A very compelling reason not to report rape

I agree with plants last post

Perhaps if she wanted to keep her freedom she shouldn't have perverted the course of justice?

Again, she was never found guilty because she killed herself before it reached court. Legally she is innocent of any wrong doing.

She never saw the inside of a court room.

Exactly. She was never found guilty of anything. Legally she was just as as innocent as he is. With that in mind it might be wise to tread carefully and be very careful about what you say.

Racecardriver
You keep misspelling the peoples names you are @ing you won't be here much longer.
Some poor MN member just got a message that they are completely mystified by.

Try and assume for one minute he's innocent...

Did that, because like most of the decent human beings here we always do that. Then we count the red flags and recognize the narcissistic rage for what it is.

Rapist or not, Alexander Economou is a cunt of the highest order. She killed herself ffs. Yet, he still feels so outraged that a woman dared go against him that he went for her family after her death. He is no victim.

Well the CPS who reviewed the case certainly thought he was as did the DPP, but you've read a Buzzfeed article. You clearly know better.

She killed herself. He never got justice. She never saw the inside of a court room. He'd every right to be upset. His opportunity to clear his name was stolen from him. The press still treated him as if he was probably guilty. Fuck going quietly in to the night in those circumstances

TEMRA: I wrote a juror's eye view explainer of how courts work and also found a popular picture explaining how sure the jury have to be to convict. Strangely, a lot of former jurors took to twitter that day...

Correction to the twitter thread: "In the trial I was at, the lack of audio on the recording meant that there was no corrobation of her account of what she said" should end with "what he said".

This. And he's still got a blog about his "ordeal" and has bought google ads so that when you search for Eleanor, his blog is the first thing you see, above all the search results. This is a vendetta against a dead woman, serious red flag behaviour, and doesn't do anything to convince me that he's a nice guy who would never ever harm a woman

Again this is baffling. He's just supposed to forgive and forget? Why should He?

Try and assume for one minute he's innocent (clearly difficult for most on here) but just try. Why shouldn't he, as a victim be angry? Why shouldn't he set the record straight. It's utterly bizarre that you think he should just roll over.

“I really hate that fucking family,” Alexander told BuzzFeed News. “He’s got all the feminists into a frenzy thinking that she’s some kind of victim.”

“I’m the victim,” he said, “not them.”

Rapist or not, Alexander Economou is a cunt of the highest order.
She killed herself ffs. Yet, he still feels so outraged that a woman dared go against him that he went for her family after her death.

He is no victim.

You are trying to compare two different datasets without knowing the parameters.

Hang on a rooting tooting moment. I thought false rape claims were made at the same rates as all other claims?

How do you know that false rape accusations made at the same rate as other claims weren't assessed wrongly as false? What do we consider a "false rape accusation"?

As I said, when all the false accusation cases had to go through the DPP personally, the levels that went to court dropped because Keir Starmer was applying the CPS guidance strictly

Hang on a rooting tooting moment. I thought false rape claims were made at the same rates as all other claims? Did Mr Starmer review all false burglary claims? All false assault accusations? All PCJ traffic offences? No, these false rape claims are artificially kept low because there was a political will to do so. Fucking patriarchy eh?

(8th rule of feminism. Even when a feminist presents evidence which directly contradicts their assertion of a patriarchy, they will desperately hold on to the belief it exists in the face of any logic or reasoning.)

Can I ask TransExclusionaryMRA why you didn't respond to the post I made in direct response to your point about rape reporting?

If he wanted people to think he was a nice guy who wouldn't harm anyone, he was taking a strange approach to it.

This. And he's still got a blog about his "ordeal" and has bought google ads so that when you search for Eleanor, his blog is the first thing you see, above all the search results. This is a vendetta against a dead woman, serious red flag behaviour, and doesn't do anything to convince me that he's a nice guy who would never ever harm a woman.

@thebewilderness, I'm too young to remember loo wall lists of rapists but your insistance that the women's loo be female-only, no exceptions, gets some context.

Previous post errata: "No one has actually said that we shouldn't prosecute false accusers."

@iloveirnbru asked what evidence was withheld from de Freitas's defence until three days beforehand. It's listed in the article, but seeing as you prefer the Torygraph, I have your preferred source:
"Although the majority of the material was provided to the defence, Ms de Freitas’ police interview was only provided at a late stage.”

Because clearly, not giving the defendant and her counsel enough time to prepare is a really fair way to run a trial.

The only way to remove the justifications for prosecuting false accusers is to prevent publication of accusations in the first place.

No one has actually said we shouldn't. What we have said is that the standard of evidence and level of being "in the public interest" needs to be sufficiently high. The buzzfeed article indicates that it sometimes isn't. All the things in the buzzfeed article can be verified. As I said, when all the false accusation cases had to go through the DPP personally, the levels that went to court dropped because Keir Starmer was applying the CPS guidance strictly. That it went up after he stopped doing that tells you that others in the CPS are not so strict.

Which is what the thread was about before @iloveirnbru came along and derailed it.

The only way to remove the justifications for prosecuting false accusers is to prevent publication of accusations in the first place.

That would certainly be a boon to the serial rapists among us.
Women could go back to writing the rapists names on the walls in the loo like we used to when I was a teen. Are you old enough to remember when men argued there was no such thing as real rape if the victim survived the attack?

The rate of false reports are not different whatever the crime, and yet false rape reports have an entire mythology established around them.
I wonder if prosecutors charge a higher percentage of women for reporting rape than they do rapists?

People just need to be educated re: how courts function, because of the burden of proof just because a man is found not guilty does not automatically = that the woman lied about it.

Women do not tend to lie about being raped, and besides given how few rapists see the inside of a jail cell it’s probably quite an inefficient way at trying to get at men. That said some do and when it’s malicious I’d say it’s criminal. It also occurs to me that just because some is mentally unstable it does not automatically follow they aren’t malicious.

There probably needs to be a wider conversation on how we treat anyone accused of a crime, especially those with mental health issues, and not just in relation to false accusations, but generally. I think just restricting the discussion to just women with mental issues is counter productive, and paternal. The idea that women god bless em can’t handle being held responsible as defendants in court cases is pretty insulting to women actually.

@netrorider I agree that the damages caused by false accusations can be mitigated but what you suggest isn't sufficient due to the no smoke without fire mentality that many people apply to rape accusations. The only way to remove the justifications for prosecuting false accusers is to prevent publication of accusations in the first place.

I don’t think that’s a rule of feminism exactly, it’s a human tendency called motivated reasoning. We all do it.

I regard neither the Telegraph nor the Mail as publishers of facts

But Buzzfeed are?

4th rule of feminism. Media, statistics and anecdotes which correlate with my world view are gospel and sacrosanct. Anything else is clearly wrong.