Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Guy touches girls arm, faces 10 years for sexual assault
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
There was nothing offered to suggest otherwise.
Shyness does not mean he does not know right from wrong.
In fact the traits he displayed was the exact opposite to shyness IMO,
His defense was not based on a mental disability or diminished responsibility.
You are merely inventing defenses for him, i.e. he is autistic. If he was it would have been offered as a defense.
It is clear that he did not believe what he was doing was in any way wrong.
The plaintiff called it a smirk he called it a smile.
The plaintiff also said he touched her arm for 4/5 seconds!
Also you claim I am inventing a defence for him, while at the same time state without fact "the traits he displayed was the exact opposite to shyness"
It is clear if anything, that the prosecution embellished the case against him - highlighted the isolated area, would have touched breast etc. To make it seem far more sinister then what it was.
If anything I would applaud the young lad for attempting to be sociable and trying to get over his social anxiety. And I hope he learns from this incident and it does not negatively affect him in the future.
Also how are you so sure autism would have been offered as defence, he may be on the mild end of the spectrum and it was never diagnosed.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
gormdubhgorm wrote: »It is clear that he did not believe what he was doing was in any way wrong.
The plaintiff called it a smirk he called it a smile.
The plaintiff also said he touched her arm for 4/5 seconds!
It was her side he touched for that period of time.gormdubhgorm wrote: »Also you claim I am inventing a defence for him, while at the same time state without fact "the traits he displayed was the exact opposite to shyness"
is approaching strangers in the street a sign of shyness?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
gormdubhgorm wrote: »It is clear that he did not believe what he was doing was in any way wrong.
He or his defense didn't even claim that.
No that isn't clear at all and text message evidence would highly suggest he knew exactly what he was doing was wrong, also his own testimony would suggest he knew he was doing wrong.
Again if he thought waiting in isolated areas, touching young girls and making off at speed was entirely normal behavior then it would never have got to trial, because he clearly would not have known the difference between right and wrong, so the law states you cannot criminalize someone if that is the case.gormdubhgorm wrote: »Also you claim I am inventing a defence for him, while at the same time state without fact "the traits he displayed was the exact opposite to shyness"
I'm echoing the prosecution and magistrate, you are inventing a defense his defense didn't even put forward.
You do see the difference right?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Perhaps this is for the defendants personal reasons or the incompetence of his defence team.
So he would have preferred a sexual assault conviction then people knowing he was on the spectrum?
The further you go from the facts of the case and come up with theories for a defense his own defense didn't entertain the more ludicrous they sound.gormdubhgorm wrote: »Were there any previous convictions - no
How do you know?gormdubhgorm wrote: »Does he seem a danger to society - no
Absolutely he is, particularly to young girls in isolated areas, he only stopped when Police starting going door to door looking for him.gormdubhgorm wrote: »Does he seem to have violent tendencies - no
He was also convicted of criminal damage.gormdubhgorm wrote: »Was he socially awkward - yes
Absolutely no evidence of this apart from his own defense.
He had friends, a job and he since gone to college.gormdubhgorm wrote: »Another person would just say 'go away you weirdo' and carry on.
She shouted stop the first time. She only reported when she heard of other incidents.
Out of interest how many times do you think this 17 year old girl should have allowed herself be touched until she reported it?
5 or 6?
Wait until it the assault became more serious?0 -
So he would have preferred a sexual assault conviction then people knowing he was on the spectrum?
The further you go from the facts of the case and come up with theories for a defense his own defense didn't entertain the more ludicrous they sound.
Stigma with mental health etcHow do you know?
They would have any stated any previous convictions in at least a sub heading, in a sensationalist article.He was also convicted of criminal damage.
I have no problem with this one.Absolutely no evidence of this apart from his own defense.
He had friends, a job and he since gone to college.
I believe there was evidence he looked up 'how to make a friend' on his computer.She shouted stop the first time. She only reported when she heard of other incidents.
Out of interest how many times do you think this 17 year old girl should have allowed herself be touched until she reported it?
5 or 6?
Wait until it the assault became more serious?
How many other girls, and other incidences were there?Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
-
-
-
gormdubhgorm wrote: »Stigma with mental health etc
More Stigmatic than 2 sexual assault convictions? Really?gormdubhgorm wrote: »They would have any stated any previous convictions in at least a sub heading, in a sensationalist article.
No they wouldn't, it's a court report from the case.
When he is has been sentenced his previous convictions if any will be considered before punishment.gormdubhgorm wrote: »I believe there was evidence he looked up 'how to make a friend' on his computer.
Link?gormdubhgorm wrote: »How many other girls, and other incidences were there?
Not clear how many, but multiple.
One apparently was touched on the "butt".gormdubhgorm wrote: »I have no problem with her reporting it
Hang on a sec, you just said she should have dealt with it herself.gormdubhgorm wrote: »Another person would just say 'go away you weirdo' and carry on.gormdubhgorm wrote: »Plus there is the added fact that the girl was in a state of anxiety over her exam anyway, which made her hypersensitive.
Where does she say she was in a state of anxiety over her mocks that caused her to be hypersensitive?
The anxiety came after the second incident, it was cause by the second incident combined with the first, not exam jitters FFS.gormdubhgorm wrote: »I would say it was more the distress caused to the girl and her overly dramatic testimony, that made them find the defendant guilty.
Could you point what part of her testimony was over dramatic?
She retold the facts of the case with clarity and told the court how the incident effected her.
You have achieved the hat trick fair play to.
1. Minimize the crime or the effect or the crime on the victim.
2. Try exonerate the perpetrator.
3. Blame the victim.0 -
More Stigmatic than 2 sexual assault convictions? Really?
I didn't say it was more or less. Some like to keep those things quiet and not be labelled. Which is thier prerogative.No they wouldn't, it's a court report from the case.
When he is has been sentenced his previous convictions if any will be considered before punishment.
Yes and the papers would have mentioned it you can be damn sure of that.
xyz teenager with xyz previous convictions.
Look at the Gazza case
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/17/paul-gascoigne-cleared-of-sexually-assaulting-woman-on-train
"The prosecution tried unsuccessfully to have Gascoigne’s past crimes read to the jury, arguing his convictions for offences including battery, criminal damage, drink-driving and religiously aggravated harassment "Not clear how many, but multiple.
One apparently was touched on the "butt"
Link?Hang on a sec, you just said she should have dealt with it herself.
You are twisting my words. I said another person would have just carried on and left it at that. But this does not remove her prerogative from reporting a crime if she feels it is worth reporting that is her prerogative.Where does she say she was in a state of anxiety over her mocks that caused her to be hypersensitive?
The anxiety came after the second incident, it was cause by the second incident combined with the first, not exam jitters FFS.Could you point what part of her testimony was over dramatic?
She retold the facts of the case with clarity and told the court how the incident effected her.
Read the Manchester article again. She was going to a timed exam.
Plus her reaction was a bit over the top.
It had a touch of the local drama society about it when you read it.
"Would have touched my breast... a whole 4/5 seconds... it was over so fast..." etc
She then claimed it prevented her from going out because he was traumatised and it affected her exams etc etc etcYou have achieved the hat trick fair play to.
1. Minimize the crime or the effect or the crime on the victim.
2. Try exonerate the perpetrator.
3. Blame the victim.
Now you are veering into the 'amateur dramatic' 'hyperbolic boards faux outrage' here.
1 I do not view the crime as sexual assault - harassment/minor assault at most
2. I did not exonerate the perpetrator. I already stated I would have no problem with him being charged with one of the above offences (harassment/minor assault at most) - but not sexual assault
3 I did not blame the victim.
I did not place fault on the victim in calling the police as it was her prerogative, merely her level of reaction to the events subsequently, and in her retelling of the events.
I just felt that she was hypersensitive and a bit dramatic which added to her level of trauma.
That still does not stop her from reporting a crime against her, if she sees fit.
It is not her fault she is hypersensitive and it affects her more than most.
She has a flair for the dramatic no more than yourself! Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement