Wife jailed for 'false retraction' of rape to appeal

stimpson

hondasam wrote: »

If we were the jury now how many of us would say he is guilty?

I think it's very telling that you are prepared to judge this man without hearing any evidence.

Wolfe Tone

stimpson wrote: »

I think it's very telling that you are prepared to judge this man without hearing any evidence.

Sure maybe we should all go lynch him!

hondasam

SugarHigh wrote: »

The jury can't just decide someone is guilty without proof.

why do people get of then? why have a jury at all if their is proof. Im sure we could name people who we know were guilty but got of.

hondasam

stimpson wrote: »

I think it's very telling that you are prepared to judge this man without hearing any evidence.

for one thing I did not judge him. I never said I thought he was guilty.

almostnever

hondasam wrote: »

why do people get of then? why have a jury at all if their is proof. Im sure we could name people who we know were guilty but got of.

If a case goes to trial, that means the prosecution have evidence, rather than proof.

Silverfish

SugarHigh wrote: »

Silverfish like I already said you could find examples of women making up rape accusations and then apply it to this case but why would you?

Just because it is possible and has had before doesn't give it any credibility.

Well, because normally those women are caught out in some way shape or form, and even if they don't successfully achieve a prosecution, the stigma is still attached to that woman.

But in this case, the police seemed to think she had a case, so much so that it was going to court. I'm not saying she was definitely raped like I have been accused of saying, I'm not saying omg throw him in the slammer, I'm saying that the case itself seemed to have been going somewhere, and she was the one who stopped it.

Her reasons for doing so are open to as much speculation as whether the case is true to start with, but I think for it to have gathered so much momentum, and for her to actually be imprisoned for perverting the course of justice, (not for a fake rape claim) means that perhaps there was more to it than Fake Rape Claim - Police Discovered it - Accuser Drops It - Sent to Prison. I think if it had been outright lies from the start, with no evidence, no proof, no rape - it wouldn't have even gotten as far as going to court, and if she dropped the case at that point, it probably would have been sighs of relief all round.

I do believe people who make rape claims falsely should face punishment, but I don't believe from the details of this case that this is what's happening.

Unless, like I said, there's something about the facts of the case I'm missing.

metrovelvet

hondasam wrote: »

that still makes them guilty, If we were the jury now how many of us would say he is guilty?

No one can answer that because no one has heard testimony or been presented with evidence.

hondasam

almostnever wrote: »

If a case goes to trial, that means the prosecution have evidence, rather than proof.

are you saying with evidence their is always a prosecution

SugarHigh

hondasam wrote: »

why do people get of then? why have a jury at all if their is proof. Im sure we could name people who we know were guilty but got of.

The jury hears all the evidence and then decides if their is enough to say without a doubt he is guilty. If they can't and people like you decide they know better and just treat him as guilty anyway then the while court process was kind of pointless.

almostnever

hondasam wrote: »

are you saying with evidence their is always a prosecution

No, I'm saying there being some evidence is a prerequisite to a criminal trial.

hondasam

SugarHigh wrote: »

The jury hears all the evidence and then decides if their is enough to say without a doubt he is guilty. If they can't and people like you decide they know better and just treat him as guilty anyway then the while court process was kind of pointless.

get of your high horse, I never once said he was guilty.

keane2097

hondasam wrote: »

get of your high horse, I never once said he was guilty.

You did say this though:

hondasam wrote: »

Im sure we could name people who we know were guilty but got of.

SugarHigh

Silverfish I never said she actually was making just thy the claim she wasn't raped holds as much value at the moment as the claim she was. I also never said she was being punished for making a false rape claim I said she was rightly punished for destroying a case.

Wolfe Tone

Silverfish wrote: »

Well, because normally those women are caught out in some way shape or form, and even if they don't successfully achieve a prosecution, the stigma is still attached to that woman.

But in this case, the police seemed to think she had a case, so much so that it was going to court. I'm not saying she was definitely raped like I have been accused of saying, I'm not saying omg throw him in the slammer, I'm saying that the case itself seemed to have been going somewhere, and she was the one who stopped it.

Her reasons for doing so are open to as much speculation as whether the case is true to start with, but I think for it to have gathered so much momentum, and for her to actually be imprisoned for perverting the course of justice, (not for a fake rape claim) means that perhaps there was more to it than Fake Rape Claim - Police Discovered it - Accuser Drops It - Sent to Prison. I think if it had been outright lies from the start, with no evidence, no proof, no rape - it wouldn't have even gotten as far as going to court, and if she dropped the case at that point, it probably would have been sighs of relief all round.

I do believe people who make rape claims falsely should face punishment, but I don't believe from the details of this case that this is what's happening.

Unless, like I said, there's something about the facts of the case I'm missing.

I would take a different view, it is really just one persons word against another, its not as if there is cctv, fingerprints etc, or indeed all that much for AGS to investigate. The police cant just tell her to feck off, nor should they, so they sent a file to the DPP. Then we have her flipflopping, so the DPP may question why that is happening, so it becomes a case of let the Jury decide.

stimpson

hondasam wrote: »

for one thing I did not judge him. I never said I thought he was guilty.

You said you were prepared to judge him.

hondasam

keane2097 wrote: »

You did say this though:

what point are you making ? I dont see where ye are getting that I think he is guilty.

metrovelvet

keane2097 wrote: »

Seriously, the pair of ye would want to cop yourselves on.

Is it any wonder you find people inspired to argue against any and all points of view you will ever take when you insist on peddling such a disingenuous, patronising argument.

So childish.

I beg your pardon?

hondasam

stimpson wrote: »

You said you were prepared to judge him.

that is not what I meant, I was justing saying if we did a poll between us now who would say he was guilty based on what we have read.

keane2097

hondasam wrote: »

what point are you making ? I dont see where ye are getting that I think he is guilty.

*sigh*

Silverfish

SugarHigh wrote: »

Silverfish I never said she actually was making just thy the claim she wasn't raped holds as much value at the moment as the claim she was. I also never said she was being punished for making a false rape claim I said she was rightly punished for destroying a case.

Okay, but personally, I'm wondering if it's worth making someone who may/may not be a rape victim feel even more like crap.

I know that until the case reached court, both parties were equally innocent / guilty in the eyes of the law - except that one of them really was guilty.

Spousal rape is such a fine line, and an odd one to choose if she was just looking to make a false allegation to get back at her husband. Hard enough to prove it against someone who you're NOT already presumed to be having a sexual relationship with, so with the stigma attached to spousal rape, if she wanted to make something up, there'd be better options if she was guilty of being a liar.

She was punished for preventing the case from moving forward, i.e as stated, the prosecution / police had evidence (or perhaps proof) and as she was the key witness, they would need her to secure a conviction, so yes, if the chief witness suddenly decides they no longer want to make a case, then changes their mind and says 'No, **** it, let's do this' then yes, punishment is probably apt, but I'd say in the case of a (genuine, not saying if this case is or not, just in *a* genuine case) then really, is getting scared and changing your mind, then going back on that really deserving of prison?

hondasam

keane2097 wrote: »

*sigh*

I really dont know what your problem is ? what did I say to piss you of?

Silverfish

Can I remind people at this point to keep things civil and on topic.

Thanks.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

I beg your pardon?

It's pretty obvious you can't actually believe a rape accusation has no impact on someone's reputation.

Your attempts at trying to pin sexist arguments on people who never made them are also clearly done to ruin someone's character in the eye's if the rest if TLL.

keane2097

SugarHigh wrote: »

It's pretty obvious you can't actually believe a rape accusation has no impact on someone's reputation.

Your attempts at trying to pin sexist arguments on people who never made them are also clearly done to ruin someone's character in the eye's if the rest if TLL.

This.

TY.

SugarHigh

Silverfish wrote: »

Okay, but personally, I'm wondering if it's worth making someone who may/may not be a rape victim feel even more like crap.

I know that until the case reached court, both parties were equally innocent / guilty in the eyes of the law - except that one of them really was guilty.

Spousal rape is such a fine line, and an odd one to choose if she was just looking to make a false allegation to get back at her husband. Hard enough to prove it against someone who you're NOT already presumed to be having a sexual relationship with, so with the stigma attached to spousal rape, if she wanted to make something up, there'd be better options if she was guilty of being a liar.

She was punished for preventing the case from moving forward, i.e as stated, the prosecution / police had evidence (or perhaps proof) and as she was the key witness, they would need her to secure a conviction, so yes, if the chief witness suddenly decides they no longer want to make a case, then changes their mind and says 'No, **** it, let's do this' then yes, punishment is probably apt, but I'd say in the case of a (genuine, not saying if this case is or not, just in *a* genuine case) then really, is getting scared and changing your mind, then going back on that really deserving of prison?

yup I still think sending her to prison is the right thing to do even if everyone involved believed she was raped. The legal system can't make allowances for people they believe tonbe victims but can't prove it.


I'll be honest and say it's a said situation because my gut feeling tells me she was raped but the legal system isn't based on gut feelings.

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

It's pretty obvious you can't actually believe a rape accusation has no impact on someone's reputation.

Your attempts at trying to pin sexist arguments on people who never made them are also clearly done to ruin someone's character in the eye's if the rest if TLL.

Oh for christs sake. An accusation is an accusation, not a conviction. I am old enough to be able to see that. Are you? Mud gets thrown all the time. It would take a lot more than a little comment from me to ruin someone's character.

You get the Oscar for dramatics though.

SugarHigh

hondasam wrote: »

that is not what I meant, I was justing saying if we did a poll between us now who would say he was guilty based on what we have read.

Most of us probably do think he's guilty but he still deserves to be treated as an innocent man until it's proven without doubt he's guilty.

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

Most of us probably do think he's guilty but he still deserves to be treated as an innocent man until it's proven without doubt he's guilty.

No. Most of us do not think that because NONE of us has heard any testimony or seen evidence. ALL of us dont know.

almostnever

metrovelvet wrote: »

Oh for christs sake. An accusation is an accusation, not a conviction. I am old enough to be able to see that. Are you? Mud gets thrown all the time. It would take a lot more than a little comment from me to ruin someone's character.

You get the Oscar for dramatics though.

Being charged with rape DOES NOT EQUAL "a little comment." Christ almighty, it could've been in the local papers or anything for all we know!

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Oh for christs sake. An accusation is an accusation, not a conviction. I am old enough to be able to see that. Are you? Mud gets thrown all the time. It would take a lot more than a little comment from me to ruin someone's character.

You get the Oscar for dramatics though.

So if you found out your kids teacher has been accused say 5 times of molesting kids but got off everytime you wouldn't view him differently and that not one single person would?