[Agent F]

It all started to go downhill as soon as Jessica said it was "all Mark Zuckerburg's fault" - and the staged TOWIEesque scenes between her and her nan and then her and Gemma's mate. Bizarre documentary, bizarre story. Can't get my head around it at all.

[Tammi]

Something which struck me as odd was when the Gran mentioned she had discussed with Jessica she was unsure wether or not Jessica should be hanging around with Gemma, given that Gemma was 2 years older was what the reply was. There was no "but she is my friend, I enjoy hanging around with her." It was simply "but Gemma has a Car." Therefore it seems as though Jessica and Alice simply used Gemma for her Car and it seems she had money also so this too, this leads me to believe even more she was the manipulated one. Also why did Jessica's Gran have concerns over Jessica hanging around with Gemma simply because she was 2 years older than her but yet she appeared to have no concern whatsoever about letting a boy who covered the majority of his face and refused to speak sleep in her 16 year old Granddaughters bed overnight? A boy she knew nothing about.

[primer]

Originally Posted by Tammi

There is no "mass conspiracy", it is not unusual for miscarriages of justice to happen or for "victims" to turn out in actual fact to be the perpatrator. Also the fact you feel people who aren't directly involved shouldn't care shows something that is very wrong in our society.

actually, it IS unusual for miscarriages of justice to happen and/.or for victims to turn out to be perpetrators.

and its not that i think people 'shouldn't care' but to utterly convince yourself (oneself) that x is a liar / fantasist / the real guilty party and the other is innocent when you know no more about the case than any other member of the public is hasty and unwise. imho of course

[chris316W]

Originally Posted by Tammi

Something which struck me as odd was when the Gran mentioned she had discussed with Jessica she was unsure wether or not Jessica should be hanging around with Gemma, given that Gemma was 2 years older was what the reply was. There was no "but she is my friend, I enjoy hanging around with her." It was simply "but Gemma has a Car." Therefore it seems as though Jessica and Alice simply used Gemma for her Car and it seems she had money also so this too, this leads me to believe even more she was the manipulated one. Also why did Jessica's Gran have concerns over Jessica hanging around with Gemma simply because she was 2 years older than her but yet she appeared to have no concern whatsoever about letting a boy who covered the majority of his face and refused to speak sleep in her 16 year old Granddaughters bed overnight? A boy she knew nothing about.

^^^^ THIS^^^^

[chris316W]

Originally Posted by primer

actually, it IS unusual for miscarriages of justice to happen and/.or for victims to turn out to be perpetrators.

and its not that i think people 'shouldn't care' but to utterly convince yourself (oneself) that x is a liar / fantasist / the real guilty party and the other is innocent when you know no more about the case than any other member of the public is hasty and unwise. imho of course

I have been researching this case for the past two days...
Its my right to looking into something i don't feel is right.

[Tammi]

Originally Posted by primer

actually, it IS unusual for miscarriages of justice to happen and/.or for victims to turn out to be perpetrators.

and its not that i think people 'shouldn't care' but to utterly convince yourself (oneself) that x is a liar / fantasist / the real guilty party and the other is innocent when you know no more about the case than any other member of the public is hasty and unwise. imho of course

Of course it doesn't happen everyday but to say it doesn't, you are fooling yourself. We've not had many "victims" of sex attacks turn out to be lying? Again you must be fooling yourself.

What makes you think I know little of the case? The star witness has been in every newspaper, the main morning show in the UK and now an hour show on Ch4 dedicated to detailing absolutely every aspect right down to the exact details of Gemma's arrest so evidently we know all there is to know.... Jessica's version that is. Also as far as myself not knowing more than the rest of thr public if you refer to my other post were I state in every online news report of this, on TM Facebook Page, etc there is thousands of comments stating exactly what had been on here and thousands agreeing. The vast majority of the public do not believe this story and are outraged at the outcome.

[chris316W]

Originally Posted by Tammi

Of course it doesn't happen everyday but to say it doesn't, you are fooling yourself. We've not had many "victims" of sex attacks turn out to be lying? Again you must be fooling yourself.

What makes you think I know little of the case? The star witness has been in every newspaper, the main morning show in the UK and now an hour show on Ch4 dedicated to detailing absolutely every aspect right down to the exact details of Gemma's arrest so evidently we know all there is to know.... Jessica's version that is. Also as far as myself not knowing more than the rest of thr public if you refer to my other post were I state in every online news report of this, on TM Facebook Page, etc there is thousands of comments stating exactly what had been on here and thousands agreeing. The vast majority of the public do not believe this story and are outraged at the outcome.

The very fact we as a public can question the guilty verdict and are more than free to do so means I for one will carry on looking into this more.

[primer]

Originally Posted by Tammi

Of course it doesn't happen everyday but to say it doesn't, you are fooling yourself. We've not had many "victims" of sex attacks turn out to be lying? Again you must be fooling yourself.

well what i actually said was unusual, not impossible, and so far i've seen no evidence to suggest this is such a case.

and yes, there are cases where people have lied about sexual assaults, but that again is different from your original claim that victims turn out to be perpetrators, which is highly unusual

What makes you think I know little of the case?

ok from what followed i deduce that you know no more about the case than any member of the public might know, and you have an opinion on that, which is of course not necessarily correct just because its shared by 'lots' of people. but actually, facebook and the comments section of low rent newpapers isn't necessarily a fair representation of opinion... that i even have to point that out in this case is slightly hilarious.

as you point out, we've heard nothing of the 'other side of the story' and i certainly would be fascinated to hear more of that.

but without actual evidence that the perpetrator was in some way manipulated, pressured, or badly represented, that evidence was witheld or misrepresented, then odd as it was, and much as i might think psychiatric care would be more appropriate than prison, there is nothing to suggest a miscarriage of justice happened here.

[.Lauren.]

I was amazed at how incredibly naive these 15 year olds were. Their behaviour reminded me of 11 or 12 year olds. However, that of course does not excuse Gemma's behaviour and she should have gone away for a long time for causing these girls such anguish and pain.

I do not believe Gemma's reasoning for her actions.

[Tammi]

Originally Posted by primer

and yes, there are cases where people have lied about sexual assaults, but that again is different from your original claim that victims turn out to be perpetrators.

So you wouldn't think a "victim" who turns out to have concocted a mass of lies which leads to someone's reputation and livelihood, etc being completely destroyed a perpetrator of some sort themselves? No? Well what would you call them?

[Valene1]

This story was very odd and I didn't know what to believe at times but I tend to believe that what the girls have said about Gemma is genuine, even though I struggled with how they didn't recognise Gemma's facial features wheneven the lower part can be a giveaway.

There was another case not long before Gemma was sentenced in which an older woman, Samantha Brooks (26) pretended to be a man for 8 years when in a 'relationship' with a woman - the charges I believe were dropped in this Scottish case and I think many years before this there was another case. So you don't have have to be 15/16 to be conned like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...relations.html

[primer]

^ very interesting, plus of course brandon teena, subject of the film 'boys don't cry' female who dressed as a male and conducted several relationships with women before being discovered and subsequently murdered.

[SolarSail]

Originally Posted by Valene1

I struggled with how they didn't recognise Gemma's facial features wheneven the lower part can be a giveaway.

Samantha Brooks (26) pretended to be a man for 8 years when in a 'relationship' with a woman - ... and I think many years before this there was another case. So you don't have have to be 15/16 to be conned like this.

Point 1 - or, in addition, how in Jessica's part, she didn't realise she was sharing a bed with and also kissing the same person.
She seemed to focus an awful lot on clothes, but you'd imagine there are other pointers that make someone who they are (even if they don't speak)

Point 2 - but in those cases the victims of deception only know the perpetrator as one person i.e. Samantha was known to them only as 'Lee' not as Samantha and then Samantha pretending to be Lee,

I can understand how people fall for a purely online fraudster, or as someone who only appears to them in a guise.

At a stretch I can even understand a deception by someone known both as their true self and in a guise.
Beyond that it all enters the realms of fantasy - well for me at least.

[Flying4X]

Just remembered this too. What about the bit where the girls waited outside the gated super posh/rich community in Weybridge for Aaron/Cona(!)/forget the other one and Jessica said, "We waited for 7 hours, but he didn't come out". Doh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You really couldn't make it up. Also why were the parents so absent in this surreal case?

[Helenaka]

Originally Posted by Paace

None are facts. You don't know any of the people you mention. You have never spoken to them. You have seen none of the evidence seen by the police and judge. You are only guessing.

I agree the case is baffling and bewildering based on what was shown in the documentary. But the fact is Gemma pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting the girl. Remember she would have done this on the advice of her lawyer and I doubt they both would have agreed to plead guilty if she was indeed innocent.

It is very sad for all concerned and I wished Jessica had remained anonymous like the other girl . I wished C4 had shown more of Gemma's background but maybe her parents did not want to get involved.

The only good that can come from this story is that it highlights the dangers of these sites like Facebook and Twitter.

BIB: Did you watch the programme "The Briefs" tonight?
There you would have seen the solicitor suggest that a defendant who was strongly protesting his innocence on a charge of theft during the Manchester riots should plead guilty. He was basically spotted on cctv walking in and out of a shop (that had been broken in to) twice. He was for a off camera for a few seconds, but..you do not see him steal anything, he isn't carrying any goods etc. The guy was adamant that he had not taken anything and was not guilty.

The laywer was saying that he would get a bigger sentence if he was convicted at trial, the jury has to believe you...yada...yada..yada. He seemed imho to be influencing the guy to go for a guilty plea.

The guy went to trial and was aquitted on retrial. the first trial jury could not return a verdict.

[StressMonkey]

Originally Posted by Helenaka

BIB: Did you watch the programme "The Briefs" tonight?
There you would have seen the solicitor suggest that a defendant who was strongly protesting his innocence on a charge of theft during the Manchester riots should plead guilty. He was basically spotted on cctv walking in and out of a shop (that had been broken in to) twice. He was for a off camera for a few seconds, but..you do not see him steal anything, he isn't carrying any goods etc. The guy was adamant that he had not taken anything and was not guilty.

The laywer was saying that he would get a bigger sentence if he was convicted at trial, the jury has to believe you...yada...yada..yada. He seemed imho to be influencing the guy to go for a guilty plea.

The guy went to trial and was aquitted on retrial. the first trial jury could not return a verdict.

Plus.....what were the sexual assault charges related to? Is it public record? They might both relate to 'Alice' and neither to Jessica.

During her last conversation with Gemma's 'friend', Jessica alleged several sexual assaults, that she initially thought were committed by 'Cona' but then attributed to 'Luke' when 'Luke' 'confessed' yet Gamma was only charged with (and pleaded guilty) to two.

We don't know what legal advice Gemma was given. If Alice consented to sex/sexual contact with a 'boy' - 'Aaron' and genuinely didn't know it was Gemma, then I think it was technically sexual assault. I do think the sentencing was harsh though.

I'm going t be up front and say I don't believe half of what Jessica says and don't believe she would have been a credible witness had the case gone to trial.

[Tt88]

I havent seen the show yet but heard bits and pieces of the story when it was on this morning. Did gemma get sentenced for performing sexual acts (im guessing with vibrators) on girls who had consented to sex with a man? Did they object to the encounter as it was happening or did they complain after when they found out she was a woman?

I can understand them sentencing her if the girls were underage and she was over, but i cant see how if they consented to the sex and only reported it when they found out she was a woman.

[StressMonkey]

Originally Posted by Tt88

I havent seen the show yet but heard bits and pieces of the story when it was on this morning. Did gemma get sentenced for performing sexual acts (im guessing with vibrators) on girls who had consented to sex with a man? Did they object to the encounter as it was happening or did they complain after when they found out she was a woman?

I can understand them sentencing her if the girls were underage and she was over, but i cant see how if they consented to the sex and only reported it when they found out she was a woman.

You need to watch the prog really but...

There were two girls - 'Alice' and Jess aged 15-16. Gemma (The perpetrator) was 17/18 (19 when it got to court)

'Alice' (made up name to protect her identity) consented to sex with 'Aaron' who turned out to be her friend Gemma with a hat and a dildo.

Jess (Real name) did not consent to any sex but was frequently violated by 'Luke' pretending to be 'Cona' who was really her friend Gemma in a hat. She only reported the sexual assault after 'Cona' assaulted her (but stopped so she could answer her phone) but then fell asleep and Jess realised he was 'Aaron' (Alice's boyfriend) but still didn't realise it was Gemma.

Confused? You will be....

[picklesandginge]

The ending was possibly the best bit for me. When Jessica was having a TOWIE moment with Gemma's friend and she said something like, 'She was so clever, the way she did.....' and Gemma's friend just went 'RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT' and it cut to the end. Amazing.

[StressMonkey]

Originally Posted by picklesandginge

The ending was possibly the best bit for me. When Jessica was having a TOWIE moment with Gemma's friend and she said something like, 'She was so clever, the way she did.....' and Gemma's friend just went 'RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT' and it cut to the end. Amazing.

It was like even she didn't believe Jess.....

[roddydogs]

Originally Posted by Tammi

Something which struck me as odd was when the Gran mentioned she had discussed with Jessica she was unsure wether or not Jessica should be hanging around with Gemma, given that Gemma was 2 years older was what the reply was. There was no "but she is my friend, I enjoy hanging around with her." It was simply "but Gemma has a Car." Therefore it seems as though Jessica and Alice simply used Gemma for her Car and it seems she had money also so this too, this leads me to believe even more she was the manipulated one. Also why did Jessica's Gran have concerns over Jessica hanging around with Gemma simply because she was 2 years older than her but yet she appeared to have no concern whatsoever about letting a boy who covered the majority of his face and refused to speak sleep in her 16 year old Granddaughters bed overnight? A boy she knew nothing about.

& what happened to the "Car" when she became 3 boys?
Current BF is only interested because in his eyes she is "Famous"

[theid]

Originally Posted by katherine500000

the real crime is that the education system turns out people of such unbelievable thickness

So parents have no responsibility to educate their children in any way?

[tally]

Originally Posted by theid

So parents have no responsibility to educate their children in any way?

Well said. Thankfully I got out of teaching to train as a counsellor specialising in rape crimes and battered wives, but once a teacher.........

I didn't train so that I could teach a 7 year old to dress or hold a knife and fork. I realise that today most Mothers need to work outside the home, there is no financial choice, but the basics of social training are the domain of the parent. My teaching days were spent in getting educational basics over, and in classes that regilarly topped 40 that was all I had time for.

This is yet another beef about the C4 documentary. Why no input from parents, school etc. Only Granny who didn't look the brightest tool in the shed, got a say and anyone who'd let a 15 year old share a bed with her boyfriend is courting trouble and being a terrible guardian. Did she not hear the alleged screams of "Stop" "I dont want to" etc? Maybe, just maybe, she didn't hear them because they were never uttered .

[Richardcoulter]

Maybe the girls were suppressed bisexuals/lesbians?*

Many years ago, I knew a lesbian who had a "straight" friend years ago. Every weekend they would share a bed together after a night out and the lesbian would "sort out" the "straight" girl.

Of course, the "straight" girl was always asleep, so couldn't be gay as she knew nothing about it

Some time afterwards, they became lovers for quite a while.

* In my experience, there aren't that many true lesbians about, I have found that most women who have sex with other women do or have had sex with men, so I consider them to be bisexual to a greater or less extent.

[shockedonion]

Originally Posted by tally

Well said. Thankfully I got out of teaching to train as a counsellor specialising in rape crimes and battered wives, but once a teacher.........

I didn't train so that I could teach a 7 year old to dress or hold a knife and fork. I realise that today most Mothers need to work outside the home, there is no financial choice, but the basics of social training are the domain of the parent. My teaching days were spent in getting educational basics over, and in classes that regilarly topped 40 that was all I had time for.

This is yet another beef about the C4 documentary. Why no input from parents, school etc. Only Granny who didn't look the brightest tool in the shed, got a say and anyone who'd let a 15 year old share a bed with her boyfriend is courting trouble and being a terrible guardian. Did she not hear the alleged screams of "Stop" "I dont want to" etc? Maybe, just maybe, she didn't hear them because they were never uttered .

Er excuse me, what about the fathers too, why are you only singling out mothers?

There are lots of working families that bring up their children properly and also single mothers/fathers.