If the allegation does turn out to be false, then the woman involved should serve a prison sentence . As has been said, allegations of this nature wreck the lives of many.
John Leslie
- Thread starter Lilly
- Start date
If the allegation does turn out to be false, then the woman involved should serve a prison sentence . As has been said, allegations of this nature wreck the lives of many.
Ok, I shall stop speculating on the reliability of this witness, Your Honour.
Seriously, that aside, my main question wasn't so much 'Do we think John Leslie is a rapist? ' although that is what we got onto.
It was more 'Do we think that people should be able to make rape allegations 13, 20, 25 years after the alleged event?'
Yes .. look at that case in the Channel Islands at the moment .. though they were children then, now adults and can speak .. so are special circumstances. This may be one of those special circumstances ... who knows ?
in answer to the original question, i do not think there should be a time limit on any crime, thin end of the wedge i reckon, like well the murder was 20 yrs ago, so its out of time, let em off, that or somewhere like it, this could lead.
Exactly...
When you come back then.....I don't think that rape charges should be able to be made say 13 years later because the evidence is even more shaky than it was at the time.
People's memories fade and you will have a hell of a lot of unreliable witnesses. How can the accused be expected to recall their actions from 13 years ago? You'd know that you hadn't raped anyone but how could you prove it?
You couldn't prove that you hadn't raped anyone and the prosecution couldn't prove that you had because there'd be no evidence.
When a recent rape is reported all sorts of evidence / samples are taken....from the scene, from the woman, the man, clothes and posessions are seized for forensic purposes. You can't do this 13 years later.
There'll be no evidence and if you can't prove a man guilty then he must be found innocent so he'll get off.
All that police time, money, upset, trauma etc for nothing.
Why do you think that rapes should be able to be investigated no matter how long ago they were?
You’re right, these things have to be investigated and people brought to book if possible.
i think anyone accused of rape should not be named until found guilty simply because even when found innocent the dammage is done
in cases of rape i would have a closed court so its only people relative to the case and proceedings present , no media and no public gallery and a gagging oprder on the alleged victim not to speak of it until a guilty verdict is decided but if the verdict is not guilty then the gagging order preventing her discussing the case stays in place
dont get me wrong here rape is a serious crime but how many innocent men are walking around under suspicion because they were found innocent but because their name and picture were in the news and in the papers people still think they either got lucky in court or must have done somthing
its time the accused were protected as well , we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but often assumed guilty way before a trial because of the press
plenty of women have walked away from court free after owning up and saying they made it up because they were angry but by that time the poor blokes life is destroyed
somthing needs to change not only to protect men from vicious lies but also to protect genuine victims who fear coming forward because of these dispicable women who lie
in cases of rape i would have a closed court so its only people relative to the case and proceedings present , no media and no public gallery and a gagging oprder on the alleged victim not to speak of it until a guilty verdict is decided but if the verdict is not guilty then the gagging order preventing her discussing the case stays in place
dont get me wrong here rape is a serious crime but how many innocent men are walking around under suspicion because they were found innocent but because their name and picture were in the news and in the papers people still think they either got lucky in court or must have done somthing
its time the accused were protected as well , we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but often assumed guilty way before a trial because of the press
plenty of women have walked away from court free after owning up and saying they made it up because they were angry but by that time the poor blokes life is destroyed
somthing needs to change not only to protect men from vicious lies but also to protect genuine victims who fear coming forward because of these dispicable women who lie
Yes, I see your point but was that not a case of long term abuse of which the signs would be there and therefore could be investigated?
A one off rape on a Saturday night would leave no evidence 13 years later....one person's word against another.
I don't suppose you can have 2 separate rules though.....tricky one this.
When you come back then.....I don't think that rape charges should be able to be made say 13 years later because the evidence is even more shaky than it was at the time.
People's memories fade and you will have a hell of a lot of unreliable witnesses. How can the accused be expected to recall their actions from 13 years ago? You'd know that you hadn't raped anyone but how could you prove it?
You couldn't prove that you hadn't raped anyone and the prosecution couldn't prove that you had because there'd be no evidence.
When a recent rape is reported all sorts of evidence / samples are taken....from the scene, from the woman, the man, clothes and posessions are seized for forensic purposes. You can't do this 13 years later.
There'll be no evidence and if you can't prove a man guilty then he must be found innocent so he'll get off.
All that police time, money, upset, trauma etc for nothing.
Why do you think that rapes should be able to be investigated no matter how long ago they were?
sorry lilly, but forensic evidence has come on in leaps n bounds, plus the police have a duty to charge a person, if they think they have enough evidence fer a prosecution, so if they do there job correctly the chances are they will get a result,
I agree...I wonder who gave the story to press?
Could it be the same copper who was niffed that the first trial ended tits up?
Of course rape should be investigated from however long ago the alleged rape happened. It is not just children who are scared of reporting rape for fear of the consequnces but also a lot of adults. People who commit this horrific act often use threats to keep their victims quiet and very often this threat works for many years. It is only when the victim realises that they can report these rapes and feel safe that the evil perpetrators are brought to justice IMHO
after a rape the womans clothes are taken for proof..i doubt she would still have these after so long, and it will have been washed or, more likely thrown away/burnt!!!
the private area is checked for certain types of bruising only seen with rape... that wont be there
the place the rape took place is tested for bodily fluids, signs of a struggle etc
and photos are taken of everything.....
after so long all there is is what the accused says and thats not really evidence..
the private area is checked for certain types of bruising only seen with rape... that wont be there
the place the rape took place is tested for bodily fluids, signs of a struggle etc
and photos are taken of everything.....
after so long all there is is what the accused says and thats not really evidence..
That didn't prove rape though Accyman, just that he was a fibber for denying he had any sexual contact with her.
As I said in a previous post, I can see how long term, regular rapes / abuse can be detected and prosecuted but what evidence would there be of a rape that only happened once, many years ago?
This is what I'm trying to say emamum.
Ye but......In your younger days...if a young attractive woman crawled under your desk and took charge of proceedings....who are we to look a gift horse in the mouth?....would you thow your shreddies away?
i wasnt saying it proved rape i was merely showing an example of where a woman with a keen eye for opportunity can easliy keep evidence for later use
whats to stop a woman who i sleep with saving her clothes with my DNA on them and screaming rape weeks months or even years years later ?
the forensic evidence would be there for the court to see and all that would be left would be the word of a man who cant remember what he did one particular day and by that time his name will have appeared in the paper and in the news
and how do you think it came out that monica lewinsky had sexual relations with clinton , im pretty sure she arranged it and she made millions from it
ps;
like to add i am not belittleing but putting forward a few of many possibilities out there
Last edited: