Tuesday, 28 March 2017

Making It Up…

During the trial, the court heard the boy, now 15, had an alibi for the dates the girl initially gave to the police.
Phone records show he had called police following a row with his parents. He claimed his dad has assaulted him at the family home on Canvey - an accusation which was disputed by his mother as she gave evidence during the trial.
The teenager then stole his dad’s bank cards and used them to spend almost £600 on a trip to London - buying alcohol from a pub and a hotel room for him and a friend.
Whoops! Another case scuppered by...

But wait!
Despite his alibi, district Judge John Woollard ruled that the traumatised victim could have got the dates of the offences mixed up.
She reported the incidents to the police “much later” after they took place.
*blinks*
He said: “The victim strikes me as an honest, trustworthy and reliable witness.
“She has not changed her story throughout the trial (Ed: Did she need to, with you helping her out on this..?) and even corrected the prosecution when they got information incorrect.”
He added that there was no motive for her to lie.
Does there have to be?
The boy will return to court to be sentenced on Friday, April 28.
I hope he gets a better lawyer for the appeal.

5 comments:

The Blocked Dwarf said...

I see your 'was in London when it supposedly happened' and raise you the Jonathan King futile defence of 'provably not being on the same fucking continent, let alone country, on the dates in question'.

Nothing courts decide these days surprises me after that.

Radical Rodent said...

A prejudiced judge - who would have thunk it?

The girl is "...an honest, trustworthy and reliable witness." Therefore the boy is not, even though he has verifiable FACTS to support his side of the story. Such are the penalties of having dangly bits between your legs, I guess...

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, he touched me up in the 1970s plus or minus a decade or two, probably in the Northern Hemisphere.
Come up with an alibi for that Light Entertainment boy!

James said...

See also the original Rolf Harris trial:

- Woman who alleges assault at an event in 1974 is "mistaken" when her story collapses and so is allowed to have her story switched mid-trial to a vaguely similar event at an entirely different location which takes place three years later when she is no longer an innocent teenage girl as originally portrayed but actually a grown adult.

- Defendant who has no memory of visiting the place and insists he's never been there is portayed as "lying" when video footage of him there is magically produced.

JuliaM said...

"Nothing courts decide these days surprises me after that."

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me either. But this was just so damned blatant!

"Such are the penalties of having dangly bits between your legs, I guess..."

I fear you're spot on.

"Come up with an alibi for that Light Entertainment boy!"

I wonder if the bail changes the police Twitter accounts are all frothing about will bring these cases to a halt?

"...when she is no longer an innocent teenage girl as originally portrayed but actually a grown adult."

Hmmm, in body perhaps. But in mind? I'm not so sure.