Rape/sexual assault charges

T

tiler65

Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,544
Name
Tom (I think)
Edit My Images
Yes
In view of the recent arrest of many celebs and tonight the charge with rape to one of them, can anyone shed light on how the process of charging someone with an offence like this from 30 odd years ago, can be pursued.

Will there be any scientific evidence left?

Is it one persons word against another's? (Unless several people were present of course)

If found not guilty, is the accused allowed to pursue damages for character assassination etc?
 
I meant to add, how can it be a fair trial especially with the love/hatred our country has with successful people
 
Wasn't the celeb who got arrested recently charged with the offence he allegedly committed in 2010?
 
Last edited:
It's ok I found out who it was now lol.
 
pepi1967 said:
Wasn't the celeb who got arrested recently charged with the offence he allegedly committed in 2010?
Click to expand...

No names from me but the one charged tonight was an alleged offence from 1976, but that is not my question. It is how and why with such a large time gap.
 
tiler65 said:
No names from me but the one charged tonight was an alleged offence from 1976, but that is not my question. It is how and why with such a large time gap.
Click to expand...

Ah now that is what I've been asking. Surely with such a large gap since the crime evidence will be nigh on impossible to find.
 
It is Stuart Hall.

I and my lovely wife have had a "discussion" about this tonight........

I will simplify and paraphrase.

her: "rape is rape"
Me: "I agree, but 36/37 years on unless he testifies, how can it be proven?"
her: "hmmm good point...."

Now I am not defending him, nor prosecuting him, but if he is charged with it, then surely the CPS must have evidence....otherwise they will go to court on a hiding to nothing...
 
tiler65 said:
No names from me but the one charged tonight was an alleged offence from 1976, but that is not my question. It is how and why with such a large time gap.
Click to expand...

Why not? Why let someone get away with it? It's very common in abuse cases that nothing comes out for years.

Lots were incredulous about savile and look how that turned out. Dpp report I read with a thorough analysis concluded there was enough evidence to launch a prosecution in his lifetime. I'm assuming with this latest person they don't want to let the celeb status sway the decision.
 
No need to name anyone, it could be anyone charged with such an offence.

The reason why I would prefer no names is that it feasible that one of us could be on the jury at the trial. Also, I am not a fan of naming the accused before being found guilty.
 
srichards said:
Why not? Why let someone get away with it? It's very common in abuse cases that nothing comes out for years.

Lots were incredulous about savile and look how that turned out. Dpp report I read with a thorough analysis concluded there was enough evidence to launch a prosecution in his lifetime. I'm assuming with this latest person they don't want to let the celeb status sway the decision.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. How can there be a case to answer, if it is one persons view against another (sexual assault does not have to contain any sex!)

And I never once suggested they should get away with it, read my OP again
 
tiler65 said:
You are missing the point. How can there be a case to answer, if it is one persons view against another (sexual assault does not have to contain any sex!)

And I never once suggested they should get away with it, read my OP again
Click to expand...

Then you can never charge anyone with any kind of abuse as it is invariably one person's word against another!
 
Well I'm not going to go into all of the sordid details, a few years ago now I was on jury duty and the case I sat on was one of a sexual nature relating to an act, about 30 years previously and while there was no scientific evidence presented, we had testimonies, from all parties, we had details of the location, we had all details gathered under questioning of the accused, we we're given plenty of time to go over the evidence presented and we came to a conclusion based on that, was it easy? no not at all but trust me when I say there maybe no physical evidence it will not stop the case being tried in the even that sufficient evidence is presented
 
What a waste of public money. How on earth can u prove or disprove a rape from 37 years ago? You can't, and I thought to be found Guilty the jury needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt. It's simply a he said / she said thing.
 
cambsno said:
What a waste of public money. How on earth can u prove or disprove a rape from 37 years ago? You can't, and I thought to be found Guilty the jury needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt. It's simply a he said / she said thing.
Click to expand...

There is no statute of limitations for rape. What you mean is, assuming sufficient evidence, he should get away with it. And neither you or I know if there is enough evidence
 
boyfalldown said:
There is no statute of limitations for rape. What you mean is, assuming sufficient evidence, he should get away with it. And neither you or I know if there is enough evidence
Click to expand...
But that is part of my questioning..... What type of evidence can there be after 30 years?
 
Gary Coyle said:
Is there something you want to tell us Tom :D
Click to expand...

If sexual assault can mean slapping/tapping a woman's arse then yes I suppose I should be worried but then I would say majority of men would need to be worried too and for the record, many women too!
 
We've done this before in the JS thread and it got locked so not expecting much more from this but I have to say I've been wondering the same thing..

Granted assault is bad, people guilty should be strung up but I don't get how you can bring charges X years after the alleged offence (even more so if the accused is dead)..

1) admission - possible but doubtful, especially for dead accused
2) DNA evidence - long gone
3) witnesses - really that reliable after 10s of years?
4) photos/video - the only plausible evidence I can think of

But as normal it'll all end up in a trial by media anyway.
 
tiler65 said:
But that is part of my questioning..... What type of evidence can there be after 30 years?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure.......but that doesn't mean there isn't any. Maybe witnesses? who knows, but if its sufficent to try him, then my point is really time by itself is not a reason not to
 
Thing is given how reluctant the CPS is to bring charges - i know several cops who refer to them as the "Criminal Protection Service" (or as "C***s Protecting Scrotes" ) there must be reasonably solid evidence of the case would never have got to court.

The other thing is it depends on the detail - if its a case of " I never had sex with that woman" then DNA etc is required - if on the otherhand he admits he had intercourse but claims it was consensual then we are down to witnesses and his word against hers , where it makes no difference if it was yesterday or 30 years ago
 
Last edited:
Perhaps he has admitted guilt?
 
admirable said:
Perhaps he has admitted guilt?
Click to expand...

(please do not stick this thread onto any particular person, it is a general question that could involve any accused)

We have already mentioned admittance of guilt.
 
big soft moose said:
Thing is given how reluctant the CPS is to bring charges - i know several cops who refer to them as the "Criminal Protection Service" (or as "C***s Protecting Scrotes" ) there must be reasonably solid evidence of the case would never have got to court.

The other thing is it depends on the detail - if its a case of " I never had sex with that woman" then DNA etc is required - if on the otherhand he admits he had intercourse but claims it was consensual then we are down to witnesses and his word against hers , where it makes no difference if it was yesterday or 30 years ago
Click to expand...

So if it is the latter, where the whole point is, who decides that they believe the alleged victim enough to press charges and on what basis?

Say there are no witnesses and the two cannot be paired together and the case is relying on hearsay, is that enough evidence to press charges and run the risk of an incorrect guilty or not guilty verdict by 12 jurors?
 
admirable said:
Perhaps he has admitted guilt?
Click to expand...

tiler65 said:
(please do not stick this thread onto any particular person, it is a general question that could involve any accused)

We have already mentioned admittance of guilt.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention any names :shrug:


I'll rephrase;

I agree with Neil, perhaps if the accused admits guillt.
 
admirable said:
I didn't mention any names :shrug:


I'll rephrase;

I agree with Neil, perhaps if the accused admits guillt.
Click to expand...

And like I mentioned...we have already used the admittance angle. Does any one read a thread?
 
Yet another thread in the out of focus section I wish I'd never clicked on. What an attitude!
 
what if the 'victim' reported the crime when it actually happened 30 years ago but the case never got to court or it collapsed somehow? Maybe it's been re-opened or newer evidence / witnesses have come to light? Is that a possibility?
 
leftcurl said:
what if the 'victim' reported the crime when it actually happened 30 years ago but the case never got to court or it collapsed somehow? Maybe it's been re-opened or newer evidence / witnesses have come to light? Is that a possibility?
Click to expand...

Excellent point...Well made.
 
tiler65 said:
In view of the recent arrest of many celebs and tonight the charge with rape to one of them, can anyone shed light on how the process of charging someone with an offence like this from 30 odd years ago, can be pursued.

Will there be any scientific evidence left?

Is it one persons word against another's? (Unless several people were present of course)

If found not guilty, is the accused allowed to pursue damages for character assassination etc?
Click to expand...

Moot points, Tom and they beg the question just what is the point of all the investigations. Is it the case that the various authorities feel that they should be seen to be doing something irrespective of whether anything worthwhile will be achieved.
It will be interesting to see just how many cases come to court. I'll wager a guess - not many and even less convictions.
 
Last edited:
if the case was reported and evidence was filed at the time, but taken no further, it is possible that DNA has given the victim a second bite at the cherry. I watched a program the other night, where a woman was shot dead in the USA in 1981 (i think) and no-one was ever tried or convicted. Then in the last few years the case was re-opened and they actually had a sample of saliva found on the woman's body that was was filed and kept in the archives. DNA testing of that sample proved it to be a female police officer who was infatuated with the deceased's husband at the time and she was banged up... 25 years later.
 
leftcurl said:
if the case was reported and evidence was filed at the time, but taken no further, it is possible that DNA has given the victim a second bite at the cherry. I watched a program the other night, where a woman was shot dead in the USA in 1981 (i think) and no-one was ever tried or convicted. Then in the last few years the case was re-opened and they actually had a sample of saliva found on the woman's body that was was filed and kept in the archives. DNA testing of that sample proved it to be a female police officer who was infatuated with the deceased's husband at the time and she was banged up... 25 years later.
Click to expand...

I can see that happening.

Wouldn't the Police/authorities give the defence (before being charged) the evidence of such findings, so that the defence can adjust their plea accordingly (if they want to of course) so that time and money is not wasted on frivolous court appearances etc?

Does the prosecutor have to give the defence these findings?
 
It's difficult isn't it?

Obviously, victims of crime are entitled to expect their allegations to be investigated properly and for charges to be brought if there is enough evidence.

Police have a duty to do that, and possibly are a bit sensitive to their past failures, and to the damage to their reputation that has occurred. Maybe the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction now?

But the alleged perpetrators have rights too, including the right to an aquittal whenever there is a reasonable doubt about their guilt.

As for proving allegations of sexual misconduct, even if the allegations are true they will take a lot of proving. Rape is the easiest allegation to make and the hardest to prove. I read recently that only a tiny percentage of rapes are even reported and, of those reported, only 3% result in a conviction. What chance then of convictions on offences that are alleged to have been committed many years ago?
 
It probably would be difficult without evidence Tom, but how much evidence would be needed is another question. Anything that the victim could remember from the attack, distinguishable marks, lumps, that they noticed and given in evidence at the time :shrug: Here is one case, although DNA was to help. Not saying this is the case here or in any other case, but what you have to remember is that the tiniest piece of evidence becomes much more usefull once it can be linked to a name.
 
u8myufo said:
It probably would be difficult without evidence Tom, but how much evidence would be needed is another question. Anything that the victim could remember from the attack, distinguishable marks, lumps, that they noticed and given in evidence at the time :shrug: Here is one case, although DNA was to help. Not saying this is the case here or in any other case, but what you have to remember is that the tiniest piece of evidence becomes much more usefull once it can be linked to a name.
Click to expand...

Rich, I totally understand the rape cases with supplied DNA samples but what about the sexual assault stuff like I have been trying to get answers to.

Thank God DNA came along I say.
 
In the high profile cases that are coming to light at the moment, there seem to be multiple alleged victims. If all of these people are recounting similar events, then presumably there is a tipping point where that has to be more than coincidence, and this gives them credence?
 
When the vile acts of Jimmy Saville came to light I said To my better half that this will be like opening the flood gates, I'm sure there are some very genuine cases out there but how times have changed, in my teens (yes a while ago :D ) if a girl had a wolf whistle she classed it as a compliment, now it's a male chauvinist insult, a tap on the bum was far from molesting, now its sexual assault. Whatever anyone thinks is right or wrong is now very different from the 70's in both how things are perceived and how we can be sued etc, just got into A & E and see the "have you had an accident" solicitors advertising.
So.....now there's an easy way that some will see of getting money, "oh I remember that celebrity touched my bum" and so on 30 years ago.....let's report him
Yes there has been so very sad and vile things happened but also there's some very sad and vile people who would happily jump on the band wagon.
Yes maybe some of the things were report years ago, maybe they weren't delt with but then again when I was at school I was caned for bad behaviour, should I now sue the education authority or just accept times have changed, actual rape is not excepable either then or now, neither is anything involving a minor, but some other things then were very different to now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top