Even if you cannot accept that the girl is a liar perhaps you can accept she is stupid!! Had to discuss the incident with her friends after the event to find out what rape was??? Did not even say NO during the event as she was "numb with fear"!! Went back to the apartment from a club with two men, not unless she was born yesterday, the idea never came into her head that the invite might have been just for sex or did she think they wanted to play cards with her and her friends?? Told the police she was traumatised by the event yet posted pics of herself on a webpage having a riot of an evening with friends, after her "dreadful rape"!!! Stupid, stupid girl who will make it even more difficult for a woman who HAS BEEN raped to get the legal and medical support she needs. Disgraceful.
Why is she stupid? She went to a party with friends. Women all over the world do that every night....are they stupid to? She didnt go back with 2 men....it was a party, numerous men and women were there....she went with friends.
How has she made it more difficult? He was found not guilty....he wasnt found innocent......huge difference.
Considering she told her friends the next morning, she could of got herself to a sexual assault referral centre, and had forensics done.
I think it was clear to most people she slept with 2 blokes in 1 night, felt guilty after and fabricated a rape claim. She should be named, and jailed.
She went straight from the party to the police station. The police arrested him at 6ish in the morning......I would imagine she was refered to a centre and had forensics done by the police.
Considering she told her friends the next morning, she could of got herself to a sexual assault referral centre, and had forensics done.
I think it was clear to most people she slept with 2 blokes in 1 night, felt guilty after and fabricated a rape claim. She should be named, and jailed.
She did go straight to the police after she left, her friends took her there. It was only 'next morning' in the sense that it was after midnight.
She shouldn't be jailed because exactly the same logic applies to her as it does to Jack - no-one apart from those three know what happened in that room and it can't be proven one way or another, a conviction wouldn't stick to Jack but it wouldn't stick to her either.
As far as naming is concerned I think that both parties should remain anonymous until a guilty verdict is reached - be that a guilty verdict for rape or for falsely claiming rape - that would make the system fair.
She did go straight to the police after she left, her friends took her there. It was only 'next morning' in the sense that it was after midnight.
She shouldn't be jailed because exactly the same logic applies to her as it does to Jack - no-one apart from those three know what happened in that room and it can't be proven one way or another, a conviction wouldn't stick to Jack but it wouldn't stick to her either.
As far as naming is concerned I think that both parties should remain anonymous until a guilty verdict is reached - be that a guilty verdict for rape or for falsely claiming rape - that would make the system fair.
If she had been raped, then surely the forensics would not only collect 'samples', but looked for signs of trauma, as i understand it, this is a critical piece of evidence gathering.
I agree that both parties should remain nameless until a verdict.
Why is she stupid? She went to a party with friends. Women all over the world do that every night....are they stupid to? She didnt go back with 2 men....it was a party, numerous men and women were there....she went with friends.
How has she made it more difficult? He was found not guilty....he wasnt found innocent......huge difference.
A lot of women put themselves in unnecessary risk by going off with strangers either alone or with friends. She couldn't have known for sure that there was indeed a party at Jack's house. I would say that such women (and men) are stupid.
If she had been raped, then surely the forensics would not only collect 'samples', but looked for signs of trauma, as i understand it, this is a critical piece of evidence gathering.
I agree that both parties should remain nameless until a verdict.
This has been discussed in the thread already, the forensics could only prove that she had sexual intercourse with Jack and the lack of trauma was consistent either with consensual sex or with a rape where a minimum of violence was used so the forensics proved nothing either way, which is why Jack wasn't convicted. But the same evidence can't prove she lied either.
If she had been raped, then surely the forensics would not only collect 'samples', but looked for signs of trauma, as i understand it, this is a critical piece of evidence gathering.
I agree that both parties should remain nameless until a verdict.
Yes but she had already admitted that she didn't say no so it's unlikely that there would have been any evidence of trauma unless rough sex is the norm for Tweed.
If she had been raped, then surely the forensics would not only collect 'samples', but looked for signs of trauma, as i understand it, this is a critical piece of evidence gathering.
I agree that both parties should remain nameless until a verdict.
They did collect samples and alike...thats why a doctor testified.
A lot of women put themselves in unnecessary risk by going off with strangers either alone or with friends. She couldn't have known for sure that there was indeed a party at Jack's house. I would say that such women (and men) are stupid.
How do we know loads of people from the Embassy that night werent invited? We dont. All we know is there was a party at his home. She also didnt go there alone, she went with friends.
If your saying how did she know there was a party then how do we ever know theres a party going on?
How do we know loads of people from the Embassy that night werent invited? We dont. All we know is there was a party at his home. She also didnt go there alone, she went with friends.
If your saying how did she know there was a party then how do we ever know theres a party going on?
That's beside the point. Everyone could have been invited but I maintain that going off with strangers is stupid.
That's beside the point. Everyone could have been invited but I maintain that going off with strangers is stupid.
Maybe they werent strangers by the end of the evening at the Embassy. Just maybe one of the friends knew one of Jacks friends....who knows.
We all begin as strangers.......
He does get paid for that believe it or not. I do actually know someone who went on Big Brother and was paid just to turn up at clubs for a while, and she's one of the more successful ones.
That's unbelievable even though sadly it's not a shock to hear. Unfortunately now LittleKitten he'll get paid a lot more and I'm sure will revel in it too :rolleyes: He'll use his acquittal for rape at every opportunity thus fattening his bank account. For me I'd want to be known for being myself and not some leech or user..then again I don't think morals come into it where Tweed's concerned.
Maybe they werent strangers by the end of the evening at the Embassy. Just maybe one of the friends knew one of Jacks friends....who knows.
We all begin as strangers.......
In my book, that scenario is acceptable. Anything else is stupid!
A lot of women put themselves in unnecessary risk by going off with strangers either alone or with friends. She couldn't have known for sure that there was indeed a party at Jack's house. I would say that such women (and men) are stupid.
You are being hard on a young woman, how old was she at the time 19? I don't understand why you think she was stupid, she didn't go alone. Now if she had gone alone that might have been considered a trifle silly
After reading the details of the so-called "rape" in the newspaper I am amazed this case was taken to trial. The girl obviously went back to the apartment with her friend very happily and did not refuse to have sex as she said she was numb with fear!!! It was only after the event that she thought she "might have been raped" but had to discuss it with her friends before she was sure!!!! Then insisting she was permanently damaged by the experience, could not go out alone or go out with friends clubbing etc yet she had posted pics of herself on a webpage having a merry old time out clubbing since her ordeal, was farcical!! It took the jury fifteen minutes to find Jack Tweed innocent!!!!! Why on earth did the police take this case seriously when obviously the girls account was, shall we say, suspect to say the least!!!!
She obviously wasn't a credible witness if the jury only took 15 minutes to convict her. The Police would HAVE to take her case seriously, it was up to the CPS. They examine the evidence that the police have collated and decide whether it's worth proceeding with a prosecution.
This girl was her own worst enemy really. She told glaring lies about not going out afterwards when the evidence of her lies could be easily found nowadays due to facebook etc. A bit thick I have to say.
I know I haven't got the evidence in front of me but I still believe that she agreed to sex with Jack but did not expect his friend to join in, that's what freaked her out and THAT'S why she wasn't sure whether she'd been raped or not. It's a very grey area. And of course there is the (arguably outdated) train of thought that no 'decent' young woman would go back to a strangers house and that she was almost 'asking' for what happened. There isn't alot of sympathy with some people for women who put themselves in positions of potential danger in this way. And women tend to be other women's worst critics in these cases, I read that in America the defence prefers men on the jury in rape trials!
Even if you cannot accept that the girl is a liar perhaps you can accept she is stupid!! Had to discuss the incident with her friends after the event to find out what rape was??? Did not even say NO during the event as she was "numb with fear"!! Went back to the apartment from a club with two men, not unless she was born yesterday, the idea never came into her head that the invite might have been just for sex or did she think they wanted to play cards with her and her friends?? Told the police she was traumatised by the event yet posted pics of herself on a webpage having a riot of an evening with friends, after her "dreadful rape"!!! Stupid, stupid girl who will make it even more difficult for a woman who HAS BEEN raped to get the legal and medical support she needs. Disgraceful.
All very valid points and probably what lost her the case. And I agree that if she wasn't 100% sure what had happened she shouldn't have gone to trial and definitely should have kept her head down until after the trial.
Women nowadays are being raped and choosing not to prosecute because successful prosecutions are becoming more and more of a rarity. Are we to believe that all these women are lying? Of course not. THIS case is another one which will put women off 'if she can't win her case' etc, therefore putting rapists back on the street to do it again :mad:
If she had been raped, then surely the forensics would not only collect 'samples', but looked for signs of trauma, as i understand it, this is a critical piece of evidence gathering.
I agree that both parties should remain nameless until a verdict.
What samples? Semen, pubic hair, saliva? All signs of sexual intercourse/activity but not necessarily rape. And there doesn't need to be vaginal trauma to prove rape, the man could just say they had 'rough sex' which she was a willing participant in. I have to say that the odds are stacked against the woman from the off.
And I should imagine that they name the man as a warning to other women although I do think this is quite unfair in alot of cases. Mud sticks and all that. It must be horrible to be accused to rape if you're innocent because even if you're found not guilty the damage to your name is already done with the attitude of 'there's no smoke without fire'. If if someone IS guilty but gets off, well I for one am glad there name is out there. But how do we know for sure who is guilty and who is innocent? Maybe it WOULD be fairer if both names are kept secret. However, in the area where they live, surely everyone would know anyway whether the names are disclosed or not? Gossip spreads like wildfire doesn't it?
I was wondering about the jurors and if they're allowed to speak out about why they came to their decision. I don't know whether they'd be allowed but seen as Jack Tweed, I'm sure, will sell his story, does that mean that others involved with the case can talk about it in the media? Does anyone know if jurors can't speak out about it?
One thing I assume would prevent any of the jury speaking out is the fact that they'd want to remain anonymous. I'm just not sure of the legalities.
Lets hope this makes a few 'lads' give it a bit of thought before they assume a girl is 'willing'. The fact she didn't say no didn't mean she was up for anything.
There wasn't enough evidence for the jury to be sure without reasonable doubt that either side was being honest and it could easily have gone the other way.
Parents out there really need to have a word with their sons as well as their daughters about how they should be keeping themselves safe from attack or the risk of charges being brought against them if a girl isn't in a condition to not regret what has happened after.
I was wondering about the jurors and if they're allowed to speak out about why they came to their decision. I don't know whether they'd be allowed but seen as Jack Tweed, I'm sure, will sell his story, does that mean that others involved with the case can talk about it in the media? Does anyone know if jurors can't speak out about it?
One thing I assume would prevent any of the jury speaking out is the fact that they'd want to remain anonymous. I'm just not sure of the legalities.
* Discuss the case you are involved with anyone who is not a member of your own jury.
* Forget to attend the court where your jury is sitting, or be incapable of attending because of drink or drugs. These offences could mean you are fined up to £1,000.
* Bring a camera, mobile phone, laptop or other recording equipment into the courtroom.
* Let anyone else take your place on a jury. It is a criminal offence to impersonate a sitting juror.
* Take any notes you have made in the courtroom home with you. This information is sensitive and could affect the case your jury is sitting on.
What Happens if I Break these Rules?
If you don’t follow the rules that are set out for all jury members you face a fine of up to £1,000 for lesser offences such as not completing forms or being late at court. However, it’s important that you understand that the jury is part of the legal system. If you discuss your case with anyone other than another jury member, you could be perverting the course of justice, which is a much more serious offence.
The talking rules apply even after the case has finished :
Thanks for that, I know when my husband served on a jury several years ago he wasn't allowed to discuss the case but I did wonder if the rules had changed.
It seems that the only people who are allowed to speak about this (and say what they like) are Tweed and Davis. That just doesn't seem fair to me, even moreso now. I know in America I've watched jurors interviewed several times but didn't know how the law applied to British jurors. If I was a juror myself I'd want to keep my anonymity even if speaking about the case was allowed.
I like it when Jack Tweed threads crop up, because we hear from Cherry pip and omah:):)
Fred..how are you I'm having huge problems at the moment when I'm here at DS..the laptop keeps freezing on me. I saw your post earlier and wanted to PM you but it happened again It's been happening for a few weeks now, it's getting very annoying. When I get it sorted I'll be back as I have missed you
Thanks for that, I know when my husband served on a jury several years ago he wasn't allowed to discuss the case but I did wonder if the rules had changed.
It seems that the only people who are allowed to speak about this (and say what they like) are Tweed and Davis. That just doesn't seem fair to me, even moreso now. I know in America I've watched jurors interviewed several times but didn't know how the law applied to British jurors. If I was a juror myself I'd want to keep my anonymity even if speaking about the case was allowed.
The girl involved is free to say what she likes and can choose whether or not to keep her anonimity. The only way Jack could shut her up was if he threatened to sue her and I don't think he'd do that because there would be a chance a civil court might decide there was a likelihood he did rape her and refuse his case on those grounds which I don't think he'd risk.
Comments
Why is she stupid? She went to a party with friends. Women all over the world do that every night....are they stupid to? She didnt go back with 2 men....it was a party, numerous men and women were there....she went with friends.
How has she made it more difficult? He was found not guilty....he wasnt found innocent......huge difference.
She went straight from the party to the police station. The police arrested him at 6ish in the morning......I would imagine she was refered to a centre and had forensics done by the police.
She did go straight to the police after she left, her friends took her there. It was only 'next morning' in the sense that it was after midnight.
She shouldn't be jailed because exactly the same logic applies to her as it does to Jack - no-one apart from those three know what happened in that room and it can't be proven one way or another, a conviction wouldn't stick to Jack but it wouldn't stick to her either.
As far as naming is concerned I think that both parties should remain anonymous until a guilty verdict is reached - be that a guilty verdict for rape or for falsely claiming rape - that would make the system fair.
If she had been raped, then surely the forensics would not only collect 'samples', but looked for signs of trauma, as i understand it, this is a critical piece of evidence gathering.
I agree that both parties should remain nameless until a verdict.
A lot of women put themselves in unnecessary risk by going off with strangers either alone or with friends. She couldn't have known for sure that there was indeed a party at Jack's house. I would say that such women (and men) are stupid.
This has been discussed in the thread already, the forensics could only prove that she had sexual intercourse with Jack and the lack of trauma was consistent either with consensual sex or with a rape where a minimum of violence was used so the forensics proved nothing either way, which is why Jack wasn't convicted. But the same evidence can't prove she lied either.
Yes but she had already admitted that she didn't say no so it's unlikely that there would have been any evidence of trauma unless rough sex is the norm for Tweed.
They did collect samples and alike...thats why a doctor testified.
How do we know loads of people from the Embassy that night werent invited? We dont. All we know is there was a party at his home. She also didnt go there alone, she went with friends.
If your saying how did she know there was a party then how do we ever know theres a party going on?
That's beside the point. Everyone could have been invited but I maintain that going off with strangers is stupid.
Maybe they werent strangers by the end of the evening at the Embassy. Just maybe one of the friends knew one of Jacks friends....who knows.
We all begin as strangers.......
That's unbelievable even though sadly it's not a shock to hear. Unfortunately now LittleKitten he'll get paid a lot more and I'm sure will revel in it too :rolleyes: He'll use his acquittal for rape at every opportunity thus fattening his bank account. For me I'd want to be known for being myself and not some leech or user..then again I don't think morals come into it where Tweed's concerned.
In my book, that scenario is acceptable. Anything else is stupid!
You are truly obsessed with Max Clifford!
You are being hard on a young woman, how old was she at the time 19? I don't understand why you think she was stupid, she didn't go alone. Now if she had gone alone that might have been considered a trifle silly
Hiya Tartie! How are you? I am ignoring too!
Nice to see Marky back defending Jack.
So will this week's Sunday papers feature Jack do you think?
She obviously wasn't a credible witness if the jury only took 15 minutes to convict her. The Police would HAVE to take her case seriously, it was up to the CPS. They examine the evidence that the police have collated and decide whether it's worth proceeding with a prosecution.
This girl was her own worst enemy really. She told glaring lies about not going out afterwards when the evidence of her lies could be easily found nowadays due to facebook etc. A bit thick I have to say.
I know I haven't got the evidence in front of me but I still believe that she agreed to sex with Jack but did not expect his friend to join in, that's what freaked her out and THAT'S why she wasn't sure whether she'd been raped or not. It's a very grey area. And of course there is the (arguably outdated) train of thought that no 'decent' young woman would go back to a strangers house and that she was almost 'asking' for what happened. There isn't alot of sympathy with some people for women who put themselves in positions of potential danger in this way. And women tend to be other women's worst critics in these cases, I read that in America the defence prefers men on the jury in rape trials!
All very valid points and probably what lost her the case. And I agree that if she wasn't 100% sure what had happened she shouldn't have gone to trial and definitely should have kept her head down until after the trial.
Women nowadays are being raped and choosing not to prosecute because successful prosecutions are becoming more and more of a rarity. Are we to believe that all these women are lying? Of course not. THIS case is another one which will put women off 'if she can't win her case' etc, therefore putting rapists back on the street to do it again :mad:
What samples? Semen, pubic hair, saliva? All signs of sexual intercourse/activity but not necessarily rape. And there doesn't need to be vaginal trauma to prove rape, the man could just say they had 'rough sex' which she was a willing participant in. I have to say that the odds are stacked against the woman from the off.
And I should imagine that they name the man as a warning to other women although I do think this is quite unfair in alot of cases. Mud sticks and all that. It must be horrible to be accused to rape if you're innocent because even if you're found not guilty the damage to your name is already done with the attitude of 'there's no smoke without fire'. If if someone IS guilty but gets off, well I for one am glad there name is out there. But how do we know for sure who is guilty and who is innocent? Maybe it WOULD be fairer if both names are kept secret. However, in the area where they live, surely everyone would know anyway whether the names are disclosed or not? Gossip spreads like wildfire doesn't it?
One thing I assume would prevent any of the jury speaking out is the fact that they'd want to remain anonymous. I'm just not sure of the legalities.
There wasn't enough evidence for the jury to be sure without reasonable doubt that either side was being honest and it could easily have gone the other way.
Parents out there really need to have a word with their sons as well as their daughters about how they should be keeping themselves safe from attack or the risk of charges being brought against them if a girl isn't in a condition to not regret what has happened after.
http://www.courtroomadvice.co.uk/rules-of-jury-service.html
The talking rules apply even after the case has finished :
http://lcjb.cjsonline.gov.uk/area33/library/You%20and%20Your%20Jury%20Service.pdf
Thanks for that, I know when my husband served on a jury several years ago he wasn't allowed to discuss the case but I did wonder if the rules had changed.
It seems that the only people who are allowed to speak about this (and say what they like) are Tweed and Davis. That just doesn't seem fair to me, even moreso now. I know in America I've watched jurors interviewed several times but didn't know how the law applied to British jurors. If I was a juror myself I'd want to keep my anonymity even if speaking about the case was allowed.
The girl involved is free to say what she likes and can choose whether or not to keep her anonimity. The only way Jack could shut her up was if he threatened to sue her and I don't think he'd do that because there would be a chance a civil court might decide there was a likelihood he did rape her and refuse his case on those grounds which I don't think he'd risk.