A man who has a photo of you in bed with him is entitled to sex

[Bananamanfan]

AIBU in thinking the reporting of this story is totally irresponsible given the low reporting of rapes by victims.
The BBC are harping on about this FFS! It all perpetuates the myth that false accusations of rape are at epidemic proportions. I really think we are travelling backwards through time at the moment.

[PatriarchyPersonified]

unplugmefromthematrix

However, I think that the photos or other evidence like this need to go to court so that the judge and jury may decide. It should not be up to the police to screen evidence, even if they fear it may not be seen 'in the right light'. Otherwise we end up where we are not and with doubt being cast on so many other rape convictions.

Who is paying for all this court and jury time? Of course the Police and the CPS have to screen evidence, its literally part of their job. If they didn't then every single spurious case that could easily be disproved would have to go through the rigmarole of going to court.

The issue here is that its hard to believe that the Police and CPS looked at his phone, downloaded all his information and texts etc but didn't see the photos of him and his accuser taken on the day of the alleged rape. We don't know the full details but it certainly sounds like critical evidence that appears to cast serious doubts on the accuser's side of the story was completely missed by the Police and CPS.

The very best reason for this sheer incompetence, the worst reason is that it was a deliberate attempt to suppress evidence in order to secure the conviction of an innocent man.

[unplugmefromthematrix]

Patriarchy we pay for all this court and jury time - in the interests of justice. If we value it, then we have to pay for it.

It is the police's job to gather evidence and evaluate it so they can determine if a crime has been committed and who the evidence suggests is likely to be responsible. If there is concrete proof of an alibi for example so the suspect is not pursued, then that is not what I meant by 'screening evidence' = selectively providing or selectively disclosing evidence; it is presenting the gathered evidence and the evidence speaking for itself and there for anyone to see. There is a vast difference between evaluation and deliberately holding evidence back so a person cannot use it for their defence or to prove their case. .

The photos are not conclusive proof of his innocence or guilt of rape, and as you say we don't know the full details so it sounds like the photos should have been disclosed so they could be evaluated in court where the jury (and judge) could hear an explanation from both sides and take a view. If the discovery of the photos undermined the accuser's story so much so that it made her sound as if she were lying then that is another matter, but she should be questioned about it. And this can also be evaluated in court if there is any doubt.

Perhaps it is also the case that the mishandling by the police made them look unreliable and untrustworthy so the prosecution did not then go ahead for those reasons.

The senior CPS/ police person speaking on Radio 4 said that they do not routinely delve very deeply into people's lives. That sounds very worrying to me. We should be funding the police so that they can do their job properly.

I don't think we have anywhere near enough substantial detail to make informed decsions on who did or didn't do what, including police incompetence or wrongdoing, and that really worries me.

[Firesuit]

So 'not guilty' then?

I think I could convict someone, with possibly not even a higher threshold of evidence that the average juror. That's necessary for justice to work. I think I probably just use less definite words to describe that level of certainty.

I think there are intelligent people for whom there is no mental distinction between reality and what they believe, and who would be nonplussed at the very idea of making a distinction. For me, reality is an intrinsically unknowable thing "out there", distinct from the imperfect representation in my brain, that is all I know. Those people are certain of everything, I'm certain of nothing, but we probably make similar decisions in similar circumstances, most of the time.

I suppose my argument in favour of being wishy-washy is that it leaves your mind more open to change.


My algorithm in processing something like this rape news story starts with asking why I need to come to a conclusion. Since I'm not the police, prosecutor or juror, I don't, therefore file the story under inconclusive, along with 99.9% of all other information I encounter that doesn't affect any immediate decision I need to make.

[RidingWindhorses]

However, I think that the photos or other evidence like this need to go to court so that the judge and jury may decide. It should not be up to the police to screen evidence, even if they fear it may not be seen 'in the right light'. Otherwise we end up where we are not and with doubt being cast on so many other rape convictions.

Except that in this case the police say they didn't find it, so it wasn't a question of screening evidence. It's quite possible they didn't as they're massively underfunded and sex offence cases are not necessarily a top priory. They certainly weren't in my borough according to a recent IPCC investigation.

Sometimes police withhold evidence because they just want to get a conviction. But at the same time due to the unfortunate power of rape myths prevalent in society - including juries and the judiciary - I can see why police may be tempted to withhold evidence that doesn't disprove a case but may prejudice a jury against the complainant. However it's entirely counterproductive as an assiduous defence team will likely find it.