Not guilty - but pay up!

[Gordon R]

Retsdon - decent post.

[Mickeydredd]

6 hours ago, Uilleachan said:

Financial awards are made by the court to compensate for "Damages" incurred, they're not set by the claimant.  

 

 

6 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Its unlikely she will see a penny according to the story I read, it will be swallowed up by court costs, thats if he HAS any money to start with ?

We must have read different reports of the story.

Miss M has now mounted an action through the civil courts, seeking just under £100,000 in damages and financial losses.

She has been granted funding to cover her costs by the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the case will begin in March. She says she has been supported throughout the case by the University of St Andrews."

[Rewulf]

9 minutes ago, Mickeydredd said:

 

We must have read different reports of the story.

 

"The sheriff said Miss M had been distressed and had resisted but Mr Coxen had continued to rape her.

He agreed that she should be paid £80,000 in damages.

Miss M told BBC Scotland it was highly unlikely she would see any of the money as it would be clawed back to pay legal costs.

She said: "The thing that has happened from the civil trial is that people will see the type of person that Stephen Coxen is."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-45760372

[ShootingEgg]

3 hours ago, Laird Lugton said:

But his evidence wasn’t sufficient for a not guilty verdict either. For the final time it was NOT PROVEN. Therefore he was not found to be not guilty.

If he had been convicted would she have taken it to the civil court?

This is probably more to do with seeking some kind of justice than for financial gain.

So they are both smashed and sleep together, he could say she raped him.

 

So yes it was not proven hence me saying it was not enough for for him to be convicted. But they were both drunk, so why is it him at fault? Anyone asked that. He happily said yes we slept together and both said yes, dont think he denies that. 

[Gordon R]

Mickeydredd - your quotes are from February 2018. Events have moved on - the case has been heard. Please keep up.

Quote

So yes it was not proven hence me saying it was not enough for for him to be convicted. But they were both drunk, so why is it him at fault? Anyone asked that. He happily said yes we slept together and both said yes, dont think he denies that. 

She made a far more credible witness than he did - hence her success. He did it - the Sherriff, who had all the facts, said so.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Gordon R

[Munzy]

49 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

But they were both drunk, so why is it him at fault?

Because the Sheriff found, “Miss M had been distressed and had resisted but Mr Coxen had continued”.

This isn’t rocket science.

[ShootingEgg]

26 minutes ago, Munzy said:

Because the Sheriff found, “Miss M had been distressed and had resisted but Mr Coxen had continued”.

This isn’t rocket science.

No its his word against hers, a criminal court found her evidence not substantial enough so not proven, yet she is getting 80k out of a civil court. 

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

No its his word against hers, a criminal court found her evidence not substantial enough so not proven, yet she is getting 80k out of a civil court. 

Most rape cases are .

[Retsdon]

12 hours ago, Mungler said:

Right or wrong I cant but help think that in situations such as this most girls would be safest listening to the practical advice of their nan. If you’ve a girly and you’ve been laughing at all his jokes and rubbing up against him on the dance floor sll evening and then go back to his place at 2 am, hes either going to be the famous Nescafé actor Anthony Head and you’re game on for a delicious cup of coffee or....

You're correct of course. And the advice is sound in the same way that it's also good advice not to hang round city centres at 2am on a Friday night. But it's not a defence for the rapist. If, in the small hours, you're in a dodgy area with the wrong haircut and clothes and a bloke steps up and puts one on you for no apparent reason while you're eating your chips - he's still 100% guilty of battery or whatever.  Likewise a man who forces himself on a woman in any circumstances at all is guilty of rape. And the she 'led me on' excuse is no defence whatsoever. One of the endearing traits of women is that they can be fickle creatures, and when push comes to shove (sorry!)  they will on occasion have a change of heart at the most inconvenient moments. But it's perfectly OK because that's their prerogative. As a youthful Lothario I was KBd at the last moment on their doorsteps, on my doorstep, in bedsit apartments, in their beds, in my bed, on sofas, in cars, boats, barns - oh, and on beaches a couple of times too. All revved up and nowhere to go!  Naturally it's frustrating  but so what? These occasions are part of the game and should just be laughed off. Better luck next time.....

But the key thing is this. Deep down, people know the score. I can honestly say that never ever - no matter how under the influence or revved up I might have been at the time- did I ever once fail to understand clearly what  message was being conveyed. Regardless of what has gone on beforehand if a girl really doesn't want things to progress it's always as plain as day.

And that's why I have very little sympathy for any kind of 'grey' date rape defence. I know it's a lie.

[Laird Lugton]

Another great post Retsdon 👍

 

 

[Gordon R]

Quote

No its his word against hers, a criminal court found her evidence not substantial enough so not proven, yet she is getting 80k out of a civil court. 

Do you not comprehend the difference between Criminal and Civil courts? The Sherriff, who does understand the law, said he raped her and she is getting nothing - all gone in legal fees. He has a debt, rather than serving time in prison, where rapist are hardly treated like royalty. He got off very lightly.

In short, his word wasn't worth a bean - read what the Sherriff said. It is that simple.

PS - I agree - another good post Retsdon.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Gordon R

[Mickeydredd]

3 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Mickeydredd - your quotes are from February 2018. Events have moved on - the case has been heard. Please keep up.

She made a far more credible witness than he did - hence her success. He did it - the Sherriff, who had all the facts, said so.

well of course the case has been heard. 

How does that negate the stated reason she brought the case? 

Was the funding to cover her legal costs withdrawn by Scottish Legal Aid?  if so then she was more rogered by them than her alleged rapist.

[Gordon R]

She brought the case to expose Coxen for what he is, with Civil Action her next option. You need to read and think before making daft posts.

A young woman has been raped, her future harmed and the odd idiot pops up to make smart remarks at her expense. Pathetic

[hambone]

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

You're correct of course. And the advice is sound in the same way that it's also good advice not to hang round city centres at 2am on a Friday night. But it's not a defence for the rapist. If, in the small hours, you're in a dodgy area with the wrong haircut and clothes and a bloke steps up and puts one on you for no apparent reason while you're eating your chips - he's still 100% guilty of battery or whatever.  Likewise a man who forces himself on a woman in any circumstances at all is guilty of rape. And the she 'led me on' excuse is no defence whatsoever. One of the endearing traits of women is that they can be fickle creatures, and when push comes to shove (sorry!)  they will on occasion have a change of heart at the most inconvenient moments. But it's perfectly OK because that's their prerogative. As a youthful Lothario I was KBd at the last moment on their doorsteps, on my doorstep, in bedsit apartments, in their beds, in my bed, on sofas, in cars, boats, barns - oh, and on beaches a couple of times too. All revved up and nowhere to go!  Naturally it's frustrating  but so what? These occasions are part of the game and should just be laughed off. Better luck next time.....

But the key thing is this. Deep down, people know the score. I can honestly say that never ever - no matter how under the influence or revved up I might have been at the time- did I ever once fail to understand clearly what  message was being conveyed. Regardless of what has gone on beforehand if a girl really doesn't want things to progress it's always as plain as day.

And that's why I have very little sympathy for any kind of 'grey' date rape defence. I know it's a lie.

100% agree with you but it's not unknown for one of these 'fickle' women to wake up in the morning after a night of drunken passion full of regret and claim that she didn't really want to or had not said yes.  

[Mickeydredd]

13 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

 She brought the case to expose Coxen for what he is, with Civil Action her next option. You need to read and think before making daft posts.

A young woman has been raped, her future harmed and the odd idiot pops up to make smart remarks at her expense. Pathetic

I've read all the stories on the BBC links and newspaper links - interestingly the story differs between some of them regarding when she hits a state of consciousness.

Allegedly raped, according to a court of law rather than a he says / she says, corner shop cash generator. 

just because one guy found her more believable than the guy on the other side of the room doesn't make it so.

You weren't in St Andrews with them on the night any more than I was and are in no better position than me to judge the guy, you've just read a story on the internet that you are taking as gospel...a dangerous thing to do.

He may well be guilty, that isn't the point I'm denying.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Mickeydredd

[Gordon R]

Quote

You weren't in St Andrews with them on the night any more than I was and are in no better position than me to judge the guy, you've just read a story on the internet that you are taking as gospel...a dangerous thing to do.

The internet is a funny place. Keyboard idiots start making crass remarks about the girl, with no justification. Just what gives you the right to make a poor joke at her expense? You really need to grow up.

[Mickeydredd]

7 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

The internet is a funny place. Keyboard idiots start making crass remarks about the girl, with no justification. Just what gives you the right to make a poor joke at her expense? You really need to grow up.

you need to consider that others may have a different opinion from yours rather than exclaiming they are not capable of reading and thinking and calling them idiots.

Night night

Edited October 16, 2018 by Mickeydredd

[Gordon R]

Your ignorance of the law is amply demonstrated with this piece of inaccurate garbage:-

Quote

Allegedly raped, according to a court of law rather than a he says / she says, corner shop cash generator. 

Do you comprehend what a court of law actually is? This says you haven't a clue.

[Vince Green]

4 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Mickeydredd - your quotes are from February 2018. Events have moved on - the case has been heard. Please keep up.

She made a far more credible witness than he did - hence her success. He did it - the Sherriff, who had all the facts, said so.

Yes but how risky a venture that was for her and her family? I have said this before, whatever the rights and wrongs, going to law is madness to prove a point

Its actually much cheaper to get somebody whacked than it is to sue them in London.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Vince Green

[Gordon R]

Vince - I have to agree. She must have been very determined and believed that she was right. If she had been slandered or libelled, then she would probably have been better to move on, but she was raped. A brave young lady, but it could have gone horribly wrong.

I can understand people having a different opinion - that's life, but I draw the line when some oddballs start making rather tasteless remarks about her. She has to live with this for the rest of her life and no doubt there will always be doubters.

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, hambone said:

...but it's not unknown for one of these 'fickle' women to wake up in the morning after a night of drunken passion full of regret...

And not just 'fickle' women. Who, on occasion, hasn't taken a quick look across the bed in the morning and not winced? 😱

1 hour ago, hambone said:

and claim that she didn't really want to or had not said yes.

Claim to whom? The police? I don't believe it. Everybody's normal reaction in those circumstances is to make an excuse to either get the mistake out of the place before anyone sees them,  or if playing away to leave yourself asap. The :last thing any normal person would do would be to invite this unwanted guest completely and publicly into their lives  - possibly for years - as an adversary in a traumatic legal case. And women are normal people.

In how many actual cases has this happened? It's impossible to say 'never', but I'm going to say that the scenario you describe is an urban legend which has grown from 'grey area' not guilty defence pleas to real assaults.....

Edited October 16, 2018 by Retsdon

[Mungler]

The problem with having an effective second trial is that the prosecution points that didn’t succeed in the first trial can be refined and represented  - a second bite of the cherry if you will.

Not proven appears to be the correct criminal outcome (it’s his word against hers, no physical evidence and no witnesses), and ditto one would have thought a similar outcome in the civil case - it is for the claimant to prove a case on the balance of probabilities but again the only evidence will be what a Court saw before in the criminal trial ‘and’ the parties oral evidence. The civil judge is noted as accepting Ms M’s evidence as better. Really? I can’t remember what I was doing 5 days ago let alone 5 years when I was blotto.

It transpires Ms M’s civil case was paid for by a special division of the legal aid board and there’s some interesting commentary on line about the nature of this ‘sponsorship’. If her legal bill was £80k and that was a open wallet job funded by the tax payer, what if the accused was strapped for cash, didn’t get legal aid and couldn’t resist the state funded civil prosecution ie what if there was no equality of arms?

No one knows what happened that night. However I have seen a civil case get tried, the judge lost his note book and then ordered a retrial - guess what, the retrial looked nothing like the first; witnesses that bombed in round 1 were dropped or cut short in round 2, weaknesses and holes were patched and bolstered and the side that faired badly in round 1 faired better in round 2 because they were able to isolate and make good their mistakes.

Following on, what if Ms M lost at first instance in the civil courts and then got legal aid for an appeal.

This is starting to smell of keeping going until you get the outcome you want and it’s a dangerous path.

[Mickeydredd]

10 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Your ignorance of the law is amply demonstrated with this piece of inaccurate garbage:-

Do you comprehend what a court of law actually is? This says you haven't a clue.

ah, sorry I didn't realise you were Mr Literal

[Gordon R]

Quote

ah, sorry I didn't realise you were Mr Literal

Better to be exact than post something dumb.

I will bow out on this one, as no-one can be 100% certain either way. That said, it would be nice if people stopped making nasty remarks about the girl, whilst no-one seems to dish out the same to the lad, who was found guilty.

[henry d]

4 hours ago, Gordon R said:

That said, it would be nice if people stopped making nasty remarks about the girl, whilst no-one seems to dish out the same to the lad, who was found guilty.

Allow me....

https://tenor.com/view/pirates-hang-johnny-depp-gif-5602160