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

grumpytrousers

walshb wrote: »

Another thing I noticed was the fact that the guy got a suspended sentence, now I know he "WAS" innocent, but at the time, he was officially
gulity, why a suspended sentence for such a serious crime?

I tell you, I bet future cases of guilt will be pointing to this case when the guilty party is hoping for a non custodial sentence. "Well, how come a "guilty" man in 1997 received a non custodial sentence for an offence similar to mine."
That will be the plea!

the father of the 'victim' asked of the court that a custodial sentence not be imposed. This was taken into account. It's in the judgement.

walshb

grumpytrousers wrote: »

the father of the 'victim' asked of the court that a custodial sentence not be imposed. This was taken into account. It's in the judgement.

I know this, I read the complete text, I still disagree that a non custodial sentence should have been the result. It's like a family friend or priest or someone speaking up on behalf of the accused and that results in a lesser sentence.

So, just because the father of the victim spoke, that doesn't entitle a judge
to lessen the sentence, and not to such a lesser degree!

Anyway, in a way I am glad the man didn't get a sentence seeing as
he really was innocent, but you see where I am coming from!

AARRRGH

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

Yeah, the lads who killed Jamie Bulger shouldn't have been prosecuted either.

They were kids and kids should get away with anything they do.

...

No, seriously, something should happen to her. Whether it's a fine or whatever, a message needs to be sent out that that sort of behaviour will not be tolerated.

Eddie Yu

walshb wrote: »

I know this, I read the complete text, I still disagree that a non custodial sentence should have been the result. It's like a family friend or priest or someone speaking up on behalf of the accused and that results in a lesser sentence.

So, just because the father of the victim spoke, that doesn't entitle a judge
to lessen the sentence, and not to such a lesser degree!

Anyway, in a way I am glad the man didn't get a sentence seeing as
he really was innocent, but you see where I am coming from!

No. Perhaps the presiding judge was the only person who saw through the whole charade.

Darkbloom

AARRRGH wrote: »

No, seriously, something should happen to her. Whether it's a fine or whatever, a message needs to be sent out that that sort of behaviour will not be tolerated.

Whereas the 8% conviction rate for rape is just fiiiiiiiiiiiiiine.:rolleyes:

javaboy

Darkbloom wrote: »

Whereas the 8% conviction rate for rape is just fiiiiiiiiiiiiiine.:rolleyes:

Where did he say it was? What do you suggest to improve that conviction rate?

Rape cases by their nature so often boil down to one person's word against another. Unfortunately cases like this can occur.

walshb

Eddie Yu wrote: »

No. Perhaps the presiding judge was the only person who saw through the whole charade.

Even if he did think something was amiss, that doesn't mean he/she
should allow personal feelings to hinder justice. That is the whole basis of justice. Hannon was found "guilty" of a serious crime that
deserved jail, no matter what anyone said or who spoke for him
requesting leniency

For far too long judges have handed down lenient sentences
for whatever reason and at times it stinks.

Again, glad this man didn't serve, but had he really been guilty, what sort of pissy sentence was that to give?

walshb

AARRRGH wrote: »

Yeah, the lads who killed Jamie Bulger shouldn't have been prosecuted either.

They were kids and kids should get away with anything they do.

...

No, seriously, something should happen to her. Whether it's a fine or whatever, a message needs to be sent out that that sort of behaviour will not be tolerated.

I never said nothing should happen to children who commit a crime.
Her crime resulted in an actual conviction. Should the older
version now be punished? I don't know, but if I was Hannon, I would want
to strangle the bitch

javaboy

walshb wrote: »

Even if he did think something was amiss, that doesn't mean he/she
should allow personal feelings to hinder justice. That is the whole basis of justice. Hannon was found guilty of a serious crime that
deserved jail, no matter what anyone said or who spoke for him
requesting leniency

For far too long judges have handed down lenient sentences
for whatever reason and at times it stinks.

Again, glad this man didn't serve, but had he really been guilty, what sort of pissy sentence was that to give?

It's a fair point. Probably not the best time to bring it up though as it won't get a whole lot of attention.

But if he was convicted, then he was considered 100% guilty. A suspended sentence is outrageous for that. We've had AH threads in the past about overly lenient sentences for sexual crimes.

walshb

javaboy wrote: »

It's a fair point. Probably not the best time to bring it up though as it won't get a whole lot of attention.

But if he was convicted, then he was considered 100% guilty. A suspended sentence is outrageous for that. We've had AH threads in the past about overly lenient sentences for sexual crimes.

java, spot on!

Eddie Yu

walshb wrote: »

java, spot on!

Would the sentence imposed on Nora Wall and the late Pablo McCabe be considered overly harsh. Let us get real here. It is a fact that less than 5% of alleged cases of child sexual abuse ever get to court with a very small percentage resulting in convictions. Outragous demands for prosecutions and convictions by special interest groups have contributed in no small measure to the Child Abuse Industry and cases such as that of Michael Hannon..

Darkbloom

javaboy wrote: »

Where did he say it was? What do you suggest to improve that conviction rate?

Rape cases by their nature so often boil down to one person's word against another. Unfortunately cases like this can occur.

Misplaced anger - where's the outrage over what are undoubtedly an amount of guilty people walking free? Would people accept a murder conviction rate of 8%?

Suggestions to improve it? How about people stop blaming victims?

Zulu

Darkbloom wrote: »

How about people stop blaming victims?

She wasn't a victim.
He was.

Darkbloom

Zulu wrote: »

She wasn't a victim.
He was.

Did you somehow miss my earlier comments where I expressed this sentiment?

I was generalising.

galwayrush

Through the eyes of a child, she experienced the strife between the two families and perhaps in her own way, wanted to punish the neighbours, because at that age, she would have seen no wrong in her own family's part in the fued.
I think she deserves a little credit for coming forward,and telling the truth, even at this late stage.

walshb

galwayrush wrote: »

Through the eyes of a child, she experienced the strife between the two families and perhaps in her own way, wanted to punish the neighbours, because at that age, she would have seen no wrong in her own family's part in the fued.
I think she deserves a little credit for coming forward,and telling the truth, even at this late stage.

If you ask me, I find it a very odd and disturbed child that could make such a heinous claim and in such detail. Okay, let's assume she wanted to get the neighbour into trouble, so what does she do. I would expect most ten year olds to maybe say the person assaulted her or hit her or swore at her; she chose a real heinous topic and also showed alarmingly detailed and complex knowledge of said topic for such young child.

Assuming that she is now teling the truth, cough cough, and NOBODY supported or coerced, it really does make her a very disturbed person.child and now, adult!

galwayrush

walshb wrote: »

If you ask me, I find it a very odd and disturbed child that could make such a heinous claim and in such detail. Okay, let's assume she wanted to get the neighbour into trouble, so what does she do. I would expect most ten year olds to maybe say the person assaulted her or hit her or swore at her; she chose a real heinous topic and also showed alarmingly detailed and complex knowledge of said topic for such young child.

Assuming that she is now teling the truth, cough cough, and NOBODY supported or coerced, it really does make her a very disturbed person.child and now, adult!

Agree, she was apparently rather specific in her allegations. Then again, her father was involved in the movie business, Emmanuel or at least one of the movies was his work. Who knows what she picked up/ saw as a child.
Yes, something terribly disturbing about it.

Eddie Yu

galwayrush wrote: »

Agree, she was apparently rather specific in her allegations. Then again, her father was involved in the movie business, Emmanuel or at least one of the movies was his work. Who knows what she picked up/ saw as a child.
Yes, something terribly disturbing about it.

Alarming and disturbing according to Mr Justice Hardiman. She is not the first young lady in the Galway area to make up false accusations of sexual assault or rape.

galwayrush

Eddie Yu wrote: »

Alarming and disturbing according to Mr Justice Hardiman. She is not the first young lady in the Galway area to make up false accusations of sexual assault or rape.

True, i blame the bad water.;)

Zulu

Darkbloom wrote: »

I was generalising.

I know you were. Mean while I was attempting to stick to the topic. But there you go...

Eddie Yu

galwayrush wrote: »

True, i blame the bad water.;)

I blame Bobby Molly

...one's past coming back to hount them.

After a bit of snooping, it seems that Ms. Hardester became a freedom-of-speech/democracy activist after her return from her confession. I've seen her described as a "senior analyst" for a political advocacy group. She once had her own blog and her own Facebook.

Considering the amount of hate-mail that must have come her way, I'm not surprised I can't find them. It's a pity, to be honest. I think she's done what she legally could to give herself up, and when she wasn't arrested for her wrongdoing, she went and attempted to do some right.

If you look on google, you should find examples of her writing. I won't link to them, as I don't want more hate-mail to be sent.

It's almost a book story.

javaboy

Darkbloom wrote: »

Misplaced anger - where's the outrage over what are undoubtedly an amount of guilty people walking free? Would people accept a murder conviction rate of 8%?

Don't you think it was a little unfair of you to put words in his mouth though? This case and thread is about a false allegation which I'm sure we all agree is wrong. He said she should be punished and from that you jumped to the conclusion that he doesn't care about the low conviction rate? Seems unfair to me.

A case like this is if anything incredibly damaging to advocates for higher rape convictions. This high profile case will stick in people's minds and may reduce the chances of conviction in future rape cases.

I wouldn't say his anger is misplaced in the slightest.

Suggestions to improve it? How about people stop blaming victims?

Of course. But where is that happening in this thread?

Darkbloom

javaboy wrote: »

Don't you think it was a little unfair of you to put words in his mouth though? This case and thread is about a false allegation which I'm sure we all agree is wrong. He said she should be punished and from that you jumped to the conclusion that he doesn't care about the low conviction rate? Seems unfair to me.

It's a horrible situation for the man, but the amount of people falsely accused pales in comparison to the amount of genuine claims that are dismissed...or don't even make it to court. I'm not saying he hasn't suffered from this attached to his name, but relatively speaking...drop in the ocean.

A case like this is if anything incredibly damaging to advocates for higher rape convictions. This high profile case will stick in people's minds and may reduce the chances of conviction in future rape cases.

So why exactly don't you get the point I'm making? It's ****e like these cases that make idiots like this bandy about false information. After all, it is members of the public who sit on juries.

Of course. But where is that happening in this thread?

Here and there. I just wanted to pre-empt the inevitable "THEY ALL LIE!" ****.;)

grumpytrousers

It all boils down to safety in verdicts; is it more important that the occasional guilty person goes free rather than an innocent person be convicted.

I don't know what your answer would be to that - I think it's a very hard question to answer, to be honest, but ultimately, leaving the terrible statistics about certain conviction rates for certain abhorrent crimes, the system should err on the side of protecting the innocent - dare i say it, protecting the rights of the accused.

Saying things like 'drop in the ocean' don't help the poor bastard locked up 'cos somebody tells lies in the witness box, and we can't be seen to accept such lying either, on the grounds that 'in most cases they're genuine'

The revelations of the last few days demonstrate that in order to do this, the word of a victim, uncorroberated, might not be enough. I don't deny for a second that it's a shocking state of affairs; in a sense it was a time-bomb waiting to happen and now it's got to be dealt with.

javaboy

Darkbloom wrote: »

It's a horrible situation for the man, but the amount of people falsely accused pales in comparison to the amount of genuine claims that are dismissed...or don't even make it to court. I'm not saying he hasn't suffered from this attached to his name, but relatively speaking...drop in the ocean.

Any one single case whether it's a rape that goes convicted or a conviction for a rape that never happened is a drop in the ocean. That doesn't mean that people can't discuss it. And being angry about one drop doesn't mean you can't care about the rest of the ocean.

So why exactly don't you get the point I'm making?

It was the way you were putting words into somebody's mouth that I objected to.

It's ****e like these cases that make idiots like this bandy about false information. After all, it is members of the public who sit on juries.

Right so why exactly shouldn't people be angry about a case like this then?

Darkbloom

grumpytrousers wrote: »

It all boils down to safety in verdicts; is it more important that the occasional guilty person goes free rather than an innocent person be convicted.

...which happens to be the way that the system works for most crimes. There are innocent people locked up for crimes every day.

Saying things like 'drop in the ocean' don't help the poor bastard locked up 'cos somebody tells lies in the witness box, and we can't be seen to accept such lying either, on the grounds that 'in most cases they're genuine'

Doesn't help him, but it doesn't stop it being true.

The revelations of the last few days demonstrate that in order to do this, the word of a victim, uncorroberated, might not be enough. I don't deny for a second that it's a shocking state of affairs; in a sense it was a time-bomb waiting to happen and now it's got to be dealt with.

But usually most cases require witnesses and medical evidence. This report makes for an interesting read. It's wrong to insinuate that there would somehow be loads of innocent people being locked up when a large amount of cases are never even reported in the first place. To quote:

One result of these [rape] myths is that survivors
often experience our society as a hostile and unsafe place within which to name, disclose, access any needed supports, and overcome their experience of sexual violence. Indeed, these myths serve to allow the perpetrators of sexual violence to remain largely unchallenged in our society

Believe me, it's incredibly difficult to get a rape conviction as is, and my point that I've been getting at is that false accusations are a tiny minority and are in no way as endemic as some of the hysterical responses on this thread imply.

Darkbloom

javaboy wrote: »

It was the way you were putting words into somebody's mouth that I objected to.

Right so why exactly shouldn't people be angry about a case like this then?

Now who's putting words in people's mouths?:rolleyes:

I'm not saying people shouldn't be angry and I'd love to see where I did. What my point is: yes it's a horrible thing, but keep in mind it's not so easy to get a conviction for a genuine claim as is, let alone a false one. Just because this happened to one man doesn't mean it'll happen to any man who is wrongly accused.

javaboy

Darkbloom wrote: »

Now who's putting words in people's mouths?:rolleyes:

I'm not saying people shouldn't be angry and I'd love to see where I did. What my point is: yes it's a horrible thing, but keep in mind it's not so easy to get a conviction for a genuine claim as is, let alone a false one. Just because this happened to one man doesn't mean it'll happen to any man who is wrongly accused.

You implied that a poster was fine with the low conviction rate for rape just because he wanted this woman punished. I can't link you to it right now because I'm on my mobile but it's the first post of yours I replied to. The one with the rolleyes.

Also see your earlier post where you used the words "misplaced anger".

Darkbloom

Also see your earlier post where you used the words "misplaced anger".

My apologies, perhaps I should have said "disproportionate". As I've pointed out again and again, I'm talking in terms of the bigger picture.