Students cleared of gang rape because the woman "had previously enjoyed a threesome" - wtaf?

[Quatrefoil]

Just read this in the paper copy of The Times and can't find an online article that mentions her previous threesome, so here is an extract:

"Four students have been acquitted of raping a woman at a May ball after evidence emerged that their alleged victim had previously enjoyed a threesome with two military policemen ... The evidence was found on a mobile phone owned by the woman who claimed she was raped at the Royal Agricultural University annual ball in 2014."

Here is a link to The Guardian's article (doesn't mention the "threesome":

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/four-men-cleared-of-raping-woman-at-university-ball

If what The Times has reported is the real reason for this trial being thrown out, I am truly shocked. What the hell have her previous sexual choices got to do with what happened that night?

Is this really how things go in rape trials even in this day and age? Victims being investigated and tried, and labeled as easy or up for it every single time she's propositioned just because she has consented to sex before?

Olivia are you saying that these men are indeed guilty of the crime which they were charged with but have been found to have no case to answer?

I think it's dangerous territory to say 'we believe you' regardless of the evidence.

^ this.

Sorry Olivia but I do think on this occasion I disagree with your post.

Of course he has done all these things, yes.Kinddogs.

They were mandatory at school and university.

T

You're right, of course there is a bad time.
To clarify, I posted the link following deleting a post that referred to "mendacious women" -because the idea that lots of women routinely lie was a myth we challenged within the campaign.

Apologies if it came across that HQ have taken any kind of stance on this case - we are not.

You should be taking a stance - that the men were acquitted of rape, despite an accusation.

Sorry Abraid2 I did not mean to sound accusing about you and your son and apologise if what I said came across that way.

This was as much a response to women friends who are still saying things like how hard it is for boys to know about getting consent, as stopping to ask a girl for consent makes them look wet; that the girl should not have been drunk; that the girl should not have been wearing x; that she could not believed because she was tarty; that the girl could not have really minded because she had gone with the boy in the first place and had been snogging him.

No, not at all, didn't mean to sound snippy! Kinddogs

Thanks. Abraid

That does not absolutely mean that, without a shadow of a doubt, the girl did not have a story of her own in which there was coercion of some kind. No one will ever know.

Actually unless the media have completely misreported the case, it was not that there was a lack of evidence to prove the offence: the evidence exonerated the men.

Recording a person having sex or publishing the recording is, I assume, illegal in the UK unless the person being filmed consents. No one has reported anyone being charged with this.

This doesn't sound like a borderline case. It sounds like a massive fuck-up by the authorities: the case should never have gone anywhere near court.

It certainly seems clear the CPS behaved very wrongly; and it seems that it would be very difficult for a jury to find the girl's story creditable.

Reading between the lines, it seems that the CPS pulled the case as soon as they were aware of the evidence. We can only speculate as to why such obvious evidence didn't come to the CPS"s notice earlier but none of the possibilities seem good - particularly as there was a 13 month wait before the defendants were charged.

I've just re-read my last post, and am concerned it implies that the complainant told lies. I certainly didn't mean to do this. Clearly she was upset enough to go to the police, and of course complainants must always feel able to tell the truth to the police.

The point is that it is the authorities' responsiblity to make sure that cases where the accused is clearly innnocent don't get prosecuted. They failed in this duty and it makes me concerned that authorities are coming under pressure to prosecute cases where the evidence is weak at best and at worst adverse to the possibility of a guilty verdict.

Toadinthehole

I think that the daily mail said that one of the students was being charged for putting the video on line, but I am not sure.

KindDogs the problem with that is that there needs to be closure at some stage. Yes the system isn't perfect, but if a court doesn't convict someone we need to treat them as though they are innocent, not "they are guilty but there wasn't enough evidence". If we did that then we would effectively be branding anyone who has ever been accused of a crime as being guilty, and we just didn't have enough to convict them.

If I had a son accused of rape and the court dropped the case, or found him innocent, I would expect people to treat him like an innocent person. I wouldn't want people whispering that he was probably guilty and they just weren't able to convict him, and I'd certainly break all ties with anyone who I caught saying such things. The assumption of innocence until someone is proven guilty isn't perfect and it does mean guilty people walk free, but it's a damn sight better than the alternative system where many innocent people would go to jail because they couldn't prove their innocence.

It is true we have treat accept them as being innocent Chilled. Also the presumption that people are innocent until proven guilty is a better way than the alternative . We all have to accept the decision of a jury in practice, and often they will be right.

I would not accuse someone of being guilty after they were acquitted of a rape charge. If I personally knew an alleged victim though I might believe them rather than the person acquitted of raping them.

A verdict does not always reflect the truth.

It may be so difficult to prove that a person did not give consent, especially in an acquaintance rape case, that a jury has to acquit. That does not always mean the acquitted person is innocent.

The prosecution barrister could be less skilled than the defence barrister.
The jury, the prosecution and the judge could lack understanding about rape victims. Most people do not report rapes because they know they will not be believed.

Apparently conviction rates for rapes are far lower than for other crimes.(Rape Crisis Centre).

So I do think it is likely that among all the acquitted people who have been charged with rape, some will be guilty. On the other hand, among the convicted some may be innocent. As things stand the former is probably most frequently the case though.

The system does not always get it right.

One thing is clear in this case is that the men published their film on social media:

He [the judge]formally discharged Duff, Mahon, Foster and Martin but warned them to be careful of their actions on social media.

He also told their counsel to tell the men: "Remind them of the very careful path they tread." The Bath Chronicle

The BBC said 11th April

"Four men accused of rape after a university's summer ball have been cleared after the case against them was dropped."

"The decision was made that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction and therefore in the circumstances it was not for the Crown to pursue this case to trial," (Prosecutor Fiona Elder)

Yes a verdict doesn't always reflect the truth but as we have no way of knowing when that is and isn't the case, the best we can do is treat those who aren't convicted as though they were innocent. You said if you knew an alleged victim you might believe them even if the accused wasn't found guilty. What if you knew the alleged victim and the alleged perp?

I completely accept that some guilty people do get away with crime but I maintain it's better than a system where many innocent people are punished for being unable to prove innocence. But I don't think we should be sitting here saying maybe the defense lawyer was really good, maybe the jury lacked understanding. If you start down that road, then you might as well suggest that everyone who has ever been accused of a crime is guilty, and that it was just sheer luck they weren't convicted.

Apparently conviction rates for rapes are far lower than for other crimes

It depends what we mean by conviction rates.

Most people understand the conviction rate as being the proportion of prosecutions that result in a conviction. That is not the definition commonly used by rape campaigners. They prefer to use the proportion of reported rapes that result in someone being convicted of rape. This lumps acquittals with cases that didn't get to court and cases that resulted in conviction for a related crime such as sexual assault.

If the normal definition of conviction rate is used the figure for rape is similar to that for other major crimes, although it is somewhat lower than for other crimes against the person. However, rape has a much higher attrition rate than other major crimes, in other words a lower proportion of cases get as far as prosecution. The biggest cause of cases not coming to court is the victim withdrawing their complaint.

*among all the acquitted people who have been charged with rape, some will be guilty"

That is undoubtedly true. It is also true that some of those convicted of rape will in fact be innocent. The courts quash roughly 4,300 convictions a year (that is for all crimes, not just rape). There will, of course, be more miscarriages of justice where the conviction is never overturned. There is no reason to believe rape verdicts are more reliable than those for other major crimes.

If I had a son accused of rape and the court dropped the case, or found him innocent, I would expect people to treat him like an innocent person
Unfortunately his name and photo would be out there in public and this would follow him for the rest of his life.

Chilled you ask what if I new the victim and the alleged perpetrator?

I had said:
If I personally knew an alleged victim though I might believe them rather than the person acquitted of raping them.

BareGrylls you said, It is also true that some of those convicted of rape will be innocent.
I am not sure if you are reiterating what I said or rebutting it. If the latter I had said:
On the other hand, among the convicted some may be innocent. As things stand the former is probably most frequently the case though.

Bare you said Unfortunately his name and photo would be out there in public

I agree that is horrible for innocent people, but do not know what the answer is. It helps previous other victims come forward if they have also been raped by that person but never brought charges. (Look up American campus rapes. Some college rapists repeat their act.)

In the case of these particular men, against whom the charges were dropped, it seems they themselves proudly made sure they were out there in the public eye with their self-made and self-publicized porn film of their activities with this girl after the May ball. I doubt the girl had a choice in that.

As the judge actually said: Remind them of the very careful path they tread.