Wife jailed for 'false retraction' of rape to appeal

Wolfe Tone · 11-11-2010 04:45PM

Emme wrote: »

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.

You mean like how if someone is accused of rape is found innocent it will discourage women from taking it to court?

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.

No, they are treated like everyone else who reports a crime. If you act the maggot interfer with the course of justice.....

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.

It appears that she lied.

Do you want an automatic conviction against any man who is accused of rape?

Ectoplasm · 11-11-2010 04:46PM

Zulu wrote: »

This to me read: she lied.

What I got from the story was that she is claiming
1: Her husband raped her
2: Under pressure from his family and friends she attempted to get the charges dropped and stop the case from proceeding.
3: When the police told her the case was going ahead she changed her statement in an attempt to force them to drop the case.
4: The police were then put in the position where they had to drop the case, and she was arrested.

I don't know, maybe you are right and she did lie from the beginning, but what if she didn't? What if her husband raped her and she, a victim, was then put under enormous pressure to get the charges dropped. She tried to and failed, so she tried again, this time branding herself a liar to do so, and then gets arrested and put into prison. You cannot say that if this is the case that justice has been served.

Emme · 11-11-2010 04:51PM

Zulu wrote: »

Do you have any concern for the man in this case?

He is not the one who has been jailed.

SugarHigh · 11-11-2010 04:52PM

Silverfish wrote: »

From the news article in the OP:

But sure, yes, just because the BBC reported it doesn't make it true, but then it might not be true that she retracted the allegations either, but I'm just taking the news report as fact, if you have more facts from another source I haven't seen.

So because she claims she was intimidated by the family then it means it actually happened?

The BBC never reported it happened they just reported that she claimed it happened so don't try and get patronising.

Buceph · 11-11-2010 04:52PM

EMF2010 wrote: »

What I got from the story was that she is claiming
1: Her husband raped her
2: Under pressure from his family and friends she attempted to get the charges dropped and stop the case from proceeding.
3: When the police told her the case was going ahead she changed her statement in an attempt to force them to drop the case.
4: The police were then put in the position where they had to drop the case, and she was arrested.

I don't know, maybe you are right and she did lie from the beginning, but what if she didn't? What if her husband raped her and she, a victim, was then put under enormous pressure to get the charges dropped. She tried to and failed, so she tried again, this time branding herself a liar to do so, and then gets arrested and put into prison. You cannot say that if this is the case that justice has been served.

Sure, I can accept the last paragraph you wrote, but who is to blame for all this? Is it the system in place for not supporting her? Or is it the woman for not dealing with it properly? Because I've asked a number of times for changes that would have allowed this to proceed normally, and the only thing suggested was that the entire legal system be changed so someone doesn't get to defend themselves, and that's simply barbaric.

Zulu · 11-11-2010 04:54PM

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

We all know she lied when she made and then withdrew the allegations, however what end was she lying on? Do you have some information on this that clearly shows she was lying when she initially made the allegation? If so, show it to me.

I don't. I don't have any facts to be honest - I'm only reading a BBC article. But the article claims she was found guilty by a court of lying obstructing the course of justice, which I perceive as lying in this case.

You specifically said she lied about being raped, nobody bar her and the accused know this. You claim that he was vindicated, he was not.

True, perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to state: she lied in relation to being raped. (and this isn't humanities

)

EMF2010 wrote: »

I don't know, maybe you are right and she did lie from the beginning, but what if she didn't?

Then it would be truly very sad.

Nothing short of a tragedy.

Zulu · 11-11-2010 04:55PM

Emme wrote: »

He is not the one who has been jailed.

..so yes/no?

Ectoplasm · 11-11-2010 04:55PM

SugarHigh wrote: »

How would you make it go faster without cutting out parts that have already been deemed necessary?

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what you mean by cutting out parts, as a lot of the delay is due, not to the investigation but to backlog in the courts.

I also know that the most recent figures I can find show that prosecution of rape in the Republic of Ireland takes about three times as long as it does in the UK and nearly five times as long as it does in Northern Ireland. So I think maybe we could learn something from how they do it.

Emme · 11-11-2010 04:57PM

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You mean like how if someone is accused of rape is found innocent it will discourage women from taking it to court?

This is already the case, because even though some rapists who go to court are innocent, some may not be. Rape victims have to relive the ordeal all over again in court and aren't always treated well so they're not likely to go through that if their chances of getting justice are virtually nil.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Do you want an automatic conviction against any man who is accused of rape?

No, just a fairer system of trial where the accuser is treated as fairly as the accused and not dragged through the mud. If rape cases came to court more quickly then there mightn't be as much time to intimidate the accuser. I'm not saying that it definitely happened in this case, but it might have.

Does anybody remember a case where a supposedly upstanding farmers son from outside a Kerry village was accused of raping a single mother from the village and he would probably have gotten away with it only the crime was caught on CCTV? Several of the men in the village, including the parish priest, shook the rapist's hand as they went out of court, and the victim was made a pariah despite the fact that the crime was proven.

Silverfish · 11-11-2010 04:59PM

SugarHigh wrote: »

So because she claims she was intimidated by the family then it means it actually happened?

The BBC never reported it happened they just reported that she claimed it happened so don't try and get patronising.

It's highly likely it might have happened, it wouldn't be the first time families put pressure on victims to drop charges.

Apologies if you thought that was patronising, I just thought there may be more information I hadn't read, you asked me for the same, I provided it, I thought it would be okay to expect the same, but you are correct, she could have dropped the charges for no reason.

Buceph · 11-11-2010 05:01PM

Emme wrote: »

Does anybody remember a case where a supposedly upstanding farmers son from a Kerry village was accused of raping a girl from a local town and he would probably have gotten away with it only the crime was caught on CCTV?

You mean the compelling evidence was the CCTV? Yes, it's terrible that we don't all have CCTV mounted on our head to record what happens when crimes are perpetrated, or a device where we contact the hub when we're in distress*, but until that happens rape is going to be very hard to try because of the nature of the case. Unfortunately the courts can't change public perception of rape cases. But the entire system is predicated on the burden of proof being placed on the prosecution, and to change that I would feel would be to completely abandon the nature of our law.

*I started reading The Culture novels.

Wolfe Tone · 11-11-2010 05:03PM

Emme wrote: »

This is already the case, because even though some rapists who go to course are innocent, some may not be. Rape victims have to relive the ordeal all over again in court and aren't always treated well so they're not likely to go through that if their chances of getting justice are virtually nil.

"Virtually nil" Thats rubbish. So should we automatically send men down without a fair trial so women will be encouraged to take cases?

No, just a fairer system of trial where the accuser is treated as fairly as the accused and not dragged through the mud. If rape cases came to court more quickly then there mightn't be as much time to intimidate the accuser. I'm not saying that it definitely happened in this case, but it might have.

The Onus is always on the STATE(the woman who says she was raped is only a witness) to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove innocence. Quite rightly. The state has unlimited resources to fight its corner. In criminal cases guilt or culpability has to be beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the balance of probabilities like in civil cases, for that very reason.

Wolfe Tone · 11-11-2010 05:04PM

Silverfish wrote: »

It's highly likely it might have happened, it wouldn't be the first time families put pressure on victims to drop charges.

Apologies if you thought that was patronising, I just thought there may be more information I hadn't read, you asked me for the same, I provided it, I thought it would be okay to expect the same, but you are correct, she could have dropped the charges for no reason.

Highly likely? Where did you pull that from? The simple fact that she said that to the police? Its not as if she has ever lied to the police is it?

Emme · 11-11-2010 05:06PM

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

"Virtually nil" Thats rubbish. So should we automatically send men down without a fair trial so women will be encouraged to take cases?.

I didn't say that. I said that the alleged rapist and the victim (witness) should be treated fairly and not subjected to a horrific ordeal.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The Onus is always on the STATE(the woman who says she was raped is only a witness) to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove innocence. Quite rightly. The state has unlimited resources to fight its corner. In criminal cases guilt or culpability has to be beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the balance of probabilities like in civil cases, for that very reason.

If this is the case then is somebody who was mugged, subjected to armed robbery or beaten up a witness?

Wolfe Tone · 11-11-2010 05:07PM

Emme wrote: »

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

"Virtually nil" Thats rubbish. So should we automatically send men down without a fair trial so women will be encouraged to take cases?

I didn't say that.

If this is the case then is somebody who was mugged, subjected to armed robbery or beaten up a witness?

What are you saying then? You want bias in favor of the accuser? In favor of the DPP?

The DPP takes the case.

Silverfish · 11-11-2010 05:08PM

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Highly likely? Where did you pull that from? The simple fact that she said that to the police? Its not as if she has ever lied to the police is it?

I said highly likely it MIGHT have happened, not highly likely it DID happen, and I believe it might have happened because a) it happens quite a lit that families of the accused put pressure on the accuser, and b) because she actually said it happened, and dropped the allegations because of it.

So the evidence points to it being likely it MIGHT have happened.

keane2097 · 11-11-2010 05:10PM

Emme wrote: »

Does anybody remember a case where a supposedly upstanding farmers son from outside a Kerry village was accused of raping a single mother from the village and he would probably have gotten away with it only the crime was caught on CCTV? Several of the men in the village, including the parish priest, shook the rapist's hand as they went out of court, and the victim was made a pariah despite the fact that the crime was proven.

Do you remember any of the other details of this case perchance?

hondasam · 11-11-2010 05:12PM

does anyone know if the couple are still together? would it make everyone look at it different if the were still married?

Buceph · 11-11-2010 05:12PM

Emme wrote: »

I didn't say that. I said that the alleged rapist and the victim (witness) should be treated fairly and not subjected to a horrific ordeal.

And what do you mean by fairly? People are jumping to conclusions because apart from the timeframe problem, which isn't specific to rape cases, nothing sensible has been suggested.

If this is the case then is somebody who was mugged, subjected to armed robbery or beaten up a witness?

Yes, technically. They make the complaint to the police, the police send the file to the DPP, the DPP decide whether to pursue a case or not. The victim has little to do with it once it gets to the DPP beyond being a witness. Although this has changed with the increased use of victim impact statements, which was designed to give victims more input on the case and feel some ownership of the process.

Ectoplasm · 11-11-2010 05:13PM

Buceph wrote: »

Sure, I can accept the last paragraph you wrote, but who is to blame for all this? Is it the system in place for not supporting her? Or is it the woman for not dealing with it properly? Because I've asked a number of times for changes that would have allowed this to proceed normally, and the only thing suggested was that the entire legal system be changed so someone doesn't get to defend themselves, and that's simply barbaric.

I'm not sure about blame. I think 'innocent until proven guilty' is vital. I also think it applies to her too though. No one here can say for certain that she lied, in fact she was aquitted of making a false allegation.

If she had have been found guilty of making false accusations, then jail would be an appropriate punishment.

She does bear some responsibility for the fact that she handled things badly, but if we assume she is telling the truth, if we give her the same assumption of 'innocence' as we are giving to her alleged attacker, then what happened here is that she essentially decided, after being pressured, not to proceed with a case and when that didn't work she tried to lie to get out of it. For that she is being jailed. It just seems like a very harsh penalty.

It's a very tough one to call. I'm not sure that there was any justice for anyone in this case. I don't agree that the law should be changed so that a person can not defend themselves. In fact, all I'm advocating is a speedier resolution of these cases in Ireland.

Wolfe Tone · 11-11-2010 05:13PM

Silverfish wrote: »

I said highly likely it MIGHT have happened, not highly likely it DID happen, and I believe it might have happened because a) it happens quite a lit that families of the accused put pressure on the accuser, and b) because she actually said it happened, and dropped the allegations because of it.

So the evidence points to it being likely it MIGHT have happened.

I disagree, I think she is a liar.

And as for

"In other words, the Crown accepted they fully believed her claim of rape.

That is bollocks. That suggest that the state have accepted that she was raped, which the have not.

Zulu · 11-11-2010 05:14PM

Zulu wrote: »

Do you have any concern for the man in this case?

Emme wrote: »

He is not the one who has been jailed.

Zulu wrote: »

..so yes/no?

It saddens me that you've avoided answering this question. Can I ask why?

Buceph · 11-11-2010 05:16PM

EMF2010 wrote: »

I'm not sure about blame. I think 'innocent until proven guilty' is vital. I also think it applies to her too though. No one here can say for certain that she lied, in fact she was aquitted of making a false allegation.

If she had have been found guilty of making false accusations, then jail would be an appropriate punishment.

She does bear some responsibility for the fact that she handled things badly, but if we assume she is telling the truth, if we give her the same assumption of 'innocence' as we are giving to her alleged attacker, then what happened here is that she essentially decided, after being pressured, not to proceed with a case and when that didn't work she tried to lie to get out of it. For that she is being jailed. It just seems like a very harsh penalty.

It's a very tough one to call. I'm not sure that there was any justice for anyone in this case. I don't agree that the law should be changed so that a person can not defend themselves. In fact, all I'm advocating is a speedier resolution of these cases in Ireland.

That does raise an interesting point. For a long time feminist groups were advocating, especially in abuse cases, that the DPPs of the world shouldn't need the victims say so to proceed with the case. As the victims were often intimidated into not persuing the case, or were lied to by husbands/boyfriends and went back to an abusive home. This type of situation is the fallout from that.

Feeona · 11-11-2010 05:18PM

I think jailing the woman was harsh. I do believe however she should have been fined for taking up the case and dropping it on several occasions. Can you imagine the amount of paperwork, man-hours and time spent on bringing the case to court? If she hadn't brought the case to court so many times, maybe other people would have had the chance to have their cases brought to court.

There's only so much sympathy people can have, and there's only so much money in the public system's pocket.

enfant terrible · 11-11-2010 05:19PM

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

With all due respect, we don't know that. We do know she wasted a lot of police and CPS time and resource, we do not know if she was raped or not.

Looks like the accuser got the result she wanted so if the accused is still a potential rapist in your mind.

SugarHigh · 11-11-2010 05:20PM

Silverfish wrote: »

It's highly likely it might have happened, it wouldn't be the first time families put pressure on victims to drop charges.

Apologies if you thought that was patronising, I just thought there may be more information I hadn't read, you asked me for the same, I provided it, I thought it would be okay to expect the same, but you are correct, she could have dropped the charges for no reason.

I'm sorry but saying it's highly likely to have happened doesn't give an unproven claim any credit. She could have also dropped the charges because she was making them up and realised she was going to be found out. I'm not saying that's what happened but it has as much credibility as your "Highly likely" claims.

IITYWYBMAD · 11-11-2010 05:32PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Looks like the accuser got the result she wanted so if the accused is still a potential rapist in your mind.

I've read this 3 times now, and it still makes no sense to me. So...what?

Feeona · 11-11-2010 05:33PM

SugarHigh wrote: »

She could have also dripped the charges because she was making them up and realised she was going to be found out. I'm not saying that's what happened but it has as much credibility as your "Highly likely" claims.

What's this got to do with the original point of the thread? The facts as we have it is that she dropped the claims several times. Nobody knows why. So why the speculation? How did the thread go in this direction?

I think it's quite disturbing to see an argument going on about whether or not a woman was making up rape claims in a forum for women.

stimpson · 11-11-2010 05:36PM

Feeona wrote: »

I think it's quite disturbing to see an argument going on about whether or not a woman was making up rape claims in a forum for women.

Even though a false accusation of rape makes it harder for women who actually have been raped to be believed? Or is it a post-feminist man hating thing?

IITYWYBMAD · 11-11-2010 05:37PM

Silverfish wrote: »

I said highly likely it MIGHT have happened, not highly likely it DID happen, and I believe it might have happened because a) it happens quite a lit that families of the accused put pressure on the accuser, and b) because she actually said it happened, and dropped the allegations because of it.

So the evidence points to it being likely it MIGHT have happened.

I'm sorry, but you talking tosh. This is all opinion and conjecture, and is a classic argumentum ad hominem.

You are clearly trying to find some validity in your argument based on your beliefs.

You simply do not have, nor could you have any evidence to back up your claim that this happens quite a lot, with regards to family and pressure, and your "b" argument is easily dismissed by the fact that she actually said it did not happen also.

Wife jailed for 'false retraction' of rape to appeal

Comments