Serious injustice against an innocent man

Hotblack Desiato

How f**ked up is this?

I won't link to the article as that'd just be making it worse, but it was on the Irish Times site today.

After thanking the jury for their service, Judge Karen O’Connor lifted reporting restrictions that prevented the media from naming Mr ****** during the trial.

(his full name is in the article)

This man could not be named in the media while the charges of sexual assault against him stood, but now that he has been acquitted of these charges it's perfecly OK to name him and associate him for years to come (internet search, etc) with allegations of sexual assault.

The system is seriously f**ked up. We wouldn't countenance naming his accuser and rightly so, but he is named and shamed in relation to accusations he was found innocent of. It's not justice that's for sure.

If you are shortlisting someone for a job interview and the words 'sexual assault' are found against their quite distinctive name, that CV is going in the bin.

mikeysmith

Odd case I thought

Lack of evidence

Hotblack Desiato

The details of the case are irrelevant.

What's relevant is that he couldn't be named when the charges still stood against him, but once he was found innocent the judge said it was perfectly OK to smear his name in the media. I can't fathom the logic of that. As a man found innocent his good name should be protected.

RHJ

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

I've served on a jury twice, and both times the accused didn't testify (as is their right) - but if they do testify in their defence then the jury needs to see and hear their testimony in person and evaluate its credibility, the same as they would for any other prosecution or defence witness.

Again though that's not the point of this thread, it's the 'logic' of keeping his name secret when he was still potentially guilty and then releasing it once he was found innocent.

pilly

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Again though that's not the point of this thread, it's the 'logic' of keeping his name secret when he was still potentially guilty and then releasing it once he was found innocent.

Maybe the logic is to vindicate him because rumours may be out there already?

I don't know, just guessing.

RHJ

RHJ wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Um....that ain't right. Justice is supposed to be done and seen to be done. It's blind to issues like race, gender etc.

Your Face

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

How f**ked up is this?

I won't link to the article as that'd just be making it worse, but it was on the Irish Times site today.

(his full name is in the article)

This man could not be named in the media while the charges of sexual assault against him stood, but now that he has been acquitted of these charges it's perfecly OK to name him and associate him for years to come (internet search, etc) with allegations of sexual assault.

The system is seriously f**ked up. We wouldn't countenance naming his accuser and rightly so, but he is named and shamed in relation to accusations he was found innocent of. It's not justice that's for sure.

If you are shortlisting someone for a job interview and the words 'sexual assault' are found against their quite distinctive name, that CV is going in the bin.

His accuser is named though, in the same article?

This one?

Massage therapist acquitted of sexually assaulting woman

I don't see the injustice here as normally the accused name is withheld to protect the identity of the alleged victim, unless they waive their right to anonymity?

I don't see either how their CV is going in the bin when the word 'acquitted' is surely going to appear in the same article? Would you throw their CV in the bin?

Fr_Dougal

Knuckledraggers: no smoke witout fyre lol

applehunter

OP Irony Alert

"repeal" pic in his profile.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

His accuser is named though, in the same article?

This one?

Massage therapist acquitted of sexually assaulting woman

I don't see the injustice here as normally the accused name is withheld to protect the identity of the alleged victim, unless they waive their right to anonymity?

I don't see either how their CV is going in the bin when the word 'acquitted' is surely going to appear in the same article? Would you throw their CV in the bin?

Please cut and past the sentence in which her name appears....cause I don't see it. She is referred to as "the woman" in the report multiple times afaic.

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

Please cut and past the sentence in which her name appears....cause I don't see it. She is referred to as "the woman" in the report multiple times afaic.

Ah, you're right. I misread the article.

pilly

applehunter wrote:

OP Irony Alert

applehunter wrote:

"repeal" pic in his profile.

I don't get any irony?

arayess

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't see either how their CV is going in the bin when the word 'acquitted' is surely going to appear in the same article? Would you throw their CV in the bin?

maybe not but

I once worked in a place when a colleague had previously a drink problem and ended up in a civil situation in the Uk - he won the case but it opened a murky aspect to his private life.
Nothing illegal but that automatically stained his reputation where I worked. He was never taken seriously.

Would I send my (imaginary) wife for a massage there...nah I'd say "try another spot, to be safe.."

bucketybuck

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't see either how their CV is going in the bin when the word 'acquitted' is surely going to appear in the same article? Would you throw their CV in the bin?

Thats a little naive. Even apart from the "No smoke without fire" crowd there is a sizeable subset of people striving for the quiet life who wouldn't hire anybody who looks to have been involved in any sort of drama at all, his fault or not. Because who needs that hassle when there are dozens of other candidate would be their logic.

The "no smoke without fire" angle is the most damaging though, especially for a male massage therapist. Forget employers, what are customers going to think when they google him? His mainly female customers? In the age of #metoo?

I can see a few reasons why they might have released his name but that doesn't men there won't be negative repercussions as well. For which reason I hope that the accuser in this case is being charged with a crime as well?

Ralf and Florian

Out of interest what part of the world does this guy come from?

Hotblack Desiato

applehunter wrote: »

OP Irony Alert

"repeal" pic in his profile.

And...?

Hotblack Desiato

bucketybuck wrote: »

I can see a few reasons why they might have released his name but that doesn't men there won't be negative repercussions as well. For which reason I hope that the accuser in this case is being charged with a crime as well?

Ah hang on. Just because a charge wasn't proven doesn't mean the accuser committed perjury. A jury has to consider the charge proven beyond reasonable doubt to convict, and that's a high enough hurdle to pass over.

One eyed Jack

arayess wrote: »

maybe not but
...

Would I send my (imaginary) wife for a massage there...nah I'd say "try another spot, to be safe.."

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats a little naive. Even apart from the "No smoke without fire" crowd there is a sizeable subset of people striving for the quiet life who wouldn't hire anybody who looks to have been involved in any sort of drama at all, his fault or not. Because who needs that hassle when there are dozens of other candidate would be their logic.

The "no smoke without fire" angle is the most damaging though, especially for a male massage therapist. Forget employers, what are customers going to think when they google him? His mainly female customers? In the age of #metoo?

It's not naive at all. You're both making the argument that his reputation has been damaged, by pointing out that you would make assumptions about his character in spite of the fact that he was acquitted. You're both perpetuating the "no smoke without fire" and reputational damage you're complaining he will suffer? That just makes no sense!

I can see a few reasons why they might have released his name but that doesn't men there won't be negative repercussions as well. For which reason I hope that the accuser in this case is being charged with a crime as well?

His accuser doesn't appear to have committed any crime though. There's no evidence she made any attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Tzardine

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

Out of interest what part of the world does this guy come from?

What difference does it make ?

Ralf and Florian

Tzardine wrote: »

What difference does it make ?

Cultural differences.

daveyeh

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Knuckledraggers: no smoke witout fyre lol

It's so easy to smear someones good name, this poor guys life could have been ruined overnight.

I hope this nasty evil individual gets some serious time.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/sentencing-in-false-rape-case-set-for-january-463842.html

Canis Lupus

I wonder why he texted her hoping she wasn't upset with him and would understand if she decided not to see him again.

Dr Crayfish

How are you supposed to know who's telling the truth in these cases? The guys name is sullied forever now anyway but why on earth would this woman make up stories?

bucketybuck

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not naive at all. You're both making the argument that his reputation has been damaged, by pointing out that you would make assumptions about his character in spite of the fact that he was acquitted. You're both perpetuating the "no smoke without fire" and reputational damage you're complaining he will suffer? That just makes no sense!

I said not one single thing about any assumption that "I" would make. I simply spoke of the reality of what he can now face in the future, and pretending otherwise is indeed naive.