Women jailed due to sexual history from when she was 14 years old

[WhatHappenedToCommonSense]

Can anyone explain to me how a women in her mid-twenties can be convicted because of her sexual history as a 14 year old?

Being sexually active with a boy at 14, even if only for a couple of times, is bad enough, removing your childhood innocence at an early age, but to be questioned and convicted because of it 10 years later beggars belief.

Just been made aware of some disturbing facts about a very public trial, which raises so many questions, but this point worries me the most.

How can it be relevant in any shape or form?
How does this support justice or the encouragement for women to report rape?

How? How? How? It is all very disturbing.

Since the OP only believes the highly biased website, and still ignores what the conviction was actually for, I can only assume she is closely connected to the family.
I can only hope for her sake that she doesn't become a rape victim and finds the police being cynical of her evidence because of the fake claims in this case. This woman has done all women a dis-service.

OP you’re picking out a small piece of a very big puzzle. It may not be that her 14 year old behaviour should be accounted for whether she lied about it or not, but that doesn’t change her extensive lies about all the other men and the other situations.

Hmm - the Jemma Beale parents' website references mumsnet...

Re-reading the thread (and the other thread where OP has contributed) - and studying the parents' website - I think OP is closely related to the actual case. I am uncomfortable with the repeated references to Mumsnet on the website - but can't quite pinpoint why,

Hmmmm Aridane you might be right. Very strange that the OP has only posted on 2 threads and the other one is also about 14 year olds and rape/consent.

"Sex between a fourteen year old and a fifteen year old..... By that logic have they then raped each other?"

No, they both had sex they were not old enough to consent to.

As I said I'm not defending this woman on anything else, just this point.

" I had sex at 15 and I definitely consented."

If you lived in the UK, you did not, as the age of consent is 16, and has been for a while. You are not deemed legally able to consent under the age of consent.

TheHodge Aridane

I could not let you last comments go unanswered, as they border both obsessive and plain rude with no regard to another person's point of view.

I do know someone who knows this family, who I have made aware of this discussion and have received some points I want to share with you:

1. The sensationalised reporting is in reference to the three weeks of worldwide reporting during the middle of the trial; where headlines included 'rape liar' 'lesbian liar' 'innocent man in jail for 7 years' comments about her size and why would any man want sex with her, even though Cassim and Williams claimed consensual sex; plus a lot more, all before the jury had reached a verdict.
2. Legally they are not allowed to provide links to the statements and police documents they list on the website, other than the name and date of the document.
3. Cassim was convicted of rape based on physical evidence and the proof of his lies, after he was on the run for nine months. He first stated he did not know why he was wanted, proved to be a lie as he stated himself the following morning. The police never told him why they wanted him. In interview he said he never touched her, she was too drunk, he acted like a gentleman. After Semen DNA he changed his story to consensual sex. He spent two years in prison, not seven.
4. Williams has multiple rape allegations against his name, from women and children. He has many convictions and prison sentences, but never convicted for any of the seven sexually motivated crimes. They are aware this is viewed as a defamatory statement and would be happy for Williams to take them to court; where they can produce the statements of the victims and the police criminal record.
5. The three men accused (not fifteen) were all charged by the Police, apart from Williams. They were charged because of the evidence, this was not a case of 'he said / she said'.
6. There was also semen from Williams, who claimed it was consensual, but very painful for him, made him sore, no lubrication. Does not sound like a consensual encounter.
7. The website is based on objective fact and not biased parents. Facts that are listed and can be proved, albeit not publicly.
8. The police statement on the home page confirms that they had 'credible evidence that cast no doubt on her claims'.
9. Appeals are in process.

As for my lack of posts, at my age social media is not my strong point or my main interest in communicating with people; I prefer to talk. I find it comical the degree you have gone to in order somehow try and make me look stupid.

As for the comment you hope I do not get raped and disbelieved, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Isnt the point that she didnt lie because she was asked about 'consensual' sex and at 14 you are not considered able to give consent? So isnt there a case to be made that she felt she was answering truthfully?

"Isnt the point that she didnt lie because she was asked about 'consensual' sex and at 14 you are not considered able to give consent? So isnt there a case to be made that she felt she was answering truthfully?"

That's what I said in my posts. I agree on this point. That doesn't mean I have any opinion on the rest of the story.

Windchimes

The site has the following quote:

"legal rules and procedures may not always meet our expectations"

There are many, many elements to this story, hence the appeal.

The family just want people to see all of the facts and then form an informed opinion, rather than just accepting the prosecution story reported across the media.

None of the defence facts have been reported,

The following is also from the website:

"There are a number of rape myths that create "unconscious bias" which in turn creates preconceived ideas of how a women would act during and after rape. A number of these myths were used unchallenged in the trial against Jemma.

Mumsnet survey "We Believe You", one of the largest rape surveys ever conducted, shockingly reveals 23% of rape victims are sexually assaulted four or more times. Yet the CPS state "is this not inherently improbable?".

Other rape myths allowed in Court included: the assumption Jemma could fight her attacker off; that she would scream and shout for help; that she would shower straightaway, that she would have a clear recollection of what happened; that she would have more internal and external wounds; that her sexuality was a major factor."

She had sex at 14 with a 15 year old. The law may say you can't consent to sex at that age but there would be no intention to prosecute the 15 year old if they were both mutually agreeing to sex. The 15 year old also cannot legally consent to sex but can be in agreement.

Saying 'no' to the question have you ever had consensual sex with a male is a very odd one in the context of this case. I doubt many women who were agreeing to sex as a 14 year old with a 15 year old would answer no thinking 'well legally I didn't'.

If you felt that was the case you would say that wouldn't you - to be seen to be honest? I did have sex with a male at 14 but legally I was under the age of consent rather than no.

that if you take the time to read the website, you will see that there is clearly more to this.

Lots of people who are convicted have websites written by the families; which exploit the arguments that their defence suggests. The entire point of them is damage limitation; to suggest to the public that this wasn't right.

It is by no means comprehensive or unbiased; and infact if you intend to set one up at any point, there are a lot of guides on how to do it to cause maximum confusion and suggest the media are biased in the other direction and everything is lies.

There are court errors; of course, there are legal decisions which leave a lot to be desired or are just plain wrong. This might be one - although to be honest; having read quite widely about it, I don't think it is - regardless, websites run by the family shouldn't be part of your reading if you want an impartial view; if you want to form your own opinion.

23% of rape victims are sexually assaulted four or more times doesn't mean raped four or more times. It means sexual assault which can be anything from being groped on the buttocks onwards. And I do not in any way minimise such sexual assaults.

Being raped four or more times in adulthood on different occasions by different offenders when you are not e.g sex working and living in England would be extraordinarly awful and would raise questions about how and why this occured.

OP, I have only just seen this thread.

I completely agree with you - what she did at 14 shouldn't have any bearing on being raped as an adult.

All the nonsense in the press at the time about her accusing 15 different men was outrageous, and untrue, and deliberately sensationalised to sell papers/get hits on online news sites.

I had already read the website you mentioned and also thought it was very odd what the guy who was jailed said to his flatmate when his flatmate told him the police had been looking for him. He mentioned rape - but the flatmate hadn't said that was what the police wanted to speak to him about.

And then he gets his conviction quoshed because the police find out that she had sex with a boy when she was 14? Maybe she lied, maybe she blocked it out, there are a lot of reasons why she didn't tell them, and I can't believe that that one thing, decides if his conviction was unsafe.

I work in this field and I am shocked at how quite often some police officers spend more time going after women that report rape, rather than rapists themselves.

Less than 3% of all reported rapes are deemed as false (I think the real figure is lower) and yet we're told (often by other women) that women who lie make it worse for 'genuine' rape victims, and this is the reason women won't report rape. No, one of the reasons many women won't report rape is because they're too scared the police won't believe them, and that they could be the one arrested.

I used to be active on the Women's Aid forum almost 10 years ago because I had reported rape and been arrested for so-called harassment of my rapist. I can tell you the difference between the rape investigation and the investigation into me, the police didn't go all out to gather the evidence I had against my ex, but they were willing to lie about events when investigating me. (I did get 2 of my complaints upheld by the IPCC, eventually). It was appalling, to go through that, and then be the one that the police arrested. The people I thought would keep me safe from further harm believed him and arrested me. I thought I was going mad, until I found other women that had gone through the same thing. It happens more often than people think, so don't always believe what you read in the paper when headlines read that yet another woman is convicted of a false rape allegation/harassment of their ex partner. I've seen first hand how biased these investigations can be (more so now I work in this area) and if we want more rapists to be convicted, we need to stop prosecuting women for reporting their rapists.

Anchor / Harvey / One Foot Updates For You All

Harvey - Unfortunately in England being raped or sexually assaulted (and not referring to groped on buttocks etc, which is correct it would be a sexual assault) is not 'extraordinary awful' and many, many questions are being asked across all spectrums and departments.

Anchor - I agree with your comments in theory, but when you look at the site, you will see reference to every single official document that is being referred to. These documents have been verified by lawyers, barristers, legal professors and investigative journalists.

The content on the site is set up to be a reference point to the facts.

Unfortunately, your comment about having "having read quite widely about it, I don't think it is" confirms one of the problems with this and other cases. Only one journalist was in court during the long trial and even then not every day and you will see that all other articles are based on, copied from and refer to either the original journalist or another paper that has already copied the original journalist.

This approach is just 'click bate' journalism with no effort to check out the story; hence why the stories across all the global press quoted the same prejudicial elements and headlines. Please see point two below.

One Foot - thank you for your message of support and sorry to hear you have had the same experience. And good on you for working to address this issue.

Updates for you all

1. It has been confirmed that the 15 year old boy referred to in this thread, was actually a few months away from his 17th birthday when drunken intercourse occurred with the 14 years and 2 months old girl.

2. Court of Appeal Judge comment "the undoubted adverse publicity surrounding the applicants trial", confirms that many in the legal system agree the press coverage was without doubt bias.

3. Appeals against Sentence and Conviction are progressing. I cannot share any more than this at this moment in time.

Thank you

Your thread title, and the entire basis of your argument is ridiculous.
She lied under oath. That’s why she was jailed.

lamagreyhound

You miss the point entirely - thankfully the judges at the Court of Appeal agree there is grounds based on many points.

Appeal refused. I hope this is an exceptional case.

How is that a lie under oath? She didn't lie under oath and I'm deeply saddened by reading all of the people on here saying that a drunk 14 year old girl is capable of giving consent. She is not, and that is under the eyes of the law in this country.

A 14 year old cannot give consent in law. End of.
So when she was asked about sexual history, she said no, she had not had consensual sex with a man. That is because she hadn't. That is not perjury, it is the truth. I do not understand why that is so difficult to understand.

Poor Cassim? He went on the run for 9 months.

The bit that disturbs me the most is this:
The Police commenced an investigation into Jemma, codenamed "Operation Vicarage", simply because they did not believe it was possible for a women to be sexually assaulted four times in three years. "Inherently improbable" was the phrase widely quoted by the Crown Prosecution Service. However, the Mumsnet survey "We Believe You", which received 1,600 respondents, sadly shows that 23% of women who had been sexually assaulted, suffered on four or more occasions.

Do I think it's possible a woman has been assaulted this much? Yes I do. And I think anyone who would speak to Rape Crisis workers would come to the same conclusion. It is far more common than acknowledged. Is it right to investigate someone on the basis that this is impossible? Or is it that the people doing the investigating buy into rape myths.

Mahad Cassim changed his story many times. From not having sex, to then once the DNA was found oh yes they did have sex but she was too drunk to consent (so that's rape, he admitted), he literally stated she was too drunk to consent before he knew about the DNA evidence.

If you look properly at the charges against her, they simply do not stick. From her being prosecuted for saying she'd never had consensual sex with a man (i.e. the court considering a 14 year old able to consent).

So that's:

four counts of perjury relating to - two of them are her saying that her having sex when she was 14 was not consensual (which is a fact), two of them are for her saying she was raped by Cassim. then the perverting the course of justice charges - which do not stand up either.

Was she raped? Well there is DNA evidence, the person accused stating she was too drunk to consent, in relation to other assaults there are resident statements of people pretty much hearing the rape.

So essentially she was jailed because it was said 14 year old sex was consensual and that a woman couldn't be raped four times. How does that stand up?

For what it's worth I used to know someone who had been raped 11 times. The first was by her grandfather. I 100% believed her. Not many other people did. Her own mum didn't. So do I think this is possible? Yes I do. Do I think the reasons she was jailed are bogus? Actually, yes I do. Can anyone explain HOW they think she lied under oath?

And I also would like to say one last thing: go to women's prisons, go to mental health services, go to drug treatment services, go to Rape Crisis, go to women's refuges, go to forensic wards, go to groups for women who are traumatised, have been sectioned and are stuck in the system, go to centres that are offered as an alternative to custody. Ask the women there how many times they've been raped. And see how many say over four times. In some of those settings, I'd bet money on it being over half.