Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Jack Tweed found not guilty of rape

271 replies

Ponders · 26/04/2010 15:13

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/8644486.stm

hmm. Did he just get the benefit of the doubt do you think - his word against hers?

Or "she knew what he's like when she chose to go back to his house"?hmm

Will she now be named?

These cases are horrible - really hard to determine who's guilty - maybe we should adopt the Scottish Not Proven verdict.

(put this in sleb twaddle before & then realised hardly anybody reads that!)

OP posts:
itsmeitsmeolord · 26/04/2010 15:16

Why are you implying that he is guilty even though the court has found him innocent?

I'm not saying that miscarriages of justice don't happen, particularly in a rape case. But why are you jumping to the conclusion that it is more likely he is guilty than that the courts have reached the right decision?

Original poster
Ponders · 26/04/2010 15:20

I didn't mean to imply that actually, although I can see it looks like that - just that the bits I've read sounded as if there was no independent evidence, just him + his friend v her + her friends, so I wondered how the jury decided.

OP posts:
2shoes · 26/04/2010 15:20

well he is still guilty of being scum

smallwhitecat · 26/04/2010 15:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Alouiseg · 26/04/2010 15:23

We have such low rape convictions that it casts doubt on any not guilty finding.

If we had more realistic rape convictions we'd be more ready to believe that he actually was innocent.

Personally I think the girl was a fool to go back with him looking at his previous behaviour but of course she was entitled to without being allegedly assaulted by him.

AxisofEvil · 26/04/2010 15:27

Well, the thing is, for any crime the jury has to be happy that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt. So the jury finding someone not guilty can mean anything on a sliding scale from "we're pretty sure he did it but we have nagging doubts" to "he is definitely innocent and the accuser is a liar and/or fantasist".

BadgersPaws · 26/04/2010 15:28

"We have such low rape convictions that it casts doubt on any not guilty finding.

If we had more realistic rape convictions we'd be more ready to believe that he actually was innocent."

Jury's have to believe beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. In cases like this where there's not going to be any evidence just one person's word against another that's always going to be incredibly difficult.

And that's why rape convictions are not "realistic" and without tearing the foundations of our legal system to pieces there's not an awful lot that can be done about it.

SixtyFootDoll · 26/04/2010 15:31

Agree with Badgerspaws
Most rape cases dont get pst the CPS as it is one persons word against the others.

HerBeatitude · 26/04/2010 15:32

Yes I think BadgersPaw is right.

Basically what Dittany says is true: it is more or less legal for a man to rape a woman in this country except under very exceptional circumstances. Most rapists get away with it.

MmeLindt · 26/04/2010 15:33

Difficult one.

I agree with Axis's sliding scale. Could be that the jury could not be 100% certain - and it is very difficult in a rape case to be completely sure as a lot of the evidence is his word against hers.

I do feel sorry for the girl, she obviously made a serious error of judgement.

Molesworth · 26/04/2010 15:34

Completely agree with HB.

SolidGoldBrass · 26/04/2010 15:36

It's impossible for us to know what happened. Because, while it's possible (and plausible given that this particular man has shown himself to be selfish, with poor impulse control and an inflated idea of his own importance) that he decided he was entitled to shag the girl whatever she thought about it.
It is, however, also possible that if someone were an opportunist looking for a 'story' to sell, a thick minor sleb with at least one previous assault conviction would make a pretty good target.

Sazisi · 26/04/2010 15:38

Has she sold her story?

BadgersPaws · 26/04/2010 15:38

"it is more or less legal for a man to rape a woman in this country except under very exceptional circumstances."

It's going to be pretty much the same in any country that has the basis of it's legal system being the presumption of innocence.

Basically any crime that happens in private between two people with no witnesses or evidence is incredibly hard to prove.

That does allow some people to get away with awful things, but it's better than the alternative where the law would demand that you prove yourself innocent.

traceybath · 26/04/2010 15:39

I totally agree with SGB.

The jury reached their decision very quickly apparently so perhaps there was overwhelming evidence pointing to his innocence?

YesYouMust · 26/04/2010 15:40

'It is, however, also possible that if someone were an opportunist looking for a 'story' to sell, a thick minor sleb with at least one previous assault conviction would make a pretty good target.'

I don't think she has though has she?

traceybath · 26/04/2010 15:41

She wouldn't have been able to before the case was heard would she?

Original poster
Ponders · 26/04/2010 15:41

she certainly hasn't so far.

OP posts:
itsmeitsmeolord · 26/04/2010 15:42

Which is really what I was getting at SGB.

Yet most on this thread seem to think he is likely guilty.
I think it's quite worrying that from the accused's point of view, the mud will always stick.
If you are accused of rape more people will believe you "got away with it" if you are found not guilty than will see the verdict as a fair one.

I do think that the justice system in this country has absolutely not got it right with regards to rape cases.
That however, leads to victims on both sides doesn't it?

I'm not defending JT, I do think he is a tosser, but I think it's an interesting question to ask about our perceptions of those accused and then tried for rape.

SolidGoldBrass · 26/04/2010 15:45

I am not saying that the woman in this case is an opportunist at all. How would I know? I DON'T know, any more than the rest of you do. I am simply pointing out that what could have happened is either
A) The accused raped the woman
B) The accuser made it up.

Molesworth · 26/04/2010 15:46

Obviously none of us can know exactly what happened. Yet, reading reports of the other bloke's testimony, he said that he'd decided to 'join in' and that the girl didn't say anything to stop him, but nor did she say anything to indicate that she actually wanted him to stick his cock in her mouth.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/8630072.stm

That's enough to make me go , big time.

YesYouMust · 26/04/2010 15:47

Well if that is all you are pointing out, it was a pretty pointless post, of course those are the two options.

dittany · 26/04/2010 15:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

YesYouMust · 26/04/2010 15:49

I thought there was a new thing where the man had to prove (for lack of a better word) that consent was given, saying nothing at all is a big leap to she was gagging for an extra cock, no?

I do think a not proven verdict would have been given here had it been an option.

Sazisi · 26/04/2010 16:10

Dittany

I expect the 'alleged' rapists will be out celebrating their victory tonight

Why is it always assumed it's so much worse to be wrongly accused of rape than it is to actually be raped and not be believed? (and which is the more common scenario? mine's on the latter, by a long shot)