... I think, seems to be the lessons learned from this court case:
Now, apologies if this has already come up on here as the article is about a week old, but I didn't find a thread about it and I was pretty disturbed when I read it, so I want to see what some other people think. I suppose I don't know the, um, ins and outs of the case, but I think it must have come down to one of three possible situations -
1 (which is I guess what the court and the journalist believed) She went there, had consensual sex with all six men, having a whale of a time, and then subsequently decided she wanted to have them all tried and convicted for , presumably because she's some kind of fruitloop.
2 she was "entertaining the prospect of group sex" with all five guys but when she got there and experienced the reality of the situation, she decided she didn't fancy it. But they did, so they all her.
3 (as she said) she had never intended to have sex with any more than one of the guys; she had fantasies about group sex but that's all they were, fantasies; she had let slip to one of the guys that she had fantasies involving group sex when she was chatting on the instant messenger; he had persuaded her to come and meet him, and he then conspired with his five mates to her.
Now, to be honest I have no way of knowing, and nor does anyone other than the seven people involved, which of these three situations pertains in this case and it would be interesting to know why the prosecutor dropped the case - maybe she hadn't admitted, or had denied, these chats, and so that's why her credibility was "shot to pieces".
But there is an undertone in here that the mere fact that she fantasised about group sex tainted her. And although there is an implication in the article that she had (in advance of the situation, over MSN) agreed to have group sex, it doesn't actually say this; her lawyer said "It is right to say that there is material in the chatlogs from the complainant, who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers". There's a big difference between entertaining ideas and consenting to something. I routinely entertain ideas about all manner of things I have no desire at all to actually really do.
But actually her fantasies in advance of the situation aren't really relevant. There is a profound difference between fantasy and reality. The fact of the matter is, whatever you say in advance, if you don't agree to people having sex with you at the actual time it's happening, and they do it anyway, it's . Whatever fantasies you have. It shouldn't make a difference whether or not she had had and enjoyed group sex before, or whether she had actually agreed to have sex with all the men; if when she got there she didn't want to do it, that should be the end of things.
But the law evidently doesn't see things that way. is, of course, often hard to prove, and often comes down to whether the jury believe consent was given, and if the lawyers decided the jury were going to view her negatively because of her fantasies... it would have been hard to get a conviction. So where does that leave things? I guess if you are going to meet people for whatever reason, and you've been talking about your fantasies over the internet beforehand... be very careful where you meet them? Because writing down your fantasies can be interpreted in court as written consent. Even if you're only entertaining ideas.
T
(oh also - hello! I haven't been on here for some time but this article made me want to come on the forum.)
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
It's OK to rape people who fantasise about gangbangs.
Sex God
If 1 is tue - she has committed a criminal offence.
If 2 or 3 - the men have committed criminal offences.
Every human being on the planet has the right to refuse sex AT ANY POINT.
Sadly people are often 'tainted' in the eyes of the court if their preferences/fantasies don't conform with social 'norms'. (yeh right - no judge has ever been tied up and whipped - much).
Also, there does come a point where responding to a demand to stop becomes difficult if not impossible to comply with. But that could only possibly count for 1 guy. Not the other 5.
This is a very hard case to answer - even in court where the facts are brought out. In this forum - impossible.
What it does show is how important it is to be ulta-careful who and where we meet.
If 2 or 3 - the men have committed criminal offences.
Every human being on the planet has the right to refuse sex AT ANY POINT.
Sadly people are often 'tainted' in the eyes of the court if their preferences/fantasies don't conform with social 'norms'. (yeh right - no judge has ever been tied up and whipped - much).
Also, there does come a point where responding to a demand to stop becomes difficult if not impossible to comply with. But that could only possibly count for 1 guy. Not the other 5.
This is a very hard case to answer - even in court where the facts are brought out. In this forum - impossible.
What it does show is how important it is to be ulta-careful who and where we meet.
Well - that does kind of seem to be the line they took in this case - "think like a slut - get what you deserve".
Perhaps if she had been upfront about the whole setup from the outset her credibility might have fared better than the chat logs suddenly coming out. I'm not really sure though.
I think it's possibly wise to assume that when you venture into these kind of situations... you're pretty much on your own if it goes wrong, so be careful.
Perhaps if she had been upfront about the whole setup from the outset her credibility might have fared better than the chat logs suddenly coming out. I'm not really sure though.
I think it's possibly wise to assume that when you venture into these kind of situations... you're pretty much on your own if it goes wrong, so be careful.
Quote by Kaznkev
Thank you for posting tomu,i had not heard of this case.
Right now my thoughtss are spinning in several directions
did the judge throw the case out?
2nd why did the prosecuter withdraw?
3rd "This case depended on the complainant's credibility.
"Not to put too fine a point on it, her credibility was shot to pieces." the judges words,frightening on so many levels
Are we really still in a world that any women who steps outside of very strict boundaries of decorum and behaviour "deserve" to be .
My fantasy life is rich and of a specific nature,it seems thiS case means i shall never be able to bring a complaint of /assault/battery/ against anyone
WHAREVER HAPPENED TO CONSENT!
From reading the article, the judge did not throw the case out. The prosecution offered no evidence so the judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
We don't know what was in those chat logs, the judge and the prosecution do so they are obviously in a much better position to judge the complainant's credibility than anyone here.
Quote by Max777
From reading the article, the judge did not throw the case out. The prosecution offered no evidence so the judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
We don't know what was in those chat logs, the judge and the prosecution do so they are obviously in a much better position to judge the complainant's credibility than anyone here.
Well, that's true, but I find it hard to imagine anything she could have said in advance that would have negated her right to change her mind when she arrived. Unless it was "I'm going to pretend I don't want it, but I want you and your mates to me". Even then it's a grey area.
I suspect that this came as total news to everyone halfway through the trial, and whatever was in the chats conflicted with the story she'd been presenting her lawyer up to that point. To have been lying up to that point would damage her credibility. BUT it wouldn't necessarily change the central point about consent. They have still committed , even if she was lying about the lead-up to it. Because even if the chat said she was totally up for it, she's still allowed to change her mind, right?
Quote by tomu
From reading the article, the judge did not throw the case out. The prosecution offered no evidence so the judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
We don't know what was in those chat logs, the judge and the prosecution do so they are obviously in a much better position to judge the complainant's credibility than anyone here.
Well, that's true, but I find it hard to imagine anything she could have said in advance that would have negated her right to change her mind when she arrived. Unless it was "I'm going to pretend I don't want it, but I want you and your mates to me". Even then it's a grey area.
I suspect that this came as total news to everyone halfway through the trial, and whatever was in the chats conflicted with the story she'd been presenting her lawyer up to that point. To have been lying up to that point would damage her credibility. BUT it wouldn't necessarily change the central point about consent. They have still committed , even if she was lying about the lead-up to it. Because even if the chat said she was totally up for it, she's still allowed to change her mind, right?
Of course anyone is allowed to change their mind. The point I'm making is that any of us on here are only speculating, we don't have all the facts, so I can't see how we can criticise the judge that did? Whatever was in the chat logs persuaded the prosecution not to present their case.
Sex God
Quote by Max777
From reading the article, the judge did not throw the case out. The prosecution offered no evidence so the judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
We don't know what was in those chat logs, the judge and the prosecution do so they are obviously in a much better position to judge the complainant's credibility than anyone here.
Yes, the prosecutor declined to prosecute. Hence no case to answer, never properly came before a judge and jury. Presumably because verbalising your fantasies over the medium of the internet constitutes express written consent for anyone who reads those fantasies on Facebook or whatever, and subsequently decides to make the whole fantasy thing a reality IRL, whether you like it or not?
I don't actually think that judges and juries are that stupid, so I can't for the life of me work out why a CPS lawyer bottled out of it? Waste of time, money, energy, or what?
It used to be short skirts and low-cut tops, but we've surely moved on from the whole 'asking for it' thing, haven't we? 
:?Now I know that Peter Tatchell is not universally admired, even among Guardian readers, but the 782 comments following on from his post are in some places sickeningly instructive . . .
N x x x ;)
Quote by neilinleeds
From reading the article, the judge did not throw the case out. The prosecution offered no evidence so the judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
We don't know what was in those chat logs, the judge and the prosecution do so they are obviously in a much better position to judge the complainant's credibility than anyone here.
Yes, the prosecutor declined to prosecute. Hence no case to answer, never properly came before a judge and jury. Presumably because verbalising your fantasies over the medium of the internet constitutes express written consent for anyone who reads those fantasies on Facebook or whatever, and subsequently decides to make the whole fantasy thing a reality IRL, whether you like it or not?
I don't actually think that judges and juries are that stupid, so I can't for the life of me work out why a CPS lawyer bottled out of it? Waste of time, money, energy, or what?
It used to be short skirts and low-cut tops, but we've surely moved on from the whole 'asking for it' thing, haven't we? :?Now I know that Peter Tatchell is not universally admired, even among Guardian readers, but the 782 comments following on from his post are in some places sickeningly instructive . . .
N x x x ;)
I'm sure the CPS lawyer did not "bottle" it due to money or energy. Waste of time... maybe he thought it best not to put the claimant through the further ordeal of giving evidence in a case that it was felt impossible to win?
I'm not sure about judges but unfortunately my experience of juries ( through jury service) is that SOME jurors are definitley stupid.
I have read the article and therefore have the same level of knowledge as others that have read it, including Peter Tatchell but still have no idea as to what was or wasn't in the chat logs and therefore I am at a distinct disadvantage to the judge, defence and prosecution counsels and am therefore in no position to criticise the outcome.
Makes me cross when judges and lawyers decide that a jury is incapable of making an informed decision. In fact its a disgrace that anybody's conduct before an incident whether fantasy or consensual is considered consent at the time. As far as I am concerned consent can be given or withdrawn at any time. Let the jury decide is my firm, possibly entrenched and maybe even bigoted view.
Quote by Kaznkev
From reading the article, the judge did not throw the case out. The prosecution offered no evidence so the judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
We don't know what was in those chat logs, the judge and the prosecution do so they are obviously in a much better position to judge the complainant's credibility than anyone here.
Yes, the prosecutor declined to prosecute. Hence no case to answer, never properly came before a judge and jury. Presumably because verbalising your fantasies over the medium of the internet constitutes express written consent for anyone who reads those fantasies on Facebook or whatever, and subsequently decides to make the whole fantasy thing a reality IRL, whether you like it or not?
I don't actually think that judges and juries are that stupid, so I can't for the life of me work out why a CPS lawyer bottled out of it? Waste of time, money, energy, or what?
It used to be short skirts and low-cut tops, but we've surely moved on from the whole 'asking for it' thing, haven't we? :?Now I know that Peter Tatchell is not universally admired, even among Guardian readers, but the 782 comments following on from his post are in some places sickeningly instructive . . .
N x x x ;)
I'm sure the CPS lawyer did not "bottle" it due to money or energy. Waste of time... maybe he thought it best not to put the claimant through the further ordeal of giving evidence in a case that it was felt impossible to win?
I'm not sure about judges but unfortunately my experience of juries ( through jury service) is that SOME jurors are definitley stupid.
I have read the article and therefore have the same level of knowledge as others that have read it, including Peter Tatchell but still have no idea as to what was or wasn't in the chat logs and therefore I am at a distinct disadvantage to the judge, defence and prosecution counsels and am therefore in no position to criticise the outcome.
Why does it matter what was in the logs? NO MEANS NO
Obviously you are presuming the defendants were guilty. I'm making no such presumption either way, I'm merely stating that non of us are in possession of all the facts and therefore can not make a judgement.
Quote by Kaznkev
From reading the article, the judge did not throw the case out. The prosecution offered no evidence so the judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
We don't know what was in those chat logs, the judge and the prosecution do so they are obviously in a much better position to judge the complainant's credibility than anyone here.
Yes, the prosecutor declined to prosecute. Hence no case to answer, never properly came before a judge and jury. Presumably because verbalising your fantasies over the medium of the internet constitutes express written consent for anyone who reads those fantasies on Facebook or whatever, and subsequently decides to make the whole fantasy thing a reality IRL, whether you like it or not?
I don't actually think that judges and juries are that stupid, so I can't for the life of me work out why a CPS lawyer bottled out of it? Waste of time, money, energy, or what?
It used to be short skirts and low-cut tops, but we've surely moved on from the whole 'asking for it' thing, haven't we? :?Now I know that Peter Tatchell is not universally admired, even among Guardian readers, but the 782 comments following on from his post are in some places sickeningly instructive . . .
N x x x ;)
I'm sure the CPS lawyer did not "bottle" it due to money or energy. Waste of time... maybe he thought it best not to put the claimant through the further ordeal of giving evidence in a case that it was felt impossible to win?
I'm not sure about judges but unfortunately my experience of juries ( through jury service) is that SOME jurors are definitley stupid.
I have read the article and therefore have the same level of knowledge as others that have read it, including Peter Tatchell but still have no idea as to what was or wasn't in the chat logs and therefore I am at a distinct disadvantage to the judge, defence and prosecution counsels and am therefore in no position to criticise the outcome.
Why does it matter what was in the logs? NO MEANS NO
Obviously you are presuming the defendants were guilty. I'm making no such presumption either way, I'm merely stating that non of us are in possession of all the facts and therefore can not make a judgement.
Sex God
I think it's right to reiterate a couple of the points that one or two previous posters have made.
1. The judge did NOT throw the case out or fail to give the jury a chance to decide for themselves. The prosecution decided to 'offer no evidence'. Bearing in mind the principle of 'presumed innocent until proven guilty' and that, in order to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove their case 'beyond all reasonable doubt', if the prosecution offers no evidence then the case cannot be proven and the judge had no option but to 'direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty'. Legally, there was nothing else that could be done.
2. Max777 makes the point that we are NOT in full possession of the facts. Michael Leeming is a hugely experienced (and usually pretty successful) QC. If he felt that there was something in those logs which compromised his case to the point where it was useless to proceed then I believe it. He is certainly not one to 'bottle it' lightly.
I don't think anything that either the prosecutor or the judge said implies that if a woman fantasises about goup sex then she has already expressed her consent. IF the defence had tried to argue that then it would have been worth discussing here. Whether they would have done so we shall never know.
I am clear that NO MEANS NO. It is, of course, right to say that anyone has a right to change their mind at any point. I for one would always respect that, and I feel sure that the vast majority of people on this site would also.
I regard as one of the most heinous of crimes (perhaps second only to murder, whether attempted or actual). Whilst this means that all allegations of should be taken extremely seriously it also means that before convicting a man, or a group of men, of such a serious crime, the court needs to be absolutely convinced of their guilt.
There are a very small number (and I want to emphasise that) of alleged rapes which come about as the result of someone changing their mind after the event. Even though that is extremely rare, the thought of indulging in what I genuinely believed at the time to be consensual sex, only to find myself on a charge after the event brings me out in a cold sweat. Even if it doesn't proceed to court, imagine being hauled into a police station and interrogated as a suspected . Nightmare scenario.
The usual advice aplies. Before meeting up for sex, make sure that everyone is clear about what is permitted and where everyone's boundaries lie. Even then, if someone changes their mind then that is it - no questions asked.
Will
1. The judge did NOT throw the case out or fail to give the jury a chance to decide for themselves. The prosecution decided to 'offer no evidence'. Bearing in mind the principle of 'presumed innocent until proven guilty' and that, in order to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove their case 'beyond all reasonable doubt', if the prosecution offers no evidence then the case cannot be proven and the judge had no option but to 'direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty'. Legally, there was nothing else that could be done.
2. Max777 makes the point that we are NOT in full possession of the facts. Michael Leeming is a hugely experienced (and usually pretty successful) QC. If he felt that there was something in those logs which compromised his case to the point where it was useless to proceed then I believe it. He is certainly not one to 'bottle it' lightly.
I don't think anything that either the prosecutor or the judge said implies that if a woman fantasises about goup sex then she has already expressed her consent. IF the defence had tried to argue that then it would have been worth discussing here. Whether they would have done so we shall never know.
I am clear that NO MEANS NO. It is, of course, right to say that anyone has a right to change their mind at any point. I for one would always respect that, and I feel sure that the vast majority of people on this site would also.
I regard as one of the most heinous of crimes (perhaps second only to murder, whether attempted or actual). Whilst this means that all allegations of should be taken extremely seriously it also means that before convicting a man, or a group of men, of such a serious crime, the court needs to be absolutely convinced of their guilt.
There are a very small number (and I want to emphasise that) of alleged rapes which come about as the result of someone changing their mind after the event. Even though that is extremely rare, the thought of indulging in what I genuinely believed at the time to be consensual sex, only to find myself on a charge after the event brings me out in a cold sweat. Even if it doesn't proceed to court, imagine being hauled into a police station and interrogated as a suspected . Nightmare scenario.
The usual advice aplies. Before meeting up for sex, make sure that everyone is clear about what is permitted and where everyone's boundaries lie. Even then, if someone changes their mind then that is it - no questions asked.
Will
Sex God
Quote by duncanlondonDuncan - you just said in 2 sentences what took me 8 paragraphs! :doh:
inexperienced woman + evil bastards = not a good combination
On the other hand if the prosecution had been successful, then it opens doors to a bigger debate.
Will
Quote by willxx69
I think it's right to reiterate a couple of the points that one or two previous posters have made.
1. The judge did NOT throw the case out or fail to give the jury a chance to decide for themselves. The prosecution decided to 'offer no evidence'. Bearing in mind the principle of 'presumed innocent until proven guilty' and that, in order to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove their case 'beyond all reasonable doubt', if the prosecution offers no evidence then the case cannot be proven and the judge had no option but to 'direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty'. Legally, there was nothing else that could be done.
2. Max777 makes the point that we are NOT in full possession of the facts. Michael Leeming is a hugely experienced (and usually pretty successful) QC. If he felt that there was something in those logs which compromised his case to the point where it was useless to proceed then I believe it. He is certainly not one to 'bottle it' lightly.
I don't think anything that either the prosecutor or the judge said implies that if a woman fantasises about goup sex then she has already expressed her consent. IF the defence had tried to argue that then it would have been worth discussing here. Whether they would have done so we shall never know.
I am clear that NO MEANS NO. It is, of course, right to say that anyone has a right to change their mind at any point. I for one would always respect that, and I feel sure that the vast majority of people on this site would also.
I regard as one of the most heinous of crimes (perhaps second only to murder, whether attempted or actual). Whilst this means that all allegations of should be taken extremely seriously it also means that before convicting a man, or a group of men, of such a serious crime, the court needs to be absolutely convinced of their guilt.
There are a very small number (and I want to emphasise that) of alleged rapes which come about as the result of someone changing their mind after the event. Even though that is extremely rare, the thought of indulging in what I genuinely believed at the time to be consensual sex, only to find myself on a charge after the event brings me out in a cold sweat. Even if it doesn't proceed to court, imagine being hauled into a police station and interrogated as a suspected . Nightmare scenario.
The usual advice aplies. Before meeting up for sex, make sure that everyone is clear about what is permitted and where everyone's boundaries lie. Even then, if someone changes their mind then that is it - no questions asked.
Will
:thumbup: Spot on Will
Yeah - I absolutely agree with pretty much everything everyone has said on this thread. I totally agree that we're not in possession of all the facts and therefore this is all speculative. I didn't know anything about the prosecutor in question and if he is an experienced lawyer with a strong record in this sort of case (and possession of many of the facts), then his judgement that the case is very likely to fail is obviously valid.
What probably/seems to have/could well have happened here is that she didn't mention the chats or the fantasies earlier in the case, and therefore as a result of a changing story becomes compromised as a witness. And yes, this doesn't have to be because of any prejudice on their part, just because by not mentioning something that later became part of the case she was shown to have been less than 100% honest.
This in itself is worthy of note. In this scenario she might have not mentioned that stuff originally because she was embarrassed or ashamed or thought it would put her in a bad light, or didn't want her family to know. All of which are understandable. So the point is here that if you get involved in this kind of situation you have to be prepared that if the legal profession becomes involved, from that point on you have to be totally open about everything because otherwise if/when it does come out, your credibility will immediately go to shit.
Now all of this is again entirely conjecture, and you might say irresponsible given the lack of any real knowledge of the case. But nevertheless the hypothetical situation is thought-provoking.
What probably/seems to have/could well have happened here is that she didn't mention the chats or the fantasies earlier in the case, and therefore as a result of a changing story becomes compromised as a witness. And yes, this doesn't have to be because of any prejudice on their part, just because by not mentioning something that later became part of the case she was shown to have been less than 100% honest.
This in itself is worthy of note. In this scenario she might have not mentioned that stuff originally because she was embarrassed or ashamed or thought it would put her in a bad light, or didn't want her family to know. All of which are understandable. So the point is here that if you get involved in this kind of situation you have to be prepared that if the legal profession becomes involved, from that point on you have to be totally open about everything because otherwise if/when it does come out, your credibility will immediately go to shit.
Now all of this is again entirely conjecture, and you might say irresponsible given the lack of any real knowledge of the case. But nevertheless the hypothetical situation is thought-provoking.
Have people been watching what they say on the site recently?
Or indeed delving back into old threads where they have divulged their wildest desires and attempted to remove old things said in threads; just in case?
I mean if ever the circumstances arose, the 'evidence' would be plain for all to see.
Hmmmmm..................
Or indeed delving back into old threads where they have divulged their wildest desires and attempted to remove old things said in threads; just in case?
I mean if ever the circumstances arose, the 'evidence' would be plain for all to see.
Hmmmmm..................
Why are you referring to a claimant when there is no claimant in a criminal case?
Yes, the prosecutor declined to prosecute. Hence no case to answer, never properly came before a judge and jury. Presumably because verbalising your fantasies over the medium of the internet constitutes express written consent for anyone who reads those fantasies on Facebook or whatever, and subsequently decides to make the whole fantasy thing a reality IRL, whether you like it or not?
I don't actually think that judges and juries are that stupid, so I can't for the life of me work out why a CPS lawyer bottled out of it? Waste of time, money, energy, or what? It used to be short skirts and low-cut tops, but we've surely moved on from the whole 'asking for it' thing, haven't we? :?
Now I know that Peter Tatchell is not universally admired, even among Guardian readers, but the 782 comments following on from his post are in some places sickeningly instructive . . .
N x x x ;)
I'm sure the CPS lawyer did not "bottle" it due to money or energy. Waste of time... maybe he thought it best not to put the claimant through the further ordeal of giving evidence in a case that it was felt impossible to win?
I'm not sure about judges but unfortunately my experience of juries ( through jury service) is that SOME jurors are definitley stupid.
I have read the article and therefore have the same level of knowledge as others that have read it, including Peter Tatchell but still have no idea as to what was or wasn't in the chat logs and therefore I am at a distinct disadvantage to the judge, defence and prosecution counsels and am therefore in no position to criticise the outcome.
Quote by Max777
From reading the article, the judge did not throw the case out. The prosecution offered no evidence so the judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
We don't know what was in those chat logs, the judge and the prosecution do so they are obviously in a much better position to judge the complainant's credibility than anyone here.
Yes, the prosecutor declined to prosecute. Hence no case to answer, never properly came before a judge and jury. Presumably because verbalising your fantasies over the medium of the internet constitutes express written consent for anyone who reads those fantasies on Facebook or whatever, and subsequently decides to make the whole fantasy thing a reality IRL, whether you like it or not?
I don't actually think that judges and juries are that stupid, so I can't for the life of me work out why a CPS lawyer bottled out of it? Waste of time, money, energy, or what?
It used to be short skirts and low-cut tops, but we've surely moved on from the whole 'asking for it' thing, haven't we? :?Now I know that Peter Tatchell is not universally admired, even among Guardian readers, but the 782 comments following on from his post are in some places sickeningly instructive . . .
N x x x ;)
I'm sure the CPS lawyer did not "bottle" it due to money or energy. Waste of time... maybe he thought it best not to put the claimant through the further ordeal of giving evidence in a case that it was felt impossible to win?
I'm not sure about judges but unfortunately my experience of juries ( through jury service) is that SOME jurors are definitley stupid.
I have read the article and therefore have the same level of knowledge as others that have read it, including Peter Tatchell but still have no idea as to what was or wasn't in the chat logs and therefore I am at a distinct disadvantage to the judge, defence and prosecution counsels and am therefore in no position to criticise the outcome.
I have a problem with these accounts of the case.
Ambush defences aren't allowed, even if Rumpole and Perry Mason loved them. So the chat logs must have been disclosed at the case management stage. Skeleton arguments will have come in from the defence before they got to the court.
So why did a jury have to be empanelled? Why get it get to the stage where everyone's at court in full fig, claiming their full fees for the job? It smacks of a case that was badly underdone until the QC decides to earn his fee and actually read the papers.
Ambush defences aren't allowed, even if Rumpole and Perry Mason loved them. So the chat logs must have been disclosed at the case management stage. Skeleton arguments will have come in from the defence before they got to the court.
So why did a jury have to be empanelled? Why get it get to the stage where everyone's at court in full fig, claiming their full fees for the job? It smacks of a case that was badly underdone until the QC decides to earn his fee and actually read the papers.
Quote by tomu
Yeah - I absolutely agree with pretty much everything everyone has said on this thread. I totally agree that we're not in possession of all the facts and therefore this is all speculative. I didn't know anything about the prosecutor in question and if he is an experienced lawyer with a strong record in this sort of case (and possession of many of the facts), then his judgement that the case is very likely to fail is obviously valid.
What probably/seems to have/could well have happened here is that she didn't mention the chats or the fantasies earlier in the case, and therefore as a result of a changing story becomes compromised as a witness. And yes, this doesn't have to be because of any prejudice on their part, just because by not mentioning something that later became part of the case she was shown to have been less than 100% honest.
This in itself is worthy of note. In this scenario she might have not mentioned that stuff originally because she was embarrassed or ashamed or thought it would put her in a bad light, or didn't want her family to know. All of which are understandable. So the point is here that if you get involved in this kind of situation you have to be prepared that if the legal profession becomes involved, from that point on you have to be totally open about everything because otherwise if/when it does come out, your credibility will immediately go to shit.
Now all of this is again entirely conjecture, and you might say irresponsible given the lack of any real knowledge of the case. But nevertheless the hypothetical situation is thought-provoking.
Sex God
If this is a genuine case that has been thrown out then i truly despair for the hope of open minded fair legal system
god forbid what would happen if they check some of my msn convos with consenting females my new address will start with HMP with no sign of it changing for the foreseeable
if there is more to this than has been reported which we aren't privy to.
then questions have to be asked of the CPS (crime prosecution service) who would have already had access to the evidence why they brought the prosecution
they have outed 6 guys who like most of us who enjoy open minded sex like all here
and
taken back the right of other females to bring genuine allegations and have them heard,believed and see justice handed out in an even honest and proportional way
is no questions no excuses
yes there are those who use the term play
god forbid what would happen if they check some of my msn convos with consenting females my new address will start with HMP with no sign of it changing for the foreseeable
if there is more to this than has been reported which we aren't privy to.
then questions have to be asked of the CPS (crime prosecution service) who would have already had access to the evidence why they brought the prosecution
they have outed 6 guys who like most of us who enjoy open minded sex like all here
and
taken back the right of other females to bring genuine allegations and have them heard,believed and see justice handed out in an even honest and proportional way
is no questions no excuses
yes there are those who use the term play
this is something that is planned and has all the safety plans in place that if things get OTT things can stop FULLSTOP
