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?

My first thought was insurance. It was a derelict house he didn't live in wasn't it?

A vigilantly would surely attack him, not do him a favour by burning down his money pit.

but are now suspecting him of arson and insurance fraud.

It’s absolutely a possibility! As is vigilante action, as is accidental cause, as is the squatters suggestion upthread. All are possibilities. I see no outrage from you about people suspecting squatters or allies of the victim. If it’s okay to float those people as suspects, why is it not okay to float him as a suspect?

. I see no outrage from you about people suspecting squatters or allies of the victim. If it’s okay to float those people as suspects, why is it not okay to float him as a suspect?

Are any of those individually named? If so, I would be equally outraged.

Can you not see a difference between naming someone and then saying a general "it might have been squatters"?

I can't imagine an entire group of unidentifiable people could sue someone for libel, slander or defamation. I'm quite sure that a named individual can though.

Can you not see a difference between naming someone and then saying a general "it might have been squatters"?

Of course I can. Can you explain how I would suggest insurance motive as a possibility in this case without it being obvious who I was talking about? Or are you really saying I cannot suggest that motive?

Can you sue someone for libel, slander or defamation for suggestion something is one possibility? I don’t think you can. I have no idea what or who caused the fire. There are lots of possibilities. Insurance fraud being one of them.

What a disgusting thread this is.

I really don't know if suggesting that a named person might be responsible for committing a certain crime us actionable. I really don't care to find out either.

Would I take legal steps against someone making these sorts of allegations against me? Yes I would if it were possible. Surely, if you have reason to suspect someone of committing a crime then the correct course of action is to report them to the police? If you have no evidence to support your theory then I would suggest that the correct course of action is to keep those thoughts to yourself, not chuck a whole load of mud around in the hope that some sticks.

Would I take legal steps against someone making these sorts of allegations against me?

What allegation? No allegation has been made. A possible cause was suggested after other possible causes had been suggested. None of which were allegations.

Surely, if you have reason to suspect someone of committing a crime then the correct course of action is to report them to the police?

Of course. Not relevant here though. Which you know.

If you have no evidence to support your theory then I would suggest that the correct course of action is to keep those thoughts to yourself, not chuck a whole load of mud around in the hope that some sticks.

Does that apply to all the theories suggested on this thread?

What allegations? Well how about this one

I wonder if the case has left Oritse with financial problems. Insurance job is a possibility too.

What could you have possibly meant by that post if it wasn't alleging that a crime might have been committed by a named individual for financial gain?

Does that apply to all the theories suggested on this thread?

How many other named, or identifiable individuals have been alleged to have been involved in a crime on this thread?

What allegations? Well how about this one

I wonder if the case has left Oritse with financial problems. Insurance job is a possibility too.

You clearly don’t understand what an allegation is.

This whole thread is pathetic really. Yes he was found not guilty, as many have pointed out that doesn't mean he was not responsible for any wrongdoing, or indeed that he didn't directly do it. This country is hardly renowned for supporting or being fair to, women who accuse men of rape. OP- spend your time reading up on that if you need to feel angry about something, I am quite certain the multi millionaire from JLS with a host of celebrity friends has ample support in real life in order to support himself. Indeed did anyone even remember who he was before this. In so far as I think it is appropriate to debate this at all (it isn't) I mainly hope the alleged victim is able to afford counselling, can afford to pay her rent after bravely taking action against a man she feels has raped her and is getting adequate support from her family and community rather than experiencing those simple minded enough to hop on the 'women are ruining poor defenceless mens lives' wagon, or who are unable to comprehend that the justice system is not black and white, not a friend to women. You were not there so you have absolutely no basis on which to be angry, or not.

Innocence is presumed, it is the corner stone of our criminal justice system.

The burden falls on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether someone committed the crime to which they are accused.

The innocence of the accused is presumed. Thus the defendant does not have to prove their innocence it is the default position, a human right.

A "not guilty" verdict leaves the accused with their presumed innocence in tact.

You can debate until the cows come home whether the system is correct, whether "you" feel, not guilty, doesn't mean innocent.

The fact is we all live our lives in a state of presumed innocence to any crime committed.

Imagine if our justice system worked on presumed guilt.

So in a case you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you were innocent.
Now pop into your local police station, ask how any unsolved crimes they have on the books. Hundred percent certain you'd not be able to prove your innocence to all of them.

You clearly don’t understand what an allegation is.

Well yes I do understand.

How would you feel if someone named you on a public forum like this and then started saying things like you've been saying?

Do you have any evidence that he is in any way involved in this fire or are you just indulging in salacious gossip?

Well yes I do understand.

Then why did you post my quote as an example of an allegation?

Do you have any evidence that he is in any way involved in this fire

You don’t need evidence to suggest something is possible.

That's true, Letrunfar. The problem is, you get those posters who suggest that the woman made a false allegation. That's bound to anger those of us who reported what happened to us to the police only for it either not to get to court or for the perpetrator to be found not guilty.

That's why there's been such a strong response on here.

Then explain what you meant by that statement, if you weren't alleging that he was involved, for financial reasons? The implication of what you said is quite clear.

One definition of allegation that applies perfectly to your post

an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable

You know exactly what my post meant. You can try and twist it whatever way you please. Both you and I know that is not an allegation. Carry on if you wish. I’ve explained myself enough times now. You’re being deliberately obtuse pretending you don’t get it.

This is partly where I think that the Scottish system is interesting as you have three verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proven. Not proven is very much different from not guilty; it isn't a recognition that the defendant is innocent as such. I think if we had this in England and Wales then we might get some different results in rape cases.

That said I do respect the legal system we have which means you can't go behind a jury's verdict. Too speculative, unless you've heard all the evidence in the case.

I do know what you meant. You were implying that he had something to do with the fire in order to claim on the insurance and relieve any financial problems he might have. That fits with the definition of allegation that I posted above. I'm not twisting your words at all. If you didn't mean for anyone to read your post in that way perhaps you should post what it was that you did mean when you said

I wonder if the case has left Oritse with financial problems. Insurance job is a possibility too.

How else can that be interpreted?

@Lizzie48

100% agree. Miscarriages of justice happen. There are also genuine accusations which are misplaced. By that I mean someone genuinely feels a crime was committed but actually not.

The stakes and senses in a rape case are just so much more heightened, understandably.

No mileage in naming the accuser or pursuing prosecution unless a very obvious malicious accusation was made.

Ignoring you now decomposing.

Ok. I'll live.

You mean ignoring someone doesn’t kill them? whouldve thunk it?

(For the avoidance of any doubt in those that need the clarification: my declaration of intention to ignore decomposing was not an attempt to kill her. I do not believe ignoring people will kill them. Before any more ridiculous accusations are thrown my way)

I thought you were ignoring me?

Or do you have an alternative definition of ignoring too?