime. I made a point that at such a young age that the investigators would surely have been able to ascertain a fairly clear picture. Anyway, in this case the incident made trial, so IF the girl was lying and making it up then surely adults were also involved in making this the case? I mean, she is 8, and at that age it would be very difficult for her to be completely convincing.

Handsome Bob

Hindsight is a great thing

Banned Account

prinz wrote: »

They might be found innocent that doesn't mean they were.

Prinz, you are confusing yourself, see above, you are the one who said that someone may be found innocent. According to the link, if they are innocent then they have not committed a crime, which is what I stated. If they are found not guilty thaen they may have. Can you make up your mind please.

Thanks.

PK2008

This thread has so much burn in it for the knee jerk posters!!!

WIN

prinz

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

Prinz, you are confusing yourself, see above, you are the one who said that someone may be found innocent..

You know well what I meant :rolleyes: What I said was in relation to comments like this..

dr.bollocko wrote: »

In the event that the girl didnt admit she was lying and these two young kids got sent down do you still stand by your claim that "liberal PC brigade" attempts at rehabilitation would not work on these two now innocent young fellas?

Perhaps you could actualy respond to the points raised as opposed to playing games with semantics.

dr.bollocko

prinz wrote: »

You know well what I meant :rolleyes: What I said was in relation to comments like this..



Perhaps you could actualy respond to the points raised as opposed to playing games with semantics.

I am not gonna be party to your squirming out of your knee-jerk. Do it yourself dude. I have long since lost interest.

rovert

koth wrote: »

I asked:


I.E. on the presumption they're guilty, I want them dead.

You responded with:


So, you misundertood my post or you're okay with wishing them death if they're found guilty.

which is still wishing them death!

Feel free to clear up my misunderstanding.

I didn't. I'll rephrase, are you surprised they responded in such an emotional way.

I dont wish to tie myself in knots by trying to untie you. Again the conclusions you jump to and how you jump to them is very strange. Im not trying to be rude but serious WTF?

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Hindsight is a great thing

Jumping to judgements is another.

Amaya Obedient Quadrant wrote: »

I mean you should be attacking the people doing the influencing, i.e. the newspapers and the OP. The reactions of people were based on what they claimed/said.

People are only people.

Not a defence for what was posted

Amaya Obedient Quadrant wrote: »

That's an assumption. I doubt anybody would want to punish these kids if they were innocent

It wasnt an assumption, explain how it is.

prinz

dr.bollocko wrote: »

I am not gonna be party to your squirming out of your knee-jerk. Do it yourself dude. I have long since lost interest.

Sorry I didn't get into any knee-jerk to squirm out of. I never called for lynchings, castration etc or anything of the sort.

dr.bollocko

Good.
Good good.

Banned Account

prinz wrote: »

You know well what I meant :rolleyes: What I said was in relation to comments like this.. .

This was not my comment.

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you could actualy respond to the points raised as opposed to playing games with semantics.

I believe it was yourself who introduced the semantics by bringing in the not guilty/innocent divide. That said, the law is based squarely on semantics and probably always will be.

As far as I can see, the point you raised was that just because the two boys may be found not guilty, this does not mean that they did not do the act. This is correct, but, if they are found not guilty, it would mean that the act that they may have committed was not deemed to be a criminal act. This naturally means that they should not be subject to criminal sanction, nor judged as if they were criminals.

If you are suggesting that regardless of the findings of the court, they are fair game to be judged as criminals, then we may as well just abolish the courts system and finish this discussion on the superhero thread.

Handsome Bob

rovert wrote: »

Jumping to judgements is another.

Truth is, had I been around at the time this thread started, I don't know what I would I have said. I would like to say after reading such a disturbing story that I wouldn't have made a snap judgement, but I can't. Furthermore, you have to understand that we live in an age where disturbing stories like this can be regularly reported on in the media. You can become desensitized to these kind of stories and just assume that something horrific has happened.

It doesn't help when the media give such one-sided reports on such occurences where they talk as if what has been alleged is actually fact.

Delirium

rovert wrote: »

I dont wish to tie myself in knots by trying to untie you. Again the conclusions you jump to and how you jump to them is very strange. Im not trying to be rude but serious WTF?

I can only react to the text on screen, not to what you intended it to mean.

I've obviously missed the point of what you were trying to say, so I'll bow out at this stage.

Banned Account

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Truth is, had I been around at the time this thread started, I don't know what I would I have said. I would like to say after reading such a disturbing story that I wouldn't have made a snap judgement, but I can't. Furthermore, you have to understand that we live in an age where disturbing stories like this can be regularly reported on in the media. You can become desensitized to these kind of stories and just assume that something horrific has happened.

It doesn't help when the media give such one-sided reports on such occurences where they talk as if what has been alleged is actually fact.

Sky news + judgements = Bad.