Women walks away scot free after admitting making up sexual assault allegations

Acacia · 27-04-2009 7:44pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That said, the girl in this case probably never would have come forward if she was going to be punished.

Perhaps, but apparently she was wracked with guilt, so who knows.

herya wrote: »

I actually find it more likely for a 10 year old to be violent and assault/kill another child than to come up with an elaborate setup plan involving legal knowledge and specialist terminology - on their own - over property issues.

I agree- more likely that a child would snap and react violently, rather than think of such a plan (assuming she was 'coerced', though there has been no confirmation or evidence of that yet.)

grumpytrousers wrote: »

there should be *some* kind of checks carried out to ensure that they're not engaging in a below the belt vendetta either.

That's what I'm wondering- shouldn't there have been checks, DNA samples taken, that kind of thing? Considering that there was a dispute between the families that was probably well-known in the community.

useful_contacts wrote: »

Something tells me the "i found god" bull is the reason she got let off

Really? I don't think so. If they had the ways and means of charging her, I'm sure they would. I don't think saying 'I found God' would cut it as an excuse, really.

Loopy wrote: »

It happened a close family friend and neighbour of ours growing up. He was accused of sexually assaulting a co-worker.

She backed down too and withdrew her allegations 'eventually'. It destroyed him though and his relationship with his wife. He is dying of cancer now.

This is why there should be thorough checks in such cases. It's cases like these that make me glad we don't have the death penalty- what if the man in this case had been sentenced to death? Mistakes do happen.

big b wrote: »

They are real criminals.

Yes, real child criminals- how do you think think they should have been treated? They served a long sentence which they fully deserved- what more do you want? They couldn't have been treated like adult criminals because they simply weren't adults.

Terry wrote: »

How the **** do people get away with stuff by saying they have found God?
This is not a state run by any church*, yet courts are lenient on those who say they found God.
What if someone was to say sorry for wasting the court's time. I'm not going to be a bad person any more.
Would they be treated the same way?
It's a ****ing cop out and I can't believe judges can't see past it.

I have to say, I really doubt that's the reason she was let off, and I've not heard of any other cases where saying ''I found God'' let people off the hook. Maybe it's just me.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote: »

Children are not that naive. Do you remember when you were 10? You probably weren't as stupid as a lot of people are claiming this girl must have been. The average 10 year old will know the consequences of their actions.

Yes children aren't naive but they also aren't as aware of the affects of their actions as adults are. It's not about being stupid- it's about how it seems likely (to me, and other posters here it seems) that she was given a helping hand in concocting her story. <SNIP>

To me, it seems like she knew it was wrong but felt like she had to go along with it.

ZWEI_VIER_ZWEI wrote: »

Bull****, coerced or not, she still made a decision that would ruin someone's life. And she knew the consequences, 10 year olds are not that naive. She is no victim, she's just another scumbag. They should lock her up and throw away the key.

Rabble, rabble, rabble. See above.

bigeasyeah wrote: »

I dont understand how he was convicted in the first place.Id like to know the evidence given against him apart from the allegation of sexual assault.Given the history between the two families,the said allegation should have been closely scrutinised.

Exactly.

snyper wrote: »

Obviously, the man is the victim here..

However a ten year old child didnt think this up on her own - i think the dog on the street could assume that.

I think people are forgetting that she did confess when she was older - older more independant and free from the pressures of coersion from the "people" that instigated this lie.

+1.

anonymous_joe · 27-04-2009 7:48pm

Horrendous story.

<>

the_syco · 27-04-2009 7:55pm

Nodin wrote: »

Because of something they did when there were 10 years old.

No. It's because they took a life.

grumpytrousers wrote: »

there should be *some* kind of checks carried out to ensure that they're not engaging in a below the belt vendetta either.

Around the time of the Dude, 2000 years ago, if you went on trial, you listed your enemies off, to ensure that your enemy was not falsely conspiring against you. If this case, all they needed was to have spotted him walking along a deserted road, and they'd have a date, time, etc, when they knew he had no defense.

Das Kitty wrote: »

There is no amnesty for crimes like this as far as I know.

EVERY SINGLE one of these accusers gets away with it.

Zadkiel wrote: »

I can't imagine what life must have been like for him since. He deserves to be compensated but what would make him feel any better about any of the past years?

It may enable him to go somewhere far far away, and live somewhere where no-one knows of the sh|t he just went through.

allabouteve wrote: »

2. The man in question is by far the greatest victim in all this.

Correction: he's the ONLY victim in all of this.

snyper wrote: »

I think people are forgetting that she did confess when she was older - older more independant and free from the pressures of coersion from the "people" that instigated this lie.

If coercion took place, aye. It seems like she "got the f**k out of Dodge", and then came forward when she was clear of it. As for the "finding god" thing, I think that's for her parents: if she ever came home, and was asked "why didn't you leave him there", saying she "found god" would, in "Catholic Ireland", sound better than saying she "felt guilty". Also, If she used the phrase "felt guilty", people would ask what she felt for the last few years. As "finding god" took place "suddenly" it would answer why she didn't come forward at an earlier stage.

User45701 · 27-04-2009 8:07pm

walshb wrote: »

I agree, but this case is different. She was NOT a woman when the claim was made.
She was 10 and it's possible I would say that this child was coerced and supported by
adults in making the claim. These are the real vermin in this case and these should be held responsible

Eh ? and how do you even begin to do that. 10 years? Unless there was some mental reason i dont see how she cant be held responsible unless it could be proven she didnt go to school or that the class she was in didnt teach right/wrong or ethics of any kind

<>

grumpytrousers · 27-04-2009 8:34pm

We don't get a time machine. We don't get to go back to whenever it was and hound the (hopefully) impressionable 10 year old into making sure that she knows how serious what she says will be taken; whatever the wrongs of what she did, she probably didn't know it was THAT serious, and she possibly didn't do it of her own free will, or go check out the medical terminology.

Sadly (for the other countless victims out there of sexual abuse) what needs to happen is a reappraisal of the way cases like this are brought. I said it before, but these things need to be investigated, and here's where the difficulties come into it.

The fact that there was difficulty between the two families doesn't make sexual abuse any less likely, or (for that matter) any more likely. It *does* however, it seems, make it more likely that allegations can be made to sully the name of blameless individuals.

The DPP/Gardai are going to have to employ some methodology of ensuring that their witnesses are genuine. The scary thing is that this woman, however much we feel she has wronged this guy, at least had the balls to 'fess up and have him exonerated.

Do we have any idea how many other poor friggers are languishing in our jails on foot of trumped up testimony? How many other people are there out there who have perjured themselves and NOT done anything to redress the balance later in life.

THAT'S the scary thing, folks

nomorebadtown · 27-04-2009 8:37pm

You know, its interesting. The difference in reaction to this story is so telling. Majority of women focusing on the mitigating circumstances...majority of men outraged, empathising with Hannon and baying for blood.

Acacia · 27-04-2009 8:39pm

nomorebadtown wrote: »

You know, its interesting. The difference in reaction to this story is so telling. Majority of women focusing on the mitigating circumstances...majority of men outraged, empathising with Hannon and baying for blood.

How do you know which posters are men and which are women?:p

galwayrush · 27-04-2009 8:42pm

nomorebadtown wrote: »

You know, its interesting. The difference in reaction to this story is so telling. Majority of women focusing on the mitigating circumstances...majority of men outraged, empathising with Hannon and baying for blood.

Are you male or female?:D

nomorebadtown · 27-04-2009 8:43pm

sometimes its easy to tell lads. a quick squeeze between the legs mick dundee style should see you right.

herya · 27-04-2009 8:44pm

nomorebadtown wrote: »

You know, its interesting. The difference in reaction to this story is so telling. Majority of women focusing on the mitigating circumstances...majority of men outraged, empathising with Hannon and baying for blood.

You might be right but I believe it would be very different if it was a grown up woman we're talking about. To throw a man to jail by falsely accusing him of rape/sexual abuse is repulsive, and offensive to real rape victims.

I was a precocious urban child, never believed in birds & bees (mum a GP) and yet I am quite sure that at 10yo I had no clue whatsoever about false accusations of sexual abuse and their consequences. In my personal opinion I can't see how this particular girl could have concocted this story on her own.

Nodin · 27-04-2009 8:45pm

Zulu wrote: »

No I'm not. One child (the girl 10) and one poor unfortunate innocent man (25 at the time I think).

What are you talking about?

The pair in the Bulger case. I was interrupted there a few times so may have lost track of who I was yammering at. Thats the problem with work, they think they can just grab ye when they want......

the syco wrote:

No. It's because they took a life.

I received over the years a number of chain e-mails relating to keeping them in. No other killers, Irish, British or American - just them. Not even the Moors murderers. Papers exposed the facilities they were housed in, there were various attempts to publish photos of them as they appear now....If you can name another case, involving either adults or children, that attracted that level of hysteria, feel free.

Acacia · 27-04-2009 8:46pm

nomorebadtown wrote: »

sometimes its easy to tell lads. a quick squeeze between the legs mick dundee style should see you right.

But you can't do that through the internet!;):pac:

nomorebadtown · 27-04-2009 8:56pm

herya wrote: »

You might be right but I believe it would be very different if it was a grown up woman we're talking about. To throw a man to jail by falsely accusing him of rape/sexual abuse is repulsive, and offensive to real rape victims.

I was a precocious urban child, never believed in birds & bees (mum a GP) and yet I am quite sure that at 10yo I had no clue whatsoever about false accusations of sexual abuse and their consequences. In my personal opinion I can't see how this particular girl could have concocted this story on her own.

yep you could be right but i dont think a lot of men care. this guys life was ****ed up so easily by the lies of this girl and all the guys reading this know that they are potentially extremely vunerable to this kind of sh!t and to be frank that scares the fook out of us, thus the anger and the desire for something to be "done" about it.

walshb · 27-04-2009 9:02pm

Mr.Lizard wrote: »

As an aside how exactly did this 34 year old man know this 10 year old girl (surely they had to know each other, been in same location alone together etc)?

Plus, a convicted nonse isn't going to have a pleasant time in prison so her lie was a double-whammy of sorts.

Apparently he was 22 when she was 10 and she never evem met the man.
BTW, wasn't this thread discussed many months ago? I am also sure I postd on this or a very very similar thread about this

Nodin · 27-04-2009 9:10pm

nomorebadtown wrote: »

yep you could be right but i dont think a lot of men care. this guys life was ****ed up so easily by the lies of this girl and all the guys reading this know that they are potentially extremely vunerable to this kind of sh!t and to be frank that scares the fook out of us, thus the anger and the desire for something to be "done" about it.

Speak for yourself. What point is there in persecuting someone for what they did when they were 10? If a kid kicks me in the leg, they don't get the same clatter an adult does, or even clattered at all.

The DPP, the Cops, and the original case needs looking at, and charges applied if anything turns up.

alanella · 27-04-2009 9:11pm

Age of criminal responsibility

The age of criminal responsibility is covered by Section 52 of the Children Act 2001 as amended by Section 129 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 (pdf). This came into effect in October 2006, raising the age of criminal responsibility from 7 years of age to 12 years of age. This means that children who have not reached the age of 12 years cannot be charged with an offence. There is an exception, however, for children aged 10 or 11 who can be charged with murder, manslaughter, rape or aggravated sexual assault. In addition, where a child under 14 years of age is charged with an offence, no further proceedings can be taken without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Bearing the above in mind did the women not commit a crime by not revealing her evil deed once she had turned 12

Nolanger · 27-04-2009 9:13pm

We live in a society where everything is dumbed down and most people are thick cu*ts who would believe everything a ten year girl would tell them.

Red Alert · 27-04-2009 9:22pm

Hopefully the guy will be able to get some justice in the civil courts if criminal redress fails him.

Zulu · 27-04-2009 9:43pm

Dudess wrote: »

You guys have no idea how much that kid could have been intimidated into doing what she did and subsequently keeping her mouth shut.

To be fair, neither do you. All we know is that she lied, and that she kept that secret for 10 years to the detriment of an innocent mans character.
Just because you don't agree - dosen't mean our responses aren't considered.

And by-the-by, likening my points to a racist slur is both childish and unwarranted.

Again, easy target - like the immigrants.

Poor show Dudess.
Poor show.

galwayrush · 27-04-2009 9:47pm

I hope the guy ends up owning all the disputed land esp the girl's family land.:cool: Karma.

Thundercats Ho · 27-04-2009 9:48pm

Poor Bas***d.
Thank God he didn't get the jail. However bad things have been for him in the last 10 years, you can bet they'd have been a lot worse, had he served time. You would imagine that nonce's get it bad it prison (rightly so), he could have been getting in up the gary glitter, for a few years, so thats one saving grace.

What she did (coerced or not) was despicable. imo, she came forward, to ease her conscience. Its great for yer man,as his name is cleared, and hopefully he'll get a nice few bob from a civil case.

She ruined this mans life, and saying sorry wont make it all better.
<>

Bottle_of_Smoke · 27-04-2009 10:02pm

the_syco wrote: »

Little b|tch. It's cases like this that make people not believe others when they call rape.

=-=

Cache 22. If there was a peanlty for lying, once the accused was convicted, the "victim" wouldn't come forward to clear the accuseds name, as the "victim" be charged for lying. On the other hand, the rape word has been used when two drunks have sex, and the husband/boyfriend/parents/etc later finds out, which can cause a lot of harm to ones name, even if they are proved innocent.

No, no, no.

There would have to be evidence that the person knowingly falsely accused someone.

There's a very low conviction rate for rapes for example. Usually because the raped has a shower and destroys the evidence, later on decide they should report it. Then if it makes it to court the jury can't convict because its the rapists word against the raped and maybe some circumstancial evidence. That woudln't be enough to convict someone of making a false allegation.

seanybiker · 28-04-2009 3:15am

walshb wrote: »

I agree, but this case is different. She was NOT a woman when the claim was made.
She was 10 and it's possible I would say that this child was coerced and supported by
adults in making the claim. These are the real vermin in this case and these should be held responsible

excellent post. but she must have known she was doing wrong. still do I agree with your post.

maninasia · 28-04-2009 4:27am

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I agree there should be a punishment such as that which you outlined.

People are gonna say "blah blah it will stop girls from reporting rapes" but no, it won't. For the girl to be convicted it would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt she falsely accused the man. THere would have to be evidence.

It wouldn't be a case of "man acquitted, lying slut jailed"

That said, the girl in this case probably never would have come forward if she was going to be punished.

Although I am not religious, we must commend people when they stand up and admit they did wrong to others in an effort to fix the mistakes of the past.

<>

walshb · 28-04-2009 7:32am

User45701 wrote: »

Eh ? and how do you even begin to do that. 10 years? Unless there was some mental reason i dont see how she cant be held responsible unless it could be proven she didnt go to school or that the class she was in didnt teach right/wrong or ethics of any kind

<>

I'm not fully with you.

Look, I am not saying my theory or view is definite, but I found it rather odd that
a ten year old could make the claim stick. Now, this requires detail, corroboration, and evidence. I just found it odd that a 10 year old could be capable of this.

I am not saying a ten year old isn't capable of making a claim. I am saying for the claim
to stick and for a conviction to be the result, surely it is more than just, "He sexually assaulted me."

If it's not more than just a claim and a conviction, then our justice system
needs serious improvements! Remember, this girl has since admitted that she
never even met or spoke to the man.

Surely this had to be "proved" in order for the original claim
to be a success. I don't think a ten year old could have
pulled this off on her own, that's assuming the
Gardai investigated it, even slightly!

zootroid · 28-04-2009 8:01am

walshb wrote: »

I'm not fully with you.

Look, I am not saying my theory or view is definite, but I found it rather odd that
a ten year old could make the claim stick. Now, this requires detail, corroboration, and evidence. I just found it odd that a 10 year old could be capable of this.

I am not saying a ten year old isn't capable of making a claim. I am saying for the claim
to stick and for a conviction to be the result, surely it is more than just, "He sexually assaulted me."

If it's not more than just a claim and a conviction, then our justice system
needs serious improvements! Remember, this girl has since admitted that she
never even met or spoke to the man.

Surely this had to be "proved" in order for the original claim
to be a success. I don't think a ten year old could have
pulled this off on her own, that's assuming the
Gardai investigated it, even slightly!

Agree with you. At least he should be able to claim against the state. And while I know that's the taxpayer footing the bill again, I don't think anyone would begrudge him something after ten years of his name being dragged through the mud

Das Kitty · 28-04-2009 9:20am

the_syco wrote: »

EVERY SINGLE one of these accusers gets away with it.

By amnesty I meant that just because you come forward admitting you lied in court does not mean you will safe from prosecution (nor should it)

Whether or not anyone actually is, is besides the point.

grumpytrousers · 28-04-2009 9:40am

walshb wrote: »

I'm not fully with you.

Look, I am not saying my theory or view is definite, but I found it rather odd that
a ten year old could make the claim stick. Now, this requires detail, corroboration, and evidence. I just found it odd that a 10 year old could be capable of this.

I am not saying a ten year old isn't capable of making a claim. I am saying for the claim
to stick and for a conviction to be the result, surely it is more than just, "He sexually assaulted me."

If it's not more than just a claim and a conviction, then our justice system
needs serious improvements! Remember, this girl has since admitted that she
never even met or spoke to the man.

Surely this had to be "proved" in order for the original claim
to be a success. I don't think a ten year old could have
pulled this off on her own, that's assuming the
Gardai investigated it, even slightly!

And there's the problem. If a minister went on Morning Ireland and said that the victims of sexual assault/rape should be subject to more rigourous cross examination, not just in court, from from investigating Gardai, there'd be an outcry from some quarters.

"the victims have suffered enough, surely they shouldn't have to be put through the trauma of this...this will stop people coming forward to report crimes"

I'm not disagreeing with your statement, i'm just point out that the balance here is going to be a hard one to get right.

walshb · 28-04-2009 10:00am

Does there need to be a rigorous cross examination to trip up a ten
year old girl?

Anyway, this is why I believe that the girl was
supported and coerced and coached.

I doubt it was simply a claim by her which he
denied and that was it. I would imagine the Gardai
at least questioned her, him and several others and
corroborated her story and gathered some evidence.

I am not saying a grilling or rigorous testimony was required, but surely
some evidence and damning at that, was retrieved?

If it was a case where no real evidence was obtained and she
was simply believed over him with very little evidence, then that's a very
disturbing sign. I am doubting this, as it's known that to
obtain convictions in cases like this, can be very difficult!

It came out that she never even met the guy! Now, knowing this and him
surely pleading this originally, it would take some persuasion
and team work to convince and prove that she did meet him!

Dudess · 28-04-2009 10:06am

Zulu wrote: »

To be fair, neither do you. All we know is that she lied, and that she kept that secret for 10 years to the detriment of an innocent mans character.
Just because you don't agree - dosen't mean our responses aren't considered.

The more I learn about her, the more it seems like she just couldn't have made that allegation of her own accord.

And by-the-by, likening my points to a racist slur is both childish and unwarranted.

Poor show Dudess.
Poor show.

Sorry Zulu if I insulted you. I'm not likening your points to a racial slur, just being reminded of how people are so quick to place blame on an easy target in both cases. It just seems so wrong to hold a 10-year-old kid responsible - I know 10-year-olds are capable of awful sh1t but it sure as hell doesn't look like it in this case. Whoever put her up to it should pay - they are the lowest of the low. I do bear in mind the dangers men are in in this regard. I sometimes think about the vulnerable position my uncle who's a vice principal is in. If anyone makes an allegation against him, he is KNACKERED.

Zulu · 28-04-2009 10:24am

walshb wrote: »

I am not saying a grilling or rigorous testimony was required, but surely
some evidence and damning at that, was retrieved?

If it was a case where no real evidence was obtained and she
was simply believed over him with very little evidence, then that's a very
disturbing sign.

By all accounts (of what I've seen) this is exactly what happened. Lets not forget this was the Irish justice system 10 years ago.

Dudess wrote: »

The more I learn about her, the more it seems like she just couldn't have made that allegation of her own accord.

I don't doubt she didn't, but that doesn't forgive her actions. Ten years is a long time. She knew her lie was destroying an innocent man when she was 14; when she was 16; when she was 18. She knew this in a time when paedophilia has been in the fore front of the media. She could have save him after 8 years, 6 years.... She didn't go from 10-20 years old over night.

Sorry Zulu if I insulted you. I'm not likening your points to a racial slur, just being reminded of how people are so quick to place blame on an easy target in both cases.

Forgiven.

It just seems so wrong to hold a 10-year-old kid responsible

I'm not holding the 10 year old responsible. I'm holding the person responsible over the 10 years.
Had she come forward at 12, my attitude would have been: what a brave child! I would have marvelled in her ability to come forward at such an age.
Had she come forward at 14, my attitude would have been: fair dues to her coming forward at such an age.
Had she come forward at 16, my attitude would have been: well done. The truth has come to the fore.
etc..

Whoever put her up to it should pay - they are the lowest of the low.

No one here will disagree with that point!

walshb · 28-04-2009 10:30am

Zulu wrote: »

I'm not holding the 10 year old responsible. I'm holding the person responsible over the 10 years.
Had she come forward at 12, my attitude would have been: what a brave child! I would have marvelled in her ability to come forward at such an age.
Had she come forward at 14, my attitude would have been: fair dues to her coming forward at such an age.
Had she come forward at 16, my attitude would have been: well done. The truth has come to the fore.
etc..
No one here will disagree with that point!

Come forward? But maybe the family wouldn't allow it and a 12 year old girl is hardly going to tell them to, "Get lost."

Zulu · 28-04-2009 10:38am

walshb wrote: »

Come forward? But maybe the family wouldn't allow it and a 12 year old girl is hardly going to tell them to, "Get lost."

True, yet a 18 year old can easily walk into a garda station and speak. Or an 16 year old. Or most 14 year olds.

grumpytrousers · 28-04-2009 10:53am

walshb wrote: »

Does there need to be a rigorous cross examination to trip up a ten
year old girl?

In order to establish that a witness is lying, the cross examination would have to be fairly rigorous, I'd think

walshb wrote: »

Anyway, this is why I believe that the girl was
supported and coerced and coached.

Don't doubt it for a moment. Can't prove it, obv - just a gut feeling.

walshb wrote: »

I doubt it was simply a claim by her which he
denied and that was it. I would imagine the Gardai
at least questioned her, him and several others and
corroborated her story and gathered some evidence.

Well, they might have questioned her a bit, but in a lot of sexual abuse cases, corroborative evidence will be thin on the ground. I'd hope that the Gardai didn't gather ANY evidence whatsoever against this man as, it's apparant, he'd never met her. If they did find any, that was trumped up too!

walshb wrote: »

I am not saying a grilling or rigorous testimony was required, but surely
some evidence and damning at that, was retrieved?

Again, you're veering into 'no smoke without fire' territory. This lad never did anythign to the girl. any 'damning evidence' would have been either fabricated by the Gardai or the young girl/her family. There's been no mention made of any fabrication etc.I don't know the ins and outs of the trial. I would think that this fella was convicted on her testimony. As NOTHING untoward happened, there can't have been any genuine evidence which pointed a finger at him.

walshb wrote: »

If it was a case where no real evidence was obtained and she
was simply believed over him with very little evidence, then that's a very
disturbing sign. I am doubting this, as it's known that to
obtain convictions in cases like this, can be very difficult!

I'm gonna stick my head above the parapet (and be ready to have it blown off) and say that I reckon it came down to a swearing match; who did the jury believe - him or the ten year old. Normal considerations in the jury room were probably 'Why would she make it up...' and once they came up with the answer 'there's no reason to make it up...' the man was frigged.

walshb · 28-04-2009 10:57am

But, a 16 or 17 year old is still a dependent person and if the family are saying to keep quite, then it's still going to be very awkward for her. You seem to think that she should have simply "grown a pair of balls" and owned up?

<SNIP>

I simply don't believe it's a case that the girl matures a little, realises her
really despicable act and simply owns up.

walshb · 28-04-2009 11:00am

grumpytrousers wrote: »

In order to establish that a witness is lying, the cross examination would have to be fairly rigorous, I'd think

Don't doubt it for a moment. Can't prove it, obv - just a gut feeling.

Well, they might have questioned her a bit, but in a lot of sexual abuse cases, corroborative evidence will be thin on the ground. I'd hope that the Gardai didn't gather ANY evidence whatsoever against this man as, it's apparant, he'd never met her. If they did find any, that was trumped up too!

Again, you're veering into 'no smoke without fire' territory. This lad never did anythign to the girl. any 'damning evidence' would have been either fabricated by the Gardai or the young girl/her family. There's been no mention made of any fabrication etc.I don't know the ins and outs of the trial. I would think that this fella was convicted on her testimony. As NOTHING untoward happened, there can't have been any genuine evidence which pointed a finger at him.

I'm gonna stick my head above the parapet (and be ready to have it blown off) and say that I reckon it came down to a swearing match; who did the jury believe - him or the ten year old. Normal considerations in the jury room were probably 'Why would she make it up...' and once they came up with the answer 'there's no reason to make it up...' the man was frigged.

I should have put the words damning evidence in inverted commas.
The man is completely innocent and never even met
the girl. I would really love to know how this ten
year old made her claim stick. It seems to be a
case of the authorities taking her word over his, which
is ludicrous. <SNIP>

Zulu · 28-04-2009 11:10am

walshb wrote: »

But, a 16 or 17 year old is still a dependent person and if the family are saying to keep quite, then it's still going to be very awkward for her.

So what? Just because the right thing to do is awkward, doesn't excuse doing the wrong thing.

You seem to think that she should have simply "grown a pair of balls" and owned up?

That's exactly what I think. While I acknowledge that that is a huge thing to expect of a 10 year old to do, it's not such a huge thing to ask a 20 year old to do. Growing up involves taking responsibility for ones actions.

I simply don't believe it's a case that the girl matures a little, realises her really despicable act and simply owns up.

And yet that is exactly what has happened here!

She matured, realised her really despicable act and simply owned up.

I personally would have more sympathy/respect for her if she owned up earlier.

walshb · 28-04-2009 11:14am

Zulu wrote: »

And yet that is exactly what has happened here!
She matured, realised her really despicable act and simply owned up.

I personally would have more sympathy/respect for her if she owned up earlier.

I deliberately used the words "a little," in order to emphasise how a ten year
old <SNIP> would remain quiet aged 12/13/14/15 etc. Okay, she reaches adulthood, then it's a different issue and even then she isn't guaranteed to come clean!

Zulu · 28-04-2009 11:31am

walshb wrote: »

I deliberately used the words "a little," in order to emphasise how a ten year
old <SNIP> would remain quiet aged 12/13/14/15 etc. Okay, she reaches adulthood, then it's a different issue and even then she isn't guaranteed to come clean!

I honestly think I'm missing your point.

You appear to agree (above) that it's her actions are not acceptable as an adult. At what point, spanning the 10 years, does she become responsible for correcting the lie she told as a child?

I'm assuming here that you aren't suggesting that: because she told the lie as a child, she was therefore absolved of ever putting it right.

Actually - can you confirm that that assumption I've made on your behalf is something you agree with please?

grumpytrousers · 28-04-2009 11:32am

walshb wrote: »

I would really love to know how this ten
year old made her claim stick. It seems to be a
case of the authorities taking her word over his, which
is ludicrous.

Sadly, a lot of cases of this nature boil down to 'who do you believe'. Independent witnesses will always be hard come by. We know, as two people never met, that genuine corroberative/damning evidence couldn't have been found as it could never have existed.

This goes back to what i'm saying; if the standard modus operandi of the Gardai is to (and i hesitate to be so horrible in saying this) handle all alleged victims of sexual abuse with kid gloves and not ask them 'hard' questions from the outset and assess the genuineness of their claims, then that needs to be changed.

The knock on effect will be that genuine victims will find reporting abuse that much tougher.

walshb · 28-04-2009 11:38am

grumpytrousers wrote: »

Sadly, a lot of cases of this nature boil down to 'who do you believe'. Independent witnesses will always be hard come by. We know, as two people never met, that genuine corroberative/damning evidence couldn't have been found as it could never have existed.

This goes back to what i'm saying; if the standard modus operandi of the Gardai is to (and i hesitate to be so horrible in saying this) handle all alleged victims of sexual abuse with kid gloves and not ask them 'hard' questions from the outset and assess the genuineness of their claims, then that needs to be changed.

The knock on effect will be that genuine victims will find reporting abuse that much tougher.

Yet, we also hear how difficult it is for women to get a rape
conviction against their attacker. It's a strange one indeed!

Zulu · 28-04-2009 12:25pm

walshb wrote: »

My point is simply that I don't think it would be easy for a child aged 11/12/13/14/15 to put a lie right, IF the family of said child were telling her not to.

Of course it wouldn't be easy.

We as a society, however, generally don't accept the ease of an action as a valid excuse.

People are I am outraged, that it took this person so long to do the right thing, plain and simple.

Darkbloom · 28-04-2009 12:32pm

walshb wrote: »

Yet, we also hear how difficult it is for women to get a rape
conviction against their attacker. It's a strange one indeed!

Even if there's evidence of assault, juries will still decide on nonsense like sexual history (of the woman), what she was wearing, and other prejudices that really shouldn't have any pull, but do. The process to even get such a case to court is long and stressful, and coupled with the very low rates of conviction, it puts many people off reporting a crime. It's said to be seriously underreported.

Red Alert · 28-04-2009 1:03pm

So are you saying that we should move the crime of rape from being a 'presumed innocent unless proven beyond reasonably doubt' to 'balance of probability'? This case highlights a entire vertical failure in the policing and courts system, and people still think it's OK to remove justice safeguards in the case of rape?

Darkbloom · 28-04-2009 1:06pm

Red Alert wrote: »

So are you saying that we should move the crime of rape from being a 'presumed innocent unless proven beyond reasonably doubt' to 'balance of probability'? This case highlights a entire vertical failure in the policing and courts system, and people still think it's OK to remove justice safeguards in the case of rape?

Assuming you're addressing me, that's a pretty big twisting of my words.

Red Alert · 28-04-2009 1:12pm

Well you're making equally twisting claims about how juries behave - last time I checked, I read that juries make their decision based on the direction and questions of the trial judge.

Darkbloom · 28-04-2009 1:16pm

Red Alert wrote: »

Well you're making equally twisting claims about how juries behave - last time I checked, I read that juries make their decision based on the direction and questions of the trial judge.

Juries are normal people with their own petty prejudices, which sadly come into play in lots of cases for a variety of crimes. It's important to realise this is the case more so for rape because there are lots of myths and stigmas attached to rape out there - a woman can't be raped by her husband or someone she knows, a man can't be raped, if a woman was wearing a short skirt she was asking it, etc etc. I'm not advocating to overturn the jury system; I do think it's important to look at how society thinks about rape as the conviction rates are incredibly low for such a serious crime.

Red Alert · 28-04-2009 1:17pm

And do you think that it's fair/just to let rape victims not be subject to the checks and balances that the court system provides for people to prove their innocence?

Caoimhín · 28-04-2009 1:21pm

She should spend the same time in jail as he did.

Darkbloom · 28-04-2009 1:24pm

Red Alert wrote: »

And do you think that it's fair/just to let rape victims not be subject to the checks and balances that the court system provides for people to prove their innocence?

...

Have you got a clue what you are talking about? Do you even know how such a case is brought to trial?

Assuming the case even reaches court, the victim may have to undergo a rape kit (sson after the rape but it would be evidence), recount the story, have accusations of their alleged promiscuity be brought against them as an undermining tactic, and their sexual history dragged through the courts. It's a long and rigorous process, and you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Plenty of people don't even bother reporting cases for this reason.

Women walks away scot free after admitting making up sexual assault allegations

Comments