Mendy cleared of one count of rape

[jimharri]

How long before this gets locked ?

If people stick to the facts as reported, and not stray into speculation territory ("no smoke without fire" etc), there ought to be no reason to lock the thread. Can people on here do that?

 

[bluenova]

From what I read there was a tape played in court of the said woman having enthusiastic sex with 1 of the accused

It's quite possible to have sex with someone and also later be raped, by the same person or someone else present. It's also quite possible to appear enthusiastic if you think that would keep you safe in a situation where you've been coerced or are scared.

We simply don't know, and it's pretty offensive to suggest that we do.

 

[bluenova]

If people stick to the facts as reported, and not stray into speculation territory ("no smoke without fire" etc), there ought to be no reason to lock the thread. Can people on here do that?

As far as I can see, anyone claiming the woman has been discredited is speculating.

The judge specifically told the jurors not to "speculate" as to the reasons why the charges were dropped.

 

[kippaxchris]

That's simply not true - and unless you were in court, and have access to the rest of the prosecution evidence regarding this particular women, then you cannot know that. As far as I can see you're basing it on a few paragraphs in a newspaper.

They have also not been found "not guilty" on the evidence, or because you believe she's been discredited. The prosecution appears to have decided not to pursue this particular charge, so the judge has to ask for a "not guilty" finding. Most rape cases never come to trial, partly because it's so difficult to prove, and often situations are complex.

There are multiple charges in this case, and it's not unusual for some to be dropped if the prosecution feel there are stronger charges, and that this particular charge might be more difficult to prove. As you've shown, people are very quick to jump to conclusions with little evidence, and in a case like this, the prosecution are always going to be wary of the impact that a more complex situation can have on the other charges.

As the Mail article says, about the judge, "He warned jurors not to speculate as to why the prosecution had decided not to pursue guilty verdicts in relation to the charges concerned and to continue to 'faithfully' try the defendants on the multiple charges they still face."

I'd assume he knows a little more about the situation then either of us.

Or they didn't happen.

Do you have any reason to believe the charges may have been dropped due to the prosecution feeling they have stronger charges elsewhere or that these particular charges are harder to prove?

The facts are that they were both found not guilty of those offences because they didn't commit those offences.

 

[Silvatoure21]

None of that suggests she has been discredited. Without discussing this case, it's not uncommon for people who've been through traumatic experiences to struggle with consistency.

It is also not uncommon to be assaulted by the same person twice. For example, in a lot of cases the victim is made to feel like it's there fault, or emotionally manipulated/emotionally blackmailed by the person assaulting them.

It’s also not uncommon for a so called victim to completely lie and make up allegations. It happened in the States at Duke University to lacrosse players. Their names were tarnished and drug through the mud only to find out that it was 100% not true. I tend to side with victims but if their story is false and proven false, then they should be charged with a serious crime.

 

[kippaxchris]

It's quite possible to have sex with someone and also later be raped, by the same person or someone else present. It's also quite possible to appear enthusiastic if you think that would keep you safe in a situation where you've been coerced or are scared.

We simply don't know, and it's pretty offensive to suggest that we do.

We do know, because they were found to be not guilty.

 

[bluenova]

Or they didn't happen.

Do you have any reason to believe the charges may have been dropped due to the prosecution feeling they have stronger charges elsewhere or that these particular charges are harder to prove?

The facts are that they were both found not guilty of these offences because they didn't commit those offences.

They may not have happened - but the whole point is you don't know. I've simply provided generic reasons why you could be wrong.

Your statement of "facts" is simply not legally correct.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

They may not have happened - but the whole point is you don't know. I've simply provided generic reasons why you could be wrong.

Your statement of "facts" is simply not legally correct.

As that part is no longer part of the ongoing case, speculation cannot tarnish the verdict. Nobody knows the full facts unless you were in court to hear them. Aren’t you speculating as much as everyone else?

 

[bluenova]

It’s also not uncommon for a so called victim to completely lie and make up allegations. It happened in the States at Duke University to lacrosse players. Their names were tarnished and drug through the mud only to find out that it was 100% not true. I tend to side with victims but if their story is false and proven false, then they should be charged with a serious crime.

What you're describing is another possible explanation. The point is that from the newspaper articles you can't say and even the judge has made that clear.

 

[Blue Mist]

Never clicking on that

Then you will never know the truth. I have read it, even though it is the Mail. It paints a very different picture to what was alleged, it answers a lot of questions people had. By reading it shows why the CPS had to throw their hand in and why she witness 7 is totally discredited.