Man to sue after rape trial collapse

[cullennz]

Saying "NO" after the act, and waiting before deciding she/he had made a mistake in saying yes, is not rape.
Saying "NO" during the process after saying yes is only rape if the other person continues from that point

I thought that post was odd as well

Retrospective non-consent sounded slightly weird

 

[fagin]

One thing that does puzzle me. The man must have received the text messages. What stopped him from telling the defence lawyers I received text messages after the incident. Look into it. These text messages will show my innocence.

If I'd received 40 000 texts from a crazy lady I would have probably deleted them as they arrived.

 

[Garrison]

Saying "NO" after the act, and waiting before deciding she/he had made a mistake in saying yes, is not rape.
Saying "NO" during the process after saying yes is only rape if the other person continues from that point

Exactly and what's been revealed about the messages suggests the woman never withdrew consent and explicitly stated she hadn't been coerced or forced.

 

[Wayward son]

One thing that does puzzle me. The man must have received the text messages. What stopped him from telling the defence lawyers I received text messages after the incident. Look into it. These text messages will show my innocence.

The man did say to his lawyers that he received text messages, but he no longer had his own phone. His lawyers had tried to look into messages on her phone, but the police had said that there was nothing of interest in her text messages.

 

[Wayward son]

Saying "NO" after the act, and waiting before deciding she/he had made a mistake in saying yes, is not rape.
Saying "NO" during the process after saying yes is only rape if the other person continues from that point

The person you are responding to was not talking about saying no after the act, but that someone can change their mind before the act - something that the person said poster was responding to didn't seem to think should be allowed.

 

[332nd]

If I'd received 40 000 texts from a crazy lady I would have probably deleted them as they arrived.

I believe cell carriers keep a record of texts for a while after the fact. My wife pulled up some messages from her old boss during a contract dispute a few years ago.

ETA: NM. Apparently only Verizon does this & it's just 3-5 days.

 

[smartcooky]

The person you are responding to was not talking about saying no after the act, but that someone can change their mind before the act - something that the person said poster was responding to didn't seem to think should be allowed.

"The person" was me, and it wasn't what I said at all.

 

[Nessie]

So who edited the messages to make them misleading? If it was the Police, then they need to be charged with evidence tampering, and if it was the supposed victim, then she should be prosecuted for making a false statement to Police and giving false evidence in court.

Either way, this guy has had his reputation tainted and four years of his life stolen by the lying bitch so she ought to go to jail (four years would be about right) he ought to be paid a lot of restitution.

It appears she told the police there had been deleted messages and no one thought to check if they could be recovered, until the defence found out and recovered them.

 

[fuelair]

And in what way does that contradict the previous testimony? Nothing in the limited articles say any of her testimony was disproved. It seems like basic harassment of victims with their sexual pasts and details is common but how is it relevant? Just goes to show why reporting rapes is a bad idea.

I truly hope you have good reason for the two assumptions I read. Unless someone is heavily lying about the evidence that was not functionally looked at and acted on much earlier the guy deserves to sue and get a ******** of fundage for the evil done him by all the involved!!

 

[rwguinn]

"The person" was me, and it wasn't what I said at all.

I was actually responding to Phantom Wolf--
And what I posted is the way it should be, but often isn't
It is true that a person can say "Yes" one time, and the say "No" for another time. That does not make the first time rape. It could make the next time rape, if the "No" is not accepted.

 

[rjh01]

The man did say to his lawyers that he received text messages, but he no longer had his own phone. His lawyers had tried to look into messages on her phone, but the police had said that there was nothing of interest in her text messages.

I hope the defence has evidence of what I have made bold, because that would be evidence of something more than a silly mistake.

 

[Samson]

I believe cell carriers keep a record of texts for a while after the fact. My wife pulled up some messages from her old boss during a contract dispute a few years ago.

ETA: NM. Apparently only Verizon does this & it's just 3-5 days.

This is odd because text uses virtually no memory. When considering the cumulative nature of so many sites like this one, (good luck getting posts deleted after 2 hours) it would seem straightforward to keep all messages for occasions like this for a very long time. If you turn it around, who would be confident any message sent would not become available to FBI etc?

 

[cullennz]

I believe cell carriers keep a record of texts for a while after the fact. My wife pulled up some messages from her old boss during a contract dispute a few years ago.

ETA: NM. Apparently only Verizon does this & it's just 3-5 days.

Your own cell phone stores every message you have sent, deleted or not.

All they have to do is demand access to your phone and they can see many things you thought were gone

 

[Nessie]

I hope the defence has evidence of what I have made bold, because that would be evidence of something more than a silly mistake.

I think what they mean is, of the messages we got, there is none of interest. They had not bothered to get all the messages.

That is the loophole to get out of disclosure, don't bother making the enquiry in the first place.

I Scotland the S164 Lord Advocates Code of Practice covers disclosure. It closes that loophole, as much as possible, by insisting the police and prosecutor make all reasonable lines of enquiry. But then who defines what is a reasonable enquiry.......

 

[rjh01]

I think what they mean is, of the messages we got, there is none of interest. They had not bothered to get all the messages.

That is the loophole to get out of disclosure, don't bother making the enquiry in the first place.

I Scotland the S164 Lord Advocates Code of Practice covers disclosure. It closes that loophole, as much as possible, by insisting the police and prosecutor make all reasonable lines of enquiry. But then who defines what is a reasonable enquiry.......

Then I wonder did the defence ask how well did you look?

 

[zooterkin]

This article says it was the defence barrister who discovered the exonerating messages.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rister-cleared-student-rape-slams-police.html

Indeed, she was the one who read through them all and found it, but it was the prosecution barrister who established that the messages were still available.

That was the story I heard on the radio, and the Daily Fail article says much the same thing.

She immediately raised the issue with prosecuting barrister Jerry Hayes, who had taken over the case that weekend.

He was unaware of any police download from the complainant’s mobile phone and questioned the investigating officer, DC Mark Azariah, who was in court.

Mr Hayes, former Tory MP for Harlow, Essex, said ‘alarm bells started ringing’ when DC Azariah confirmed there was a download but there was nothing to disclose because the material was too ‘personal’.

After briefly examining the download, Mr Hayes passed it to Julia Smart to review before her cross-examination of the complainant.

 

[smartcooky]

I find it disturbing that the name of falsely accused man is publicly known, while the lying woman who made a false complaint and committed perjury still has name suppression.

Not only is this grossly unfair, IMO it is in the Public interest for her name to be published so that any man who night potentially become involved with with her can be forewarned that she is a bat-crap crazy bitch.

 

[Darat]

They may have been hoping to ambush her on the stand in court with the messages he recieved. The other ones admitting it wasn't rape were sent to the friends and therefore probably only in the incompetent/malicious prosecutors hands.

There is no such ambushing in a real court.

 

[fagin]

I find it disturbing that the name of falsely accused man is publicly known, while the lying woman who made a false complaint and committed perjury still has name suppression.

Not only is this grossly unfair, IMO it is in the Public interest for her name to be published so that any man who night potentially become involved with with her can be forewarned that she is a bat-crap crazy bitch.

I agree.

 

[Nessie]

Then I wonder did the defence ask how well did you look?

I do think that the defence should get better at pointing out what the prosecution has failed to investigate.