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

A fair trial doesn't mean that you get an accurate result. Sad fact is that life is that bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own. The system of courts is demonstrably flawed, but that doesn't mean its unfair, it just means it hasn't been perfected yet.

That's the bitter pill of life.

I don't know what the specific evidence was, but calling eyewitness testimony "feelings" is disingenuous. Reducing the jurors ability to deduce BS to "feelings" is asinine. Blaming this travesty on A VAST LIBERAL CONSPIRACY is lunacy, and using it as a reason not to take reports of rape seriously (which you haven't even implied but I may as well point out here) is not the right way to go about this.

 

WITHOUT REGARD TO THIS CASE: this is absolutely right.

A fair trial would be a trial in which the rules of order were followed. A fair trial
does not guarantee that the ultimate truth will be found, only that the best attempts
to find the truth has been made.

 

there are countless cases of Prosecutors knowing withholding evidence from Defense Attorneys that could be used to get someone found Not Guilty.

its a nation-wide epidemic.

and Prosecutors are never punished for such acts

 

Thanks for pointing that out- scary scary stuff.

 

Prosecutors are required by the law to give the Defense all evidence they have, especially if that evidence could be used to find the guy Not Guilty.

But some scumbag Prosecutors withhold that evidence, so they can add one more conviction notch on their belt, even if it means sending an Innocent man to prison. or even death

 

It doesn't matter, in the end, the boy who cried wolf was right.

And that is what juries are for.

I suggest: the two dozen people who heard the evidence knew more than you knew
when so far your entire background comes from tabloids.

 

Prove it.

By the accounts of the two dozen people who judged, the scumbag was the
rapist who they sent to prison.

 

This is why I have grown, over the years, to oppose the death penalty in almost all cases.

We have found many many people on death row who were innocent of their crimes. Some AFTER they had been executed.

Did she or not?
Did they or not?

Don't know for sure but it seems the "reasonable doubt" threshold was set pretty low.

 

No, they can be counted, since the number of trials can be counted and dare
I suggest that over here in the USA prosecutors follow the rules most of the
time because if they don't they would in the least lose their case, they could
be disbarred and they could go to jail themselves.

So let's not pretend it is a common occurrence.

 

Explain to me what kind of evidence was presented against this man.

Keep in mind we know now he didn't actually do it, so clearly forensic evidence doesn't exist.

 

The only kind of "evidence" was the testimony of this "woman".

Europe is much more liberal than the US, which is why he was convicted.

 

Did you miss the part where he didn't rape her.

 

did you miss the two convictions?

 

Over here in the US, he being black would have been enough.

 

Not at all.

So then you are trying to justify jailing a man who did nothing, and the system who did it.

Way to go.

 

The interrogative version of Begging the Question, the Many Questions Fallacy occurs where a question is asked that assumes the answer to one or more additional questions, and a demand is made that it be answered without qualifiers. The classic example is "have you stopped beating your wife?

 

Any woman that does this and is found out to be false should serve TWICE the time the man served!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Why?

 

No, there's no fallacy at all.

This man was convicted twice without any evidence other than the claims of the thing accusing him.

We now know he was completely innocent, and you demonstrably argue that justice was served.

Clearly, you don't know the difference between logical fallacy and reality.

Please proceed with your next ridiculous statement.

 

Is.

 

You don't.

 

Clearly, you don't even know what it means.

I cannot recall any questions you have asked that weren't loaded.

Certainly: most are.

 

(laughing)

You consider Beale to be the victim here? A man served seven years in prison, & who knows how much other damage Beale has done with perjured testimony? I don't care what she looks like, she can date whoever she wants to - she's given false testimony under oath repeatedly (if the report is right) & it's mere happenstance that she didn't accuse someone of a capital crime.

That's the set of crimes - false informing, perjury, wasting the police & the prosecutors' & the judges' time & money & effort - when they could be, say tracking down suspects or investigating or prosecuting the last couple of terrorist attacks in London. & she's made fools of the police, prosecutors & judges, because they didn't have the sense to notice the patterns in her accusations, & accordingly didn't question their databases to confirm the suspicions they should have had about the entire fairy tale of her allegations.

 

Ok but if I were on the jury that guy would have had to have been HUGE if you were going to convince me he raped Sasquatch

 

The country of UK considers her to be a victim.