When the word of TWO women, still isn’t good enough against ONE man in court

Even the word of TWO women is not considered more reliable than the word of ONE man 

Thanks to Cassandra for bringing this (words fail me, but I’ll opt for appalling) case to my attention.

Women aren’t believed in court. Men are routinely believed in court. Rape convictions have a national average of less than 6% out of all REPORTED rapes. Only one in five (20%) of reported rapes makes it to court. Most rapists get off footloose and fancyfree, as in this case—when the word of TWO WOMEN still isn’t enough to convict ONE MALE RAPIST.

The tag for this story: women don’t have a snowball’s chance of seeing justice in the courts of the patriarchy.

I probably don’t even need to make much commentary on this story, it pretty much speaks for itself. But I’ll throw in my two pence at the end anyway. My blog, my rules. Suck it up.

The Times (12 Dec 2006):

Nicola Woolcock

Victim had drunk three bottles of wine
Flatmates deny consenting to sex

A doctor raped two teachers in their flat on the same night after one brought him home from a bar when she was drunk, a court was told yesterday.

The woman admitted drinking about three bottles of wine before bringing Mark Rance back to the apartment.

The English teacher, known as Ms X, said that she asked for a foot massage and passed out, before waking up naked with the doctor on top of her. She told him to leave.

But minutes later Dr Rance, 31, allegedly walked into the bedroom of her flatmate (known as Ms Y) and began having sex with her while she was asleep.

When arrested, the defendant admitted having sex with both women without using a condom, but said that they had consented. He denies two counts of rape.

The first complainant, who gave evidence from behind a screen, told Lewes Crown Court: “I thought he was nice. I was stupidly trusting. I was paralytically drunk.”

After ordering Dr Rance to leave her flat, she said she lay in bed “trying to make sense of the situation” before falling asleep, but was then awoken by her flatmate coming into the room in tears.

Ms X said: “She shook me and said, ‘The person you brought home with you has just had sex with me’. I was completely bewildered, it had never entered my mind that he had not left the flat.”

Ms X said that she felt disgusted and stupid for making herself vulnerable. She had drunk five large glasses of wine — at a party to welcome new teachers to her school and at home with her flatmate in Brighton.

The women then decided to go to a nightclub where they shared two bottles of wine and were bought a further two glasses each. They met Dr Rance, from Worthing, West Sussex, shortly after arriving at the club in September last year.

Gillian Etherton, for the prosecution, said: “There’s no doubt that Ms X appeared to be getting on very well with the defendant. They were chatting, flirting with each other and kissing and cuddling.”

Ms Y decided to go home, taking Ms X’s handbag with her for safekeeping. Dr Rance invited Ms X back to his boat, but when she could not find her handbag she became concerned and insisted on going home.

They left the club hand-in-hand and, at one stage, he carried her on his shoulders. At her home they shared a cup of tea before Ms X passed out.

Ms Etherton added: “The next thing Ms X remembers is waking up with no clothes on and a naked man on top of her.
“The man stopped and said: ‘You’re going to say, he took advantage of me, aren’t you?’ She said: ‘No, I’m not saying that, I just want you to go.”

Ms X said she thought that Mr Rance’s comment was strange. She heard a door slam and presumed that he had left. But Ms Y then allegedly woke in her bedroom to find that Dr Rance was having sex with her.

Ms Etherton said: “She pushed him off. She realised it was the man she’d seen in the club kissing Ms X.

“The defendant was trying to get her into conversation to justify what he was doing. She was telling him again and again to ‘F*** off, just f*** off’.”

Ms X denied consenting to sex or inviting Dr Rance into her bedroom, and said that she did not know how she became naked. On waking to find him having sex with her, she said: “My reaction was, what’s happening? I was not threatened or necessarily scared but confused and disorientated.

“I believe I said ‘stop’ and he did, then I said ‘I want you to leave the flat’. I felt I had been taken advantage of, that he was opportunistic and sleazy, but not the violent connotations of that word rape. I felt it was partly my own fault. I have never said I’ve been raped. I did not know what to call it.

“I felt pretty disgusted after I heard what happened to my flatmate. What sort of person would do that? Take advantage of one when she was drunk and then walk into the bedroom of the other one.”

When arrested the next day, Dr Rance said: “Is this about the girls? No, no, I’m not guilty. I had sex with them both but it was with their consent.”

Referring to having sex with Ms X, he said: “The spur of the moment got the better of me.”

The trial continues.

The Times (16 Dec 2006):

Steve Bird, Frances Gibb and Greg Hurst

His action was ‘immoral, not illegal’
Minister review law on ‘date rape’

A doctor who had sex with two drunk teachers has been cleared of raping them.

Mark Rance, 31, who insisted that while his behaviour was immoral it was not illegal, slept with the first teacher at her home before secretly going into the neighbouring room and having sex with her flatmate.

A jury at Lewes Crown Court, in East Sussex, found Dr Rance not guilty of two rape charges after four hours of deliberation.

The news came as The Times learnt that the Government will bring forward plans next year to tackle the complex legal issues surrounding alleged rapes when women are drunk.

The number of acquittals of so-called “date” or “acquaintance” rapes has fuelled debate on whether such cases should come before the courts at all — or, when they do, the circumstances in which juries should convict.

Mike O’Brien, the Solicitor-General, is expected to recommend that juries be given clearer guidance on when women who are under the influence of drink can consent to sexual intercourse.

He is concerned that, with rape conviction rates at only 6 per cent of all alleged rapes reported, juries believe that women have consented to sex even when almost incapable through drink.

Dr Rance, who lost his job as a result of the charges and was forced to work in a café near his home in Worthing, West Sussex, refused to comment after his acquittal. The General Medical Council said, however, that it would investigate the details of the case to establish whether his conduct breached its guidelines.

Dr Rance was working at the McIndoe Surgical Centre in East Grinstead, West Sussex, and was due to sit his final examinations for membership of the Royal College of Surgeons when he met the women at a club in Brighton on September 10 last year.

One of the women, named only as Miss X, admitted that she had drunk about three bottles of wine that evening. She said that she had “kissed and cuddled” the doctor at the club, but insisted that although she was drunk and had a patchy recollection of the night’s events, she would not have consented to sex, adding: “That is not who I am.”

The pair returned to her flat, where she demanded a foot massage. She claimed that she fell asleep and then awoke to find him astride her and he said: “You’re going to claim I took advantage, aren’t you?” She demanded that he leave and thought that she heard the front door slam but Dr Rance had instead knocked on her flatmate’s bedroom door and asked for a “kiss and a cuddle”. The flatmate, Miss Y, 26, who had earlier returned home alone from the club, said that she awoke with a “pain in her groin”.

Giving evidence from behind a screen, she said: “I became hysterical, I was crying. He was raping me . . . I never flirted with him. I never touched him. I certainly did not give him the ‘come on’.”

Dr Rance said that both women gave him the “green light” and that he stopped having sex with them as soon as they asked. He said that his “priority” was to “respect their wishes”.

He said that he had knocked on the flatmate’s room “out of curiosity”. He claimed that Miss Y had also consented to sex before “having a change of heart” and pushed him off, telling him: “I can’t believe I had sex with you — I’ve got a boyfriend.”

He said that he felt “genuinely sorry” for her when she burst into tears because she felt guilty. He said: “They were excited and very much involved in the whole process.

“I cannot comment on why these two females have done this. I think they felt rather cheated because it was sex behind the other’s back. But it was not rape.”

After leaving their flat he went to sleep in his speedboat moored at the Brighton Marina. He spent the following day water skiing.

After his arrest he told police that sleeping with both women “may be immoral, but it was not illegal”.

In their review of rape laws, Ministers will also likely recommend a new legal definition of “capacity” to sexual intercourse.

Lord Campbell-Savours, the Labour peer who has lobbied the Government to give appeal court judges the power to name women who make false rape allegations, expressed doubt that any changes would improve conviction rates.

He said: “Wherever cases involved drink, and three quarters of rape cases involve drink or drugs, it is very hard to find a jury that is prepared to accept a woman’s word if drink is involved, irrespective of whether the woman is right.”

The StormyrantTM begins.

Firstly I have to question, the amount of wine consumed.

The woman admitted drinking about three bottles of wine before bringing Mark Rance back to the apartment

Ms X said […] She had drunk five large glasses of wine

The women then decided to go to a nightclub where they shared two bottles of wine and were bought a further two glasses each

The standard bottle of wine is 750ml. The standard measure for a ‘large glass’ (in the UK) is 250ml, which is in effect, one-third of a bottle of wine.

In the first quote, ‘three bottles of wine’, I would actually posit that as being the approximate consumption of both women of the evening. I believe this is highlighted in the sub-headline and subsequent sentence to discredit ‘Ms X’ as being a ‘drunken floozy’.

The next two extracts tend to confirm this assumption ‘five large glasses’ and ‘two bottles and a further two glasses each’.  Because one bottle contains three (large) glasses, so the consumption of two bottles between two women would be three glasses each, plus the subsequent two glasses mentioned. Five glasses each. Not three bottles.

Three bottles = 2,250ml = 9 glasses
Five glasses = 1,250ml = 1.6 bottles

So we can therefore claim that the first sub-headline and sentence are FALSE.

However, the average female drinker, can probably only consume (as an average) three large glasses before being what would be declared very, very drunk. Some like myself, two glasses is fairly much my limit these days. Four large glasses would put 80-90% in the very drunk class, with five glasses putting 98% of women in the extremely drunk status. Only a well-seasoned alcoholic could down five large glasses and be ‘in control’. It is safe to say that both these women were drunk, probably extremely drunk.

Which ties in nicely with Ms X’s testimony that she regained consciousness to discover Dr Rapist on top of her.

An unconscious women is incapable of giving consent.

Critical fact in a rape case. So on the first count of rape (Ms X), he was guilty of rape because she was unconscious.

Regardless of the fact that she had flirted with him at the party beforehand, regardless of the fact that he had accompanied her back to her flat. Unconsciousness = NO CONSENT.

He’s a fucking doctor FFS. He, of all people, should recognise unconsciousness when he sees it???

First count of rape = guilty.

Ms Y. Had consumed a similar amount of wine in the evening, possibly in slightly better shape than Ms X, but not exactly walk-a-straight-line sober. She looked after her friend’s handbag (which possibly indicated she was a little more ‘together’ than Ms X), went back to the flat, and went to bed.

She had not flirted with Dr Rapist at the party. Imagine her shock when she awoke to find a strange man on top of her (presumably in the dark)?

She was asleep. A doctor of all people should recognise when someone is asleep?

A sleeping woman cannot give consent.

Second count of rape = guilty.

But how did the jury find this case? NOT GUILTY. I’m really not sure at whom I have the most anger—the Dr Rapist, or the fucking idiot jury. All thirteen of them should be taken out and shot. Certainly no great loss to humanity.

To the Dr Rapist (“may be immoral, but it was not illegal”), let’s just see if I can sever your member and claim it to be immoral, but not illegal, eh?

On a final note:

“Wherever cases involved drink, and three quarters of rape cases involve drink or drugs, it is very hard to find a jury that is prepared to accept a woman’s word if drink is involved, irrespective of whether the woman is right.”

Juries may not take the word of a woman who has been drinking (or in this case, TWO WOMEN), but they are more than happy to take the word of ONE MAN who has been drinking. He only has to utter the magic word ‘consent’, and he is believed. No matter how outrageous his story actually is.

16 Responses to “When the word of TWO women, still isn’t good enough against ONE man in court”

  1. magickitty Says:

    Stunned. I am stunned.

  2. stormcloud Says:

    Hi Magickitty, welcome to stormyblog! :-D

  3. Jennifer Says:

    As Catherine MacKinnon stated in her book Toward A Feminist Theory Of The State ‘there is no such thing as consent to sex in a thoroughly patriarchal society. If the sexes were equal, women would not be sexually subjected, sexual force would be exceptional, consent to sex would be commonly real.’ Meaning it is presumed all women consent to whatever sexual activity a man/men wants and it makes no difference if a woman is unconscious, drunk or whatever, it is always presumed she has consented! So much for women’s supposed sexual rights because we don’t have any. This man is a rapist, who deliberately targetted these two women because they were drunk and he knew if the case came to court he would be acquitted because they dared to get drunk! Once again if a woman so much as ‘flirts’ with a man she is obviously gagging for intercourse. Obvious isn’t it – ‘flirting equals sexual intercourse and if a woman happens to be unconscious or asleep when the male rapist attacks her it is the woman’s fault not the male rapist’s.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6207719.stm has a story wherein a man was raped by another man after the raped man had met the male rapist. So, does this mean therefore that the raped man wanted to be raped because he entered into conversation with the rapist. Note also the raped man had been returning home after a night out – so does this mean the raped man had been drinking? If so, does this mean the raped man ‘consented’ to being raped. Of course not – then why is presumed all women ‘consent’ to being raped. After all this story is just one man’s allegation he was raped by a male and we all know ‘men are innate liars!’ (sic)

  4. tcupnewt Says:

    The worst thing is that the doctor lives in my town… *shudders* Rape is the one case where an accused should prove he got consent instead of the victim proving they said no. It’s kind of hard to say no when unconcious- isn’t it? But even that isn’t good enough. Women are considered to have a perpetual “Yes” sign between their legs and yet any sexual or even any type of fun behaviour is considered a sign of their worthlessness as “sluts” (I hate that word!) Funny how a promiscuous woman is considered the worst and yet all women are assumed to be…

  5. stormcloud Says:

    Hi Newt, welcome to stormyblog!

    I totally agree – it should be the defendant having to prove consent, not the automatic assumption that HE had consent.

    Here we have a case where one woman said she was unconscious, the other asleep. And yet, his bullshit cry of “consent” is believed.

    The ‘law’ is flawed. It works under the premise that ‘it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man imprisoned (or something like that). However, this equates in practice (for rape cases) to (from best to worst case):
    75 walking free for 25 convicted;
    112 of the reported walking free for 8 convicted;
    992 of the total walking free for 8 convicted.

    (I actually used used closer to the actual figure, than the rounded up that I used in The Rape Riddle post)

  6. tcupnewt Says:

    Thanks for the welcome Stormcloud. I’ve been hanging around for ages as a lurker but I’m a newbie poster.

    Exactly- we are taught to see the plight of the wrongly accused man or the anti-hero (ie- rapist) but not that of the woman. The story of the woman at home dealing with a rape by herself is not sensational compared to that of the innocent man in jail. Why? Because our patriarchy is focused on the man’s plights and issues and women are sidelined. I read that post of yours before. I don’t know wether to cry or laugh at the absurdity or be angry. The more I grow up the more I feel we are ignored and the justice system I used to believe in so much is nothing but a tool. It’s the damn juries- they come in conditioned through our culture to already dismiss women.

  7. imnotherethisisnthappening Says:

    Whoah this makes me angry. And I am really pleased (in m own, perhaps demented way) to see you writing that the jury deserves to be taken out and shot, because I feel the same way about such things. Hardly anyone ever expresses that kind of view, though.

    It is absolutely disgusting what that doctor did, and goodness knows what he does to his female patients as well. He knew he raped the first woman, that’s why he said that ‘taking advantage’ crap. It’s a psychological tool, to get her to say ‘No no, just leave and we’ll put it down to a misunderstanding’, basically. Then in future he can say ‘But she told me I HADN’T taken advantage!’ even though he got her to say that when he was ON TOP of her, RAPING her.

    Lots of men out there know these ‘tricks’. They are actually proof of GUILT, not of innocence.

    I have known for a long time that even a group of people who have been raped by one man often cannot secure a conviction. It happens all_the_time. My own therapist warned me at the time when I wanted to take my father to court that she personally knew of one woman and she went to court with her two sisters who were also molested by the father. They all gave evidence and the father got off. That was one of the deciding factors for me – why I ‘dropped the accusations’ as I suppose it is called. My younger sister who was also molested didn’t even want to talk about the abuse at all, so imagine how much more difficult it would have been to secure a conviction then.

    I am also concerned to learn this means that when I take tranquilisers and sleep like a rock, if I ‘awake’ to someone having sex with me and I am unable to fight them off, then that is not actually rape.

    It’s just unbelievable that the rapist doctor was found not guilty.

  8. stormcloud Says:

    thisisnthappening – I think that cases such as rape should not be heard by juries, because juries are unskilled – and fall for a lot of the rape myths. It either requires massive public re-education (which is what is proposed at the moment), or the case to be heard by an experienced panel of magistrates (say, three magistrates). The problem with the re-education of the public is that rape myths are so ingrained, it will take decades, and with rape porn being the most popular porn, will be hard to re-educate anyone in that climate.

    As for the ‘tricks’ yep, I would agree. And it seems to be well known that the man only has to cry “consent” and HE is believed. Rape is usually around 80% that the victim knows her attacker, so therefore, most rape cases will hinge on the ‘issue of consent’ (because usually physical or DNA evidence is present). In the old days, the rapist would just deny ‘having sex’.

    The basic assumption (feeding off the innocent until proven guilty) is consent is given unless proven otherwise. This is why the rape conviction rate is piss-poor (to use my massive command of legal terms).

    I don’t believe that an effective legal system can be run on ‘innocent till proven guilty’ or ‘consent given unless proven otherwise’. This is because, the cases that do get to court (in the UK) have to have at least a 50-50 chance of win for the CPS, plus via the investigation process, the ‘innocent’ are weeded out. So what we are left with, not only for the crime of rape, but most other crimes as well, is that the majority of defendants are ‘guilty-as-fuck’.

    Putting it back into the rape case context, the law enforcement figures indicate that ‘false claims’ are no higher than for any other crime, around 2%.

    So for 100 cases-
    2 = ‘false claims’ (although I still really doubt it for rape, it’s a shitload to deal with, there are far better ways of revenge than that, that would require far less effort or embarrassment).
    20 = go to court
    5.3 (lets round down to 5) = convicted.

    So we therefore have 93% of ‘genuine’ rapists getting off (if you factor in ‘false’ reports).

    The reason I question the ‘false’ reports, is that the vast majority of rapes are NEVER reported, because victims know the ordeal they have to go through. Only the mentally questionable would put themselves through that for revenge or other such motives.

    The only questionable area is really in the case of stranger rapes (c20%), where it is a case of ‘have they got the right man?’

    I am sorry to hear of your molestation experience. Again, many cases go unreported. Some may be reported many years later (when the victim(s) have grown up or leave home, and are therefore no longer under the control of the rapist). This is of course, again used against victims “why didn’t you report it sooner?”. Well dah, the abuser is still too close for comfort, has physical and financial control over the victim, etc.

    I have been meaning to blog the follow up to Jessie’s story, where her scumbag father skipped free from the courtroom (and still slagged off his deceased daughter). Fucker.

    Getting back to Dr Rapist. It’s just unfuckingbelievable. That case should have been slamdunk.

  9. cassandra1 Says:

    Like everyone else here, when I read the first article reporting the case I thought there would be absolutely NO WAY Dr Rapist Mark Rance would ever get away with this one. When I read the follow-up, I never puked up there and then. This case is a fantastic illustration of what Jennifer referred to as “blanket consent” in a previous blog: https://stormcloud.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/womens-rape-allegations-are-never-believed/
    Flirting, smooching, foot massage equates: “yes please, that means you can rape me while I’m comatose and if I’m not up for it, then feel free to rape my flat mate while she is sleeping.” Unfortunatley, these two school teachers could not be accused of having gone for a shady character who would have fitted your archetypal rapist checklist (cf: https://stormcloud.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/rape-victims-checklist-for-conviction/)
    Dr Rapist Mark Rance seems to have as little respect for his work (sorry previous work) as a doctor as he does for women. The slimy f*cker, has put these women at risk of any number of STI’s as well as unwanted pregnancy by not even wearing a condom while he raped them. Again, there is another issue of consent. Did he bother to get their consent to have unsafe sex with them while raping them?
    Then, of course, given that this article is from The Times, we get the voice of authority from that respected rape apologist, Lord Campbell-Savours, with his final comments which could be paraphrased as “oh well..shit happens. The women shouldn’t have been drinking should they” These two women had enough concern for their own safety to invite him back to their territory where there would be two of them and presumably less chances of getting raped.

    I agree with you, Stormy, that the use of juries in rape cases should be seriously reviewed. Rape myths are so firmly ingrained in our society that, unless all the criteria for what constitutes “real” rape are met, juries will not convict. What is very telling about this report from The Times is the comments of one the women: “I felt I had been taken advantage of, that he was opportunistic and sleazy, but not the violent connotations of that word rape. I felt it was partly my own fault. I have never said I’ve been raped. I did not know what to call it.” This.Is.Rape. Double rape, in fact. But when even women who have been raped don’t know what to call it as it doesn’t comply with what we are led to believe the word “rape” entails, what hope is there? I am reminded of that awful programme recently where a large proportion of the studio audience saw it as “taking advantage of” but not “rape”.
    Scrap juries. Now.

  10. stormcloud Says:

    Best book I can recommend to ANY woman is:
    I never called it rape” by Robin Warshaw.

    A quote on Amazon from the author (my emphasis):

    I chose the title for this book from the comment I heard again and again from the women I interviewed. All of them knew that something dreadful had happened, but, “I never called it rape,” they said. Many of those women, and others, now know that what happened to them was, indeed, rape. I’m grateful to all those who helped me create both editions of this book and I appreciate the kind comments that have been posted here. The best news I can offer is that the women who shared their stories with me have created good and strong lives for themselves.

    I really must re-read it again.

  11. Jennifer Says:

    I agree with Stormy, one of the best books on acquaintance rape is Robin Warshaw’s. As one of the commentators said above, unfortunately rape is still narrowly defined as being primarily one wherein the mad, male attacks a woman/girl who is a stranger. Rape in fact is rape when one person and it is predominantly the man, refuses to listen or respect what the woman/girl is saying and simply goes ahead and rapes her. Sadly, many of the women in the book ‘I never called it rape’ believed that rape could only happen if a strange, mad man were to attack them. Women are still being told that if a man uses verbal coercion, or intense pressure in order to convince a woman/girl she must give him what is his right that is not rape. Well, it is rape – because no one and I mean no one has the right to use coercion, threats or pressure in order to get a woman/girl to submit to their demands.

    It is never the woman’s/girl’s responsibility alone to limit a male’s sexual demands and it is never the woman’s/girl’s fault if the man/boy refuses to listen and respect her wishes. Men and boys are socialised still into believing they do not have to take responsibility for their sexual actions, instead they are socialised into believing all they have to do is use coercion or pressure, sometimes for hours on end in order to get the woman/girl to submit. Alternatively of course, there is that old chestnut – well the woman/girl acted in a sexually provocative way and I lost control, I just had to penetrate her because my penis was acting independently of my mind!! Coercion is all too often very subtle, it involves no physical threats but instead is a constant refusual to accept and respect the woman’s/girl’s sexual autonomy. However, the law does not view coercion as rape because all too often there are no physical signs of injury but sadly there are pyschological signs but of course that is not real evidence, since it is a well-known fact women are too emotional and prone to hysterics!

  12. stormcloud Says:

    Also a great comment that you left on Sparkle’s thread Jennifer.

    Oh, I have just realised, I am going to put in a hyperlink on my last comment of the post – I’ve just remembered a fucked up excuse one jerk used.

  13. cassandra1 Says:

    I’ve just come across this web page which gives some very sympathetic responses (yes! really!) to Dr Rapist Mark Rance:
    It is interesting to note how some of these comments are frighteningly similar to those that the partner and friends of Steve Wright (the man accused of the Ipswich murders) recently made. Once again *sighs* this goes on to reinforce the view that a rapist must be a three-headed monster and could never be a respected member of society or someone’s son, father, husband or colleague.

  14. stormcloud Says:

    I’m also going to add something I said earlier on Sparkle’s thread, about why rape trials by juries just aren’t working (in a justice for women kind of way).

    I think it would be a good idea to dispense with juries for rape cases, and have a panel of three (expertly trained) magistrates instead. Juries are just too sympathetic towards the rapists, and I think in many cases it comes down to “well, I think he did rape or, or at least take advantage of her, but I can’t be 100% sure..” so they find him not guilty. The reality is that the small percentage (20%) of rape cases that make it to court are pre-screened by the police & CPS – these are the cases where the police/CPS think the bastard is guilty, and think they have a better than 50% chance of winning the case. I personally think that of the 20% of cases that make it to court, yep, every one of those bastards is excessively guilty (after all, the pre-screening has been carried out by a bunch of misogynists anyway).

  15. cassandra1 Says:

    Oh dear. I just went to the home page of today’s edition of thisislondon.co.uk and found YET ANOTHER CASE of a woman being dragged through the mud by the papers in order to defend two rapists: here.

  16. stormcloud Says:

    The story is very hard to follow due to ‘excitable’ reporting, but I note one bit of suspicious info:

    Despite being able to provide statements from 20 witnesses who placed him at home on the day of the attack, he was charged with rape and spent 23 days in jail on remand.

    20 witnesses? Come on. Couldn’t be his community rallying around making up false statements could it? Four or five would have been believable, this is overkill.

    This is a very dangerous precedent. Not only to women have to fear being thrown in jail for ‘perverting the course of justice’, but being sued as well. No woman will dare report rape in this legal climate.

    And the reporting again, the headline “cold-blooded liar” isn’t that reserved to describe ‘cold-blooded killers’. Women who report rape are being put on a par with murderers now.

    It is clear that women have no protection under the law from rape.

Comments are closed.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: