Wife jailed for 'false retraction' of rape to appeal

Zulu wrote: »

Sure we do. We know someone was falsely accused of rape,

No we don't, how do we know that, was anybody tried for rape?

and was vindicated

Where was the vindication? Point it out to me?

& we know that their was a scurrilous liar who was found guilty.

We don't know if she was lying of pressurised into this, we simply don't.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The man is innocent until proven guilty, she said she was raped,then says she lied, then when it sees she may get in trouble for lying changes her mind and says that she actually was raped?

The man was always innocent. No rape trial took part. No not-guilty verdict was given. No vindication was given, as no rape trial took place. It would have been impossible to conduct a fair trail, given the behavior of the alleged victim, irrespective of her reasons, so she was correctly charged and convicted.

I also hopes she thinks about the damage she has done to the real victims of rape, as her goings on her are despicable and feed into the leftist feminist agenda that's all too evident here and in the U.K.

Zulu wrote: »

so what was she found guilty of?

Perverting the course of justice.

I think a lot of people seem to be missing the fact that she attempted to drop the charges and only when police said that they would go ahead did she then make a statement that it was a false allegation.

What she has gotten into trouble for is making the statement that her original statement wasn't true and thus perverting the course of justice - by saying the allegations were false she was attempting to get police to drop the charges, as she had done originally. The 'repeated' isn't anything to do with other incidents, it is the changing her mind on wanting the case to proceed, then changing her statement to try to force the police to drop the charges.

I do think it's important for accused people to be able to have a trial but I also wonder, if this woman had been able to get the charges dropped originally, would this have gone so far.

As another poster said, I think that this does send the message that if you report assault or rape you'd better be damn sure you are able to go through the lengthy process involved in bringing it to trial - otherwise you go to jail.

FROM THE ORIGINAL:

"During last week's hearing, prosecutor Simon Parry said she had made a 999 call in November 2009 claiming she had been raped six times by her husband.

But in January 2010 she said she wanted to drop the charges - although she still maintained they were true.

Detectives said they would continue with the prosecution and by 11 February the woman altered her statement once more, this time saying the original allegations were false."

I'm amazed that people here aren't making a bigger deal of how a man who hasn't even been tried for a crime - never mind convicted - has essentially been branded a rapist here.

This is a really, really important, terrible thing to have happen, and people don't seem to give a shít.

The woman in the case in question basically made and retracted statements so many times that the justice system was forced to punish her.

It should be really hard to trust what she's saying in these circumstances, but we have a man with rapist practically tattooed across his forehead over her.

Its absolutely mad tbh, scary stuff.

Zulu wrote: »

So if she wasn't lying, how was she perverting the course of justice?

As she repeatedly dropped and re-made the allegations, she made it impossible for the rape trial to go ahead, despite the fact the CPS originally found grounds to proceed. Therefore her actions in dropping and re-making the allegations, resulted in the course of justice being perverted. She was charged and convicted. The rape allegation has nothing to do with this, as she would have been convicted had she done the same wrt a stolen vehicle.

Regardless of whether this woman was raped or not (and this HASN'T been proven), the present outcome of her case will discourage other victims of rape and sexual assault from reporting these crimes.

stimpson wrote: »

Do you think the woman bears any responsibility for this?

No, because prior to this it was very difficult for victims of rape and sexual assault to come forward and report such crimes. This case only hammers home the fact that people who report rape and sexual assault are treated in the same way as alleged witches were in medieval times - trial by ordeal.

When you think about it, this woman has been subjected to a trial by ordeal, a sort of "ducking" where she has (for reasons known only to herself and her husband) repeatedly retracted her accusation and as a result ended up in jail while the crime she originally reported is still unproven.

Silverfish wrote: »

I think the key point is here that she was jailed for false retraction, not false allegation.

She retracted it under pressure from the accused's family, then changed her mind and wanted to proceed, and was punished for preventing the original case from proceeding.

She didn't retract it, she made a new false contradictory statement. You can't retract a statement made to the police, it will always be there (bar statutory destroyal of evidence, etc..) Then when told she could face trouble because of the contradiction in her two statements, she made a third statement going back to the story in the original. People saying she lied should be aware that the lie was in the contradictory statements, not in the rape allegation, we'll probably never know if that was true or not. The court did find however that there was enough reasonable doubt that the rape allegation could be true, so didn't convict her on false allegation.

The contradictions in what she was saying amounted to perverting the course of justice. The lie is implicit to the contradictory statements.

As for the family pressure, she didn't accuse them of witness intimidation, at worst she accused them of being ignorant of her own plight. That's something she has to deal with and isn't a defense for what she did.

All that being said, and like I said from the beginning. I think it would be wise if the judge somehow arranged for her punishment to be getting help. She's obviously messed up and turned inside out from the whole process. A process that no-one has proposed a method of bettering while maintaining the standards of our judicial system. If supplementary systems like counselling were more closely tied to the entire process, integrated to it, it might be better for all. On both the accusor and accusee side.