GD is going to love this one - Rape case collapse

[Vonhelmet]

What is even more relevant to the defendants case is that the accuser also appears to have been texting fantasies about having violent sex and fantasies of being raped.

Very problematic, though it still doesn’t mean she couldn’t be raped... it just makes it all the harder to prove it.

 

[rubberduck]

I've just exchanged about 20 'messages' in the course of a rather short convo with a girl about meeting tonight for example... I'd wager that tallying up inevitable further messages later I could easily chalk up 200+ with her by then end of today... however reading through those 200 is just a case of scrolling down and takes a minute or so

Any chance you can post a picture of the girl along with a transcript of the messages? I think it will make for more interesting reading than the latest magnolia thread.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
So I wonder what went on here. I strongly support victims of Rape and assault coming forward, but if this girl lied for some reason to get back at the guy in some way then all it does it harm other victims who have genuinely suffered.

Some people might say that it also harms the man who was the victim of it, or even that it mainly harms him.

But no feminist would say that, of course, because it relies on thinking that men are people rather than things that at best don't matter. A feminist would say that the only harm it does is risk weakening the automatic presumption of guilt in future allegations. Like you did.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Some people might say that it also harms the man who was the victim of it, or even that it mainly harms him.

But no feminist would say that, of course, because it relies on thinking that men are people rather than things that at best don't matter. A feminist would say that the only harm it does is risk weakening the automatic presumption of guilt in future allegations. Like you did.

And a person straw manning the definition of “feminist” would post something like what you just posted.

 

[Orionaut]

The CPS didn't know either, hence the headline stating
Met Police to conduct urgent review after rape trial collapse

I smell plausible deniability.

I mean, Government employed prosecutors, under considerable political pressure to achieve a higher rate for rape convictions, would never contemplate doing anything as underhand as conspiring with Police investigators to exclude potentially exonerating evidence would they..??

Not necessarily - the authorities in some countries (like Japan) don’t have to disclose anything.
.

And there we have it.

I am sure I remember a program about Law enforcement in Japan that basically suggested that (At that time anyway) it was almost unheard of for a defendant to be found "Not Guilty" once it got to trial... :/

 

[drunkenmaster]

People really need to get it together, the excuse that the police are not equipped or trained to deal with social media is bull, they had the 40k messages, they are legally obliged to pass all of them over, not just the relevant ones. A common lawyer tactic is in fact burying the pertinent information an an avalanche of information. IE the legally accepted practice would be to always give them the full 40k and hope the one really relevant one gets overlooked by the intern or 1st year who was tasked to trawl through them. Doing the work yourself, identifying the 6 that blow your case and passing those specifically to the defence is poor form.

They collected the information easily, they had it for a long time and they failed to disclose it when their job is simply to box up all evidence and pass it to the defence, they passed everything else, they purposefully withheld the only evidence that completely exonerates him.

Then all the people saying she may still have been raped, no, read up on the case and don't destroy this guy's life in particular whoever it was who would have convicted him based on how he looks.

The specific incidents she claimed were rape were referred to in texts in which she both bragged to friends she thought the specific nights were great, she also after those 'rapes' kept texting him for further sex. Revenge, spite, sociopath, I don't know the reason but she had sex with him, enjoyed it, told others she enjoyed it and asked him for more than at some later date decided hey I want to screw you so I'm going to claim that is all rape.

The situation in which they have sex 10 times consensually and then he rapes her at a later date is absolutely a situation that happens, consensual sex doesn't preclude the possibility of rape and I've never seen anyone suggest so, but when you have sex 10 times, keep asking for more sex, tell all your friends it's great and at a later date decide that those 10 times having sex were rape no, it's not possible she was raped, she's simply lying.

This is why men want anonymity the same as the, despite clear and obvious proof she was lying most people still don't actually believe he's innocent while at the same time the liar is unnamed and unknown. The police are being excused throughout this thread for being understaffed or undertrained. There will be a box somewhere with evidence, they have to give this to the defence, they took out the hard drive before handing it over, that is as simple as it gets. It's more effort to take out evidence than to forget it, it's corruption at it's worst. My guess is someone said, election of some kind coming up, we don't want to appear soft on rape right now as it's a campaign piece for someone, let this guy dangle for a couple years, we'll keep pushing the case back despite knowing he's innocent. That is how the world works.

Last point, people keep suggesting the case collapsed directly because of the evidence screw up and the case was thrown out because of a technicality. No the case was dismissed because on seeing the evidence the prosecution decided they wouldn't get a conviction.... because the evidence completely exonerated him. Which is another problem, he doesn't get his day in court to prove his innocence, they kept him dangling for two years then close the case rather than let him prove he's innocent.

A spokesman for the CPS said:.....
“In November 2017, the police provided more material in the case of Liam Allan. Upon a review of that material, it was decided that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction.

“Therefore we offered no evidence in the case against Liam Allan at a hearing on 14 December 2017. We will now be conducting a management review together with the Metropolitan police to examine the way in which this case was handled.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...g-out-urgent-assessment-after-trial-collapses

 

[dowie]

Seems like the 'victim' in this case needs to be prosecuted too, in addition to the police officers.

 

[Orionaut]

As I said, I do not believe for one moment that there was no prior communication between CPS and the investigating officers over this. Just not conceivable really.

My take...

Two years ago...

Policeman- "we have evidence here that might blow the case out of the water. But I will just hang onto it for now in case something else turns up."

CPS lawyer-"Oh, alright, I didn't hear that, I wasn't here."

Fast Forward two years...

Policeman-(Whispers quietly in ear "Sorry nothing else turned up, we have to come clean") "Oh, sorry, we made a mistake, we should have given you this earlier. "

CPS Lawyer-"Oh the Horror, We cannot possibly make a case in the light of this "New" evidence, we must ask for the case to be dismissed"

Later...

Board of inquiry-"Somebody made a terrible error but nobody actually did anything willfully wrong, Whose turn is it to take early retirement on full pension due to "Stress" (Either that or carry out some "retraining")"

Just you wait and see....

There is more chance of me flying to Mars on Musks "Big ******* Rocket" than anybody actually facing prosecution over this fiasco.

 

[Gogl]

While it is expected behaviour, I feel the prosecution barrister is to be commended that he specifically asked the officer responsible for disclosure if there was anything that could undermine the prosecution or assist the defence on the discs, and though the officer said there wasn't he still wasn't happy, so the case was adjourned and the defence given the data to review.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Any money in it for him?

One would imagine that a half decent lawyer could dry bum the Police/CPS back to the Stone Age for this and get enourmous damages.

 

[TJM]

People really need to get it together, the excuse that the police are not equipped or trained to deal with social media is bull, they had the 40k messages, they are legally obliged to pass all of them over, not just the relevant ones. A common lawyer tactic is in fact burying the pertinent information an an avalanche of information. IE the legally accepted practice would be to always give them the full 40k and hope the one really relevant one gets overlooked by the intern or 1st year who was tasked to trawl through them. Doing the work yourself, identifying the 6 that blow your case and passing those specifically to the defence is poor form.

They collected the information easily, they had it for a long time and they failed to disclose it when their job is simply to box up all evidence and pass it to the defence, they passed everything else, they purposefully withheld the only evidence that completely exonerates him.

That isn't quite how criminal disclosure works. The police and CPS are explicitly told not just to hand everything over to the defence.

All material gathered during an investigation is classified as either relevant or non-relevant. Relevant material that the prosecution intends to use in court (i.e. evidence) is automatically provided to the defence. Relevant material that the prosecution does not intend to use must be assessed for disclosure - if it undermines the prosecution or assists the defence, it should be disclosed. If it does neither, it should not be disclosed but the defence should be made aware of its existence and can ask to see it.

The vast majority of unused material falls into the second category and the defence usually only ask to see specific documents. Defence solicitors don't get paid to review unused material and would be aware that there is usually nothing in the unused material that can assist them, so they would not want the CPS to dump volumes of useless information on them.

One would imagine that a half decent lawyer could dry bum the Police/CPS back to the Stone Age for this and get enourmous damages.

He might get a wasted costs order for his legal expenses (assuming he isn't on legal aid). He will not get any damages.

 

[dowie]

He might get a wasted costs order for his legal expenses (assuming he isn't on legal aid). He will not get any damages.

Why not out of interest?

Could he not launch a private prosecution here and a civil case too - the 'victim' in this case seem to have quite blatantly made a false accusation?

Likewise surely the police are bordering on attempting to pervert the course of justice?

 

[dowie]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/rape-case-scandal-is-just-tip-of-the-iceberg-7hdjtlv9z

Dozens of cases have collapsed in the past three years because of serious police failings over the way they handle evidence, according to an inspection report obtained by The Times.

In one case, a man accused of robbery spent six months in jail before a prosecutor found evidence confirming that he had been robbed by the “victim”, who was a violent drug dealer.

Yesterday The Times revealed that Liam Allan, 22, spent almost two years on bail and was on trial for a series of alleged rapes before police handed over text messages that exonerated him.

Angela Rafferty, QC, chairwoman of the Criminal Bar Association, said yesterday that without the intervention of the barristers in court Mr Allan “would have suffered an appalling miscarriage of justice” because of the failure of police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

OK on one hand perhaps she would say but it is rather useful that these barristers are basically independent of the CPS and essentially contracted by them unlike say the US system where there isn't a separation between solicitors and barristers and the prosecutors are government/state employees working alongside the feds/police. I guess at least he didn't spend 6 months on remand like the poor chap accused of robbery.

Problem is who prosecutes the prosecutors/police... surely this is beyond dodgy when they're actively concealing evidence that blatantly shows this guy has no case to answer in the first place. Likewise why no prosecution of the person making blatantly false rape allegations?

There was a case previously where a man launched a private prosecution after a rape case against him was dropped, partly because people still carried the same attitudes echoed by some earlier in this thread i.e. the "but we don't really know he's innocent, the police just messed up the case" etc... and so he wanted to clear his name like in the case in this thread there were text messages - there was also CCTV footage of the happy couple out shopping for sex toys the next day after the supposed rape etc.. but he had to prosecute at great personal expense to himself until the CPS took over the case. Even then it was hugely controversial to prosecute and made even more so when she committed suicide.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...nt-wrote-of-her-disbelief-at-prosecution.html

 

[Angilion]

And a person straw manning the definition of “feminist” would post something like what you just posted.

1) It's a very common and entirely expected attitude amongst people who are believers in biological group advocacy ideologies. It could reasonably be said to be a requirement to hold that view to some degree in order to be a believer in a biological group advocacy ideology. Belief in biological group identity is not conducive to thinking of people as people and belief in biological group advocacy (which obviously requires belief in biological group identity) requires internal "justification" for considering the "wrong" biological group identity or identities to be unworthy of consideration.

2) It wholly explains the position I referred to, which is the standard feminist position on the subject and was stated particularly explicitly in the post I replied to.

So it's a relevant explanation that fits the available evidence very well.

You dismiss it, but you give no reason why you're doing so and you offer no other explanation at all, let alone a better one.

 

[andi]

People really need to get it together, the excuse that the police are not equipped or trained to deal with social media is bull, they had the 40k messages, they are legally obliged to pass all of them over, not just the relevant ones. A common lawyer tactic is in fact burying the pertinent information an an avalanche of information. IE the legally accepted practice would be to always give them the full 40k and hope the one really relevant one gets overlooked by the intern or 1st year who was tasked to trawl through them. Doing the work yourself, identifying the 6 that blow your case and passing those specifically to the defence is poor form.

They collected the information easily, they had it for a long time and they failed to disclose it when their job is simply to box up all evidence and pass it to the defence, they passed everything else, they purposefully withheld the only evidence that completely exonerates him.

That isn't the case at all.

As disclosure officer, you're job is to review all information held that relates to the case. It's then split into used, and unused material. That which is used, the evidence in the case, will all be passed to the defence, but the unused has to be summaried by the disclosure officer, and these summaries passed to the CPS. If there is anything that would undermine the case, this should be flagged up to the CPS. It is then the CPS who disclose to the defence of what unused material is held, and the defence then request copies of what they want to see.

In this case, the disclosure officer should have flagged up the messages as unused material that undermined the case, but for some reason didn't.

There is no 'box' of evidence, and even if it was, it'd never get passed to the defence.

Having been disclosure officer in plenty enough jobs, even though they were all only ever small stuff, it can still be a massively time consuming job. The information is usually held on all different computer systems, or even hard copies, and some of it is vast, and, contrary to what you say, you do have to go through it all so it can be classified properly.

It's a shame that, even though everyone is very keen to shout "innocent until proven guilty" about the public, we're not so eager to apply that to police. It might be that there was a case of misconduct, but it also might well have been a mistake. Until the case review is done, and a recommendation is made, it's hard to say.

 

[Gogl]

In the case of information gleaned from a mobile phone, would it be sorted in any way or would the data be extracted onto a disc and that given over in its entirety if any portion was found to undermine the prosecution?

According to article, Jerry Hayes, the prosecution barrister said the CPS hadn't seen the disc and the officer said it was clearly not disclosable because it dealt with very personal matters.

 

[drunkenmaster]

It's a shame that, even though everyone is very keen to shout "innocent until proven guilty" about the public, we're not so eager to apply that to police. It might be that there was a case of misconduct, but it also might well have been a mistake. Until the case review is done, and a recommendation is made, it's hard to say.

The case was built around her story and her texts directly proved she was lying, a guys life was absolutely made hell for two years while the police held evidence proving his innocence the entire time. When the police investigate this they take a report from the woman, they investigate the man and the woman, they get her texts, before this even goes to a prosecutor or charging the guy they should be checking through the texts at the very least around the dates of the supposed sexual encounters and seeing what she said. They managed to take two years to check some really basic information which should have been done before even escalating this from interviews with both sides to bringing charges.

They had evidence that proved her a liar and proved him innocent but left him to hang for two years and regardless anyone who ever searches his name will now find stories about him being a rapist. This is a failure at all levels throughout the police investigation, the people interviewing both parties, those overseeing collection of evidence and those making a decision if this case has any merit at all.

 

[dowie]

@drunkenmaster - you've rather confusingly attributed a quote to me that I didn't write - can you edit your post please/try pressing the quote button again

 

[dowie]

As disclosure officer, you're job is to review all information held that relates to the case. It's then split into used, and unused material. That which is used, the evidence in the case, will all be passed to the defence, but the unused has to be summaried by the disclosure officer, and these summaries passed to the CPS. If there is anything that would undermine the case, this should be flagged up to the CPS. It is then the CPS who disclose to the defence of what unused material is held, and the defence then request copies of what they want to see.

In this case, the disclosure officer should have flagged up the messages as unused material that undermined the case, but for some reason didn't.

Why does it even get that far? Surely there is no case to answer? It just seems mad that it wasn't dropped far earlier when those text messages were examined, I mean it was dropped very quickly when the barrister took a look at it.

I mean if someone gets caught on suspicion of "shoplifting", say they've lost their receipt and paid cash but the police later find the shop has a record of the transaction/CCTV footage of the person making the purchase would it be reasonable to mindlessly deal with that by simply filing it as unused evidence? Surely if there is sufficient evidence for the case to be dropped like a hot potato the moment the prosecuting barrister saw it then there is something wrong re: the police officer here - he's surely either very dodgy and trying to stitch the guy up or he's thick as ****.

 

[Dis86]

Why does it even get that far? Surely there is no case to answer? It just seems mad that it wasn't dropped far earlier when those text messages were examined, I mean it was dropped very quickly when the barrister took a look at it.

I mean if someone gets caught on suspicion of "shoplifting", say they've lost their receipt and paid cash but the police later find the shop has a record of the transaction/CCTV footage of the person making the purchase would it be reasonable to mindlessly deal with that by simply filing it as unused evidence? Surely if there is sufficient evidence for the case to be dropped like a hot potato the moment the prosecuting barrister saw it then there is something wrong re: the police officer here - he's surely either very dodgy and trying to stitch the guy up or he's thick as ****.

About 5 years ago my dad was taken to court over use if a mobile phone whilst driving. An officer parked in a car 70m away claimed she'd seen him. He was pulled over and told she was reporting him to the court for it. He tried to point out he wasn't using it but she refused to listen. He even offered to get the phone so she could check the call log but her response was 'you'll have just deleted it'.

I was working for a mobile phone network at the time and so through the correct channels was able to get his phone records which corroborated his story. These records were available to the police as I'd provided them in the past.

The cps decided the case was worthy and it went to court.

In court it was revealed that there was a trainee police officer (probationer?) in the car who had at no point seen my dad on the phone-something that was left out of the original prosecution documents. The trainee had submitted their statement saying they couldn't see anything due to glare from the sunset.
The original officer stated the distance she had seen my dad using the phone was 10m. It was proven from the description of the locations in her report that this was actually 70m.
She stated he initially refused to hand over the device and when he did the call logs had been cleared. We handed over the phone which showed calls from before, during and after the date in question. Proof the logs hadn't been cleared.
Neither the police nor cps at any time tried to contact the mobile network to check if a call was made or received.
She stated the weather conditions were clear with good visibility. Correct. The issue being the direction my dad was approaching from was the West and at the time if day in question the sun was setting. She would have struggled to see which is why her partner hadn't seen anything.

Basically the officer in question was an out and out liar as was proven in court. The magistrate only barely stopped short of calling her one there and then. What he couldn't understand however was firstly how such an incomplete prosecution file had been submitted to the cps and secondly how the cps had allowed the case to go to court from the evidence provided. It should have been obvious that key items were missing and there were contradictions.

Tl;Dr sometimes the police and cps do some very strange things.