Bravo to the judge in this case. He made the right call. The girls' actions, both during the supposed "rape" and the trial, are very disturbing. Read on about how depositions before trial -- which could reveal the accuser as a liar -- has been abolished in New Zealand. A deposition of these girls would have avoided this farce and spared an innocent man much grief.
Judge says continuing trial against taxi driver would be "a farce"
A judge has thrown out sex charges against a Christchurch taxi driver, saying it would be "a farce" to continue.
In the Christchurch District Court yesterday, Mohammad Nadir Darwesh was discharged after Judge David Saunders ruled it would be unsafe for any properly instructed jury to find him guilty.
Darwesh had faced two charges each of detaining for sex and indecently assaulting two teenage girls.
It had emerged in court that the two complainants, both now aged 19, had attempted to extort money from the taxi driver just minutes after the alleged assaults in 2007.
Their conduct in the witness box – one girl attempted to storm out before questioning had finished and the other was unable to recall most details – was taken into account by the judge.The Crown case was that the girls had sent text messages to Darwesh and asked for a free taxi ride.
They said he took them to the Pioneer Pool car park and asked them for sex, while touching their breasts and legs and not allowing them to leave the car by locking the doors.
Darwesh contended the girls offered him sex for money, and that he declined.
Defence counsel Paul Norcross applied for the discharge under Section 347 of the Crimes Act after the prosecution finished its case about 12.30pm.
The judge agreed, saying only a jury returning a "perverse" verdict could convict Darwesh on the evidence given.
"It would be, frankly, a farce to continue at this stage."
To the jury, he said: "I see from the nods of some of you that you agree."
The judge said one of the girls had testified she could no longer remember being assaulted. The other was shown to be an unreliable witness, with a criminal record for dishonesty offending that had continued after the alleged incident.
The girls admitted sending Darwesh text messages demanding money or they would tell police he had raped them.
The judge said the alleged indecent assaults were nowhere near rape. Evidence from phone records showed one of the girls had sent five text messages in the time they were in the car with Darwesh, but they had not asked anyone for help.
Applying for the discharge, Norcross said at no time had either girl attempted to unlock the door and walk out, and they were happy to get a ride back to Barrington Mall afterwards.
Darwesh had no previous convictions and had been a police officer in Afghanistan before immigrating in 2004.
The judge told the jury that with the abolition of deposition hearings, the trial was the first chance to see the "true colours" of complainants.
The vice-president of the Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Law Society, Alistair Davis, said a committal hearing would not have helped as complainants in sex trials did not testify at depositions.
There was a "general feeling" in the profession that getting rid of depositions was wrong though, as many cases could be resolved at earlier stages.
Link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/3613952/Sex-counts-scrapped-to-avoid-farce
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
50 comments:
In the US legal community, there is a saying: not even God wins a preliminary hearing.
But they are still important. Basically, they give the liar an extra chance to screw up on the stand. That may be all the help an innocent defendent needs.
Since this is a felony there should have first ben a probable cause hearing to see if the cops even had cause to arrest the guy in the first place. Then the guy would have to be indicted in the US. The grand jury should get to hear from everyone not just the DA.
And what this NZ judge did is what US judges are supposed be doing all the time in all cases, not just rape. As you can see, after the prosecution rested its case, the judge who of course is following the testimony, dismissed the case because the prosecution didn't prove its case. Some judges will overturn a guilty verdict by a jury when he knows that the case wasn't proved by a prosecutor but he really shouldn't wait until after the verdict because he knows as a professional that the evidence didn't prove the case. The biggest problem IMO is that judges in the US don't often dismiss after the prosecution rests or do they overturn verdicts much when there was clearly no evidence to convict. This means that the defendant has to appeal and will have to spend a lot of money and often be behind bars during the appeal.
And let's remember that under the law it is the defendant who is presumed innocent and it is the defendant who has the rights. The accuser has no rights, she is not on trial.
"The girls admitted sending Darwesh text messages demanding money or they would tell police he had raped them."
Answer for this, feminists.
And don't trot out the old canard about how rare this kind of thing is.
Answer for it. Explain it. Own it. It's feminism, after all. It's yours, you did it.
What kind of perversion has rooted itself into the law enforcement communities of many English speaking countries??
It is a perversion of any legal system to allow and enable women and girls to make false rape accusations whenever they feel the whim.
Dr. Snark
Notice they face no charges!
To me that statement not only proves extortion but it's proof of a false claim.
They should be on felony charges for both.
But instead as usual they are anonymous and have complete impunity.
"The other was shown to be an unreliable witness, with a criminal record for dishonesty offending that had continued after the alleged incident."
Just think, here in the good ole US of A, that would fall under so-called rape shield laws and they would have never known her the liar she is...
TMOTS
What will happen when conscientious males who no longer feel safe having sex with women??? well then it will be only homosexuals having sex, which is the way the Gender / Raunch community like it.
They want males to be irresponsible homosexuals, and lesbians to be paid large amounts of state funds to have test tube babies. this would seem silly if it were not the truth.
If you are willfully ignorant that this is the reality, ask the loudmouth violent lesbians who dominate many east coast univetsities what they think about state funded lesbians rearing all the states children??
Just ask them!!
I thought I would add my own two cents in here (feminist money). I think it is quite shocking to think an innocent man is put on trial on the whim of an accuser. However the media does tend to protray things in a sensational (often inaccurate or incorrect) light, so I view these type of reportings with a grain of salt.
My other musings on the subject involve other hypothetical situations where the guy was guilty. Isn't this a good thing if he is?
On another note (sorry for trolling) here is the link to my blog:
http://afeministopentocriticism.blogspot.com/
I am interested in intellectual debate, please check out my blog and get the discussion started.
I, for one, am surprised that he (Darwesh) has not counter-sued the lying skanks for all he's worth. I do believe that AFoR (one of the regular commentators here) would have recommended this course of action wholeheartedly?
And yet, these lying skanks (for that is what they are) will walk away with nothing plus a valuable lesson on how to depose men easily with no more than the strength of their words.
The 'feminist open to criticism' is a perfect example of earnest feminism, which I discussed here.
See how she purports to just want to talk to us. She's our friend, guys, and she'll listen to us!
But look closer, and see:
"My other musings on the subject involve other hypothetical situations where the guy was guilty. Isn't this a good thing if he is?"
How many times does it need to be said - this is not a blog about the crime of rape, it is a blog about the crime of false rape accusations. You people have the rest of the internet to play your silly rape name-calling games. You just cannot stand there being this one space about FRAs, can you?
As for 'hypothetical situations where this man was a rapist'.
How is that constructive in the slightest, given that he is innocent? Jesus Christ. You people are unbelievable. There is only a quantitative difference between you, earnest feminist, and the pigs who falsely accused him.
Now let's see how 'open to criticism' you are when I don't dance to your tune.
You people spend enough time hypothesising that any and all men are guilty of rape as it is.
Maybe you need to try hypothesising that some women might be vicious liars.
A feminist open to criticism,
Stop blaming the victim. Here you have a man who has already faced attempted extortion, blackmail, and fraud, and you are accusing him of bringing his own condition upon himself or conjecturing that he might have been guilty.
How is that any different than "she was dressed like she wanted it"?
Get out.
Feminist Open to Criticism: I am utterly confused and confounded by your comment. I've spent years studying this area, and frankly, find no discernible basis in fact for your comment.
The media is notorious for assuming, despite the absence of reliable evidence, that rape has occured (see the post below this one), and for downplaying false rape claims -- because false rape claims don't fit the media's preferred metanarrative where men are predators and women are victims. For Duke lacrosse, for instance, it took forever for the innocent boys to be vindicated in the media, and only when the evidence was overwhelming that the claim was utterly, palpably, and blatantly false.
I believe in freedom of speech but that freedom doesn't require me to listen. I choose not to pay attention to speech that is uninformed. I am, however, always happy to engage in informed discourse on these issues -- I learn a lot from our readers here -- but can't waste my time debating someone who relies on her gut feelings, which are premised on uninformed stereotypes.
You would do well to spend a couple of weeks reading the posts on this blog, and the "informative sources" cited at the right of the page. Then, let's talk.
" ... but can't waste my time debating someone who relies on her gut feelings, which are premised on uninformed stereotypes."
In other words, a feminist.
Call it what you will ... if it looks like a feminist, walks like a feminist, quacks like a feminist ... it needs to be put down.
However the media does tend to protray things in a sensational (often inaccurate or incorrect) light, so I view these type of reportings with a grain of salt.
****
If that's the case then why would you start with the assumption that he must have done something? If you're going to be skeptical then you should be skeptical whether it's convenient for you or not.
Even if there was no conflicting testimony or other exculpatory evidence, if it was you who had been accused of a crime without supporting evidence, wouldn't you want people to demand proof before they just believe it? That's a part of being a good citizen.
Also: on your blog you say, "all men are potential rapists," and "this is factually correct."
Actually, that's factually wrong. The vast majority of rapists are criminals who are involved in a wide range of criminal activity, not serial rapists. Unless you are a criminal you are very, very unlikely to ever commit a rape.
You're wrong. Most college rapists (repeat offenders by the way) have no criminal background until they are caught.
The feminist is scientifically correct to say that 'all men are potential rapists'.
"The feminist is scientifically correct to say that 'all men are potential rapists'."
Well, I'm a man, and I am not a 'potential rapist'.
'Scientifically correct.' What a fucking joke.
How about you lunatics stop telling men what they are?
"Most college rapists (repeat offenders by the way) have no criminal background until they are caught."
Most repeat offenders have no criminal background ...
Most repeat offenders have no criminal background ...
Most repeat offenders have no criminal background ...
Most repeat offenders have no criminal background ...
*BANGS HEAD ON DESK*
That doesn't exactly work, does it? Lol
I've often said that feminists are metaphysically absurd. Now apparently to repeat something you do not have to have done it before.
Then again, feminists will accuse men of doing things they haven't even done ONCE, so I shouldn't be surprised.
But hey, if Georgia nut (or whoever) wants to post some actual credible statistics, as opposed to pie in the sky numbers from some rad fem website, we would be happy to take a look at them.
crabcake - "The feminist is scientifically correct to say that 'all men are potential rapists'."
I suppose that technically, most men are potential rapists (some are physically incapable, however).
But, by the same logical:
All women are potential murders.
All woman are potential abusers.
All women are potential thieves.
All women are potential drunk drivers.
[Are you starting to see just how stupid it is to say that just because someone may be physically capable of doing some crime that they should be consider potential criminals?]
And, let's not forget that, under certain circumstances, women can rape men and boys as well, so we will definitely need to include that:
All woman are potential rapists
Glad we were able to clear that up[/snark]
I don't think that saying "all men are potential rapists" is at all the same as saying "all men are physically capable of committing a rape."
The vast majority of men would never commit and burglary, and similarly the vast majority of men would never commit a rape. That is because most men obey the law.
Anonymous - "I don't think that saying "all men are potential rapists" is at all the same as saying "all men are physically capable of committing a rape."
The long-standing gender-feminist explanation as to how all men can be viewed as potential rapists is precisely that given that men have penises, they are therefore capable of raping women, and are thus potential rapists.
Their view in, no way nuanced. Just straight-up "men who are capable of raping are therefore potential rapists".
But, by all means, go ahead and find some feminist writings to prove me wrong.
Welcome to America, where women can kill their children for their her own convenience.
Who is the more barbaric sex??
The last post refers to abortion, I take it.
And whether or not you agree with that, it is painfully obvious that men do not have the reproductive rights that women take for granted -- in fact, our courts don't even pretend to care whether or not men have anything like the same rights in this regard. Remember when that man challenged his child support in court on the basis that as a man, he should also have a right to choose? The court laughed at him, spat in his face and rejected him.
Even Wendy McElroy sided against the MRA on that issue!
So apparently, the best interests of a child do trump the rights of adults -- but not when it's a woman who wants a divorce for frivolous reasons! When a woman wants something, whether or not her actions are anti-social, her rights are inviolable; but upholding a man's rights is optional.
Best interests of child do not mean that a child is entitled to child support from the father if the mother wants the kid and the father doesn't. End of story.
I have always agreed with the idea of a "male abortion" so a guy can financially opt out of a pregnancy.
Think about it. If you got a girl pregnant and she did not want the baby she could have an abortion.... and do so weather you wanted the baby or not. And there is nothing you could do about it legally.
But if YOU do not want a baby you are forced to pay for it or go to jail for 18 years weather you like it or not.
It's a total double standard.
It's does not come down to weather you agree with abortion or not. Abortion is legal so women have that option to kill your baby but you have NO option to opt out financially.
She gets six months to decide if she wants to kill your baby and you do not even get six seconds after sex to opt out.
In my own life I got to see a girl intentionally have 3 kids with three different guys and then make them pay child support and then keep them away from their kids.
If they could have opted out financially then her little scam would not have worked.
This is great for awful women but horrible for their kids and the guys that have their lives messed up.
Paper abortions -- the legal termination of all of the father's rights and responsibilities in relation to an unborn child -- are the obvious and necessary counterweight to the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.
So naturally the legal system won't even consider it. ("He has a PENIS and he thinks he has RIGHTS?")
OT- Here is the perfect example of how feminists create problems and then propose solutions for those same problems... based on the assumption that men don't even exist:
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/30/1981316/kansas-city-women-must-unite-to.html
The feminization of poverty is a worldwide trend. Seventy percent of the world’s poor are women, largely because of their limited access to education or resources. We are experiencing a worldwide increase in woman-headed households, in which a mother provides the sole support for her children. We know that the most direct way to improve children’s survival and welfare is to strengthen their mothers’ ability to take care of them.
(Never asking the obvious question: WHERE ARE THE HUSBANDS???)
@ Slwerner if you read my blog that is exactly what I am doing, pointing out the absurdity in promoting the "all men are potential rapists" gospel. Yes I also support the statement that "All women are potential rapists" as factual.
@ Dr Snark, I am fine with there being blogs and support for men falsely accused of rape, in fact I support it as it is obviously a terrible thing to happen. Also before I came across these blogs I honestly hadn't given much thought to it as you point out it isn't really in public consciousness, so I feel like I have learnt a thing or two and reduced my bias.
@ everyone, I am starting to see a common hypothetical theme here where people don't want to listen to what I am actually saying, they see the word feminist and immediately start crying misandry, without listening to what I have to say.
I also admit the fact that I am a little ignorant on this matter, having only discovered it recently and not having much time to research it as it is exam period for me. However I thought part of your existence here was to educate the masses and raise awareness of this situation, so when I come in wanting to learn why not teach me instead of slamming me. I desire very much to know more about this issue. Believe it or not coming from a feminist I also believe in the basic human rights of convicted rapists, I adamantly oppose any desires to castrate or such that radical feminism seems to put forward.
I wasn't indulging in victim blaming I wasn't saying he was guilty or that "he asked for it" because he is male and as a consequence a potential rapist, as i pointed out before I see this logic as absurd. I was merely saying it seems somewhat one sided to only approach this issue from the viewpoint of innocence. You all seem in agreeance that to assume he is guilty because he is a man is wrong, but so too is the assumption he is innocent without due process. A one sided look at this issue reveals only your own biases, which you accuse me of holding.
I have reached this point in my politics when it comes to poverty and single mothers. It isn't my fault, and it isn't my responsibility, that single mothers wanted to have children. We need to disabuse the world of the notion that these women were abandoned by selfish husbands they thought would be there to help them raise the kids. Rarely is that the case.
It all comes down to personal responsiblity. Every rational person knows that's the answer, but too many politicians -- and in the U.S., an entire political party (now in power) -- need single mothers and like-minded victim groups to be dependent on them in order that those politicians will be reelected. And that is a fact.
"I thought part of your existence here was to educate the masses and raise awareness of this situation, so when I come in wanting to learn why not teach me instead of slamming me."
I'm founder of this blog. Please understand my position: I can't summarize the entire field in every post. I have posted some points (e.g., the data on the prevalence of false claims) so many times that I fear my readers are going to have a revolt. That's the wonderful thing about this blog -- we save all the news stories on the subject long after most news outlets have already archived them. We have them there so people like you can read them.
I am not trying to sound elitist, but this is a specialized area, and there are an incredible number of misstatements made by, e.g., sexual assault counselors, that can't be backed up. I formerly accepted feminist teachings on this subject until I researched the issues myself.
P.S. This statement is a manifestation of so much ignorance that I would have to be Shakespeare to express my disgust: "You all seem in agreeance [sic] that to assume he is guilty because he is a man is wrong, but so too is the assumption he is innocent without due process."
That's all I need to read. Without wasting any more effort responding to you, a man need to "prove" his innocence. He is presumptively innocent.
Please don't comment here any more. It adds nothing to the discourse, and we have important issues to discuss.
Presuming innocence is perfectly reasonable, especially when a man with no criminal history has been accused, and there is no corroborating evidence.
That doesn't mean that this presumption would be maintained if credible evidence were to emerge, however. But those who presume guilt almost never change their minds.
In this case, there is no need to assume anything -- the evidence is overwhelmingly on his side:
*
The judge said one of the girls had testified she could no longer remember being assaulted. The other was shown to be an unreliable witness, with a criminal record for dishonesty offending that had continued after the alleged incident.
The girls admitted sending Darwesh text messages demanding money or they would tell police he had raped them.
Note to readers: Feminist open to criticism has been banned. I have invited her to educate herself, and once she does that, we can talk.
Sorry, but this is not a clearinghouse for every crackpot notion about false rape claims. Some, I allow because they are innocuous. Unfortunately, someone like this so infuriates our readers that her comments derail our other work here. We have important advocacy coming up on Tuesday, so I need to nip this troll in the bud.
"In this case, there is no need to assume anything -- the evidence is overwhelmingly on his side . . . ."
It goes much beyond that. This case never should have gone to trial because there wasn't sufficient evidence, even giving every reasonable inference to the prosecution's case, to convict. This was a farce, from the beginning. The man was presumptively innocent, and factually innocent by every reasonable measure.
"@ everyone, I am starting to see a common hypothetical theme here where people don't want to listen to what I am actually saying, they see the word feminist and immediately start crying misandry, without listening to what I have to say."
All I have to say is
WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF MEN FOR THE LAST FIFTY YEARS.
Do you think anyone wanted to know our opinions as we were being dehumanised and destroyed? Nah ...
Well ... what goes around comes around ... you choose to ally yourself with this hate, and so all I will say is FUCK you and fuck your Nazi ideology. I don't care what you have to say. Not a single word. It is ALL bullshit.
Archivist-you were correct in banning her and personally I believe that banning people is OK. Some females know nothing about the subject at hand and it shouldn't be our job to waste time and space educating them when we have more important things to do. All these girls do is create an annoying diversion.If she doesn't know that the accused is presumed innocent and that the burden of proof is on the State and that the prosecutor must prove every element of an alleged crime by the standard of proof which is "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal matters, then she should first get an education before making a comment.
"This post has been removed by a blog administrator."
lolz. I love coming here and seeing this.
It IS rare for a woman to be falsely accused of rape, which goes far to explain why so many women choose to be oblivious to it's horror.
I say "choose to be oblivious" because it is an intentional choice, as natural to human nature as choosing to reach past a starving child in the street to feed a dog.
Some people are like that.
"The girls admitted sending Darwesh text messages demanding money or they would tell police he had raped them. "
So when does the trila for extortion begin?
It goes much beyond that. This case never should have gone to trial because there wasn't sufficient evidence, even giving every reasonable inference to the prosecution's case, to convict.
****
Well said, Archivist.
Post a Comment