Sexual molestation?

[Blind groper]

There is nothing easy about this. If a woman complains she was raped 20 years ago, or even a dozen women, that does not, by itself, prove rape. As I pointed out, human memory is utterly fallible. There are numerous ways of altering a memory, and they all happen.

If I were Bill Cosby's lawyer, I would be consulting with Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, who has spent most of a lifetime researching the issue, and published numerous papers. She understands how human memory changes, and has the credibility to be a great defense witness.

[Seth]

This sounds solid. Way to crack the cases. There may not even actually be a such thing as rape, or I'd say maybe only 1 out of every 38 cases is based on reality, because I like to make statistics up

Well, yes. Blind groper starts the thread with "a speculation occurs to me", and mistermack chimes in with "I think". Business as usual from both of them.

Had they actually looked up some facts they would have discovered that the vast majority of rapes don't even get reported and that the majority of reported rapes don't get to the point of leading to anyone being charged. These two facts by themselves blow any allegations of false accusations out of the water in terms of statistical significance.

Then there's the standard procedure in court cases itself. While the plebs reading the tabloid papers or watching the tabloid news on TV are usually quick to come to a verdict one way or another, that is not the case with magistrates, judges and juries, and thank fuck for that. We don't really want to see a return to medieval "jurisprudence". Someone's memory of events will not lead to a conviction in court unless that memory is corroborated with actual evidence. As for allegations made by goldminers the same thing applies.

Neither BG nor MM have cited a single case in which someone has been convicted solely on grounds of someone's memory. Until they do, I regard their ejaculations as very smelly diarrhoea. Not that I expect them to provide actual links in support to what they say. As Xamonas Chegwé remarked early on in this thread that would mean changing a lifelong habit. Those two will forever go on speaking ex recto and hope nobody notices that what typically comes out of those orifices is utter shit.

It is possible to be convicted based on witness evidence alone in the UK, but for such a case to even get to court, the witnesses' testimonies need to corroborate without the possibility of collusion.

I sat on a jury in which we convicted a guy of raping and sexually abusing his young daughter and her friend over 20 years ago. It was explained to us at length that all the other evidence beyond the testimonies was circumstantial, and that it was important to be sure that there hadn't been any contact between the women over the past two decades.

And you excluded that possibility beyond a reasonable doubt how, exactly? Telephones existed 20 years ago, and back then nobody was keeping track of who you called at all. Were you able to trace the movements of the women 24/7 for 20 years? I don't think so. That fact produces reasonable doubt all by itself.

Sheesh. Poor guy.

[Seth]

This question of corroborating evidence is bollocks in a lot of cases.

The essence of a rape is consent, and the majority of defences are that the victim consented.
There might be other evidence, but many cases just come down to ''she consented'' and ''no I didn't''.

In the end, many juries decide who to believe. And that is not as easy as people think.
Liars can be VERY convincing. And innocent people can come across as very shifty.

And the point about victims having good reasons not to complain at the time is just stupid.
So what if they did? That doesn't make it any easier to get to the truth, 25 years later.

And that's why tissue under the victim's fingernails, scratches on the suspect's face and other forensic evidence of force is necessary in any case where there is ANY prior social contact between accused and victim. In other words, women need to fight back, and if they are smart, they need to learn how to disable or kill an attacker with their bare hands...and carry a gun.

[pErvinalia]

They need to have guns in their vaginas.

[mistermack]

When it comes to convicting someone on the basis of who is lying, and who's telling the truth, it makes a big difference if the victims have no obvious motive for lying.

In these cases where famous people are accused, the victims often have a big clear motive to make a false claim. People like Bill Cosby, or Rolf Harris, who are worth millions, are an attractive target for scammers. Especially if they are already being accused by someone else.

It must be tempting for someone who had consenting sex with someone years ago, and sees them in the news accused of rape, to change the little detail of consent in their recollection of the event.
With a potential pot of gold at the end of the story.

Why let someone else get all the loot? He's already been smeared. One more won't make it any worse. Go for it girl.

If the accused has got no money, I would find the accusations far more convincing.

[Svartalf]

is a grudge obvious? it can be a motive for lying...

[Pappa]

This sounds solid. Way to crack the cases. There may not even actually be a such thing as rape, or I'd say maybe only 1 out of every 38 cases is based on reality, because I like to make statistics up

Well, yes. Blind groper starts the thread with "a speculation occurs to me", and mistermack chimes in with "I think". Business as usual from both of them.

Had they actually looked up some facts they would have discovered that the vast majority of rapes don't even get reported and that the majority of reported rapes don't get to the point of leading to anyone being charged. These two facts by themselves blow any allegations of false accusations out of the water in terms of statistical significance.

Then there's the standard procedure in court cases itself. While the plebs reading the tabloid papers or watching the tabloid news on TV are usually quick to come to a verdict one way or another, that is not the case with magistrates, judges and juries, and thank fuck for that. We don't really want to see a return to medieval "jurisprudence". Someone's memory of events will not lead to a conviction in court unless that memory is corroborated with actual evidence. As for allegations made by goldminers the same thing applies.

Neither BG nor MM have cited a single case in which someone has been convicted solely on grounds of someone's memory. Until they do, I regard their ejaculations as very smelly diarrhoea. Not that I expect them to provide actual links in support to what they say. As Xamonas Chegwé remarked early on in this thread that would mean changing a lifelong habit. Those two will forever go on speaking ex recto and hope nobody notices that what typically comes out of those orifices is utter shit.

It is possible to be convicted based on witness evidence alone in the UK, but for such a case to even get to court, the witnesses' testimonies need to corroborate without the possibility of collusion.

I sat on a jury in which we convicted a guy of raping and sexually abusing his young daughter and her friend over 20 years ago. It was explained to us at length that all the other evidence beyond the testimonies was circumstantial, and that it was important to be sure that there hadn't been any contact between the women over the past two decades.

And you excluded that possibility beyond a reasonable doubt how, exactly? Telephones existed 20 years ago, and back then nobody was keeping track of who you called at all. Were you able to trace the movements of the women 24/7 for 20 years? I don't think so. That fact produces reasonable doubt all by itself.

Sheesh. Poor guy.

The two women hadn't seen each other since they were six, after the daughter and her family had moved to a completely different part of the country. They'd reported their stories to the police seperately, several years apart, and the prosecution didn't even attempt to suggest they had met at any point.

[pErvinalia]

But the prosecution didn't have Seth on the team..

[mistermack]

and that it was important to be sure that there hadn't been any contact between the women over the past two decades.

And you excluded that possibility beyond a reasonable doubt how, exactly? Telephones existed 20 years ago, and back then nobody was keeping track of who you called at all. Were you able to trace the movements of the women 24/7 for 20 years? I don't think so. That fact produces reasonable doubt all by itself.

Sheesh. Poor guy.

I must admit, I share Seth's confusion, as to how your jury decided that you WERE sure. And of course, you don't need to meet, to collude.

and the prosecution didn't even attempt to suggest they had met at any point.

Well, they wouldn't would they? I'm guessing that you mean the defence, not prosecution.

But I'm interested to know, if this guy had been a multi-millionaire, and the women strangers to him, of the groupie kind of fan, would you have been more skeptical?

If a daughter reported her own father, I would personally give it some weight, given that it's a common crime, and it would take a lot for a daughter to do that.

[Blind groper]

The thing to remember in cases like this, is that there is no certainty. The jury might decide it is beyond reasonable doubt, but these things are never beyond all doubt, and it is always possible that an innocent man is being sent to prison. That should not stop the jury doing its duty.

The real problem is how far is 'reasonable doubt'?

[Seth]

They need to have guns in their vaginas.

No they need to have teeth...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

They need to have guns in their vaginas.

No they need to have teeth...

Teeth in their guns? Beretta dentata!

[Sean Hayden]

[piscator]

Please, no one go off half-cocked in this thread.

[mistermack]

They need to have guns in their vaginas.

No they need to have teeth...

No, in this case a gun would be better.
Plenty of rapists have forced the victim to give oral sex as well. If it's someone twice your size, who could kill you with one punch if he wanted, most victims choose to live.