8 year old girl admits lying about rape allegations

[FlyMeToDunoon]

I felt really sad about this for more than one reason.
here

I think a lot of people find it hard to see how an 8 year old can provide a detailed account of being repeatedly raped, unless something like that has happened to her.

The question is maybe whether the boys did something or whether something has happened to her at another time.

I do believe that the defense lawyers were hostile. When the 4 yo was being cross examined at the old bailey questions were put to er along the lines of "you know what a lie is don't you? you're telling lies about this aren't you?" etc etc. If they can approach a 4yo like that then presumably they can be more direct with an 8yo.

I know that adult women collapse and withdraw from rape trials as they cannot cope with the accusations levelled at them during cross-examination, i am not surprised that a young girl might do so.

Having said that obviously I don't know who is telling the truth here and who isn't. But I find it troubling that people are so quick to say "oh right then case closed stop the trial". i also find it scandalous actually that there isn't a different court for children.

cote the judge also said "I know miss X (defence lawyer) is a very nice lady but you don't have to say yes to everything she asks".

That to me indicates that the judge was obviously concerned that the girl was saying what she thought the woman wnated to hear/intimidated/just wanted to go home etc.

And the fact he didn't stop teh trial presumably shows that there is other evidence to be heard.

"the rate of lying about rape is between 2-4%"

You have statistics about children lying about rape? What is your source? Please link.

"Why are you so keen to paint this girl as a liar"

I am not doing anything of the sort. You, on the other hand, are getting all weird as you always do on this kind of subject. Whether it is a past trauma or a general feminist zeal that makes you post thus, I'm sorry to say I don't really care. Get a hold of yourself, woman.

I asked a question - "Did I miss something?" because from the one article I read on the subject, it looked like she said she went there voluntarily, she told her mum boys took her there by force because she was afraid of consequences, and there was no genital indication of rape. However, reading this thread, it seemed many people were convinced that she was certainly raped.

I don't know what happened, neither do you. What I do know is that children do say things without realizing their impact on others a la Atonement, and that it is possible that this is what happened here.

Amen to that len and dittany.

The other day my dad said that the English really don't like children. He was right, wasn't he

Whatever happened with these children, it sounds likely that something bad has happened somewhere to at least some of them. The approach of our authorities seems to be cruel really, and not designed to really get to the bottom of what happened.

"The other day my dad said that the English really don't like children. He was right, wasn't he"

Good to know that crass generalizations are still out there.

Well we don't.

Look at the evidence.

4 yo & 8 yo children apparently raped, cross examined by barristers in the old bailey.

You think this is the action of a society that likes children?

And this sort of thing.

There have been studies and everything

Or you think my dad is an arsehole?

Actually don't worry about it. I don't want to go away from the topic under discussion.

Would you like to discuss the topic, rather than the question of how the English feel about children, which is a different thread I think.

given the type of leading questioning that will take place by both sides, lack of evidence (that we know of) and general bad reporting of the case (the press not giving an unbiased report of the case, jumping to and fro either side of the fence) I doubt that we will ever fully know the truth.

dittany, you dingbat. I am not putting forth an "argument", but only pointing out that it is possible that what the girl said in court is the truth - namely, that she went there on her own accord, that she was not penetrated anywhere, and that she told a different story to her mum so she wouldn't get into trouble. A boy putting her hand on his penis is not rape.

Obviously you have spent more time reading about this, so if any of this is wrong, do say.

"We have an adversarial court system" does not mean this girl has been treated in a hostile manner and from what I have read of the court proceedings, it looks like she has been treated rather gently, as should naturally be the case.

All I am saying is that you seem to have a prejudiced viewpoint, whereby she must have been raped and must have been intimidated in court to change her story. And that conviction does not seem to be justified to me, especially in view of the complete absence of genital trauma.

Having read a couple of articles on this I have to say that The Daily Mail's reporting on the trial is hideous. They are obviously trying to lead their readers to feeling a certain way about the children involved and that is disgusting.

I personally feel that what has happened has been a tragedy for all involved. From what has been reported so far I do not believe that rape has occured and can't see how any jury could convict the two boys involved for rape.

Heres what I think could have happened, but I could be wrong either way, but I reckon from what Ive read up to now is the most likely story.

The three children were playing together, the game evolved from showing each other their privates to touching them and rubbing themselves against each other. They are old enough to know this is rude and they shouldnt really play like this. When the girl was questioned by her mum she said it was the boys that made her do it.

Later she felt sick because she realised how upset her mum was and how wrong it had been because now doctors and police were asking her questions. So she tells them all what happened but says that the boys made her because she knows shes in a lot of trouble.

So the incident happened but they were all consenting. If this is the case, can the boys really be charged with rape because they were 10?

That's all random guesswork though teamcullen.

I could hazard a load of random guesswork in the opposite direction.

The reason that they were charged with rape is because the initial complaint and questioning indicated that she had been raped.

If the jury decide that the defence's version of events is the correct one, then the boys will be found not guilty of rape.

Why do people keep jumping up and down and shouting "OMG this is terrible some children were playing a normal childrens game and the boys have been charged with rape, that is so wrong how can it be"? The reason they were charged with rape is because the initial compaint and description of events was that the girl was raped.

i don;t understand why people are finding that hard to grasp.

There should be a better way to handle this, I can't believe they trial children's cases in the same way they do adult's cases with cross examination.

Honestly can anyone explain why people seem to want to believe that the girl and her mother went to the police and said that the chidren had showed each other their genitals, and on the basis of that rape charges were brought.

Do people think that teh police are keen to embellish and bring exaggerated charges generally, or just with sex crimes, or just with sex crimes involving children?

I'm not being arsey, i am just really finding it hard to understand where all these posts are coming from.

this should have been dealt with in seperate childrens courts with a lot less publicity and salacious reporting.