Woman sends innocent man to jail for 7 years on a false rape charge !

Two trials, two juries, two convictions.

 

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

Come on man, you don't get to call something a straw man when you literally have no clue what you are talking about.

Rubin Carter was also tried and convicted twice, then got a third trial and was set free.

So by your views he should not have gotten the third trial, is that correct?

I am sorry you don't want to talk about the subject as it puts a "tear" in your argument, but it is anything but a strawman.

 

...based on zero evidence.

Maybe someday you'll get to enjoy this type of event.

 

Which means what? That you support the prosecutorial misconduct that produced this? The lies that those convictions were based on? Yes, we know the statistics. Do you have a point at all?

 

In Texas, doing that is called "being tough on crime" and executing innocent men helps elevate you to the governorship.

 

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

See, it's people like this chick in the article that make me justified in saying some people just deserve to be killed.

 

Two trials, two convictions, two juries, all agreed (twice) that they thought
that the prosecution proved beyond a shadow of the doubt that he was guilty.

A fair trial without means that the juries heard both sides and decided to
believe one side and not the other.

That is how trials work.

 

That the police & prosecution failed to notice how many times & varied parties were accused of rape & etc. in a short timespan is on them. I assume that their police & DA recordkeeping in UK is computerized, & the fact that @ least one man was accused twice should have in itself triggered double-checking by the prosecution. They should have tumbled that they had someone with apparent issues, who acted out by accusing men wholesale of rape.

The other question: There was no forensic evidence? No medical exams nor swab tests were done?

I don't fault liberal ideology, that's not what courts run on anyway. It was very sloppy police work, & a failure to think about the patterns that show up when you consider the number of allegations of assaults & charges that the accuser was generating in the police & court system.

 

Clearly there could be no forensic evidence for an event that never happened, therefore he was convicted twice on nothing more than her testimony and liberal guilt.

I'd argue liberal ideology is on full display in our legal system.

 

Right, after two juries with say two dozen people saying that someone is guilty,
we should go back to you and you can decide the person who isn't even on
trial be put to death.

 

These parst here are quite important: making bogus complaints is considered lying. That's bad.

 

The outcome depends on how UK treats perjury. If the accuser was the only witness, & the prosecution turned on her testimony, then the whole prosecution's cases went out the window with her lying under oath. No court lets willful perjury go - it's the basis of the workings of trial by jury.

The accuser is in a lot of trouble, potentially. & the police & prosecution in the various cases hardly covered themselves in glory, either - for failing to notice how many times & by how many men she accused of sexual assault, rape, battery & whatever else she came up with. @ the very least, she wasted a lot of police, DA & court time & effort on what turned out to be therapy for her social distress (or whatever it was that drove her to accuse men left & right.) Either way, the court can choose to make an example of her, & very well might do so, if only to discourage this kind of behavior.

The social issue is that this woman's gaming the legal system may discourage people with genuine sexual assault or rape charges from coming forward. That would be the worst effect of these particular injustices.

 

pathetic example as there is no evidence of the state of Texas intentionally sending an innocent man to prison or executing them.

in this case, this vile woman knowingly filed false rape charges on an innocent man.
you should stop apologizing for sociopathtic feminism, it's sad to see.

 

As to no forensic evidence, that's shocking. The accused didn't have any representation in court? How did the court determine that this was the right accused? Didn't it matter? Even given the known difficulties with DNA matching, you @ least get a much higher probability of convicting the right person if you examine DNA evidence. & sentencing for seven years - if that's all he was sentenced to - it seems that the additional cost of DNA testing would be worthwhile; to say nothing of the court presumably wanting to uphold its reputation for justice & impartiality.

As to your legal system, well, yes, if you're in UK. Otherwise, it's across the pond from the US.

 

No I'm American.

*cough9thcircuitcough*

 

Cameron Todd Willingham.

 

But not in this case.

And, as mentioned, there were two trials and two convictions

Before someone (in this guy's shoes) could sue for slander, he would have to be
exonerated of these convictions.

First.

 

HAHAHAAHAHAHAH!

Hilarious!

Across the country, a record-setting 149 men and women were exonerated last year after spending an average of 141/2 years in prison for crimes they didn't commit, according to a report to be released Wednesday. Texas again topped the list of overturned convictions, with more than one-third of the total. . . . .

 

two trials, two juries, two convictions.

 

Its not the liberal ideology that states that someone must be guilty event though there is no proof. Witness testimony is a form of proof.

Evidence, in this case, came from proof provided by witness testimony
Substituting "witness testimony" with "feelings" makes it clear whose opinion is based on "feelings" here, and it isn't liberal ideology.

If I were a juror, I wouldn't be inclined to put someone behind bars if witness testimony was the only source of evidence.

I would have voted innocent still, if I were a juror, based on what I see here, and I am pretty liberal in my ideology.

<Edited to remove speculation>

 

Yah. From the URL in the OP:

"Jemma Beale, 25, twice told juries Mahan Cassim raped her after giving her a lift home in November 2010.

"Beale said she was a lesbian with 'no desire' to have sex with men and Mr Cassim was jailed for seven years following a retrial at Isleworth Crown Court in January 2012."

(My emphasis)

Maybe only one conviction. But @ any rate, he was jailed for seven years in Jan. 2012. We're still in 2017 - has he been released? If he's been released, if the UK system is like the US system, the charges against him were likely dropped, his conviction expunged from the record. @ which point, he'd be free to bring a proceeding against the accuser, & I'd go after the police & prosecuting attorneys too - on the grounds that they've done sloppy work.

The accuser may need psychiatric help, if she's fantasizing & helping send people to prison. The police & DA don't have that excuse - they have to cop to bad work.

 

two trials, two convictions.

the onus, then, would be on the convicted prove otherwise.

blasting the victim with these sexist cr@ppolla because you aren't fond of
her particular lifestyle or making crude and ugly comments about her looks
made by your other others in a tabloid don't do a thing to prove whatever
point you are trying to make.

 

Gosh, I guess I said in my first or early post that a standing conviction would block
any chance of a civil slander trial and you don't have a clue to chasing down the
DA & police for a "false conviction" because it will never happen.