To be angry about the Oritse Williams rape case?

[prettyinpink23x]

He's been found not guilty today by a Jury.

So many people on twitter are saying 'name and shame the woman, she's lied' 'she deserves a prison sentence'. This is infuriating! Do these people not realise that 'not guilty' does not equate with innocent and it doesn't mean she's lied?

Is it unreasonable for me to be angry about this?

Again, it's a myth that rape is one of the hardest crimes to prove because it's one person's word against another. Just like other crimes where there might not have been a witness, there's other evidence that can be found - CCTV, foresnic evidence, witness statements from the first person a victim might have told, hospital/GP records/999 calls from other members of the public who might have heard shouting but not actually witnessed it.

onefootinthegrave

CCTV - usually not of the actual act or words which preceded it

Forensic evidence - usually there is no denial that penetration took place; the defence is that there was consent. Forensic evidence of injury might undermine that, but probably won’t.

Witness statements - hearsay. “X raped me”. Prosecutors still have to prove it. A witness to the act is unusual unless they are also in the dock.

Hospital/GP records - again, usually only if there is injury would those records support the prosecution.

999 calls and so on - again, only in cases where shouting/screaming takes place

hercule I've been involved in plenty of cases where there was a lot of evidence that yes, maybe on its own wouldn't be enough to go to court. But all of it together is much stronger. Which is why rape and domestic violence charges should be heard together, when so often they are investigated separatly.

Surely you agree that if all of that available evidence was gathered it should be put before a jury to decide? Your post reads like you're trying to find reasons as to why you can't get evidence together to prosecute rape cases, and that's not true.

onefootinthegrave

Erm, no, it doesn’t. It reads like I think rape is often difficult to prove. Which it is.

Maybe the woman did lie though. So many mens lives have been destroyed by women's lies ( no I'm
Not a man before somebody gets offended)

If she is clearly a liar out to destroy somebody's life then yeah she should be named and shamed. A taste of her own medicine perhaps.
If she has not lied then she should not be named and shamed.

Surely you agree that if all of that available evidence was gathered it should be put before a jury to decide?

And no, I don’t. I believe that it should go before a jury if the CPS think there is sufficient evidence to create a reasonable chance of a conviction.

I absolutely abhor the idea of gathering that evidence meaning mining the victim’s phone and social media, or digging into her sexual preferences, or commenting on her sexual history, etc. All revolting practices.

But fundamentally, if a jury isn’t going to convict because the evidence is too weak, the case will be thrown out.

If she is clearly a liar out to destroy somebody's life then yeah she should be named and shamed. A taste of her own medicine perhaps

Who do you think gets to make that decision?

It’s why the police now want to be able to access the phones etc of victims so that they can gather all evidence more thoroughly. Yet there’s a major outcry about that

Really? Yes there’s a “major outcry about that” when things like the victim flirting with their rapist before the rape is used as a reason not to prosecute. Them functioning “normally” by sending unrelated text messages / emails the next day is used against them. Being told that unless you open up access to your phone and social media so that it can be trawled for anything in your search history or messages that might imply you (shock horror) have a sexual history or like sex.

Yes, it does read like that to me.

I don't think women's phones should be trawled through, that's an example of police investigations being so biased they look for any evidence to disprove what the victims says, rather than look for evidence that shows her rapist is the one that's lying.

I see biased CPS decisions every day when helping victims try and get justice. Please dont assume the CPS are the oracle, they're really not.

onefootinthegrave

You’re misreading, then.

Except some crimes are regarded as more heinous than others

Lots of crimes are regarded as more heinous than others

Ive seen many times posters saying that the accused in those crimes shouldn't be named...

Oh wait, no i haven't....ive NEVER seen that, only seems to be rape

"Forensic evidence of injury might undermine that, but probably won’t."

In the Belfast rape trial, the victim had a 1cm laceration in her vagina, because the guy was penetrating her so hard and one would assume, at the wrong angle. It was decided that this was not only normal, but it was normal for her to not feel any pain, and to not ask him to stop, because obviously if she'd asked him to stop, (which she claimed she did), he would have.

In the taxi on the way home, when she got out, she'd bled so much over the seats, the driver actually went to investigate, and considered fining her for the damage. That was considered normal too (to bleed like that after "consensual" sex)

I agree it's nearly impossible to prove. That is terrifying and why I'm scared to date now.

AravisQueenOfArchenland

One of the reasons it is so difficult to prove is that people will tie themselves in logical knots for men.

My view is that evidence of physical injury from sex should usually be enough to see that a case gets in front of a jury. What the jury will do with the information is, unfortunately, anybody’s guess.

"Again, it's a myth that rape is one of the hardest crimes to prove because it's one person's word against another."

^I'm sure the 98% of rape victims who watch their attacker get off scott free, would agree with me, that's bullshit!

Rape hinges on consent. Unless the lack of or withdrawal of consent were filmed or witnessed, there's usually no case.

Seems that he got the not guilty verdict because it was two against one. The manager said she returned for sex, was kissing and embracing him.

Not sure why people believe the girl is lying over the manager who clearly would want to protect his friend and employer.

I really don't think the world is full of crazed girls that want to "ruin" celebrities lives. It's much more likely entitled men don't take no for an answer or don't care how drunk and out of it girls are.

herculepoirot2

You're right. Why do people do it though? (Tying themselves in knots

How does the manager know why she returned? Did she tell him? And kissing and embracing does not equal consent.

AravisQueenOfArchenland

They think they’re being fair when actually they’re very biased?

CaptSkippy

It doesn’t, but unfortunately, in the absence of other evidence, it equals reasonable doubt.

Which, to be fair, exists as soon as a woman walks into a hotel room and closes the door. It is one person’s word against another’s, and will mean acquittal without other evidence.

With all these mental gymnastic to excuse the behavior of a rapist it makes you wonder if we women are in a perpetual state of of consent by just existing.

This whole thing is exhausting and it makes me feel less than human.

With this Williams case, I suspect reasonable doubt did exist in the minds of the jury. It’s hard for me to reconcile “zombified” and “spaced out” with a memory accurate enough to describe what happened in the room. I could be wrong, but there is definitely doubt.

Also, it’s possible people on jury service need more training before they serve. “Beyond reasonable doubt” - what does it actually mean? If people are taking it to mean “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, that’s possibly where all these dodgy acquittals are coming from. More modelling of cases beforehand?

I've just had a thought, maybe it would be better if we didn't have just trials for rapists, but some sort of rehabilitation programme men must automatically go through, every time they're accused? Even if it doesn't go to trial? Say 6 months? If they have been unfairly accused, the worst that happens is they get a lot of new information on how to deal with their feelings (feeling inadequate or emasculated, bruised egos etc, all those "power" issues"), consent, empathy etc, and won't put themselves in a position to be accused again. If they've been made to go through the programme more than x times, they get bail type conditions, they get tagged, put on a curfew, have to submit devices for random checks etc. Not justice, but it might help reduce rape?