Man Has Perfect Defence to Rape Allegation, Still Gets Charged

[Seaside]

The judge was a woman you goof.

Not in my version of this story

 

[panamaican]

Again, crown attorneys are not ordinary lawyers. A civil litigator would absolutely do what you have described, as would any criminal defence attorney. The crown prosecutor most certainly does not have to finish the trial. At all stages, they must act impartially. The crown's goal is not to seek a conviction.

Yes, impartially. They have a girl claiming she was raped. Her friend says she withdrew consent. Then in court, the friend changes testimony. So now they have 1 witness alleging rape. 1 witness allege no rape. And a 3rd witness who has said both "rape" and "no rape" under oath. How much more impartial can it be to finish the trial instead of stepping on the scales of justice. Let the judge do his/her job and determine witness credibility as to their testimony.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

How bout..."she was asleep, so how would she know"
That would be my defense.

Luckily for you your member is so small she'll never feel a thing, for the rest of us though...

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Yeah... you are shooting yourself and your side in the foot with this one, TS

 

[JDragon]

Someone got owned itt

 

[EndlessCritic]

Yes, impartially. They have a girl claiming she was raped. Her friend says she withdrew consent. Then in court, the friend changes testimony. So now they have 1 witness alleging rape. 1 witness allege no rape. And a 3rd witness who has said both "rape" and "no rape" under oath. How much more impartial can it be to finish the trial instead of stepping on the scales of justice. Let the judge do his/her job and determine witness credibility as to their testimony.

This isn't a civil trial. The crown's job isn't to put the evidence out there and let the judge decide. The crown is obligated to have a moral conviction that the crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. Absent that moral conviction, the charge must be withdrawn.

 

[DeJulez]

Luckily for you your member is so small she'll never feel a thing, for the rest of us though...

Though what? You stick your tongue out and lick my helmet?

 

[irish_thug]

32 year old fucks 16 and 17 year olds. Guilty.

 

[7437]

32 year old has sex with a 16 year old who claims it was rape. Guilty, fry him.

 

[KnightTemplar]

When trash met trashier

 

[nac386]

Wait, so there are three people involved.

The man claims he did not commit rape. The accuser claims she was raped. The 3rd person first claimed there was a rape because consent was withdrawn, then later changed her mind.

That is pretty much exactly what a trial is for.

 

[lilelvis]

How bout..."she was asleep, so how would she know"
That would be my defense.

Doggy style cause that's the way she passed out....

 

[panamaican]

This isn't a civil trial. The crown's job isn't to put the evidence out there and let the judge decide. The crown is obligated to have a moral conviction that the crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. Absent that moral conviction, the charge must be withdrawn.

Yes, it's not a civil trial. It's a criminal rape trial where a 16 year old girl alleges that a 30 year old man disregarded her withdrawal of consent. Listen to yourself. You think that a witness changing testimony means the Crown no longer has the moral conviction that a crime has been committed?

The victim never changed her testimony. Even the judge thinks KA was shading her testimony in favor of the defense (See paragraph 80). So if the witness is clearly shading testimony in favor of the defense and the victim maintains her story then that shouldn't rob the Crown of their moral conviction that their alleged victim is telling the truth and a crime occurred.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Though what? You stick your tongue out and lick my helmet?

Teh gay

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Guess it wasn't perfect after all

 

[MeWithInfinityGauntlet]

It's not a perfect defense. The other woman could be lying.

However the system in place regarding these allegations is currently very anti male. It seems as though the onus in a lot of these cases now is for the male to prove himself innocent, rather than to be proven guilty. That's completely unjust.

Also false accusers need to be punished. Although to be fair it's hard to prove an accuser wrong. But if she has been PROVEN wrong, ie she admits it, or she's accused like 5 different guys in a row, she should be locked up for a long time.

 

[Bargey]

Bar practising certificate.

Should be taken from the dumbass pretending to be the prosecutor.

 

[JamesRussler]

He should be charged. There is a material dispute of fact. It's not like the witness's testimony to the contrary was the original evidentiary foundation of the charge: in that case, a charge would be improper.

You think the testimony of one witness should preclude charging in (presumed) light of other evidence corroborating the victim's account? When has that ever been the case?

This is the first time I've ever agreed with your legal analysis. It's a dispute of fact – a credibility issue. Those go to the jury.

That said, I still think the charge should be dropped pending further investigation. If we're going to throw this man in jail and possibly ruin his life, I'd like to see more than a mere allegation that sexual intercourse was nonconsensual. Did they use a rape kit? Do any of the witnesses (including victim and defendant) have a history of lying? Mental illness? Drugs? Crime? I am skeptical of this #metoo push to automatically believe "victims," especially in light of mattress girl and cases like that.

 

[surrealworlds]

Whats the age of consent there?

 

[tonni]

The perfect defense is...someone else saying the 34 year old did not rape the 16 year old??? Perfect defense would be he wasn't in the same plane of existence at the time.