Man to sue after rape trial collapse

[Nessie]

The issue here is that the alleged victim's behaviour was not that of someone who had been raped. Telling a friend she was not raped and pestering the accused for more sex afterwards clearly casts doubt on the initial allegation.

 

[Nessie]

Why can't you propose a system that makes it clear when non consensual sex is rape or not?

These things make it hard to determine the truth sure, but are also fairly common in the most common forms of rape, that between partners and people in the same social circle. This does show why going to the police is often not in the victims best interest. If she had lied to fiends about the consensual nature of the sex then that undermines her case and makes her a villain no matter who raped who.

Here is a secret, most rapes are the kind that can never be prosecuted so if there is very little odds of anything other than humiliation why should we encourage the victims to go through that?

In Scotland there has to be consent, or it is rape.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/section/1

That it is harder to prove than other crimes is not a reason to dissuade victims from repprting the crime.

 

[Loss Leader]

The issue here is that the alleged victim's behaviour was not that of someone who had been raped.

The fact is there's no one way to behave after a sexual assault. The mistake lay people make is thinking that they know what what they *would* have done, and thinking that's the only way to do things. Thus, you end up with psychologists testifying about battered partner syndrome. And you end up with juries who use "common sense" instead of science.

Telling a friend she was not raped and pestering the accused for more sex afterwards clearly casts doubt on the initial allegation.

There's a dichotomy here that needs elucidating: there's a difference between the elements that constitute rape and the ones that can be proven. Sometimes, the victim's own behavior makes proof difficult, but that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.

 

[Giz]

There appears to be a structural problem (a second case collapsed and more are being reviewed):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...could-collapse-scotland-yard-launches-review/

"Scotland Yard is urgently reviewing 30 rape cases that are about to go to trial amid fears police blunders could cause them to collapse.

The Metropolitan Police*ordered a review of all*current sex abuse investigations after two prosecutions collapsed within days because the police withheld vital evidence."

 

[ponderingturtle]

In Scotland there has to be consent, or it is rape.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/section/1

That it is harder to prove than other crimes is not a reason to dissuade victims from repprting the crime.

But if you report it and there is reason to question you become a horrible liar who was trying to destroy an innocent man. Better forget the whole thing and live with the rape than deal with all that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The fact is there's no one way to behave after a sexual assault. The mistake lay people make is thinking that they know what what they *would* have done, and thinking that's the only way to do things. Thus, you end up with psychologists testifying about battered partner syndrome. And you end up with juries who use "common sense" instead of science.

You are not going to convince them of that.

There's a dichotomy here that needs elucidating: there's a difference between the elements that constitute rape and the ones that can be proven. Sometimes, the victim's own behavior makes proof difficult, but that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.

It just means everyone decides she was the one committing the crime.

 

[theprestige]

Why can't you propose a system that makes it clear when non consensual sex is rape or not?

Unnecessary. All we need is a system that declines state prosecution of rape cases when there is no evidence to support an accusation of rape. Which is what we have.

 

[Nessie]

The fact is there's no one way to behave after a sexual assault. The mistake lay people make is thinking that they know what what they *would* have done, and thinking that's the only way to do things. Thus, you end up with psychologists testifying about battered partner syndrome. And you end up with juries who use "common sense" instead of science.

How a victim behaves and even the first thing they say when they tell someone they have been raped is part of the evidence.

It is possible to be credible and not upset, to wait for a length of time before a report, to be quite matter of fact about what happened, to be inconsistent. But in this case a claim to the police of rape was accompanied by an admission to a friend there was consent and repeated requests for more sex with the accused. That clearly destroys the alleged victim's credibility.

Evidencing a crime is neither a science nor an excercise in common sense. It is about proving beyond reasonable doubt with credible, sufficient evidence.

There's a dichotomy here that needs elucidating: there's a difference between the elements that constitute rape and the ones that can be proven. Sometimes, the victim's own behavior makes proof difficult, but that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.

True, but the accused person right to be presumed innocent has to be respected and anyone who tries to insinuate he may have still raped the girl is totally wrong. He did not rape her.

 

[Nessie]

But if you report it and there is reason to question you become a horrible liar who was trying to destroy an innocent man. Better forget the whole thing and live with the rape than deal with all that.

Report a rape in Scotland and the victim is believed and a set procedure of investigation is conducted.

The victim is questioned in as much as they are asked to recount what happened and any discrepancies will result in follow up interviews.

The victim is assigned a SOLO (sexual offences liaison officer) to accompany them and deal with any issues or questions they may have.

The picture you are trying to paint of how rape is investigated is certainly not the case here. I hope you do not actively try and dissuade people from reporting rape or any other sex crime.

 

[Nessie]

The problem of the police not disclosing evidence is growing worse and worse. This case has highlighted a known problem

https://www.justiceinspectorates.go...-unused-material-in-volume-crown-court-cases/

A HMIC (police inspectorate) inspection in July 2017 found;

"Police scheduling (the process of recording details of sensitive and non-sensitive material) is poor and this, in turn, is not being challenged by prosecutors. 22% of schedules were found to be wholly inadequate..."

"The inspection found that in 33% of cases the Disclosure Officer’s Report, the MG6E, was either not supplied at all or was wholly inadequate."

"In 54% of cases prosecutors simply endorsed schedules without recording their reasoning."

"In the file sample, almost half of the disclosure record sheets were deficient, with only 13% satisfactory."

 

[smartcooky]

Do you enjoy victim blaming? The guy is her victim as are the legitimate rape victims she is making things much more difficult for. She is looking mighty selfish at the moment.

This!

Where is your evidence for that? The guy is the victim of the police sure but where is the evidence she did anything wrong,

I enumerate

1. She sends the guy thousands of messages pleading for sex with him
2. She gets the sex with him she wants
3. She claims it was rape
4. She messages friends that it was all consensual
5. She has more sex with the same guy
6. She complains to Police that she has been raped
7. She lies in court about it

And you think she's done nothing wrong?

Go figure!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...used-rape-says-will-sue-police-cps-questions/

"That evidence comprised a cache of sex texts sent from his alleged victim, including one, sent to a friend just weeks before Mr Allan was arrested, reportedly saying: “It wasn’t against my will or anything.” Others detailed her secret fantasies about being raped and choked during sex."

Lots of people here have been reading up on the case. Unlike you.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Report a rape in Scotland and the victim is believed and a set procedure of investigation is conducted.

The victim is questioned in as much as they are asked to recount what happened and any discrepancies will result in follow up interviews.

The victim is assigned a SOLO (sexual offences liaison officer) to accompany them and deal with any issues or questions they may have.

The picture you are trying to paint of how rape is investigated is certainly not the case here. I hope you do not actively try and dissuade people from reporting rape or any other sex crime.

How much should the victim go through for an 5% conviction chance? That was figuring from the 1692 reported rapes and 117 attempted rapes to the 104 convictions in 2016 in Scotland?

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/help-facts/

It seems better to just get on with your life than bother with all the heart ache of dealing with the police for those minuscule odds of conviction. Clearly 95% of reported rapes are falsely reported unlike the 10% most people think.

This is what makes rape such a great crime, you have low odds after raping your girlfriend that she will ever report it, and even if reported your odds of being convicted are so low. And if the conviction fails you get tons of sympathy.

 

[cullennz]

This case also highlights a pretty crappy issue that comes up

The dude that has no case against him is publicly named and shamed for 2 years thinking most of the time he might end up in jail for up to 12 years, and the psycho chick gets name suppression, and anonymity, probably ending in a slight telling off.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This case also highlights a pretty crappy issue that comes up

The dude that has no case against him is publicly named and shamed for 2 years thinking most of the time he might end up in jail for up to 12 years, and the psycho chick gets name suppression, and anonymity, probably ending in a slight telling off.

And look at what happens with no jury to people like Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Harvey Weinstein and all those other innocent men.

 

[rayheno]

That fits the presented information, but it also fits well into what happens when someone rapes a partner.

So basically you are saying that there's no way the man in this case can truly claim to be innocent, no matter what happened he just has to live with the rumour that he still might be a rapist?

 

[Nessie]

How much should the victim go through for an 5% conviction chance? That was figuring from the 1692 reported rapes and 117 attempted rapes to the 104 convictions in 2016 in Scotland?

https://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/help-facts/

It seems better to just get on with your life than bother with all the heart ache of dealing with the police for those minuscule odds of conviction.

In 2015-16 there were 4,684 reports of a theft from a motor vehicle and there were 100 convictions. That is a rate of 2%. Some crimes are harder to detect than others.

Clearly 95% of reported rapes are falsely reported unlike the 10% most people think.

Clearly that claim is false.

This is what makes rape such a great crime, you have low odds after raping your girlfriend that she will ever report it, and even if reported your odds of being convicted are so low. And if the conviction fails you get tons of sympathy.

The enquiry is entirely victim lead. If all the police do is take a report and there is no further enquiry, because that is what the victim wants, then that is all which happens. If it gets to court, but the victim decides at the last moment not to give evidence, it stops. That victim lead policy contributes to the lower conviction rate.

 

[cullennz]

And look at what happens with no jury to people like Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Harvey Weinstein and all those other innocent men.

You seem to be convinced this dude is guilty.

Not sure why, as it kind of works as "innocent till proven guilty"

I can only guess you must have some shocking new evidence no one else closely involved in the case is aware of

I suggest you email the relevant authorities, so they can re-open the case.

 

[timhau]

You seem to be convinced this dude is guilty.

Not sure why, as it kind of works as "innocent till proven guilty"

... and to be proven guilty, you have to have evidence that there was indeed a crime (and no, "it's not totally impossible that there was one" is not evidence).

 

[Fixit]

Discovery is complete ******** in this age. Every file will be going on computer, software could be developed to delete names where necessary so that every file additions (and deletions) goes directly to defence counsel and Crown Law (or whoever may be the prosecuting authority). A lot of money and time would be saved in this way, and the chances of Miscarriages of Justice would be weakened.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You seem to be convinced this dude is guilty.

No I just said that nothing actually contradicts the testimony. So most likely yes he raped her.

Why are you blaming her for the cops clear bad actions?

Not sure why, as it kind of works as "innocent till proven guilty"

Clearly we need to clear the names of Weinstein, Spacy, OReily and so on.