Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You are, let me get this straight, not in favour of people not mentioning things they don't remember?
I didn't say people, I said the prosecution, the state. I am against the state being allowed to forget the truth. I am against the state being able to ignore the truth.
But it's basically insane to declare that a rape complainant is morally obliged to volunteer to the defence any prior thought or utterance that could potentially be used to personally destroy them in court.
However the state is morally obliged to provide credible witnesses, thus ruling out those who lie or appear to lie due to some innate forgetfulness. This woman's testimony was revealed as not credible, the state withdrew its case - good decision.
To remedy this state of affairs I suggest she should have provided police/prosecution with a truthful recounting of her relevent sexual interests, so that they could treat this in much the same way as they treat any date rape. Emma disagrees and thinks the prosecution should have plowed on regardless by presenting what they know to be an untruthful (or forgetful) witness as entirely credible.
-
Both of which are entirely unsupported.
a) That defence was always likely.
b) The notion exists.
Reasonable doubt is the standard.
Someone is offering testimony to incarcerate someone for 5 - 10 years, should be wholly truthful. If they can be demonstratably found to be less than wholly truthful on relevent facts, how credible is the rest of their testomy?
I think what's confusing you is that this is that rarely-seen thing, the funny funny rape joke, calling card of the Brave Speaker of Truth to Power. You have to listen quite hard because their call sounds a lot like that of the Greater Crested Fuckwad.
Leave aside that this is a rape case - you are in favour of prosecution witnesses being allowed to omit relevant facts because they forgot or don't want to say and I am not.
Greater Crested was it?
-
So, just to be clear, you're agreeing that statements made about people's sexual fantasies in any sort of public forum mean that they should not be able to have someone taken to trial for sexual assault which resembles those fantasies, because no matter the circumstances, they must have been asking for it.
No, I mean she should not lie about her fantasies. She should inform the police/prosecution. The fantasy of itself should make this prosecution for pack rape no more difficult than prosecution for any date rape, because the info removes societal preconception of her preferences. She is now seen to be willing to indulge in group sex, but this does not mean she is willing to indulge in group sex with any group. Just like that because the average woman is assumed to be willing to have sex with a man, does not mean she is willing have sex with any man.
However the whole case hangs on her credibility and since she decided not to inform the police/prosecutor/court(?) of her fantasy she is trading on the notion that women are generally opposed to group sex to achieve an easier conviction. She is lying by omission, she has been caught lying - therefore her testimony is unreliable.
-
Oh, great. So we may as well not prosecute any gang rapes, then.
Gang rapes are surely easier to prosecute, because as everyone knows all women are abhorrently opposed to having sex with a group of men.
-
Emma
Yes, let's: I think anything that forms the basis of the defence case is indeed connected to the case. I think that a prosecution witness who attempts to omit a previous statement that acts to support the defence case is lying by omission. I think that when the omission is found out any such witness is dismissed as unreliable.
Basically I agree with 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."
-
As things stand, there appears to be no evidence that the complainant wished to have sex with anyone other than the single man with whom she made a date.
Personally I reckon the defence might be able to find six witnesses prepared to swear that she did.
-
I sure hope you wouldn't be on any jury sending me to prison for the rest of my life on the basis of what was running through the head of an angry, grieving teenager twenty years ago.
Yeah right. I'd prefer there was fair trial, based on the whole truth.
If you do go on trial though pease feel free to make sure that when the sole prosecution witness stands up and neglects to mention something that totally supports your defence, just make sure that you do nothing. Otherwise you'd be saying someone who omits facts and skews their testimony to the police & the prosecution & the court is a liar. And that it is bad.
-
I'm with Paul on not wanting to discuss it without all the facts, but is it possible rather than lying by omission, she just didn't realise it was relevant?
Not beyond reasonable doubt. It looks like she has been lying for 6 months and these men have been kept in prison on the basis of her being a credibly truthful person.
-
It seems to me that prejudicial assumptions were made about this woman by the people who were supposed to be acting for her, or against the men, in any case. I'm stumped.
The evidence was presented by the defence, after their clients had been in custody for 6 months.
It would have helped the prosecution if she had made the online activity known to them in that 6 months before the trial, but she didn't. She lied (by omission) to the prosecution in a case in which her success was entirely dependent them proving her to be credible beyond any reasonable doubt. What else could the prosecution have done?
-
Tim, Roger & tracymac - thank you