Rape at La Chambre

[Ridgewalk 96]

Given that not one of us know what the totality of the evidence was nor sat and listened to it and are making observations and statements based on media stories (that most reliable of sources) its all guesswork.

 

The jury have the advantage over all of us and they decided that they were satisfied and sure that what occurred was not done with the consent of the victim.

If you consider the appallingly low conviction rate in 'contested' sexual offence cases the outcome should indicate that even where offences take place in somewhat unusual circumstances juries will still convict in the these sorts of cases when they are sure on the evidence

 

 

 

 

What's to guess, he was convicted ?

[999tigger 10]

Given that not one of us know what the totality of the evidence was nor sat and listened to it and are making observations and statements based on media stories (that most reliable of sources) its all guesswork.

 

The jury have the advantage over all of us and they decided that they were satisfied and sure that what occurred was not done with the consent of the victim.

If you consider the appallingly low conviction rate in 'contested' sexual offence cases the outcome should indicate that even where offences take place in somewhat unusual circumstances juries will still convict in the these sorts of cases when they are sure on the evidence

 

err I did point out more than once that we have only a partial insight into the evidence.

Ots perfectly feasible to discuss the topic without it being guesswork because its a discussion and that doesnt always require perfect knowledge. It's Sheffield forum you dont come here and expect reasoned and informed debate.

[The Joker 10]

He has been found guilty..what i cant get my head round is it says he is facing a jail term and is released on bail to "sort his affairs out"

 

I suppose his posh-sounding name and persona might have had something to do with it:

 

Jeremy Frazer Newsome Smith*

 

and

 

Smith told her he worked in TV and owned two television studios.

 

Taken from here: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/herman-munster-raped-me-1-6757037

 

Google his background if the fancy takes you, though I wouldn't be surprised if the most popular hits are for the court case.

 

*Or is it Frazier?

 

Sheffield Star can't even spell his name consistently: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/man-faces-prison-for-sex-club-rape-1-6774744

Edited August 8, 2014 by The Joker

[Eater Sundae 12]

He has been found guilty..what i cant get my head round is it says he is facing a jail term and is released on bail to "sort his affairs out"..i cannot believe this..if this is true i bet that woman is sickened by this..i am confused as to why(if its true) he is not instantly in prison..

 

I think it is a sensible way for the justice system to work - not specifically for this type of case, but anytime that someone is due to go to prison, provided they're not considered a flight risk, and there is a benefit in letting them sort out their affairs, for example if other people are dependent on him for their jobs. I don't know why he couldn't have done this already, though, in case he was found guilty. But it doesn't really matter if his imprisonment is delayed a little, as he will still serve thee same sentence.

[yellowperil 10]

What's to guess, he was convicted ?

 

Convicted on that day by that jury.

Anyone who has had any dealings with the legal system will know it can be pot luck.

Another day and another jury could have seen a different outcome,its not really a measure of guilt or innocence on the whole.

Guilty men walk free and innocent ones get time behind bars sometimes.

Too many people will put aside their own view or not even bother to have a look at the story and just decide he must have done it based on the verdict.

Its not always the case.

[Tommo68 10]

Very distasteful headline.

 

My other gripe would be the naming and shaming of the alleged rapist.

Star

Whilst I know thats not the Stars direct fault,it just goes to show how messed up our laws are.

She gets full anonymity enforced by law(to the point you could even be sued for even naming her),and he gets a full mugshot,his full name printed,and his address (barring house number,which was very considerate:rolleyes:).

If this guy is guilty,then by all means name and shame him,but until then,its pure madness that the local paper has the right to name him,yet the very same paper didn't have the right to name the scumbag murderer who killed the pizza guy in cold blood:loopy:

 

well said.

no matter how much or little evidence there is the guy is innocent until proven guilty and should not have been identified.

Surely that would be equality for all alleged victims and perpetrators alike in every case.

 

I happen to think that anonymity should be guaranteed in every and all cases, sexually related or not, until the perpetrator is found guilty and the victim consents. Unless of course both parties agree.

.

[999tigger 10]

well said.

no matter how much or little evidence there is the guy is innocent until proven guilty and should not have been identified.

Surely that would be equality for all alleged victims and perpetrators alike in every case.

 

I happen to think that anonymity should be guaranteed in every and all cases, sexually related or not, until the perpetrator is found guilty and the victim consents. Unless of course both parties agree.

.

 

Then you could never make public appeals for witnesses. If a person is found guilty then why are you saying the victim would have to consent that they remain anonymous?

[anywebsite 10]

well said.

no matter how much or little evidence there is the guy is innocent until proven guilty and should not have been identified.

Surely that would be equality for all alleged victims and perpetrators alike in every case.

 

I happen to think that anonymity should be guaranteed in every and all cases, sexually related or not, until the perpetrator is found guilty and the victim consents. Unless of course both parties agree.

.

 

Because secret courts would be so good for justice.

[999tigger 10]

Convicted on that day by that jury.

Anyone who has had any dealings with the legal system will know it can be pot luck.

Another day and another jury could have seen a different outcome,its not really a measure of guilt or innocence on the whole.

Guilty men walk free and innocent ones get time behind bars sometimes.

Too many people will put aside their own view or not even bother to have a look at the story and just decide he must have done it based on the verdict.

Its not always the case.

 

errr thats the way the legal system works. If the court finds him guilty which he did then we are allowed to consider him guilty. It is a measure of guilt as it follows accepted legal procedures and to say otherwise is nonsense. The law provides an appeal system to deal with disputed verdicts.

[yellowperil 10]

errr thats the way the legal system works. If the court finds him guilty which he did then we are allowed to consider him guilty. It is a measure of guilt as it follows accepted legal procedures and to say otherwise is nonsense. The law provides an appeal system to deal with disputed verdicts.

 

Im not disputing its how the system works.

The very fact that there is an appeals procedure shows its not infallable though doesnt it! Thats my point. Its not the be all and end all just because one jury on one day says so is it.

Im not one to jump on a bandwagon.

[cleveland 10]

And there was me thinking that rape happened because someone decided to commit rape? Apparently not.

 

People of the world! Listen to Cleveland! Never drink and you won't be raped! Sorted.

 

A direct quote taken from the Andrew Marr show. His words, not mine. I assume taken from circumstantial evidence.

[999tigger 10]

Im not disputing its how the system works.

The very fact that there is an appeals procedure shows its not infallable though doesnt it! Thats my point. Its not the be all and end all just because one jury on one day says so is it.

Im not one to jump on a bandwagon.

 

Do you have a perfect system? The appeals system recognises its not perfect, but allows a method of resolving such disputes. Its existence is a strength not a weakness.

 

,its not really a measure of guilt or innocence on the whole.

.

 

 

Err yes it is its 100% guilt until proven otherwise in the eyes of the law. Your comment is pretty stupid if you dont believe going through a full trial isnt a measure of rationally and logically reaching a conclusion and in the vast majority of cases the correct conclusion.