Thursday, 6 January 2011

Will This Be Another Cause Célèbre For The Feminist Crackpots?

Via Anna Raccoon on email, this:
A woman who says she was raped in her home came faceto- face with her alleged attacker in court and received a warning for screaming at him.

Judge John Walford warned the woman about her behaviour after the outburst, seconds after she entered the witness box at Teesside Crown Court.

The woman yelled at the accused, Keith Robertson, and shouted, “you liar, you’re a liar” towards him as she was cross-examined by his barrister yesterday.
And what did she object to?
She appeared to take exception to some of the questions from defence lawyer Brian Russell, who suggested she consented to parts of the sexual activity.
Ah. Right. Still, despite the warning, she's probably achieved her objective - that of convincing the jury she's a victim...
In an interview, Mr Robertson admitted giving the woman love-bites and said they touched one another before she suddenly said: “You’ve just totally raped me.
Hmmm....
Shaun Dodds, prosecuting, said a medical examination carried out on the woman could not determine whether intercourse had taken place.
So, why are the CPS proceeding with the charge?!?

Oh. Right. I forgot. When this is the alleged crime, a woman's accusation is all that is required.
Under cross-examination from Mr Russell, the woman denied concocting “an utterly ridiculous account” and being extremely drunk and unable to remember what happened.

She accepted drinking more than four litres of what she described as “lethal” Frosty Jacks cider, but denied going out to buy another three-litre bottle and sharing that.
Either that's a misprint or....four litres of cider?!? I mean, does it matter whether or not she then consumed another one and a half..?

I can't help thinking that, if this man (identified, of course, though she cannot be) is acquitted, the usual suspects will want the judge boiled in oil for daring to criticise the sacred 'victim'...

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

4 Litres of Frosty Jacks Cider 7.5% ABV!

Anonymous said...

4 litres of cheapo cider !
Shameless ?

Rob said...

8 pints @ 7.5%? i'd be fucked, unlike her

Anonymous said...

'totaly raped' as opposed to just a likle bit. i do hope the jury see this woman's exagerations for what they are, he was probaly thinking i'm onto a good thing here, she flipped, he went home as he said and from the point of some base ball bat wielding maniac out side his house right upto her display of self control in court has been shitting himself because the system is fucked and will continue to support this type of scumm. a definite case of your guilty now prove your innocence.

Anonymous said...

she's probably one of his best witnesses, lol

note to self *avoid 'ladies' that want to get pissed to have sex with me*

allcoppedout said...

Rob is about right. The interesting thing here is we seem to be crediting people in these circumstances with 'credibility' even when pissed and drugged-up - yet not in other areas of law where one's credibility is dismissed by doing stuff like telling the truth. Maybe we are just going back to the Oracle at Delphi and relying on pissed and drugged women to reveal us the truth? Soon, men will be asked their star signs - those answering 'Taurus' being doomed once the jury gets wind of the phrase 'goes at it like a bull'!

Julia finds these stories on a regular basis. I've found some with apparent forensic 'evidence' as shaky as that of cheap cider drinkers. Our prosecution and court system are bent by clown whim.

Dave H. said...

4000 x 0.075 = 300mL or 30 units. Phew. In theory, that's enough to put you at about 7-10 times the driving limit. Not far from a fatal dose for some, if it stayed down.

I reckon it would be just about do-able for one person in an evening, if they had a good tolerance to alcohol. And drinkers of Frosty Jacks tend not to be, ahem, unused to drink. She was sharing it too. We are still talking about degrees of utterly pissed.

These kind of cases, when the parties involved are drunk, are always going to be a nightmare for a system of justice. If it boils down to one unreliable word against another, how can there be a satisfactory outcome?

Anonymous said...

bang thier heads together and tell them to go and fuck in the bushes or go home?!?

Anonymous said...

'you totaly raped me man' indeed

JuliaM said...

"8 pints @ 7.5%? i'd be fucked, unlike her"

:D

"...i do hope the jury see this woman's exagerations for what they are..."

I would rather put my faith in the jury than a magistrate. Perhaps that'll be the next bonkers suggestion? No juries for rape cases?

"The interesting thing here is we seem to be crediting people in these circumstances with 'credibility' even when pissed and drugged-up - yet not in other areas of law where one's credibility is dismissed by doing stuff like telling the truth. "

Spot on!

"These kind of cases, when the parties involved are drunk, are always going to be a nightmare for a system of justice. If it boils down to one unreliable word against another, how can there be a satisfactory outcome?"

That depends on the definition of 'satisfactory outcome', doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

unanamous, not guilty, 1/2hr

David Gillies said...

300ml of ethanol in an evening is indeed approaching danger levels. It's the alcohol content of a whole bottle of whisky. 400ml will almost certainly kill someone who isn't used to drinking such huge quantities.