Jump to content

Not guilty - but pay up!


Lloyd90
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

Twisting your own words---if she said she didn’t consent and he said she did how can she possibly prove his guilt

She can’t prove it based solely off her word can she? That was my point from both sides. 

Neither of them can prove anything as all they both have is their word, and they’re both saying the other is lying. 

Thats why I said there is no evidence, no proof. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

.  I have a perfect understanding of the proposed system. There’s probably a reason it’s only used in Scotland and not the rest of the U.K. 

The reason is; it used to only have proven or not proven until they added innocent. Not proven is not the same as innocent.

as above the reverse is also true, but in the civil case the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and has to be on a balance of probability, as the jury previously tied to prove beyond reasonable doubt and could not prove the defendant guilty they would have said innocent if they had reasonable doubt he had done it, but they couldn`t either way so that was the reason it was not proven. In the civil case a respected judge (sherrif) was able to weigh the evidence and on the balance of probabilities found for the young lady. If she could not prove on the balance of probabilities that he did rape her then he was off with a not guilty verdict. Yes we don`t have the full transcript or a run down of the salient points, we have to trust someone who has a better grasp of the law rather than the jurors who come from all walks of life and education levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

As I said previously, if she said she didn’t consent and he said she did how can he possibly prove his innocence? 

I"ve been reading up about it and it seems that there were/are more factors involved than simply one person's word against another. She was extremely drunk at the time to the point of being almost incapable, and the sequence of events leading up to them being alone in her flat were strongly suggestive of an intent on the part of Coxen to take advantage of her condition. And in the initial trial, neither this unfavourable sequence of events nor the woman's condition were disputed by the defence. Also not in dispute was the expert medical testimony that the woman subsequently displayed clinical and classic symptoms of PTSD, a condition she was not suffering from before, and which she has unswervingly attributed to the events of that night. Admittedly, none of this stuff proves that a rape occurred and that's why there was a 'not proven' verdict. And, of course as you say he can't 'prove' his innocence either. But to be honest under the circumstances would a 'not guilty' verdict have proved him innocent? It would still just be one person's word against another's but with the other factors given less weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Against my better judgement - hard not to comment. Please don't get clever and have another pop - it makes you look silly.

Based on your premise, how could he ever be found guilty? You don't have an understanding - perfect or even basic. It isn't proposed - it's been there for a long, long time. Many English Laws are based in Scottish Law, which is considered to be superior.

 

Once again asking someone not to throw around insults, whilst trying to insult them ... 

will this be the third or fourth time you’ve left this thread now? 

Individuals are found guilty of this crime, based on evidence. Forensic, physical marks whatever it is. 

I recall another case like this but in England. The woman stated she couldn’t remember whether she consented or not because she drank too much. 

How can she be sure someone raped her but not sure whether she asked for consensual sex? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

I recall another case like this but in England. The woman stated she couldn’t remember whether she consented or not because she drank too much. 

How can she be sure someone raped her but not sure whether she asked for consensual sex? 

The law is bit opaque. Not sure in Scotland . .but in England and Wales:-

if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. Further.....capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. .   https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-3-consent 

I think a good rule of thumb under these circumstances would be that if the girl is struggling to walk home - as in the St Andrew's case - she's probably off limits no matter what she says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Neither of them can prove anything as all they both have is their word, and they’re both saying the other is lying. 

Thats why I said there is no evidence, no proof. 

But Lloyd, there is evidence. There's no doubt that she was rotten drunk and, quite frankly, nobody but a right **** would have done anything other than just see her inside and leave. To hell with the bloke as far as I'm concerned whatever the verdict.

http://www.thesaint-online.com/2018/10/miss-m-an-in-depth-feature-on-the-landmark-scottish-case/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

If there are no marks, just how could he get convicted - by your bizarre logic?

You are clueless.

You just can’t help but throw insults around can you. 

That aside, this entire case is a nightmare. 

 

I just hope no one on this forum is every accused of anything by the anti’s, it’s your word against theirs and someone in authority decides that “you probably did it”, without any evidence. 

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

The law is bit opaque. Not sure in Scotland . .but in England and Wales:-

if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. Further.....capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. .   https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-3-consent 

I think a good rule of thumb under these circumstances would be that if the girl is struggling to walk home - as in the St Andrew's case - she's probably off limits no matter what she says.

Absolutely agree with you there! Unfortunately as the saying goes, it’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove! 

A sad day when a guilty person walks free, but thank god we don’t live in a country where they can punish you because you ‘probably did it’. 

 

Edited by Lloyd90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Absolutely agree with you there! 

 

Well there you are then! Did you read the 'in depth' link I posted above? The girl was completely and utterly hammered - throwing stuff out of her purse onto the ground while looking for a card, warned off drinking more by security, staggering up the street, dropping her keys....How did this bloke think she was in any fit state to consent to anything? Quite honestly, given the state of her I think he was well lucky to get off with a not proven verdict in the first trial. And there's the period thing too. Yes, we all know that sex can bring on an impending period, but she must have known she was due and I refuse to believe that a 21 year old student  who was in command of her faculties would allow herself the humiliation of bleeding all over the bed and the room while having sex with a total stranger. None of it adds up to consciously given consent. I think you're carrying a torch for the wrong cause here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Well there you are then! Did you read the 'in depth' link I posted above? The girl was completely and utterly hammered - throwing stuff out of her purse onto the ground while looking for a card, warned off drinking more by security, staggering up the street, dropping her keys....How did this bloke think she was in any fit state to consent to anything? Quite honestly, given the state of her I think he was well lucky to get off with a not proven verdict in the first trial. And there's the period thing too. Yes, we all know that sex can bring on an impending period, but she must have known she was due and I refuse to believe that a 21 year old student  who was in command of her faculties would allow herself the humiliation of bleeding all over the bed and the room while having sex with a total stranger. None of it adds up to consciously given consent. I think you're carrying a torch for the wrong cause here...

No point this thread going on and on as it’s so divisive. 

I only carry the torch that there needs to be good evidence for someone to be found guilty and not just decided by someone, I find that very dangerous ground to be on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

There was evidence - it's called testimony - and he was found guilty. Before you prattle on about insults, you need to brush up on your grasp of the law.

Jesus Gordon will this be the 6th time you’ve left the thread? 

You can’t help yourself. 

Besides I thought we all proclaimed he was found ‘not proven’ ...

on top of that - if her testimony is evidence that he did do it, then is his testimony that he didn’t do it also evidence? 

 

 

Edited by Lloyd90
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I'll add to this thread is innocent people in our prison system is thankfully a very rare event, infact most people serving time have done so before so you'd have to be a very unlucky person to be convicted more than once for something you didn't do, most wrongfull convictions which as I've already said are thankfully exceededingly rare are usually people who are still linked to the case, for instance someone involved with beating someone half to death but who didn't actually administer the fatal blow, I'm not saying it's right but without abolishing jailing people, I don't see a viable solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lloyd90 - just to keep it simple - both agree sex took place, there were no marks and forensics would be of no value. How could the prosecution ever get a conviction, if he denied rape? Straight answer - no evasion - it seems to be your forte.

You don't seem to accept that the first court didn't find him innocent and the Sheriff later found him guilty. He has had two trials and neither found him innocent. You don't know the difference between conclusive proof and evidence.

You are correct in the assumption (despite you overstating everything) that I find it hard to let utter rubbish pass without comment.

I trust you never find yourself on a Jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Lloyd90 - just to keep it simple - both agree sex took place, there were no marks and forensics would be of no value. How could the prosecution ever get a conviction, if he denied rape? Straight answer - no evasion - it seems to be your forte.

You don't seem to accept that the first court didn't find him innocent and the Sheriff later found him guilty. He has had two trials and neither found him innocent. You don't know the difference between conclusive proof and evidence.

You are correct in the assumption (despite you overstating everything) that I find it hard to let utter rubbish pass without comment.

I trust you never find yourself on a Jury.

That was a good post Gordon I quite liked that. You put your point across very well when not throwing in sneaky insults. 

You almost made it all the way through without doing it 😂

 

Let’s not fall out over it though please. 

End of the day if he did do it I hope he has a nasty accident and hurts himself... karma and all that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I note that you evaded answering again.

To answer your question: they couldn’t. Same as he couldn’t prove his claimed innocence. 

Apologies I thought I’d stated that in previous posts so didn’t think it necessary to repeat it over and over. 

Its a stale mate. Neither side can prove their version of events is the true one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scotslad said:

Hypothetical question here related to this case.

 

If he had been found not guilty (which i know he wasn't) can u still proceed with a civil hearing?

Or because he was not guilty he's innocent of that crime and can't be charged with it again even in a civil court?

I’d be interested as this is what happened with OJ Simpson after his murder acquittal. I assume there will be a difference between US and UK law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...