Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Emma,
In answer to your argument, a step I jumped earlier, i hope this answers all your questions:
A fantasy is a fantasy, everybody has them. This lady has had a fantasy of being a "dirty whore", it is not uncommon. And she has had fantasy about having sex with six men, which is perhaps less common but still a fantasy. And everyone to a reasonable measure can divorce fantasy from reality. I can, you can and probably all people reading this can - a jury could, a judge could, the prosecution could, the police could, even the defence probably could in their heart of hearts. Everybody recognises there is a massive difference. Agreed?
Isn't one of the criteria of being determined insane that a person CANNOT divorce reality from fantasy? Every sane person can make a distinction.
Let's now assume that a rape took place in this instance, the 6 accused men raped the woman (some people here have probably done that already, but I haven't so I have to make it clear that in this instance I am).
The rapists got off, because the victim was found to be a non-credible witness.
Emma, your contention is that she was found non-credible, because she had a fantasy. But that is surely impossible to be what happened, because everyone can differentiate between fantasy and reality. I think any argument is absurd if it relies upon the judge and the prosecution not being able to tell the difference fantasy and reality, them both being in fact insane.
So I after rejected your argument, I went in search of another. She wrote down a fantasy of consensual sex with six men (it was just a fantasy, she had no intention of carrying it out), but since the defence will portray her as having consensual sex with the six rapists the fantasy became highly relevent to the trial. Yet the prosecution were not aware of this fantasy having been published by the victim and the only way that's possible was if she had not told them. I believe it was the concealing of info that was going to be highly relevent to the trial from the prosecution that made her appear non-credible.
Now based upon our two differing interpretations of what has occured here we come up with two different recommendations of what a rape victim should inform to the police and the prosecution.
Emma says the victim should omit any relevent fantasy they may have written down or given voice, because the police & prosecution lack basic mental attributes of being able to distinguish fantasy as fantasy. I think they should trust the police and prosecution as normal functioning rational human beings able to distinguish harmless fantasy from reality and therefore make some mention of relevent (published) fantasies.
I know I don't have a lot of friends here, but I really strongly recommend that no one ever takes Emma's advice on this. I would beg that victims consider the police and the prosecution and the judge and eventually the jury able to recognise a difference between fantasy and reality.
-
And I am really not that imaginative, but she would have been told that the defence is likely to digging into her past and be asked to provide a heads up on anything that might be problematic to the prosecution. An incomplete answer to such an enquiry would be a lie of omission.
-
Angus, can you please tell us all what sentence you imagine her saying that would be the "lie".
Lies of omission are things unsaid, so no not able to.
-
I was under the impression that what destroyed her credibility and why the judge ordered the jury to return not guilty verdicts was because they had evidence of her (supposedly) wanting group sex with strangers; NOT that she was lying by omission and thus was untrustworthy.
Actual quote from the prosecutor:
"This material does paint a wholly different light as far as this case is concerned. We take the view that it would not be appropriate to offer any evidence."
"Wholly different" from what? The victim is the prosecutions lead witness and is the author. How could they possibly find the case subject to a "different light", unless she has been lying by omission for 6 months?
-
Let’s pause for a moment and examine this in a different light. Let’s say I’m chatting to a friend and suggest that I might be open to having sex with an Irish man – Aidan Turner, for instance. Later, I claim to have been raped by someone from Brixton. Before the trial, those chat logs appear, in which I have said that perhaps, if confronted with Aidan Turner covered in aerosol chocolate mousse, my morals might go out the window. My credibility is destroyed, and I don’t get a trial.
Since we are doing hypotheticals suppose a young lady lived in rural 1940s Alabama and she confided to her best friend that she had a fantasy of a fling with a black man. (We all know the narrative don't we, but lets continue anyway.) One day the local drunk stumbles upon the same young lady and a black man who she screams is raping her. The drunk saves her from rape, a real hero. Surprisingly a lynching doesn't take place and they go to trial. Now here she plays a good christian white girl who would never consider such a thing as consensually embracing a black man. The friend takes the shared secret fantasy to her grave. The trial is swift and the rapist is found guilty, justice is efficiently done.
Now Emma might say that this is a marvellous outcome, the fantasy (and after all it was only a ever fantasy) was completely irrelevent to the trial and young lady's testimony to her virtue can not be questioned. Emma would be most concerned should the victim ever be called a "dirty lying whore", that being the most important outcome of this or any other trial.
Me, though I'd identify other outcomes as being more important. And I'd dare to suggest if the young lady lies about the fantasy, she might be lying about other aspects to the case.
-
Basically, you're conducting this discussion by repeated your initial assertion that she's a dirty lying whore, albeit rephrased, but not responding to any criticism of that position.
No, Emma i am focusing on lying being the most important facet. The importance of truth in the judicial process. The "dirty whore" aspect I am not so interested in, because compared to the importance of truth it is trivial.
If you are a witness for the prosecution it is important that you are not caught lying. Or caught appearing to lie, because you (innocently) forgot the things you said where those forgetful moments happen to (by sheer fluke coincidence) match up to huge screeds of the defence case. If you have chosen to lie to the police & the prosecution and maintain that lie for six months (as they are bound to have asked you more than a couple of times, because like Russell says it prudent of them to do so) and factual testimony emerges that shows you to have lied to the police & the prosecution, the chance of you being believed by the police & the prosecution is greatly reduced. You are caught lying, means you lose credibility.
So either don't lie or if you do happen to give some less than wholely truthful answers use the 6 months to voluntarily modify your testimony to closer resemble the truth.
Eventually it comes down to who is more believable to the court, someone who lies to them or someone who sticks much closer to the truth.
She wrote these things on the internet and since one of the accused knows her web persona it isn't going to take rocket science to find what she wrote. She is going to be called a "dirty lying whore", but it is only through her attempts to conceal this info that the defence can provide proof of their assertion that she is a "dirty lying whore".
-
Vanilla privilege.
...we’ve examined vanilla privilege before.
I think that is a true concept, "vanilla privilege" exists. I agree with Emma and admire the succinctness of her argument in that regard and many others. So i keep reading this blog.
So here is a trial about to take place. The defence is that adults were behaving in a deviant, but entirely consensual practice of group sex. The prosecution is based upon the testimony of a woman who claims that the sex non-consensual. Whose side is "vanilla privilege" is going to harm most - the woman or the bunch of acknowledged sexual deviants?
-
I understand your point about pragmatic decisions about prosecution, but this has not been described as a general matter of truthfulness, rather of a (false) equivalence between fantasy and actuality - which you're perpetuating here.
It is only false if rape occured, if in fact consensual sex is what took place...
-
I'm trying to figure out how anything that happens before someone says "no" is relevant.
If she said "no" a miscarriage of justice has occured. If she said "yes" a miscarriage of justice has been averted.
-
Witnesses are, I believe, people. And this, I believe, makes you a liar and fundamentally unreliable.
Wow - reductio ad absurdum. Yes, Emma "witnesses" are people.
My point is that "prosecution witnesses" are a smaller group governed by rules which I thought you were seriously debating the nature of. Prosecution witnesses are currently not allowed to lie or mislead the court or provide untruthful testimony, they should tell the truth. Someplaces even make them swear that they have to tell the whole truth. I think this system works well.
Occasionally however witnesses do behave in the ways you so clearly endorse. Do you remember the Peter Ellis trial, the one where he was convicted of sexually molesting all those children? I think it was a miscarriage of justice occured, brought about by the prosecution presenting as irdeemable fact that children can't lie about the big things. I don't believe he has a black penis and I don't think him guilty.
There is the possibility that these 6 men are innocent of rape and they deserve a fair trial, where the prosecution is confined to presenting credible evidence.
I can't say it much clearer than this - the state should be required to present a credible case and be prepared to acknowledge evidence that damages their case.