Help needed urgent

[Faith]

Actuallyit makes quite a big difference. had she been 12, you'd be facing an even harsher charge. Where the 'victim' is under 13, it is considered to be more severe.

[tatguyuk]

sorry i dont really know about this kind of thing but hopefully my sol will be able to bring this to court or the police
and if she messages again hopfully she will mess up even more
i just thought today that i finally had caught her out

[Rights Fighter]

I think the reason he thinks it could be equivalent to an admission of guilt is because she accused him of consensual activity with her, not doing anything against her will; the issue was that she was only twelve years old when she made the accusation so she'd have been four years below the age of consent, so no matter how willing she was to be involved at the time, what she alleges he did would have been illegal. The fact she now says she wouldn't have gone with him means she's contradicting herself.


And it's his son she contacted, not him.

Yes -exactly. She is saying she would not have sex with him - at all. By saying:

"...as if i would go with that fat ****" is enough of an admition and that she said she would "get me""

she means she would never 'go' with him voluntarily, age 12 or any other age over the age of 16 years. This suggests that she is denying anything sexual would happen consensually. So I cannot see any admission there that she lied about anything. She is saying 'I would never have sex with that man'. Therefore any other kind of sex with him would be without her permission - ie rape. If she was 12 when it was alleged to have occurred then she could not give consent in any event. There is no admission of guilt (of lying about rape) from my perspective.

"I think the reason he thinks it could be equivalent to an admission of guilt is because she accused him of consensual activity with her,"

How can she accuse him of consensual activity with him? Consensual activity is not a crime - yet.

Diana, you will also note that I said in the same post,

"The OP's son is not the accused. The OP is."

I was correcting RFLH who appeared to think that it was the son who was the accused. I am aware that it was the OPs son who was contacted, not the OP himself, hence my comment.

RFLH I know what you mean by 'pissed off and knackered!' That tends to be my general demeanour at the moment due to the amount of cases I am attempting to help with but can see no way through in most of them.

Not only have 'they' changed funding as from October, so defendants do not get their money back if found not guilty, they have changed allocation of funding for appeals which will make it nigh on impossible to appeal convictions if the trial barrister has decided there are no grounds - even if there are.

[Rights Fighter]

Just read the first post - re the incident with the condom and the girl 'giving it a bj' - was she trying to plant her DNA on it by any remote chance, in relation to another false allegation? It seems an odd thing to do, unless I have misunderstood the incident.

[RFLH]

so it seems only the rich can prove their innocence?? That's fine and dandy then - hope you're all entering the lorrery, bingo or any other for of betting - just in case ............ how sickening is that?

[Rights Fighter]

Yes - if you cannot afford to pay you are stuck with public funding so may as well plead guilty at trial or not bother appealing if trial counsel stuff up and says there are no grounds, and after October, even if the 'rich' or those who are not eligible for funding because they are not on benefits (but possibly on low wages) will not be reimbursed after being found not guilty.

We are joining with America it seems to be become one of the worst judicial systems.

I am going through one case now that was rejected simply because the sol was only for paid two hours to go through the case. I rung him yesterday and said 'well as I am not paid by the hour I'll go through it line by line. Will you take it on if I find something?' He said he would look at it again. He is equally frustrated as he knows that many are slipping through the net. Or should I say that the majority are slipping through the net - and there is not much he can do about it.

It seems that if nobody (would-be appellant, family, supporters or somebody like me) has come up with any ideas as to what might help with an appeal you might as well not bother. Two hours is NOT long enough to go through the whole lot and come to any conclusion. It's not the sols fault - it's those who have put in this new stupid ruling that every public funding case now has to meet the 'benefit criteria'.

[fighter]

It seems that if nobody (would-be appellant, family, supporters or somebody like me) has come up with any ideas as to what might help with an appeal you might as well not bother. Two hours is NOT long enough to go through the whole lot and come to any conclusion. It's not the sols fault - it's those who have put in this new stupid ruling that every public funding case now has to meet the 'benefit criteria'.

This is sad then, what if the apellant, the family and supporters are not up to thinking about what should be an appeal and sadder if they cannot find support group like us or someone like you RF... they would just accept the outcome and serve sentence for things they havent done... it is just sad..not every individual or family are fighters or thinkers.

At the beginning, I truly believe when one is given a sol they would do their best to help them out..but if they deal with other aspects of their jobs like this one..then their clients loses out really as the sols and the firm also have to take care of themselves. The system is a very tricky one... the whole system needs a reevaluation... I fear for those who will have to deal with this system in the future.

[tatguyuk]

no she says that we had a relasionship for 4 months when she was 14
the condom incident is what made me shout at her and kick her out of my house as i have young kids didnt want them to see that
2 days later she accuses me of this crime (she has done this twice befor to other people)

she hasnt stopped phoneing my house and getting taxi piza at all hours
now she messaged my son saying she hated us all and that she would never go out with someone like me ie fat
and that she hopes i goto jail then laughs

[Rights Fighter]

My apologies tatuk: I was going by what Diana said:

I think the reason he thinks it could be equivalent to an admission of guilt is because she accused him of consensual activity with her, not doing anything against her will; the issue was that she was only twelve years old when she made the accusation so she'd have been four years below the age of consent

I really should check before posting as people do get things wrong. My excuse is that I am up to my ears in work - but then that IS only an excuse. Clearly she didn't make the accusation when she was 12 years old as Diana believes.

As I said it's odd she would give a condom a bj: what a way to transfer DNA. No doubt she would find a way to get his inside without his going anywhere near one. Wicked piece of humanity........

[tatguyuk]

no she hasnt used the condom incident she didnt tell the police that i did thats why i kicked her out my house and banned her there is no dna she was being sick when i come home thats how i found out about her sucking a condom i wasnt home when she did that my wife and kids was

[diana_holbourn]

RF, I wasn't quite sure it was 12 but I knew it was close to that age. My point was that as far as I recall, her original allegation was that they had a consensual relationship when she was at a young age. She was saying they were in a physical relationship, and she knows that it would have been illegal for her at that age, and that's how she's trying to get him put in prison. But she isn't even saying sex itself took place, but just touching and various things with clothes on, if I recall correctly. I'll check. Ah yes, here we go:

　

"
2 days later the police are at my door saying she said we was having a relasionship and we had kissed and played with each other no sex but just with hands and mouth!!!"



So even if she's now saying it wasn't consensual after all, she's still contradicting what she said earlier.


And I know you didn't say it was his son being accused. I was responding to your:

　

"
I find it odd that she is now openly trying to contact you when she knows she really should not.

"


It was the son the girl contacted, not him.

[Faith]

Pedantics aside, she really shouldn't be contacting anyone in the immediate family.

[Rights Fighter]

Thanks Faith

She had been trying to contact him using various means - was the point I was making. That would include indirect contact of course.

Yes I am aware that she contacted the son in the last instance - as I pointed out to RFLH - and pointed out again in answer to her post - as I have already pointed out on this forum - not sure how many times now.

[RFLH]

I shall be slapping legs shortly

[Faith]

Oh goody, I shall shave them ready!