Gang of 12 'allegedly' rape British Citizen in Cyprus

dowie said:
Yeah she might have let them take her roughly in every hole and afterwards someone pinched her arse off camera... that’s sexual assault you know!
Click to expand...
Or, we simply cannot take video evidence as evidence of a whole affair.

Also, pinching someones arse is a physical assault, whether sexual or not depends on the context. I'm glad you seem to have the basics of consent figured out though. Phew!


dowie said:
Ditto to the “believe all women” types...
Click to expand...
And what about the "follow the evidence" types?
 
String said:
I have no intention of watching a young woman getting gang raped. I am also content never to know whether or not a gang rape occurred.

As I said previously, it's frightening that someone like you could be selected for Jury Duty.
Click to expand...


I don't think your cross between ostrich like and assumptive approach would enhance any jury either <LOL>
 
Threepwood said:
Or, we simply cannot take video evidence as evidence of a whole affair.

Also, pinching someones arse is a physical assault, whether sexual or not depends on the context. I'm glad you seem to have the basics of consent figured out though. Phew!



And what about the "follow the evidence" types?
Click to expand...

You don’t seem to be doing that tbh... you seem to be more trying every angle/grab at any uncertainty even though the evidence seems to suggest the opposite
 
dowie said:
you seem to be more trying every angle/grab at any uncertainty even though the evidence seems to suggest the opposite
Click to expand...
Well, that is the point Dowie... theres a lot of uncertainty around the case. I could say the same about you, except your uncertainty about evidence seems to have you convinced that she is 100% guilty and they are 100% innocent, making her worth **** shaming. Whereas I think there is enough uncertainty for there has probably been a perversion of justice happen. The whole being held for 8 hours alone to retract her statement of what happened, stating she was scared for her life during that, and ultimately being denied a fair trial.

I don't believe that its grabbing onto anything that isn't common sense... but I don't understand why some folk (and why it it the ones who sound the most repugnant) latch onto something that is not 100% proof of something, when common sense should say to them its not 100% proof. Seems faith led, tbh.

A fair trial would have been better.
 
You don’t have a trial on the basis of every accusation made, some cases will never even get as far as people being charged even. I think you’re being ridiculous tbh... there isn’t lots of uncertainty you’re just trying to cling onto whatever you can find to argue for the rather unlikely alternative.
 
If the alternative was unlikely there would be very little to no evidence to suggest the contrary. Which, if were the case, I wouldn't (along with many others) be here questioning the outcome.

She wasn't allowed a lawyer during the interrorgation, which is against for law for obvious reasons, I'm not sure exactly how you cannot see that makes her changed statement totally uncertain.

The judge refused to have any evidence about whether the woman was raped allowed be shown.

And, the whole suggestion of what was decided she did do, were things suggested by the prosecutor, not even what her changed statement was.

She also continues to say she was held down and raped and is seeking an appeal.

Seriously, how on earth, with good conscience can you say, that there is no uncertainty here?

Totally boggling.
 
Last edited:
hello ....first time poster on here.The 12 guys had a trail and were found NOT guilty and then she had a trail and was found GUILTY...case closed...does it sound like i have no heart? well as a person that was once falsely accused i know first hand what a person goes though being accused of this horrifying crime. i was not given the benefit of the doubt, i was deemed GUILTY from the start, i had no support from the police (even though they are ment to have no opinion about a person being guilty or not) the police's roll is to gather all evidence be it compelling evidence or damming evidence to a case but because of media pressure and scaremongering of the public every man in the UK accused of a sex crime is deemed guilty before trail. i may seem a crumpy sod but i proved 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt (accuser admitted in court she was doing it for MONEY ) that i was INNOCENT.....did she get punished? no it was deemed not in the public interest. so i was named and shamed, lost my job , had social services treating me like a monster, my home vandalised (needed to sell it and move 150 miles away) had my life and my kids life pulled apart for what? MONEY!!!

ok rant over

she may or may not have been a victim its the courts that are ment to sort it out , they dont always get it right for both sides but at the end of the day no one in this case went to prison. so that could been seen as a win-win or lose-lose.
 
nope i represented my self as i saw it as i have done nothing wrong and the truth will prove this. But if i never gathered the evidence that i did i would have been found guilty. witch to be honest shocked me and my family as we were under the naive impression that a person is deemed innocent unless proven guilty. but it turns out the wording is "innocent UNTILL proved guilty" as if its going to happen and no chance some one accused of this is innocent.

i may seem i have a twisted view, but before i was accused i was of the option " if your accused, you must have done it, no one makes false claims like that " what a eye opener i had :(
 
Innocent bloke said:
i know first hand what a person goes though being accused of this horrifying crime. i was not given the benefit of the doubt, i was deemed GUILTY from the start, i had no support from the police
Click to expand...

How long ago was that? It's getting better for men, my friend had it last year but the police were on his side from the beginning which was a surprise.
 
Innocent bloke said:
nope i represented my self as i saw it as i have done nothing wrong and the truth will prove this. But if i never gathered the evidence that i did i would have been found guilty. witch to be honest shocked me and my family as we were under the naive impression that a person is deemed innocent unless proven guilty. but it turns out the wording is "innocent UNTILL proved guilty" as if its going to happen and no chance some one accused of this is innocent.

i may seem i have a twisted view, but before i was accused i was of the option " if your accused, you must have done it, no one makes false claims like that " what a eye opener i had :(
Click to expand...

And you now Google around, finding forum posts similar to your experience, to fight the injustice?
 
Innocent bloke said:
nope i represented my self as i saw it as i have done nothing wrong and the truth will prove this. But if i never gathered the evidence that i did i would have been found guilty. witch to be honest shocked me and my family as we were under the naive impression that a person is deemed innocent unless proven guilty. but it turns out the wording is "innocent UNTILL proved guilty" as if its going to happen and no chance some one accused of this is innocent.

i may seem i have a twisted view, but before i was accused i was of the option " if your accused, you must have done it, no one makes false claims like that " what a eye opener i had :(
Click to expand...
so you didnt have legal representation? I cant make sense of what your saying.
If this is the case you could have saved yourself so much time and effort by seeking out a legal professional. a lot of the time these cases are dropped before it even gets to courts purely down to how you are being represented from the get go.
 
nope vincenthanna i was looking on here about advice on a pc i just had built on COMPETITOR REMOVED ( witch i think i made a huge mistake on ) i just posted it on another thread.

iamtheoneneo i can under stand why you may think that about not having legal representation but i had never been in any sort of trouble in my life and took the ADVICE of the police ( i was told i dont really need a legal rep ) as it will be sorted out asap and not even go to trail. also like i said i was naive and believed in the rule of law.

but thank the gods it turned out as it did. all iam doing now is moving on with my life and enjoying being a dad again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Innocent bloke said:
nope vincenthanna i was looking on here about advice on a pc i just had built on ************.co.uk ( witch i think i made a huge mistake on ) i just posted it on another thread.

iamtheoneneo i can under stand why you may think that about not having legal representation but i had never been in any sort of trouble in my life and took the ADVICE of the police ( i was told i dont really need a legal rep ) as it will be sorted out asap and not even go to trail. also like i said i was naive and believed in the rule of law.

but thank the gods it turned out as it did. all iam doing now is moving on with my life and enjoying being a dad again.
Click to expand...


Right but you had the option of it didnt you. You really should read a little more into this case before comparing it to yours.
 
ok omnomnom i sort of agree with you and i may have been a little bit biased but by the same token if you had read my case before i went to trail you would have prob have thought i was guilty not because of the evidence but just because of the accusation.
not that iam saying thats a bad thing like i said before i had the same option, but sadly i had to though what i did before my eyes were opened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom