Liam Allan quesiton

[WhineandDine1]

First of all I just joined MN today so I apologise if there's been a ton of posts on this matter already!

This may seem very ignorant and like I've been living under a rock lately, but do we know what evidence has actually been found that says the rape definitely didn't happen? I mean was there a text from the girl to Liam saying "you didn't rape me" or what? I may be being thick here but how does one prove that a rape didn't happen unless the accuser comes forward and admits they falsely accused?

Even if there were 1000 texts begging him for sex, how do we know she wasn't also raped? I'm not being deliberately obtuse here just genuinely curious!

I'm happy to be corrected about this, but I thought the texts proved he was somewhere else/doing something else at the time?

Theowlinthepussyhat ooh ok that would make sense. Again probably being ignorant here but how the hell does a blatant text like that go unnoticed for 2 years??

Whoops, sorry, just googled!

'It is understood messages which later resulted in the collapse of the trial included some between the alleged victim and friends saying what a kind person Mr Allan was, how much she loved him and that she had had a great experience with him.'

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/liam-allen-student-falsely-accused-of-rape-police-cherry-picked-evidence-a3753781.html%3famp

And no, I have absolutely no idea how this went unnoticed for two years, but the reduction of the number of police must play a part.

op rather than proving she wasn't raped, the texts cast doubt on it so the prosecution decided the case against him was too weak to stand up in court.

There are a lot of people out there who assume if a man is found not guilty/not prosecuted the victim must be lying. It's very weird and also seems only to apply to rapes.

The texts don't prove she wasn't raped, they mean it can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt that she way, which is where the burden of proof in our country lies.

The texts completely contradicted her statements to the police, which rendered her not a credible witness.

It's a shame the police fucked this up, it will do nothing to help women come forward to report their rapes.

What thehair and quentin said

The reporting over these cases are driving me round the bend

Its not just rapes cases that suffer from the problems with police disclosure. Its a constant problem for defence solicitors that have to write to the police officer in charge of the case (the OIC) asking for evidence that will weaken the police's case. The Police officers are only human and will have invested time, effort and possibly career kudos into a successful prosecution - so its understandable (but not defensible) that requests from the defence teams get put onto the backburner if they are lucky - or more often just 'forgotten' about.

Plus very often the defence teams might not even be aware of the existence of some evidence - like CCTV or witness statements from 3rd parties that support their client's case - so don't know what they should be chasing in the first place.

There are a lot of people out there who assume if a man is found not guilty/not prosecuted the victim must be lying. It's very weird and also seems only to apply to rapes.

Yeah I find this really awful tbh. Not enough evidence to prove the person was raped does not equal the person lied. But to many people, it does

I also agree that even texts that say that she loved him or whatever do not prove she was not raped. Hell even texts she sent saying she had just had great sex does not necessarily prove she was not raped either as she could have been drugged and sent them when she was out of it. Not saying either of these things happened, they did in another case and it was decided by the public that the woman lied, when there was not really any proof that she did.