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

Thundercats Ho

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darkbloom

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.