Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ccc

This Rings So Many Alarm Bells Its Frightening ....

Recommended Posts

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29047671

Seems the only evidence this bloke was 'guilty' is the fact he came forward quite voluntalary and told the police he had had sex with her.

She didnt even see the 'attacker' ffs !!

But its OK - his hat was found nearby.

Well it quite possibly would be if he was outside with the girl getting it on.

There are about six separate parts of that story that just don't sit right with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-29047671

Seems the only evidence this bloke was 'guilty' is the fact he came forward quite voluntalary and told the police he had had sex with her.

She didnt even see the 'attacker' ffs !!

But its OK - his hat was found nearby.

Well it quite possibly would be if he was outside with the girl getting it on.

There are about six separate parts of that story that just don't sit right with me.

See the other thread about police not needing evidence these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the other thread about police not needing evidence these days.

The only evidence this case had - was the guy coming forward and saying he had sex with her. How the ****** a jury could find him guilty - when its her word against his - and she says she was too drunk to give consent - and didn't even see him apparently - absolutely staggers me.

On the case of 'informed consent' - she states she was 'very happily drunk' - so that's now the level at which you CNT give 'informed consent' is it ?

My ******ing word - this place truly is ******ed beyond belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only evidence this case had - was the guy coming forward and saying he had sex with her.

What were the other things you found odd? It's unlikely that a rapist would voluntarily go to the police unless it was his only real option left and wanted to get his version in early. It's not enough to assume he is innocent just because he went to the police. What do we know about the immediate aftermath - we know they didn't share a ciggie - he ran off like a shadow in the night... what did this happily drunk woman do next?

I must admit his name is a bit odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that when we can get access to the court transcript it will reveal more.

He says consensual she says not so no need for dna evidence.

I suspect she had marks or bruising not mentioned in the report to reinforce her side of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What were the other things you found odd? It's unlikely that a rapist would voluntarily go to the police unless it was his only real option left and wanted to get his version in early. It's not enough to assume he is innocent just because he went to the police. What do we know about the immediate aftermath - we know they didn't share a ciggie - he ran off like a shadow in the night... what did this happily drunk woman do next?

I must admit his name is a bit odd.

Its unlikely the 'rapist' would voluntarily go to the police ? Well what if he isn't a rapist and was just being honest ? And clearly had no idea any DNA evidence would be lost by plod ? Surely if he was a rapist he would keep quiet unless forced to speak up ?

He ran off like shadow in.the night ? Well that's one sides version of it - maybe there is another ?

What else is odd ? Well if she is just standing there - and is grabbed from behind and raped - then the bloke runs away. What the ****** has her not being in a state to give informed consent got to do with it ?! That's surely only relevant if its a case of 'he said/she said' ?

Also she can't remember if she phoned her boyfriend or not ? Err call history ? Or if not did the police not bother to check with the phone company ?

Also she went to the toilet and 'ended up' in the garden ? Really - really ? Coz that happens to me all the time right enough.....

Also she states herself she was 'happily drunk' - that doesn't sound like a state where your ability to say yes or no dies not exist. Yet this is seen as relevant to be noted. Yet apparently her version of events is to be believed over his ? Yet she can't remember a simple thing like if she called her boyfriend or not ?

Sorry but IMO the whole thing stinks. Of course - as noted above - more details could of course change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The noose is gradually tightening on your methods CCC. The days of plying burds with a drink is getting too dangerous. You'll have to queue up for a crusty roll with TMT at the bread counter. :-D

Half the relationships in this country start with both parties being wasted ffs !!!

You think its OK that now someone who says they are 'very happily drunk' is now deemed off limits on a night out and could end up with a bloke in jail even if a burd says yes ? (not that this case looks like it but its the same law and principle) That's ******ing insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that when we can get access to the court transcript it will reveal more.

He says consensual she says not so no need for dna evidence.

I suspect she had marks or bruising not mentioned in the report to reinforce her side of the story.

I think you are missing the most important part of the story - she didn't even say it was him ffs !!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All good points ccc, I don't think we have enough information to make any informed comment. You are raising valid concerns, IMO.

Yeah true we don't know all the details - however the article has pulled out some pretty detailed info. I can't imagine there is too much more to it otherwise they would have mentioned it ?

I suppose the way I am looking at it is - if the info in the article is all we know - and it was my brother or son or friend who had denied this but had been found guilty - would I be satisfied a miscarriage of justice had not occurred ? Not in the slightest.

The 'evidence' is very flimsy to say the least. And its all based on a man coming forward to the police - when he didn't have to. If he hadn't - it would have got nowhere near a court.

I will add if he did it he deserves all he gets. I just can't fathom how this can be 'proven' beyond any reasonable doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even if bruises etc are further 'evidence' - two drunk people having sex in a garden ? There are more than likely gonna be bruises and scratches on both anyway.

There is another thing that I find concerning. And perhaps its my previously discussed 'special power' of perseptiveness.

How she describes it - doesn't sound like reality to me - reads like something I would expect in a book or a film.

Read her version of events - and think about how someone being grabbed from behind and brutally raped might actually be / feel like in real life. It just doesn't add up with her description. IMO anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I just remember somebody being behind me. I know he was quite strong. He was hurting my arm. I was scared. I remember a big dark shadow. He never said a word."

She said the only part of him she could see was his hands as he held her in a vice-like grip and raped her before running off."

Sounds like something from 50 shades of grey.

Replace 'raped her' with 'ravished her' and its literally something out of a mills and boon novel. IMO anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea. To me the 'unreality' sounds like a blackout...where the person is drunk and apparently acting normally really has no memory so starts to fill in sketchy details as best they can when they come to...

It's an interesting question...wether someone in blackout can be held responsible for their actions or capable of consent. ..and there's very little way of knowing when someone is in that state.

One more reason to avoid very drunk girls (and boys).

P

Yep it is very interesting. The part I find most is - how can her word be taken over his - when she readily admits she wasn't in a state to know what was going on ?! The two things just don't fit together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could give a couple of possible of motives for her turning consensual sex into a story of an attack by a stranger:

(1) she forgot to phone boyfriend, who is the jealous type.....the story she hoped would cover her rse. Unfortunately, her "unknown attacker" went to plod and identified himself. She can't back down, because the law now has a possible two-year sentence for false rape claimants.

(2) Not exactly alone, were they. Somebody saw the coupling, so she again is using the attack narrative to excuse her behaviour.

And what's with the police losing the DNA? Is it possible it didn't match, i.e. the fall guy is not the only one she shagged that night?

You're right ccc, it stinks on too many levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could give a couple of possible of motives for her turning consensual sex into a story of an attack by a stranger:

(1) she forgot to phone boyfriend, who is the jealous type.....the story she hoped would cover her rse. Unfortunately, her "unknown attacker" went to plod and identified himself. She can't back down, because the law now has a possible two-year sentence for false rape claimants.

(2) Not exactly alone, were they. Somebody saw the coupling, so she again is using the attack narrative to excuse her behaviour.

And what's with the police losing the DNA? Is it possible it didn't match, i.e. the fall guy is not the only one she shagged that night?

You're right ccc, it stinks on too many levels.

My initial thought was doing dirty on boyfriend and didn't want caught out. One of my friends years ago almost had this.

Police actually en route to arrest him at work before she bothered to tell her friends + police (who had found her in her room crying after banging my pal) that she was only crying because she had cheated on her man.

This took about 8 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever been in that situation where you do something or something happens, that you didn't mean, or that goes against your conscience/beliefs...

First reaction is to blame something, find a reason. ..you were stressed, tired, coerced...you had no other choice. ..anyone in your situation would do what you did...no one in their right mind would judge you...it's a natural reaction, easy as breathing.

After a blackout this response is stronger. ..theres a real fear because you can't remember, but no actual memories to re orientate you to reality...so your mind goes in to overdrive. ..puts together a credible story...

I firmly believe some people also mistake the mild remorse or anxiety that comes with alcohol withdrawal/ hangovers with actual regret or fear.

Once woke up with this horrible feeling and no memory...but this dream like image of a shallow grave just round the corner. ..about cat sized, just down the side of a neighbours house.

"F*ck!!" I thought. "What have I done?!"

It was neurotic and unreal but the fear was enough to keep me in bed for two days, and I kept an eye on the news for two weeks, just in case!

Those blackouts can be a b1tch! :)

P

You think you were afraid? Just imagine how the neighbour's cat felt about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF CCC thinks the original post sounds wrong, he should read this:

Arizona forces statutory rape victim to pay child support

A 24-year-old Arizona man is being asked to pay more than $15,000 in child support for a daughter he fathered at the age of 14 — and didn’t know existed until two years ago.

The Arizona Republic reported this week that the man, Nick Olivas, is legally a victim of rape since he was younger than 15 when he engaged in a sexual relationship a decade ago with a women who was 20 at the time.

According to the paper, Olivas only learned two years ago that his daughter existed when he was served with legal papers demanding he pay child support for the six years he wasn’t around for a daughter he never heard of.

"It was a shock," he told the paper. "I was living my life and enjoying being young. To find out you have a 6-year-old? It's unexplainable. It freaked me out."

The Republic reported that Olivas ignored the paperwork when he was first asked to pay up two years ago, and failed to take a paternity test to confirm his relationship with the daughter. The Arizona Department of Economic Security division of Child Support Services has since tracked him down, however, and now tells the paper he’s been compelled to pay around $15,000 in back child support, as well as the hospital bills for his daughter’s birth, with 10 percent interest added on top. To collect the funds, the state is now taking $380 each month from his paycheck.

Olivas told the Republic for an article published on Tuesday this week that he has no issue with making payments to help with his daughter moving forward, but doesn’t think he should be held accountable for the six years in which he was never told he was a father.

"Anything I do as an adult, I should be responsible for," he said. "But as a teenager? I don't think so."

Not only was Olivas a teen, though, but a victim of statutory rape, according to Arizona law. State legislation provides that no child under the age of 15 can consent to sex with an adult under any circumstances, and a local Fox News affiliate reported that Olivas could have pressed charges against the mother of his child, but didn’t know he could, let alone consider doing as much.

http://rt.com/usa/184872-arizona-olivas-child-support/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep it is very interesting. The part I find most is - how can her word be taken over his - when she readily admits she wasn't in a state to know what was going on ?! The two things just don't fit together.

This whole case bares a striking resemblance to one I served as a juror on recently (it isn't this one but is essentially the same scenario).

As you say how can somebody who doesn't remember any details due to a black out say one way or the other that they were or were not raped?

On the case I was on there was CCTV evidence, you could see clear as day what happened. The deliberation was effectively me telling the women on the jury to open their eyes and watch the video as it completely didn't fit the 'victims' narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole case bares a striking resemblance to one I served as a juror on recently (it isn't this one but is essentially the same scenario).

As you say how can somebody who doesn't remember any details due to a black out say one way or the other that they were or were not raped?

On the case I was on there was CCTV evidence, you could see clear as day what happened. The deliberation was effectively me telling the women on the jury to open their eyes and watch the video as it completely didn't fit the 'victims' narrative.

A drunken female has always not been able to give consent, regardless.

Otherwise, drugging girls then assaulting them would be possible with impunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole case bares a striking resemblance to one I served as a juror on recently (it isn't this one but is essentially the same scenario).

As you say how can somebody who doesn't remember any details due to a black out say one way or the other that they were or were not raped?

On the case I was on there was CCTV evidence, you could see clear as day what happened. The deliberation was effectively me telling the women on the jury to open their eyes and watch the video as it completely didn't fit the 'victims' narrative.

Its just all messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A drunken female has always not been able to give consent, regardless.

Otherwise, drugging girls then assaulting them would be possible with impunity.

These girls drug themselves - that's a very different story.

Let's say I go out - I get wasted - then some folk ask for my watch - I happily give it to them - and don't deny the fact - can I later get them charged with theft ?

Honest question - I don't know - but its EXACTLY the same situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These girls drug themselves - that's a very different story.

Let's say I go out - I get wasted - then some folk ask for my watch - I happily give it to them - and don't deny the fact - can I later get them charged with theft ?

Honest question - I don't know - but its EXACTLY the same situation.

Or alternatively:

Let's say I go out - I get wasted - then some folk ask for my watch - I say no and try to stop them taking it but they take it anyway by force - can I later get them charged with theft? It's EXACTLY the same situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.