Sil Fox cleared (Very clear video evidence of lies of accuser)

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

He said he got legal advice, but that's unclear. Reading between the lines, the WRC suspected his legal advice was not official. Sounds like his legal advice was received from a chap on the next bar stool. Real legal advice would have been to have a solicitor present.

The outcome was pretty bad. Lost his employment by not tackling the issue.

He was represented at the WRC by a barrister and solicitors.

BattleCorp

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He was represented at the WRC by a barrister and solicitors.

Apologies and I'm open to correction but I think they didn't examine the validity of the sexual assault claim as far as I understand. They were only there to determine the validity of the investigation and dismissal process.

...Ghost...

BattleCorp wrote: »

Sorry if I'm being blunt with my point below.

If I raped you but for whatever reason you didn't/couldn't go to the Gardai for a few weeks, would you expect them not to arrest me based on your word that I raped you?

As difficult as it might be for me and taking emotions out of it, no....the Gardaí should not arrest you based on my word. Now, if you confess when they invite you in for questioning, then sure....arrest away. An arrest should only be made if there is evidence other than the word of the complainant and even then, it should be carefully considered.

BattleCorp wrote: »

And if he did get legal advice................ legal advice is based on what you tell the solicitor/barrister. If he didn't give the full story, the legal advice may have been flawed, or as mentioned earlier, maybe he was given legal advice not to say anything in case it incriminates him.

The fact that he didn't fight his case by giving his side of the story leaves only set of evidence to be examined.

Good point on the first paragraph. The second paragraph is what I was saying anyway.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He was represented at the WRC by a barrister and solicitors.

But not when he was being questioned by the independent investigator, which is what we were talking about.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Apologies and I'm open to correction but I think they didn't examine the validity of the sexual assault claim as far as I understand. They were only there to determine the validity of the investigation and dismissal process.

That's correct according to the document.

BattleCorp

...Ghost... wrote: »

As difficult as it might be for me and taking emotions out of it, no....the Gardaí should not arrest you based on my word. Now, if you confess when they invite you in for questioning, then sure....arrest away. An arrest should only be made if there is evidence other than the word of the complainant and even then, it should be carefully considered.

Very few crimes would be solved if we did things your way.

If you are invited in for questioning, what happens if you decide not to go? Who in their right mind would go in for questioning if they didn't have to.

The Gardai have the power to arrest you for questioning. This means that if they suspect you have committed a crime, they can arrest you and bring you to the Garda Station for questioning. This doesn't mean that you are guilty of a crime, or that you will even be charged. It is an opportunity for the Gardai to question you and see if there's evidence that you either did or didn't do the crime.

I'll make this easy. Lets pretend you know me personally. Supposing you see me climbing out of a bank window and legging it with a bag of money while the alarm is going off. A few minutes later the Gardai arrive and you tell them that you saw me climbing out the window with a bag of money. Are you saying that the Gardai shouldn't be allowed to arrest me based on your word? Really?

...Ghost...

BattleCorp wrote: »

Very few crimes would be solved if we did things your way.

If you are invited in for questioning, what happens if you decide not to go? Who in their right mind would go in for questioning if they didn't have to.

The Gardai have the power to arrest you for questioning. This means that if they suspect you have committed a crime, they can arrest you and bring you to the Garda Station for questioning. This doesn't mean that you are guilty of a crime, or that you will even be charged. It is an opportunity for the Gardai to question you and see if there's evidence that you either did or didn't do the crime.

I'll make this easy. Lets pretend you know me personally. Supposing you see me climbing out of a bank window and legging it with a bag of money while the alarm is going off. A few minutes later the Gardai arrive and you tell them that you saw me climbing out the window with a bag of money. Are you saying that the Gardai shouldn't be allowed to arrest me based on your word? Really?

Who would willingly go in for questioning? The accused person wouldn't have to answer any questions at all. They could listen to the complaint and perhaps be in a position to prove there and then that it couldn't have been them that committed the alleged crime. To be asked to attend for questioning is not unreasonable and at least puts forward the assumption of innocence which is the right thing to do. Legally, that may present more challenges to the Gardaí but arresting someone based solely on the word of a complainant should not be the first response.

Using your robbery scenario, I don't think the Gardaí should arrest you solely on my word.

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

.

Using your robbery scenario, I don't think the Gardaí should arrest you solely on my word.

So any rapist who manages to rape away from witnesses using a condom is guaranteed to get away with it?

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

But not when he was being questioned by the independent investigator, which is what we were talking about.



That's correct according to the document.

It says that he made the decision to not answer the investigator based on legal advice.

Maybe Mr Coke would like to clarify?

Ted_YNWA

Gremlinertia wrote: »

...Ghost... Enough baiting, anymore of this there will be sanctions

...Ghost... wrote: »

Who would willingly go in for questioning? The accused person wouldn't have to answer any questions at all. They could listen to the complaint and perhaps be in a position to prove there and then that it couldn't have been them that committed the alleged crime. To be asked to attend for questioning is not unreasonable and at least puts forward the assumption of innocence which is the right thing to do. Legally, that may present more challenges to the Gardaí but arresting someone based solely on the word of a complainant should not be the first response.

Using your robbery scenario, I don't think the Gardaí should arrest you solely on my word.

Mod

Don't post in this thread again. You are not engaging in good faith here

cokeiscrap

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It says that he made the decision to not answer the investigator based on legal advice.

Maybe Mr Coke would like to clarify?

Mr. Scrap here ;-l

Some excellent pieces from you earlier and only getting time to reply now.
I cant go into much on here yet as this is still ongoing, but when the time is right and with the mods permission I will reveal all. This needs to be in the public domain.

cokeiscrap

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So any rapist who manages to rape away from witnesses using a condom is guaranteed to get away with it?

The longer after the alleged event takes place is going to be a lot harder to prove than if the alleged crime was reported to the police as soon as possible. And I don't agree in mentioning rape until this has been proved.

I believe that any person who commits a heinous crime such as rape should never see the outside of a prison. So I would be firmly with this female if this was proven. Unfortunately, I don't think this will ever be proved and someones life has been destroyed without this proof.

Maybe its the fault of our police and court/legal system that is to blame in Women not coming forward immediately when an assault takes place. Maybe we need a total overhaul of this.