Jump to content

Goodwillie Rape Charge Dropped


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

no case to answer, if there was he'd be in court

 

Its not as simple as that, and technically you can't say that. Prosecutors lack a pair of b/ollocks and paul mcbride is the golden boy who no one wants to mess with.

 

She was on the front page of one of the tabloids last week, face blacked out, with her story about how she couldn't stop screaming when the charges were dropped.

 

How is it fair that she's telling her story to the papers and still gets anonymity, despite Goodwillies identity being out there from the start?

 

Don't know about this. There would of been a contempt of court order in place banning the papers from prinitng photos etc. If she breaks her silence to the paper they can print her story, but they still have to abide by contempt of court order until it is revoked by the courts. I'll check just now to see if its still in place.

 

Or maybe she did'nt want her photo in the paper...

 

Edit: No contempt of court order listed. The papers are free to write what they like now i think - as long as its not defamoatory.

Link to comment

I don't believe a word she says.

 

'I didn't know who Goodwillie was' - yeah, sure you didn't love - you saw the opportunity as a single DUNDONIAN mum, the opportunity to rake in a few bob.

 

The case was thrown out, so you're grabbing your opportunity to sell stories to the paper in the hope you get some dosh out of it.

 

f**king beut.

 

I love how you stress the Dundonian when she is from the Livingston area...

 

It is ridiculous though. If it is as upsetting as claimed, it strikes me a little strange to have it being all over the tabloids...

Link to comment

it is as simple as that, if there were a case and the PF thought their was a case, he'd be facing trial.

 

Do you have any idea the amount of evidence and the standard of proof that is required to secure a rape conviction in Scotland. Not to mention the time and money involved.

 

The decision whether or not to prosecute isn't just about legal considerations it about the financial cost and the probability of conviction as well – the crown are under pressure from government to cut their budget, and borderline rape cases are the first to suffer.

 

If david goodwillie wasn't as high profile as he was, there was no media interest in him, and he had a sh*t advocate – the crown wouldn't of thought twice about taking their chances in court. Fact.

 

Sobering statistic for you: In 2009/2010, 821 complaints of rape were made to the police, of those only 83 proceeded to trial, and of them only 25 resulted in a conviction.

 

What do these statistics tell us then, that there were 796 liars in 2009/2010 who like to make up rape stories? I think not.

 

Source: http://www.scotland....ustice/Datasets

Link to comment

Statistics eh...

 

I imagine from a legal perspective there is a fair sized gray area where consensual sex finishes and rape starts.

 

When it comes down to it, many cases will be a case of one person's word against anothers, and where you get proof from can be very difficult, either way.

 

Not every rape involves someone attacking an unknown in an alley/park where evidence gathering is a bit easy.

 

Therefore all we can do is guess which stance you want to take on the matter. Fact is there was not sufficient proof to take him to trial and that is that.

 

She doesn't help her case going to the papers though.

Link to comment

She wasn't paid for the story - the paper donated money to a charity.

 

the paper is a joke for running this, and why did they donate money to a charity that supposed to support VICTIMS of rape.....Goodwillie should turn these c**ts over.

 

on what grounds should the daily record run a story on a woman that seems to have lied about a rape charge

Link to comment

She wasn't paid for the story - the paper donated money to a charity.

 

Oh right, my bad.

 

the paper is a joke for running this, and why did they donate money to a charity that supposed to support VICTIMS of rape.....Goodwillie should turn these c**ts over.

 

on what grounds should the daily record run a story on a woman that seems to have lied about a rape charge

 

Quite an assumption there by yourself.

Link to comment

explain borderline to me.

 

I would argue that the crown SHOULD take more high profile cases and if the evidence was stacked in her favour they would have proceeded, or maybe it was borderline. ( I still wait to see what borderline is)

 

you can throw as much stats as you like, Im not discussing any other case, however it seems to me like many others in society, a man has no hope in hell when innocent of a rape he hasnt commited.

 

I met a serious crime squad woman aa few months back, who stated that the amount of woman who cry rape when drunk, lost the plot, emotionally fukked or just plain unstable was on the increase, her stat was that 75% of accusations should never and should never be looked at, and its these 75% of "nutters" that leave the 25% with no justice.

 

A man has no hope in hell when innocent of a rape he hasnt commited..

 

You'll hear no argument from me about this – i 100% agree with you. What she did in printing her story was disgusting. And like you say there are a lot of f**ked up people who go crying rape.

 

But, this case did leave me with a sense of unease.

 

Normally when we talk about borderline rape cases, we mean cases where both parties involved acknowledge that intercourse has taken place (and there is evidence to suggest that it has), but one party claims it was consensual and the other maintains it wasn't.

 

In cases where there is one isolated act (1 alleged rape of 1 person over 1 sitting) under consideration, a 3rd party will be required to corroborate certain elements of the complainers story. At the very minimum, this amounts to corroboration of the distress of the complainer following the alleged conduct, if the 3rd party was not in the room at the time (as i understand it David Robertson was the only other person in the loci and he wasn't in the bedroom). Amongst other things.

 

In cases like this, where you have goodwillie who has money behind him and paul mcbride defending him he could commission expert medical witnesses and reports (they basically mount an entire police like investigation of their own to challenge the crown evidence). This means essentially, it comes down to one persons word against another – and the crown would never take a risk like that with someone as high profile as goodwillie.

 

She should never have done what she did, she should have a attempted a private prosecution. She's a c@nt for that.

 

But if you go out and commit rape, and you have money, are reasonably well educated and have a solid defence advocate – i'd say there's at least a 75%+ chance you will get off consequence free. Sadly, my gut feeling is that this may have happened here.

 

Evidence should have been put before a court for them to decide... And if the case was throwin out, so be it.

 

p.s. I heard that the paper didn't pay her for the story.

Link to comment

Fact ?

 

Not that's not a fact and i didn't in anyway attempt to label it as such. Thats my subjective opinion based on personal experience. These are the facts:

 

Out of 821 reported rapes 83 proceeded to trial.

 

25 resulted in conviction.

 

25/83 = 0.301 = 30.1%

 

100 - 30.1 = 69.9% chance of getting off consequence free.

Link to comment

Not that's not a fact and i didn't in anyway attempt to label it as such. Thats my subjective opinion based on personal experience. These are the facts:

 

Out of 821 reported rapes 83 proceeded to trial.

 

25 resulted in conviction.

 

25/83 = 0.301 = 30.1%

 

100 - 30.1 = 69.9% chance of getting off consequence free.

 

But is that % down to sharp highly paid legal work ? And what is your personal experience has the Raploch Rapist buggered you ?

Link to comment

But is that % down to sharp highly paid legal work ? And what is your personal experience has the Raploch Rapist buggered you ?

 

Due to the fact that you have demonstrated, through your conduct and interaction with me over the past 2 weeks, that you are thoroughly incapable of holding a serious on topic discussion – or contributing to threads anything other than personal insults and general rambling, i will not discuss any personal experience of mine with you. As for your second point, ''But is that % down to sharp highly paid legal work?''

 

That is a deceptively complex question. But you should accept that the primary causality of the outcome of any trial is always the legal counsel involved.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...