Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Tears as Stockton man cleared of rape

The defense attorney is certainly correct in his statement: “Guilty until proven innocent”.

When the accused has his name published in the news for all to see, when news reports automatically refer to the accuser as a "victim," it all leads to the presumption of guilt in the public eye. Once again, we see the need for anonymity for all concerned.

The article doesn't state it, but one wonders if there was any photographic evidence of the bruising that should have existed from the beating that supposedly took place?

Not guilty verdict in rape trial.

A YOUNG man accused of raping a prostitute burst into tears as he was cleared of the sex charge after two trials.

A Teesside Crown Court jury took 40 minutes to deliver a unanimous not guilty verdict on Jamie Taylor.

Taylor, 22, denied beating and raping the woman and told jurors his sexual activity with her was consensual.

He cried in the witness box as he said: “I never thought for one second that I’d get charged with something like this. I’ve done nothing wrong.

“It was consented and she knows it was.”

He suggested the woman made the allegation for money after he did not pay her for her services in a Teesside alley.

He said: “I do think she’s only doing this for the money. They’ll do anything for money, including selling their bodies,” he added.

He first faced trial in July and sobbed as the charge was read out and a taped police interview with the woman was played in court.

The 24-year-old woman said she curled into a ball as she was repeatedly punched then raped in an alley near Yarm Road, Stockton, in the early hours of January 13.

The first trial was halted for legal reasons.

After seven months in custody Taylor, of Yarm Road, gave his account of events in a second trial last week. He said he was walking from a friend’s house when the prostitute said to him: “Are you looking for business, darl?”

He said they had sex in the alleyway until “I just thought to myself, Jamie, what the *** are you doing, son?

“I said, ‘I can’t do this’. I know it seems really feeble.

“I know I shouldn’t have said it (but) I said, ‘Ah *** off you slag.’ She went absolutely off it, shouting. I remember her saying, ‘Well what about my money?’”

He said he walked towards his girlfriend’s home without giving the prostitute any cash and she shouted after him.

He denied that any fighting took place or that he punched her, grabbed her hair or caused injury to her face. He said he didn’t know why she was so distressed when questioned about the incident.

“She’s wrong. She knows she’s wrong. She knows what happened that night,” he told the court.

The woman, who had taken methadone and drank alcohol on the night, rang her mum afterwards and police were called.

When arrested later, Taylor did not admit that sex had taken place even when presented with DNA evidence. He said he lied out of embarrassment, “humiliation” and the thought of losing his girlfriend of seven years.

“Now I’ve got nothing to lose by telling the truth,” he said.

“If I’d told the truth in the interview I wouldn’t be stood here now and I wouldn’t be on remand for the past seven months. It’s my own fault.”

Rod Hunt, defending, told the jury that defendants in sex cases were “guilty until proven innocent” while complainants were presumed to be truthful.

Thanks to AFOR for the heads up.

Link: http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2009/10/12/tears-as-stockton-man-cleared-of-rape-84229-24908930/2/

9 comments:

Norm said...

"He said he didn’t know why she was so distressed when questioned about the incident."


cos the slag didn't get her money. A prostitute scorned is a woman scorned...plus sometimes they have a knife.

Anonymous said...

" Rod Hunt, defending, told the jury that defendants in sex cases were “guilty until proven innocent” while complainants were presumed to be truthful".


Is it me, or, does it seem like this is part of the instructions that U.S. juries are indoctrinated with?

Atom said...

Legally, he is not guilty.

And, legally, she is not guilty of a "false rape accusation".

So... this incident should not be lumped in with your statistics on "false rape claims".

Archivist said...

Atom, it needs to be taken out of the mix altogehter. We should only talk about false rape claims FOR THOSE RAPE CLAIMS OF WHICH WE KNOW THE OUTCOME. So if 15% result in conviction (and we'll assume for the sake of argument that all of those are actual rapes, even though it's undisputed some innocent men go to jail), and 41% are false (we don't know for certain, so we'll use the most reliable study ever conducted -- which is on the low end of some other trustworthy studies), that means that we know 41 out of 56 are FALSE. It's the only fair way to talk about the prevalence of false claims. I am doing a piece on this, and Robert Franklin just agreed with me on this and included my analysis in one of his posts.

Anonymous said...

Archivist, I asked you before and I'll ask you again.

When are you going to ban Atom?

Anonymous said...

Archivist said...
"Atom, a lot of rape feminist organizations print crap and attribute it to the FBI".

In the same manner that they bamboozled the FBI, the senate and, Congress into pushig for the sexist and unconstitutional crime bill known as VAWA. They skewed number, provided hyped up fraudelent statistics/information and, scammed all of the above( including the mass and mainstream media) into believing the biased crap they fed them.

Archivist said...

Atom is banned.

Anonymous said...

Sweet!

Anonymous said...

Sweet maybe, but who will be next to get the ax?