False rape accuser jailed for 9 months

awec

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

While it's good to see her convicted. I'd have to ask if 9 months is a strong enough sentence? A person convicted of rape would typically get a far longer sentence, the likelihood of a rough time in prison and would be a pariah in society for the rest of his life. In terms of a crime that can amount to little more in court than "he said / she said" you have to ask if false accusations made for spiteful reasons shouldn't be liable to the same level of incarceration period as the crime being accused.

MrPudding

You think that's bad? Check this one out:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10741867/Trainee-barrister-cried-rape-11-times-to-avoid-taking-exams-court-told.html

MrP

Pawwed Rig

I would say it is an appropriate sentence considering that she retracted what she said pretty quickly. We have seen cases here where lives are ruined and the girl gets away scott free. Although had it not been such a clear lie with the CCTV footage I wonder would she have told the truth at all.

strobe

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I would say it is an appropriate sentence considering that she retracted what she said pretty quickly. We have seen cases here where lives are ruined and the girl gets away scott free. Although had it not been such a clear lie with the CCTV footage I wonder would she have told the truth at all.

Hmm, I dunno. She didn't retract her claim because she was overcome with remorse and decided to do the right thing. If I'm reading the chain of events right, she was confronted with irrefutable CCTV footage and left with no choice but to admit she was lying. Don't see why that should mean she shouldn't have the book thrown at her.

MrPudding

strobe wrote: »

Hmm, I dunno. She didn't retract her claim because she was overcome with remorse and decided to do the right thing. If I'm reading the chain of events right, she was confronted with irrefutable CCTV footage and left with no choice but to admit she was lying. Don't see why that should mean she shouldn't have the book thrown at her.

Interrstingly, it is the prosecutor that told the court she had expressed remorse and apologised. Also, I think you may be confusing "having the book thrown at her" and the sentenc she received. Generally a 'discount' is given for pleading guilty. There is good reason for this, and if there was no discount then people would be less likely to plead guilty, there needs to be a carrot. In addition, it seem that she folded pretty quicky, so that would also lessen the seriousness, as far as the court was concerned.

Also, whilst i am sure it was no party, it does not seem like the accused suffered too much. The fact that he said he bore "no harm or ill will" towards her probably helped he case. If you are interested, here are the sentencing guidlines, there is a seciton for false allegations fo rape.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perverting_the_course_of_justice/

I would expect the women in the story i linked to above to receive a much, much harser sentence.

MrP

MrStuffins

I don't know why the cost of the investigation is being mentioned here considering the gravity of what an accusation of rape on an innocent man!

Galwayguy35

She didn't own up that quickly, it took over 2 months and strangly enough she decided to tell the truth when the CCTV showed her up to be a liar.

That guy could have got his head kicked in by someone who believed her lies in the meantime.

Pat Mustard

The charge relates to making a false report and two false written statements to police on dates between July 6 and August 15, 2013.

She made two written statements on two different dates. Now, that's cold-blooded.

At least her prosecution vindicated the good name of the man that she accused. If she had not been prosecuted, that man may have been left with little choice except to bring a potentially costly defamation action.

A job well done by the police.

I hope that they pursue her for the costs of the investigation.

Pawwed Rig

strobe wrote: »

Hmm, I dunno. She didn't retract her claim because she was overcome with remorse and decided to do the right thing. If I'm reading the chain of events right, she was confronted with irrefutable CCTV footage and left with no choice but to admit she was lying. Don't see why that should mean she shouldn't have the book thrown at her.

Apologies I read it as she retracted her statement within a week. Fuzzy head today:(. 2 months is cold.

Panthro

Defence barrister Mark Farrell cited the incident as "tragic"

What would have been tragic if that poor guy wound up rotting in a prison cell for God knows how long and subjected to all sorts all because that girl didn't take kindly to being turned down.
She should be locked up for a hell of a lot longer than 9months IMO. She was within inches of ruining that poor guys life for good, over a fcukin' brush off!?!
She needs to get in the real world like the rest of us.

Seriously?

Its unlikely that you'll see heavy sentences handed out to females who issue false rape accusations. It would prove a disincentive to females who report rapes if they could be held accountable if the accusation was proven false.

In the land of he said, she said, what he said shouldn't count is the mindset.

Maguined

Seriously? wrote: »

Its unlikely that you'll see heavy sentences handed out to females who issue false rape accusations. It would prove a disincentive to females who report rapes if they could be held accountable if the accusation was proven false.

In the land of he said, she said, what he said shouldn't count is the mindset.

Not really as to trial someone for perverting the course of justice you again need evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

The reason why the crime of rape has such a low conviction rate is it is very commonly a crime that only has circumstantial evidence. You rarely have an eye witness or CCTV footage so it becomes one persons word against anothers.

Convicting someone of perverting the course of justice would require factual evidence as well. If it came down to just circumstantial evidence between the two people involved then there would be no proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The reason these have reached convictions in the examples available is the direct CCTV and alibi evidence, without these then I highly doubt there would of been a conviction.

You have to prove the allegation was false which is not the same as lacking the evidence to prove the allegation was true.

Pat Mustard

Seriously? wrote: »

Its unlikely that you'll see heavy sentences handed out to females who issue false rape accusations. It would prove a disincentive to females who report rapes if they could be held accountable if the accusation was proven false.

In the land of he said, she said, what he said shouldn't count is the mindset.

There would have been a number of mitigating factors here.

Tait retracted her claim (albeit when the police presented with the evidence). She pleaded guilty. The damage to Farrell was limited insofar as the false claim did not proceed. Farrell said that he bore no ill will towards Tait.

The court would have also taken account of her age, circumstances and background.

If Farrell had been convicted and spent eight years in prison on a false complaint, you can be sure that Tait would have been handed down a far stiffer sentence.

Absoluvely

Seriously? wrote: »

Its unlikely that you'll see heavy sentences handed out to females who issue false rape accusations. It would prove a disincentive to females who report rapes if they could be held accountable if the accusation was proven false.

But a disincentive for females to report rapes if they could be held accountable if the accusation was proven false would be a good thing. It wouldn't affect females who're considering truthfully making rape accusations because they'd know the claims couldn't be proven false.

So it might be unlikely that heavy sentences will be handed out to females who issue false rape accusations in the immediate future, but I don't that that's out of fear of disincentivising rape allegations that the accuser thinks could potentially be proven false (i.e. false ones).

MrPudding

Absoluvely wrote: »

But a disincentive for females to report rapes if they could be held accountable if the accusation was proven false would be a good thing. It wouldn't affect females who're considering truthfully making rape accusations because they'd know the claims couldn't be proven false.

??? This is utter rubbish. It is undoubtedly the case the men who have raped women get found not guilty, just as it is also the case that men that have not raped women have been found guilty. The issue with this is the adversarial nature of cases in the UK, and Ireland. It is not necessarily who is telling the truth, but who has the best case.

Absoluvely wrote: »

So it might be unlikely that heavy sentences will be handed out to females who issue false rape accusations in the immediate future, but I don't that that's out of fear of disincentivising rape allegations that the accuser thinks could potentially be proven false (i.e. false ones).

To prosecute a women who has actually been raped, but the prosecution were unable to secure a conviction, is all kinds of wrong. Your view of this is entirely too simplistic to be of any use in real life. Whether a woman was actually raped is completely separate issue to whether a conviction can be secured. The reason this woman did not get a heavy sentence is that because that was what was called for, according to the sentencing guidelines. The trainee barrister in the other storey, on the other hand, is likely to get a stiffer sentence, though it will still be discounted if she pleads guilty.

MrPudding

Panthro wrote: »

What would have been tragic if that poor guy wound up rotting in a prison cell for God knows how long and subjected to all sorts all because that girl didn't take kindly to being turned down.
She should be locked up for a hell of a lot longer than 9months IMO. She was within inches of ruining that poor guys life for good, over a fcukin' brush off!?!
She needs to get in the real world like the rest of us.

But he didn’t wind up rotting in prison being subject to all sorts. Even he himself said he bore her no ill will. The prosecution offered evidence in mitigation as well.

People are punished on the basis of what did happen not what might have happened. Would you be happy getting 10 years in prison for speeding instead of 3 penalty points? After all, while you were speeding you might have hit someone and killed them.

MrP

Panthro

MrPudding wrote: »

But he didn’t wind up rotting in prison being subject to all sorts. Even he himself said he bore her no ill will. The prosecution offered evidence in mitigation as well.

People are punished on the basis of what did happen not what might have happened. Would you be happy getting 10 years in prison for speeding instead of 3 penalty points? After all, while you were speeding you might have hit someone and killed them.

MrP

The is no parallel between rape and a speeding ticket.
if she wasn't confronted with overwhelming evidence against her story, she wouldn't have been forced into admitting she lied in first place.
She didn't have a change of heart here, she was caught out plain and simple.
Sentence too lenient IMO.
What did happen here is she wrongly cried rape. That should have a pretty stern consequence IMO.

MrPudding

Panthro wrote: »

The is no parallel between rape and a speeding ticket.

There is a parallel. Both your post and my example are both about punishing for what could have happened, rather than what did happen.

Panthro wrote: »

if she wasn't confronted with overwhelming evidence against her story, she wouldn't have been forced into admitting she lied in first place.

Again, she was confronted with overwhelming evidence and she did admit to lying. Further, she pleaded guilty in court.

Panthro wrote: »

She didn't have a change of heart here, she was caught out plain and simple.
Sentence too lenient IMO.
What did happen here is she wrongly cried rape. That should have a pretty stern consequence IMO.

She did have a change of heart. Yes, it presumably happened after she was presented with the evidence the police had gather, but the fact that she changed her statement and pleaded guilty shows that she did have a change of heart.

We know what did happen, in relation to what she did, and there are sentencing guidline for dealing with it. What the courts do, which you seem to be incapable of, is accept that there are varying degrees of severity with the offence. Sentencing os not based solely on what the accused did, but also on what the effect of the accused actions were. This goes back to the speeding example, you have the offence on one hand and the damaged caused on the other. You say that if you are caught speeding you should be punished for speeding, what actually happened, not what might have happened. That is exactly what happened in this case. Tait got sentenced based on the offence she commited, and the impact it had. Why shpuld she be punished based on what might have happened?

MrP

eviltwin

MrPudding wrote: »

There is a parallel. Both your post and my example are both about punishing for what could have happened, rather than what did happen.

Again, she was confronted with overwhelming evidence and she did admit to lying. Further, she pleaded guilty in court.

She did have a change of heart. Yes, it presumably happened after she was presented with the evidence the police had gather, but the fact that she changed her statement and pleaded guilty shows that she did have a change of heart.

We know what did happen, in relation to what she did, and there are sentencing guidline for dealing with it. What the courts do, which you seem to be incapable of, is accept that there are varying degrees of severity with the offence. Sentencing os not based solely on what the accused did, but also on what the effect of the accused actions were. This goes back to the speeding example, you have the offence on one hand and the damaged caused on the other. You say that if you are caught speeding you should be punished for speeding, what actually happened, not what might have happened. That is exactly what happened in this case. Tait got sentenced based on the offence she commited, and the impact it had. Why shpuld she be punished based on what might have happened?

MrP

A lot of it comes down to intent, if you speed, even if you know you're doing it you don't intend to crash or hurt someone. She intended to ruin his life. There is no way to minimise what she did in my opinion, to think of it and then take the next step to construct a story and then actually go through with the report is just pure evil.

iptba

MrPudding wrote: »

Absoluvely wrote:

But a disincentive for females to report rapes if they could be held accountable if the accusation was proven false would be a good thing. It wouldn't affect females who're considering truthfully making rape accusations because they'd know the claims couldn't be proven false.

??? This is utter rubbish. It is undoubtedly the case the men who have raped women get found not guilty, just as it is also the case that men that have not raped women have been found guilty. The issue with this is the adversarial nature of cases in the UK, and Ireland. It is not necessarily who is telling the truth, but who has the best case.

Absoluvely referred to allegations that were "proven false". That's not the same as cases where the defendant was simply "found not guilty".

newport2

MrPudding wrote: »

People are punished on the basis of what did happen not what might have happened. Would you be happy getting 10 years in prison for speeding instead of 3 penalty points? After all, while you were speeding you might have hit someone and killed them.

MrP

I think a more accurate analogy here would be someone who was speeding and intentionally tried to hit a pedestrian with their car, but a police car intervened, preventing them from doing so. It didn't happen, but 3 penalty points would be a bit lenient, no?

People are punished on the basis of what they did, not on the outcome. She made a false accusation.

MrPudding

eviltwin wrote: »

A lot of it comes down to intent, if you speed, even if you know you're doing it you don't intend to crash or hurt someone. She intended to ruin his life. There is no way to minimise what she did in my opinion, to think of it and then take the next step to construct a story and then actually go through with the report is just pure evil.

I am not sur eintent is of particular improtance here. First of all, I think what she did was exceptionally bad. One of the worst things a person can do to a man, I beleive, if falsly accuse him of rape. At the same time, I am not a lock 'em up and throw away the key kind of guy.

We don't actually know what Tait's state of mind was, nor what she intended. It might sound silly, but she may not have thought this through and perhaps did not consider the possible consequences. We don't know if she intended to ruin his life. To us it seems pretty obvious that a ruined life is a possible consequence of an allegation like this, but it is possible that she simply did not think about that. We don't have enough information to know what her intent was.

Regardless, intent does not seem to play a part in the sentencing. The sentencing guidlines are all about what actually happened to the accused, not what was intended, but did not happen, or what might have happened.

Like I say, I don't disagree that this was an awful act, but at the same time the sentence needs to be proporionate to the effects of the act.

MrP

MrPudding

iptba wrote: »

Absoluvely referred to allegations that were "proven false". That's not the same as cases where the defendant was simply "found not guilty".

Surely if a person is found not guilty the allegation is, by logical extension, proven false?

I am happy to accept I may have misinterpreted Absoluvely's post. I had thought they meant where the defendent was found not guilty.

MrP

MrPudding

newport2 wrote: »

I think a more accurate analogy here would be someone who was speeding and intentionally tried to hit a pedestrian with their car, but a police car intervened, preventing them from doing so. It didn't happen, but 3 penalty points would be a bit lenient, no?

That would be a different offence, not speeding. Regardless, if you go back to the post I was responding to, there were no questions of intention, or ;olice intervention or anything complicated. The poster merely said, X, Y and Z could have happened, therefore lock her up and throw away the key. My analogy, crap as it may be, was a simple analogy to address a simple point. Punishment for perverting the course of justice is based on what did happen, not on what might have happened.

newport2 wrote: »

People are punished on the basis of what they did, not on the outcome. She made a false accusation.

No, you are wrong. There are many offences where the outcome is directly relevent to the sentencing. The starting point is that the offence was committed. The length of the sentence is, absolutely, based on the outcome. I actually posted a link to the sentencing guidlines, it is there in black and white.

MrP

bucketybuck

MrPudding wrote: »

We don't actually know what Tait's state of mind was, nor what she intended. It might sound silly, but she may not have thought this through and perhaps did not consider the possible consequences. We don't know if she intended to ruin his life. To us it seems pretty obvious that a ruined life is a possible consequence of an allegation like this, but it is possible that she simply did not think about that. We don't have enough information to know what her intent was.

I personally cannot believe that any adult does not know the possible consequences of a rape accusation. There is no way this woman thought that the accused might just get 3 points and a fine, she will have known full well what would happen if her claim was believed.

newport2

MrPudding wrote: »

That would be a different offence, not speeding.

And that would be my point. Getting punished for speeding because you might hit someone and getting puinished for intentionally trying to hit someone with your car at speed are totally different. The latter is closer to intentionally trying to get someone falsely convicted of rape that the analogy you gave.

MrPudding wrote: »

No, you are wrong. There are many offences where the outcome is directly relevent to the sentencing. The starting point is that the offence was committed. The length of the sentence is, absolutely, based on the outcome. I actually posted a link to the sentencing guidlines, it is there in black and white.



MrP

So if someone attempted to kill a polititian but failed (and didn't injure him in the process), there'd be a really lenient sentence as "the outcome is directly relevent to the sentencing"?? Right.


Anyway, you said definitively "People are punished on the basis of what did happen not what might have happened". Now above you're saying only "many offences where the outcome is directly relevent to the sentencing". So people are punished on the basis of what did happen for all offences or for many offences?

Dravokivich

I'm not too sure who's arguing for what with all the attempted analogies and metaphors which i find to be rather distracting from the issue. A false accusation is a serious offence and the severity of what was accused should be considered when charging someone for it. Not based on the possible abuse that the person accused would face, but based on the degradation of their quality of life if they ended up being charged and imprisoned for it.

MrPudding

newport2 wrote: »

And that would be my point. Getting punished for speeding because you might hit someone and getting puinished for intentionally trying to hit someone with your car at speed are totally different. The latter is closer to intentionally trying to get someone falsely convicted of rape that the analogy you gave.

But the offence isn’t getting someone falsely accused of rape, it is perverting the course of justice. So, for speeding, you are punished on the basis of what you did. You were speeding so you get punished for speeding, there are no other circumstance or things that might effect the punishment. You don’t get punished for what might have happened. In this case, the offence was perverting the course of justice, this is what she did. When deciding how to punish that the court will look at what the effect of the offence is.

newport2 wrote: »

So if someone attempted to kill a polititian but failed (and didn't injure him in the process), there'd be a really lenient sentence as "the outcome is directly relevent to the sentencing"?? Right.

Ah now, this is completely different. Perverting the course of justice is a completed offence. The person either did it or they didn’t, nice and simple. Attempted murder is an inchoate offence. There is a whole separate area of law about that. You can’t compare an attempt at an offence with a completed offence. There is a very major difference between attempting to do something, but failing for whatever reason, and completing an offence, but there being a range of potential outcomes form that offence. Simplistically, is you are found guilty of attempted murder you will be sentenced as if you had been successful, though there are a number of mitigating factors, this is the basic principle. If you complete an offence, like perverting the course of justice, you are sentenced on, basically, the fallout or effect of what you did.

newport2 wrote: »

Anyway, you said definitively "People are punished on the basis of what did happen not what might have happened". Now above you're saying only "many offences where the outcome is directly relevent to the sentencing". So people are punished on the basis of what did happen for all offences or for many offences?

Um, not sure I see the problem with these two things…

Lets take the first bit, people are punished on the basis of what did happen, not what might have happened. (forget about inchoate offence mentioned above for now.) What this means is fairly simple. You commit an offence, there is fallout from that offence, you are punished based on the fact that you committed the offence, and what happened as a result. It may have been lost in all this but remember what I was originally responding to. It was in response to Panthro, (s)he said:

Panthro wrote:

What would have been tragic if that poor guy wound up rotting in a prison cell for God knows how long and subjected to all sorts all because that girl didn't take kindly to being turned down.
She should be locked up for a hell of a lot longer than 9months IMO. She was within inches of ruining that poor guys life for good, over a fcukin' brush off!?!

She should have been locked up for longer because x, y and z could have happened. My point is simply this; you should get punished for what did happen, not what might have happened.

The second part, where I say the outcome is directly related to the punishment, is basically saying the same thing, just making the point that the severity of the punishment work on a sliding scale proportionate to the outcome. The person is still punished on the basis of what happened, not what might have happened, but the severity of the punishment is proportionate to the severity of the outcome of the offence. The sentence received is related to what actually happened.

So, if you take the example of perverting the course of justice the minimum sentence is 4 months and the maximum is 36 months. The court will then look at mitigating and aggravating factors, was it pre-meditating or spontaneous, how persistent was the accusation, was an innocent person arrested etc. The experience of the accused is also taken into account, did he spend time in prision on remand, perhaps, did he lose his job etc. The worse an experience the accused had the larger the sentence will be. Then, once the sentence is set there might be a discount for a guilty plea, as there was in this case. The discount can be up to 33%, if they plead guilty at the first opportunity.

Tl:dr, A false accusation of rape is a nasty, nasty thing, but at the same time, the punishment for making it need to be based on what actually happened to the guy that was wrongfully accused, not what might have happened had he been prosecuted, found guilty and sent to prison.

MrP

iptba

MrPudding wrote: »

So, if you take the example of perverting the course of justice the minimum sentence is 4 months and the maximum is 36 months. The court will then look at mitigating and aggravating factors, was it pre-meditating or spontaneous, how persistent was the accusation, was an innocent person arrested etc. The experience of the accused is also taken into account, did he spend time in prision on remand, perhaps, did he lose his job etc. The worse an experience the accused had the larger the sentence will be. Then, once the sentence is set there might be a discount for a guilty plea, as there was in this case. The discount can be up to 33%, if they plead guilty at the first opportunity.

Tl:dr, A false accusation of rape is a nasty, nasty thing, but at the same time, the punishment for making it need to be based on what actually happened to the guy that was wrongfully accused, not what might have happened had he been prosecuted, found guilty and sent to prison.

MrP

If the maximum she could have got is 36 months, then the sentence seems to make more sense. Not sure 36 months should be the maximum.

(Aside: I'm personally not as annoyed by this sentence as some sentences women get).

MrPudding

iptba wrote: »

If the maximum she could have got is 36 months, then the sentence seems to make more sense. Not sure 36 months should be the maximum.

Yeah, agreed. But that is a different discussion. If you take a look at the case I linked to in the third post in the thread 36 months does not seem like it would be enough for her...

MrP

newport2

MrPudding wrote: »

Tl:dr, A false accusation of rape is a nasty, nasty thing, but at the same time, the punishment for making it need to be based on what actually happened to the guy that was wrongfully accused, not what might have happened had he been prosecuted, found guilty and sent to prison.

MrP

Fair points, but I just can't agree with your last paragraph. I don't think it needs to be based on what the outcome was and I don't think it should be. She withdrew her accusation because she was forced to by CCTV evidence. Had this not happened, the man would have been vilified by a large section of the community whether convicted or not. Punishments should also act as a deterant. We let a woman who is willing to ruin someone elses life because they didn't give her the attention she wanted walk free. If she accuses someone else of rape in the future, what's the bets this incident won't be admissible?
Perverting the course of justice and vindictively trying to get someone accused of a crime they did not commit should be treated as two different offences.
There will be criticism of treating her harshly, saying it will deter true rape victims coming forward in future. What she did in this case herself is a far bigger offput for victims coming forward, because it increases their fear they won't be beleived, due to liars like this being exposed in the press.

MrPudding

newport2 wrote: »

Fair points, but I just can't agree with your last paragraph. I don't think it needs to be based on what the outcome was and I don't think it should be. She withdrew her accusation because she was forced to by CCTV evidence. Had this not happened, the man would have been vilified by a large section of the community whether convicted or not. Punishments should also act as a deterant. We let a woman who is willing to ruin someone elses life because they didn't give her the attention she wanted walk free. If she accuses someone else of rape in the future, what's the bets this incident won't be admissible?

She hasn’t walked free, she is going to prison. I do understand what you are saying, his life could have been ruined. But the simple fact is that it wasn’t. This is an extremely emotive topic, and it is an awful thing to be falsely accused of rape, but you have to set emotion aside. What might have been is not a good basis for working out punishments in this type of case. The old adage, ‘hard cases make bad law’ is a good one and certainly fits nicely here.

Another thing that is worth noting in this particular case, the guy she accused apparently did not want her harshly punished. If the person that actually suffered because of the accusation does not want a punishment disproportionate to what he suffered, who are we to argue that the punishment should be more severe?

newport2 wrote: »

Perverting the course of justice and vindictively trying to get someone accused of a crime they did not commit should be treated as two different offences.

Well, that is a completely different discussion, and one that might be worth having. I am not sure of the practicalities of having a separate offence for each type of perverting the course of justice, but I would agree that in some cases, though not this one, a more severe sentence than allowed for perverting the course of justice might be more appropriate.

newport2 wrote: »

There will be criticism of treating her harshly, saying it will deter true rape victims coming forward in future. What she did in this case herself is a far bigger offput for victims coming forward, because it increases their fear they won't be beleived, due to liars like this being exposed in the press.

This may well be an argument for keeping this offence within the remit of perverting the course of justice. If there was a separate offence of falsely accusing someone of rape that might act as a deterrent to real rape victims coming forward. They might be concerned as to the strength of their case, or what they could prove, so may make victims less likely to come forward. BY having the offence as perverting the course of justice there is a kind of disconnect, there is a less apparent link between the offence and having a weak case.

MrP

Mike747

MrPudding wrote: »

You think that's bad? Check this one out:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10741867/Trainee-barrister-cried-rape-11-times-to-avoid-taking-exams-court-told.html

MrP

That lawyer bitch is so ugly she doesn't even have to worry about rape.

Icemancometh

Mike747 wrote: »

That lawyer bitch is so ugly she doesn't even have to worry about rape.

Jesus Christ!