nipper Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I appreciate that this is a sensitive subject but it is worrying that the police have told the woman involved that they think he won't do it again and has no recollection of the incident. ie drop it. Maybe he has no recollection of the incident because he didn't do it. Maybe he has no recollection of the incident because he was pissed. Maybe he is just saying he has no recollection. It is dreadful for someone to get away with a sexually assault. It is dreadful for someone to be wrongly accused of a sexual assault. The woman involved is clearly anxious and I would like to believe that the police are able to take the matter further to resolve it one way or the other. Ah well, maybe there are situations that happen to us where we have to just accept "well, these things happen"" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*daniel* Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Same with that case on the radio the other day about a 24 yr old who sexually assaulted two underage girls and something else. The police were told they should take the girls whole diary as evidence, the police only took some of the pages, girl then destroys diary and so the judge throws case out of court, man gets away scot free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 How do the police know he won't do it again? If he cant remember doing it the first time...ahem...Drinking to the point of schizophrenia not good and surely there is a law against that too - so not only should this man have been into trouble for the assault but also for being drunk and incapable. Either the woman is a wakko who is always being assaulted or its a case of who you know - which ever, she should at least be given his name. There was a man got caught doing 'inapproprite acts' with his pushbike in Scotland - he was put on the sex offenders register, a little OTT maybe but it sends out the right message at least - any deviance and you will be registered. This man has assaulted someone and got away with it, what kind of message does that send out? Rapists paradise?? Perhaps this is an avenue the tourist board will investigate..oh I nearly said something bad then (it would have been really really funny - but you cant just say things anymore people get in a stew over the least little thing) Someone must know who this man is, I wonder of his connections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I don't know the details, but maybe the Police's decision was based on the nature of the alleged assault and the credibility of the victim? Maybe I should start reading the papers ... -------------------- Tech Blog - Personal Blog - Hobby Blog - ManxFriends Profile Got a Manx website: Submit it on SearchMann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Makes you think at what would the police look like if the person did do it again but the next time was more serious. On that point alone i would have him formally charged. Lots of stories in the UK press about how such a person was arrested for sex crimes and was never charged or was charged and the information was never passed to other counties, then the person goes out and commits a crime twice as serious and the forces say that it was a break down in communication and steps are taken so this does not happen again. Hindsight is great, foresight is better, if it can stop a crime before its commited then surley that must swing the balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Just remember innocent until proved guilty by a court, not by an accuser or mf posters If you were accused of something, a long time ago, and it was said that is was evidenced by diary entries, and this was the only corroboration (and bearing in mind the unreliability of and damage that false memory syndrome can do) would you think your trial was fair if the accuser had been allowed to tear up all the other pages. I'm not saying she was, but she might have been a multiple fantasist, if the police had wanted the evidence to stick in court they knew the whole diary had to be kept safe. In any trial there is lots of "unused evidence" it has to be disclosed, it might not help the prosecution, but it may help the defence, failure to hand over unused evidence is the most frequent cause of successful appeals, destroying the unused material , if its the only corroborative evidence one way or another, denies a fair trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted November 24, 2007 Author Share Posted November 24, 2007 You make a very good point, John, regarding the case that was dropped because part of the diary evidence was destroyed. However, in the case about the alleged attacker not being named or charged, the woman wants to go to court. It would be there that she would be seen as maybe some sort of fantacist or serial false accuser or whatever. ....or possibly, even, it would be seen if a person is being 'protected' because of who he is or who his mother or father is or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 The point extends to the other case The accuser does not know who attacked her, or she would not be asking. The police have not got enough evidence to prosecute, apparently The alleged attacker is innocent, he has his rights and one of them is not to be branded as a suspected attacker by the police so the accuser can privately prosecute or sue What purpose would be served in revealing his name, she obviously has little no evidence against him at present It might reveal he is a nobody or someone on high, but that is not the point, is it? (its a neice conspoiracy theory) Why does she want the name of someone she cannot identify. Once the Police gave her the name that would kill off a private prosecution dead, she would have identified on hearsay sources If she was attacked then go claim Criminal Injuries, you don't need to identify the perpetrator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 The man accepted a caution, as I understand it that is an admission of guilt. John asks why she needs the name of her attacker. I think that is because it would be psychologically beneficial to her, at the moment any man she meets might be the attacker, that is going to play on her mind. It would let her get on with her life to know, because she can avoid the man without having to avoid all men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheJudge Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 This point has been made before, but here goes again:- Any decision to prosecute or otherwise in cases such as these is NOT made by the police. Such decisions are the responsibility of the Attorney General's Chambers. I don't know this, but I'm pretty confident (especially given all the negative publicity) that the police are pretty hacked off that the decision to caution the offender was made. The victim of the assault has a valid point, but the blame for this does not rest at the door of the cops. Neither is it their fault that the name of the culprit hasn't been revealed. That's just the rules. Any change to these rules would have to be influenced by our politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Same with that case on the radio the other day about a 24 yr old who sexually assaulted two underage girls and something else. The police were told they should take the girls whole diary as evidence, the police only took some of the pages, girl then destroys diary and so the judge throws case out of court, man gets away scot free. "The police only took some of the pages" I don't think so The police would have taken the whole diary not just torn out the appropriate pages If the police did only take a few pages why would the girl destroy the rest, if she wanted to erase the past she would have destroyed the lot not given excerpts of it to the cops I smell a longtail, no wonder the case was thrown out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.