Thankful I'm not on the jury of this one!

[hc4361]

I know the jury will hear a lot more evidence than is reported, but surely there is no way of proving either way?


http://www.dailymail....onsented-sex-car.html

[jno]

these things are just one person's word against another (unless there's some extra evidence that hasn't been mentioned - eye witnesses, that sort of thing). So it will depend who makes the better impression on the jury. It usually seems to be the man.

[hc4361]

Nightmare for the jury.

[New Judge]

If there was no way of proving it, hc, the CPS would not have authorised the charge.Before they provide such authority they have to believe there is a reasonable chance of a successful prosecution.

[hc4361]

I appreciate your input, New Judge, but on this there can be no evidence surely? Unless he has a history of this sort of thing.

Even if she had bruising it could be explained as 'enthusiastic'.

[jno]

the victim's story is evidence (which is not the same as proof).

[ummmm]

10 glasses of wine and 10 vodka's??

Seriously?

I can handle my drink, but that would have most burly men flat on their backs!

[hc4361]

Who says she drank that much?

[FredPuli43]

Ah, but that's what juries are for, to decide the undecidable. On a report of the evidence we see no way to decide the case. This looks a likely acquittal but this jury sees the defendant and the other witnesses, their bearing, their tone of voice and how they answer questions, and that really does make a huge difference

When tape recorded police interviews came in, counsel for the defence knew exactly what was said, rather than what a detective had written down as said. Often those written words consisted of denials and statements of innocence, All good. May well be acquitted. But the tape interview had the tone of voice and the manner recorded, not just the words. And you could hear the defendant was lying though his teeth, though his words were of innocence and denial. And the jury heard the tape and could hear all that too!

And, of course, all twelve might be out to get any man who has hunted foxes!

[New Judge]

But once again, hc, if there was no evidence, no charges would have been authorised. Only in limited circumstances can previous offences be cited during a trial (and there is no indication from what I have read that this will be the case). Bruising, of course, may prove injury but it does not prove how it was inflicted or who inflicted the damage.

Very often in cases of rape the only evidence is the testimonies of the victim and the defendant. The CPS must have believed that a jury could be convinced to convict on the evidence they have.

[hc4361]

But in rape trials, when they get that far, the majority of convictions are because of a guilty plea. At the moment there is a 60% conviction rate once it reaches court. And those figures include violent rate, statutory rape etc

[FredPuli43]

60 per cent convicted after jury trial, eh? I bet that's higher than it was even 20 years ago. It's harder for the defence to get home now. Wonder how many women are on the jury ? They are much more severe on women complainants in general than men are. It's as though the men are asking "What the hell was he doing?" and judging the man's behaviour and the women are asking "What the hell was she doing?" and judging the complainant's. Also, women are not easily swayed by tears in the witness box. If the woman suddenly starts to cry, you can see the women staring at her while the men look sympathetic , apparently thinking 'Poor love!'.

So the women may hold the key to this. The Crown might have thought the case would go on the woman being so drunk that she couldn't consent at all and the man took advantage, knowing that. The defendant seems intent on showing it was a jolly night out, all fun and frolics, and a woman eager for sex with someone , so long her husband didn't know. Yes, well.

[shoota]

It's amazing how many acts of consensual sex turn into allegations of rape or assault when the 'victims' real partner learns of them.

[ummmm]

From you link hc..

Earlier she told the court she had drunk up to 11 vodkas and nine glasses of wine.

[TWR]

Ladies, would you get into a car belonging to a person late at night that you did not know?

[woofgang]

How the other half live.....
Whether or not it was rape, it seems to me it was definitely taking advantage, which may not be against the law but is not what a gentleman does.

[woofgang]

TWR maybe not but that is not a reason to do what he did, whether or not it was rape.

[woofgang]

shoota would you care to quantify that remark?

[TWR]

I did not imply that Woof, any bloke that does that to a women wants his Nuts clipped Woof.

[hc4361]

That's my point, ummmm - she says she drank that much. It probably can't be proven that she did, unless she gave a sample at the time.

[woofgang]

in that case twr, what was your point?