GD is going to love this one - Rape case collapse

That can depend on many things. Size of the investigation team, amount of texts and so on.

im on holiday at the moment so i try and lay off the news (because its so depressing lol). So was this a case of the OIC not including the texts in the case file for the CPS or did the CPS ignore it ? would love to read the whole thread but the internet sucks here.
 
dowie said:
Would looking at say texts covering the just the few days around the date of the allegation be a particularly laborious task?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can point me to an article which indicates how soon before the alleged rape the relevant messages were sent/ received?

The BBC article in the opening ing post doesn't say?

It are you making an assumption?

And depending on the nature of the phone download and how many messaging apps were in use yes it might not be a simple task.....
 
My quote

'Your also wrong to state the texts 'prove' no rape occurred. They are relevant to the credibility of the allegation but don't 'prove' anything.'

To which you replied.....

dowie said:
I didn't say that, try using the quote function please instead of making more things up to attack.
Click to expand...


dowie said:
Given that the relevant texts make it pretty clear there wasn't a rape. The barrister dropped it like a hot potato pretty damn quickly.
Click to expand...

Care to care to comment?
 
Last edited:
Caracus2k said:
Perhaps you can point me to an article which indicates how soon before the alleged rape the relevant messages were sent/ received?

The BBC article in the opening ing post doesn't say?

It are you making an assumption?

And depending on the nature of the phone download and how many messaging apps were in use yes it might not be a simple task.....
Click to expand...

you mean after the alleged rape... attention to detail again... there were texts before the acts apparently but the more important ones are surely those afterwards including not just to the defendant but also to her friends - the rape complaint was made a week after he'd dumped her - not sure about timings, can't recall but use some common sense here

I don't doubt aspects of it are tedious, it took the defence barrister less than 24 hours though, she was only informed a week before trial, apparently started the evening she was handed the evidence and by the morning she'd got a bunch of texts that severely undermined the case. The prosecution barrister has stated that the texts blow the case out of the water!

Fact is the police had reviewed the texts... there was a failure to disclose on their part... so so much about your hot air re: disclosure etc.. the police made serious failings re: disclosure here!

Re: your second post - I'm not sure exactly why you've quoted me without saying anything?
 
Caracus2k said:
My quote

'Your also wrong to state the texts 'prove' no rape occurred. They are relevant to the credibility of the allegation but don't 'prove' anything.'

To which you replied.....
dowie said:
I didn't say that, try using the quote function please instead of making more things up to attack.
Click to expand...

dowie said:
It isn't wrong, the relevant texts aren't going to take long to look over... why do you need disclosure if you don't prosecute? Given that the relevant texts make it pretty clear there wasn't a rape. The barrister dropped it like a hot potato pretty damn quickly.
Click to expand...

Care to care to comment?
Click to expand...

erm yes, you should perhaps use the quote function or try reading things more carefully in future as I've already stated

I didn't say the texts "prove" no rape occurred I said the texts made it "pretty clear" there wasn't a rape, which is true.

Thank you for correcting your mistake... if you could stick to what I've actually posted in future that would be great because I've already had to reply a bunch of times to you attacking things I've not said.
 
dowie said:
erm yes, you should perhaps use the quote function or try reading things more carefully in future as I've already stated

I didn't say the texts "prove" no rape occurred I said the texts made it "pretty clear" there wasn't a rape, which is true.

Thank you for correcting your mistake... if you could stick to what I've actually posted in future that would be great because I've already had to reply a bunch of times to you attacking things I've not said.
Click to expand...

How do you conclude that the texts as quoted in the BBC article 'make it pretty clear there wasn't a rape.'

You seem to have made a massive assumption?
 
Caracus2k said:
How do you conclude that the texts as quoted in the BBC article 'make it pretty clear there wasn't a rape.'

You seem to have made a massive assumption?
Click to expand...

Have you not considered that the BBC hasn't reported on all the texts - I'm not sure I've even read the BBC article.. you're making the assumption there!

She's told friends about how much she enjoyed sleeping with him, she's pestered him for sex, she's told him how much she enjoyed it.

The prosecution barrister personally apologised to the defendant, the defence barrister is pretty adamant he shouldn't have even been charged.

Yes it seems pretty clear a rape didn't take place... I'd go further than that and say it seems pretty clear that a false accusation of a rape has taken place

labbby said:
So was this a case of the OIC not including the texts in the case file for the CPS or did the CPS ignore it ?
Click to expand...

according to the prosecuting barrister:

“It was the right thing to do,” he later wrote on Twitter. “[The messages] were not disclosed to anybody – not in unused, not sent to the CPS, not on caselines.”
 
dowie said:
Have you not considered that the BBC hasn't reported on all the texts - I'm not sure I've even read the BBC article.. you're making the assumption there!

She's told friends about how much she enjoyed sleeping with him, she's pestered him for sex, she's told him how much she enjoyed it.

The prosecution barrister personally apologised to the defendant, the defence barrister is pretty adamant he shouldn't have even been charged.

Yes it seems pretty clear a rape didn't take place... I'd go further than that and say it seems pretty clear that a false accusation of a rape has taken place



according to the prosecuting barrister:

“It was the right thing to do,” he later wrote on Twitter. “[The messages] were not disclosed to anybody – not in unused, not sent to the CPS, not on caselines.”
Click to expand...


Please quote your sources as to what was said and where in the texts.....

The ones in the BBC article (or am I to assume that you are so lazy as to comment in this thread without even reading the link in the op) doesn't in any way make it clear that a rape didn't happen.... The messages are of course potentially very relavant to the credibility of the allegations depending on the complaints account.....

Its far from impossible to be raped by someone you previously and enthusiasticly had sex with.....
 
Caracus2k said:
Please quote your sources as to what was said and where in the texts.....

The ones in the BBC articke (am I to assume that you are so lazy as to comment in this thread without even reading the link in the op) doesn't in any way make it clear that a rape didn't happen....
Click to expand...

I don't care whether the BBC article does or not, it is a bit rich for you to call me lazy when you've repeatedly attacked things I've not said, misquoted me etc..

The messages are of course potentially very related to the credibluty of the allegations depending on the complaints account.....

Its far from impossible to be raped by someone you previously and enthusiasticly had sex with.....
Click to expand...

I didn't claim it was impossible...

But again I'm talking about messages sent after the alleged incidents...

I think perhaps it might be better if you go away and read up a bit more on the case before coming back to comment, since apparently the only thing you've read is the BBC article. Yes I could go and spend time looking up the various articles I've read, providing you with more quotes etc..etc.. but frankly you've already demonstrated that you'll wilfully misinterpret posts of only a few lines in length, this whole exchange has stemmed from you objecting to a simple point about text messages and throwing in various straw man arguments and so frankly I'm not so inclined to waste time. I'll be happy to bump it in future too once we get the outcome of the investigation. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if we see a potential prosecution of the supposed "victim" too though past cases have shown that isn't necessarily certain even if the CPS has sufficient evidence to do so.
 
Orionaut said:
Looks like the investigating officer in this case has done this sort of thing before.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5196181/Scotland-Yard-review-hundreds-rape-cases.html

The idea that this is all down to the decisions made by one single individual is simply not credible. There has to be more people involved in this quite deliberate and systematic withholding of exonerating evidence.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if they offer up a scapegoat they can completely evade responsibility for their own actions. Looks like he's the chosen scapegoat. It also serves a politically useful purpose by framing the cases they can't hide as being the result of one person's mistake rather than a fundamentally flawed system.

The police are under strong political pressure to convict more men of rape (and everything else, but especially rape). Note that the pressure is always and relentlessly to convict more men, not to convict more guilty people. Now the pressure is to change law and social norms to have men presumed guilty if accused by a woman, no trial needed and no possibility of being found innocent. The social norms have already changed a lot in that direction and will continue to do so. Sooner or later, the law will follow suit.
 
Vonhelmet said:
It's "pretty poor" to dismiss the idea of improving rape conviction rates as being something you do just to "please certain crowds". I'd be more concerned with the "certain crowds" who don't want to see conviction rates improved.

We know that reporting and conviction rates are very low. Why wouldn't we want to improve them? The question is how you go about doing that. This is not the right way.
Click to expand...

This is the only effective way unless/until it becomes legal to pervert the system more openly by having summary conviction without any investigation at all, let alone a trial. Since that is what is currently being demanded by powerful people, it might happen. It's happened before, in various times and places for various different groups. It would not be surprising if it happened again.

There are only two ways to significantly increase conviction rates:

1) Reduce the reporting rate so only cases with some evidence that might meet the requirements for conviction are reported.
2) Reduce the requirements for conviction.

Unsurprisingly, increasing reporting rates has decreased conviction rates. Also unsurprisingly, this has resulted in a demand to reduce the requirements for conviction. Also unsurprisingly, this has resulted in an increase in the number of innocent people convicted and some cases in which innocent people were somehow able to prove their innocence (although they will of course have a record for life and be presumed guilty by many people anyway).
 
Angilion said:
2) Reduce the requirements for conviction.

Unsurprisingly, increasing reporting rates has decreased conviction rates. Also unsurprisingly, this has resulted in a demand to reduce the requirements for conviction. Also unsurprisingly, this has resulted in an increase in the number of innocent people convicted and some cases in which innocent people were somehow able to prove their innocence (although they will of course have a record for life and be presumed guilty by many people anyway).
Click to expand...


The presumption of innocence for cases involving rape and other sex crimes has been watered down for some time.

To my mind one of the more significant changes was the prohibition of defendants representing themselves.

It seems that there are some offenses where even to be accused of them means you are sufficiently guilty so as to be denied the right to confront your accusers.

Disclaimer

I do understand why this change was made, but I am also deeply uncomfortable about it, as with the removal of the double jeopardy rule. Something that was also done to meet a political agenda rather than in the strict interests of Justice... :/ )
 
And another one makes the news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42441745

Apparently it took the police almost 14 months to examine the crucial evidence which had somehow been left out of the evidence when it was presented to the CPS. Totally unintentionally, obviously, and nothing at all to do with the slight media attention that has recently been given to crucial evidence totally completely accidentally not being disclosed due to a couple of cases in which the disclosure was somehow forced.

I wonder how many other cases have resulted in wrongful convictions because crucial evidence was absolutely accidentally and unintentionally not disclosed to the defence and the accused wasn't able to force the disclosure of that evidence. Dozens? Hundreds? Who knows?

But hey, it increases the conviction rate and that's what matters because that's what people with the most power want.
 
Angilion said:
And another one makes the news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42441745

Totally unintentionally, obviously, and nothing at all to do with the slight media attention that has recently been given to crucial evidence totally completely accidentally not being disclosed due to a couple of cases in which the disclosure was somehow forced.
Click to expand...

The dates don't work.

He said the evidence was disclosed 8 working days before the trial. His trial started on 11th December, 'working days' doesn't include weekends, and so it would have been before the trial of Liam Allen, whose case collapsed on December 14th.

Anyway, this guy's case came to it's conclusion and he was found not guilty. His case didn't collapse because of new evidence
 
Much of this damage could be reduced by anonymity for the defendent apart from in exceptional circumstances. For some reason this still is opposed by those more concerned with appearance than justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom