Announcement

**frankgallagherwasere** · 19 May 2009, 12:28 PM

What was he playing at?

What a complete twit and his actions defy words !! As your supporting him I will be nice BUT he really is/was an idiot. The text messages will help in his favour, however her age (17) might not, it depends on the Police/CPS and just how they choose to proceed.

Fingers crossed the text messages will convince them to drop the case as there is evidence of an existing relationship which a jury could consider to be stronger evidence for his story than her accusation and allegation.

**friday** · 27 May 2009, 07:46 PM

hi unregistered, i cant tell you how the case will go but i can tell that it all depends on the evidence each party has (e.g texts sent and received, injuries etc).

to be honest with only 30% of cases reaching court and even fewer cases of aquaintance rape reaching court, statistic would suggest your partner will be aquitted, found not guilty or it may not even get to court (less than 2% of aquantaince rapes are found guilty)

however the worst is always possible because you need no qualifications to be on a jury (be that commons sense, worldly knowledge or book smarts)

frank gallagher- you don't provide any evidence for you claim that the cps treat cases of 16-17 year old rape victims differently to those of older victims. as someone who was raped at 16 (though i was 18 and 19 at the trials) i found my case went to court purely on strong evidence (so strong his barrister said he couldn't believe he was found not guilty). 16-17 year olds may be more likely to put themselves in vulnerable situations due to their lack of experience but the jury can only make a decision on the evidence.

**frankgallagherwasere** · 27 May 2009, 10:11 PM

The Police told me, and its on my statement tape that when an accuser is below 18 there is a far higehr chance that it goes to court. When there are trawling methods used (more than one accuser) there is almost 100% chance as the police and cps wont judge who is telling the truth.

Evidence? Well its there on my tape from the horses mouth !! Mind you I think their backside would be more appropriate.......... all they get is others who are friends to support them - as we also know from the horses mouth.

**Unregistered** · 28 May 2009, 08:23 AM

thank you Friday your words are reassuring for me!

When the police took a statement from me (as the girl has previously threatened me and warned me she would hurt my husband) they seemed to be reassuring me that court was a very long way off if at all and that he could get a letter in post saying no further action was being taken but i dont trust police....

The police have kept the phones so hopefully that will be in my partners favour. He was really really stupid and he realises that.

There were no injuries on either person as far as we know, and she even took a phonecall from her mum whilst he was there of which we hope her mum will confirm! The girl has a record with the police already for obsconding/drugs/etc so we hope they will take this into account..

The girl lied to my husband and said she was 18. She also told the police she didnt know he had a wife or that he lived with anyone yet two months before this claim she had banged my door late at night swearing and screaming at me and sent texts to me which the police have details of.

Frankgallagher - I do agree that he was a complete idiot but i dont feel he deserves to be convicted of something he didnt do.

I am preparing for the worst because i know innocent people do get convicted i just pray and hope this doesnt get this far and we can move on.

**Saffron** · 28 May 2009, 03:27 PM

Hi Unregistered

Your situation resonates with me - my husband also found himself on the wrong end of a rape allegation after a dalliance with a colleague in a hotel room. And before anyone points out the obvious - yes, he was stupid. He also managed to keep the accusation and the fact that he had lost his job a secret from me for 11 weeks. He was distant, irritable, he drank a lot. He was getting up and driving off "to work" every morning, only to return after I had left, and sit in the garage waiting for me to return. I actually thought he was having an affair! But when he finally told me what was going on, the look on his face told me he was already being punished wayyyyy beyond anything I could inflict on him. At the crux of it, he was (is) essentially a Good Man and despite his infidelity he did not deserve the hell he was being put through.

Lots of people could not understand why I chose to stay with him. There were various reasons, to be honest, one of which was that I knew he would kill himself if he lost me and our son. That sounds dramatic, but it is entirely true. He was self-harming and suicidal. Every day when I came home from work I was terrified that I would find him dangling from the loft hatch, or shut in the car with a hosepipe from the exhaust. I knew he had researched methods of suicide, because I checked his internet history. I hid all the kitchen knives, and threw away the stanley blades. When he was prescribed sleeping tablets by our GP, I kept them in my handbag and doled them out each evening. I have no doubt that he would have killed himself.

The easiest choice for me would have been to walk away, but the fact that what was happening to him was so fundamentally unjust was a majot factor in my decision to stay.

Relationships go through various ups and downs, and both sides can be subject to temptations to stray - but if as a couple you are strong enough you can work it through. You have my utmost respect for having the courage to stand beside him.

It sounds as though you have plenty of evidence to point towards this girl being an unreliable witness. Make sure you have good legal representation - an expert in sexual crimes please: a normal criminal solicitor will not do. Friday is absolutely right that juries do (often) make mistakes - no qualifications, common sense or previous experience of making rational decisions is required! Rape is a very emotive subject for many people, and Many jurors will make a decision based on their emotice response to the witnesses rather than actually thinking about it rationally.

Finally, look after yourself and your child. See your GP and ask friends and relatives for support. Let us know how you get on!

Saffron x

**Rights Fighter** · 28 May 2009, 05:33 PM

Unregistered - can I ask that you register on this forum so that I can PM or email you please?

**friday** · 30 May 2009, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by frankgallagherwasere View Post

Evidence? Well its there on my tape from the horses mouth !! Mind you I think their backside would be more appropriate.......... all they get is others who are friends to support them - as we also know from the horses mouth.

i'm sorry that was your experience but hearsay evidence is only admissable from the first person you inform of your rape. in my case the defence didnt want my witness so i wasnt allowed to call him, just had his statement read out, nor did they call the nurse who had trated me (bear in mind this was not a man i knew at the time of the event but a complete stranger off the street).

if you had witnesses who provided nothing more than hearsay evidence then they shouldnt have been allowed (except the first person she claimed to have told). your barrister also didnt have to cross examine, he could have just read out the statement.

**Rights Fighter** · 30 May 2009, 04:32 PM

Hearsay evidence is admissible from various quarters and not just from "recent complaint" (first person the complainant tells).

Years ago the only hearsay evidence that was available was the first person and it was also incumbent upon the judge to direct the jury that this evidence does not corroborate the allegations and only goes to explain (or not) consistency in the allegations.

The necessity for trial judges to direct the jury so was then taken away (2003 I think but not 100%) so now the jury are often not told that this hearsay evidence is not actually evidence of the alleged assaults.

One case I recently dealt with - the defendant was faced with evidence at trial, apart from the allegations against him, that as such it was only hearsay and it came from several people. His was one of the first cases allowing hearsay from a number of witnesses and it was certainly the judge's first such case.

Barristers will cross-examine such witnesses as some will contradict themselves and prove that they are lying to support the complainant.

One case I dealt with some years back - the complainant took all of her witnesses on holiday as a "thank you". Another case she paid her witnesses £500 each.

**friday** · 30 May 2009, 05:55 PM

^so i was lied to. great. i wasnt allowed to have my fiend be a witness (not the first person i spoke to but the first person i knew that i spoke to) even though i spoke to her 12 hours after and she was the one that told me it was rape (i was a little naive and thought it wasnt rape because i had kissed him and had met him once before)

**Rights Fighter** · 30 May 2009, 06:26 PM

It's possible that the witnesses you thought might help might not in fact have done so which could be the real reason why they were not used. You could have been told that they couldn't be used as they were "hearsay" witnesses to avoid a lengthy explanation. Or of course your side could still have believed that hearsay evidence cannot be used other than "recent complaint" although I think that is unlikely.

What you might think could help your case can sometimes in fact have the opposite effect because of "inferences" the jury could have made from it.

When I've looked at cases for appeal the applicant often says "they should have used so and so at trial" and they should have told the jury "this and that" but when you look at the evidence they wanted to be put it would have had a disastrous result.

A not guilty verdict can be quashed on appeal if the Crown believes they can have a second bite of the cherry with other evidence. However this has to be applied for within a certain time limit (I don't know what it is) and it is very, very rare indeed that this actually happens.

The defendant in your case will now have his name on records that he has been accused of a sexual offence and should somebody complain about him again the previous allegations would be used against him (or probably would be used against him) should any trial emanate from further complaint.

**friday** · 30 May 2009, 06:56 PM

i would have thought that saying i stalked him and went in to see him while he was working would have misled the jury but because i wasnt allowed to know what he said til after the result i wasnt allowed to prove that was impossible. during the period i "stalked him" i was detained under the mental health act in hospital.

he also said i showed him a video on my mobile of my sisters taking coke (they were 9 and 22). its absurd to say my 9 year old sister was on drugs and my other sister has a career which means she would never have a video of her doing drugs, even if she took them. it drives me insane. i played by the rule book and he played dirty. but then again i don't know why that suprises me.

**Saffron** · 30 May 2009, 07:03 PM

I am so sorry, Friday. What a terrible thing you have endured. This highlights what I have always said - in this country, "Rape Justice" is riddled with injustice on both sides. Too many genuine rapists are NOT convicted, and too many INNOCENT people are convicted. Sorry for the capital letters, but I do feel very strongly that this is the case.

S x

**Rights Fighter** · 30 May 2009, 07:12 PM

I agree Saffron with both points you make.

Unfortunately it is often up to the defence and Crown barristers as to what evidence is admitted into the evidence. Your barrister should have quizzed him on the stand as to why he did not disclose the "evidence" that you "stalked him" before. Most evidence is subject to disclosure to both sides so I am surprised that this "evidence" was not disclosed to the Crown prior to his giving evidence.

You are right of course - dirty tricks are often the order of the day in British Trials which of course means some guilty people walk free and some innocent are sent to prison.

I really believe that these cases should be investigated and proceeded with in a different way. If they took them out of target ratings then maybe the police would investigate them properly instead of merely evidence gathering.

**frankgallagherwasere** · 31 May 2009, 06:53 AM

well in ours they had a big party the friday before the trial and after a shouting match she kicked a lot of them out and they came to our house to tell us about it.

They also made sure their son was around and continuously causing a nusance shouting throwing stones (before trial and even bvefore being arrrested and eventually charged months later)and ofcourse now we have a house thats a wreck. Its obvious in many cases a lot of planning goes into accusing people - but then if they want paying I guess they have to do something for the money? Oh yes and making sure no one said anything or appeared in court against them (his sister).

Yes and money probably changed hands before and after but who can prove that? One thing for sure no one ever adviced the jury that what they said were potentially lies EVEN when we coulde prove them. The whole thing (trials) are just a joke - a show piece and nothing to do with reality

They just dont realise we have the rest of our lives ahead of us !!!!!

Announcement

Advice please

Advice please

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment