This is a follow-up to our post Atrocity: Man tried for 'rapes' allegedly committed 37 years ago, found here. The man was found guilty: http://www.scotsman.com/news/Cop-guilty-of-raping-sisters.6794842.jp
I am not suggesting that these were false rape claims. If the women's accounts are true, they suffered a terrible ordeal when they were children.
But the defendant was not able to fairly defend himself. The passage of time stripped him of that opportunity. If he is truly innocent, a terrible injustice has been done.
While the women claimed he babysat and raped them over the course of a year, he testified he recalls only babysitting them twice. I am certain that even if he is innocent, he was not able to produce any alibi evidence to show he wasn't there as often as the women claim. Any such evidence would be long gone.
Then there's this: "The court heard that the offences came to light after one of the victims saw a photograph of Greig in a newspaper in relation to a story about a missing man. He had been the policeman holding a poster giving the man's details."
I am curious about that because I don't know too many men at 51 who resemble what they looked like at 14.
One of the bases for the Supreme Court's holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional for child rape is the risk of false claims: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2008/06/landmark-decision-us-supreme-court.html The court wrote: "There are, moreover, serious systemic concerns in prosecuting the crime of child rape that are relevant to the constitutionality of making it a capital offense. The problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined child testimony means there is a 'special risk of wrongful execution' in some child rape cases." The court supported its decision with all manner of authority.
Many men have been charged with rape, and some have been convicted, on the basis of powerful acting. No one -- no sane and rational person -- wants to see a rapist walk. But if a man can't fairly defend himself, shouldn't that be the more serious concern?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
And yet there wasn't enough evidence to convict Casey Anthony.
What a pathetic, hypocritical side show our legal system has become.
Despite effectively admitting to killing, Casey Anthony was found not guilty.
Despite this being a total impossibility, even if the rapes did happen (Yeah, as you said, it's hard to recognize someone at 51 if you haven't seen them for 37 years), he got convicted.
Hm.
What I find as an eerily interesting parallel between this case and that of Casey Anthony is the seeming “compassion” given to women who claim sexual victim status years after the fact.
I would guess that it was the supposed “un-avenged victimization” of little girls at the hands of a person in a position of trust that swayed the juries in Edinburgh and in Clearwater.
[Oops, hit the button too soon]
It’s the true power of “Victims” status, and it is why feminists work so hard to gain and hold that status for all women.
I've read estimates that about one in ten women might suffer from having a borderline personality disorder. Then I suppose there are those women who are two-steps away from having that disorder too...
No wonder more and more men are ghosting. Living the life of a reclusive hermit is more appealing all the time.
Atlas
@zarko - I agree. The evidence against Casey and Greig is comparable, yet, he goes to jail.
Clearly a biased justice system.
Feminists have made America a warm, nurturing environment for lying whores.
ScareCrow - ”The evidence against Casey and Greig is comparable, yet, he goes to jail.”
I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with this.
While both are circumstantial cases, in the Anthony case, there are numerous additional “indicators” of both her guilty mind (mens rea), and of her total disregard concerning the fate of her daughter.
However, with Greig, there are nothing but old allegations and faded memories.
The case against Anthony was much stronger.
The real comparison between the cases is that in both, women played the sexual victim cards, and in both, the woman who did so had the verdicts go “their way”.
To me this speaks volumes about the value of the victim status that feminists have created for women. No matter what ends they are looking to achieve, they need only portray themselves as the victim of men (preferably sexual victims), and the sympathy towards them and deferential treatment they receive are truly “game changers”.
@slwerner.
I agree - my bad. There is more evidence than just hear say (he said she said) in the Anthony case.
to say "comparable" was in fact bad.
very very bad.
A thousand pardons!
Archivist - ”I am certain that even if he is innocent, he was not able to produce any alibi evidence to show he wasn't there as often as the women claim. Any such evidence would be long gone.”
To me, the take-home from this case is that Paul Greig walked into that courtroom under a presumption of guilt, for which he could provide no evidence of his innocence – thus the guilty verdict (Jessica Valenti’s dream come true).
From the prosecutions standpoint, they failed the simplest of requirements in proving their case – they had zero real evidence of any crime having been committed. No corroboration of the women’s story such as having confided in a friend. Nada.
What the accusers had (as we see in most cases of allegations of rape and sexual assault) was a presumption of honesty. Thus, the jury could assume that the crime had happened, and happened the way they said. This meant that Greig would have had to have proved to them that the crime did not happen, or, if it did, that he was not the one who committed it. This is clearly a case of shifting the burden of proof on to the accused.
I’m sure Scottish Law varies somewhat from US Law, but I’d have to imagine that they have some of the same rules for Due Process, such as presumption of innocence and the need to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt - and the burden of proof being on the prosecution.
Clearly, in Paul Greig’s case, this was not properly upheld and followed.
PS – If we are to compare similar cases, the more apt comparison would be between Casey Anthony and Scott Peterson.
@slwerner - yes - can't you see the halo's above those women's heads?
Presumption of innocence - nailed it.
The evidence in the Casey Anthony was infinitely stronger than in the Scott Peterson case. But she has a pussy, so she walks.
Was he really convicted on the basis of the accuser's word alone? If true, that is simply terrifying.
O - ”Was he really convicted on the basis of the accuser's word alone?”
Yes!
Read the stories at these to links:
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/east-central/260469-policeman-on-trial-accused-of-rape/
http://www.scotsman.com/news/Cop-guilty-of-raping-sisters.6794842.jp
Nothing but the women saying that he systematically raped and threatened them. That was the case against him – their (supposed) recollection of events 36-yers ago.
There’s obviously no physical evidence after so many years. There were no third party witnesses to whom outcries where made at any point up until the women decided to go to the police recently. And, apparently, no testimony from others who might be able to confirm the extent to which he acted as a babysitter to them, like their parents or a close neighbor from that time period (he says it was a couple of times, they say it was numerous times, with some frequency, over a years time).
So, there was nothing beyond what these two women claimed.
As Pierce previously mentioned:
Let us ask the more important question: how can a man possibly defend himself with respect to something that supposedly happened 36 or 37 years ago, when he was a boy, other than to say, I didn't do it? Any evidence of alibi (e.g., that he wasn't babysitting the sisters the days they claim they were raped) has long disappeared, and there is no possibility that he will be able to reconstruct those days. None.
So, Paul Greig walked into a Scottish Court a presumed guilty man; and, unable to offer up any proof that he didn’t do, was declared guilty.
This is what Jessica Valenti has been advocating for – the automatic presumption of guilt (for men) in all allegations of rape/sexual assault, and for the burden of proof to be on the defendant to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he didn’t do it.
We’ve just seen her dream come true in one case.
Okay, Casey Anthony juror #3 has spoken out, and the real cause of this terrible verdict has been revealed: they couldn't fathom the killer's motives: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/07/06/2011-07-06_casey_anthony_juror_jennifer_ford_speaks_i_did_not_say_she_was_innocent.html
Her remarks echoed those of alternate juror Russell Huekler, who said earlier that "there was so much reasonable doubt."
Anthony's bizarre behavior after Caylee disappeared in 2008 was not enough to convict her of first-degree murder, he said.
WHY THE JURY DIDN'T CONVICT CASEY
"Just because Casey was a party girl did not show why she would possibly kill Caylee," he said.
***
And this demonstrates why this blog is so important. These ignorant jurors did what they did because they aren't familiar with the personality type associated with false rape accusations. If they were, then they would have understood why this "party girl" did something so ridiculous as murder her kid just so that she could go on partying.
Like Crystal Mangum, this is a woman with a powerful aversion to the truth; who is utterly incapable of any normal relationship with another human being. For her, lying is akin to being addicted to crack: and to take away her lies is to rob her of her stash.
False rape accusers -- and other compulsive liars, like Casey Anthony, and the Strauss-Kahn liar -- have extremely poor judgment and character, who take incredible risks for rewards (such as attention) that no rational person would even care about.
For what it's worth, I don't believe she killed her kid on purpose.
I believe she drugged the kid, and duct taped her to keep her quiet in the car while she partied.
I do think it was unintended the child would die.
First degree murder was over charging, and the greedy prosecutors paid the price.
Michael Skakel's murder conviction so many years after the fact would make an interesting comparison - at least the crime DID truly exist - there WAS a dead child.
As others have said, impossible for the guy to defend against.
Precisely zero evidence.
just one or two women accusing him, IMHO is was the TWO women accusing him that did him in, two women is "why would women lie about rape?" squared... infinitely more effective than one accuser (ask me how I know...lol)
How a jury, or a judge can allow for that matter, a case where there is ZERO evidence and a quarter of a century has passed to even be put to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" test is in fact all you need to know about how totally subverted our legal system has become.
my heart goes out to the man, and his family.
slwerner:
Cases like this one make me want to pull a Thomas Ball. I'm serious. I just do not understand how a man could be found guilty in a case like this, when there is nothing but accusations from events that supposedly happened 30 years ago. I understand that nutcases are going to claim accusations like this and TRY to get people convicted. What I don't understand, and what disturbs the shit out of me, is why this is resulting in guilty verdicts.
You're totally right that it puts the burden on the accused to prove his innocence. And in a case like this, there is no way to prove innocence. Someone accuses you of doing something, you deny it, there's no evidence either way, but you're found guilty anyway. Orwell's 1984. We are living it.
I'm glad there are blogs like this to discuss the issue, but otherwise I feel powerless against what seems to me like a completely fascist, totalitarian nightmare that is represented by these cases. And you're right, this is what feminism wants vis a vis rape cases. Put the burden of proof on the accused to prove his innocence, if he can't prove it, find him guilty. It's scary. It really is a form of totalitarianism, but those who are advocating these policies are so delusional about it that they actually think they are promoting "tolerance" and "liberalism", and that those of us who speak out against these abuses are the totalitarians and oppressors. Everything is backwards. This society is rotten to the core.
There are a number of disturbing elements to this case. Not least of which is that a jury supposedly consisting of a representative cross-section of the population could be so brainwashed by the females-as-perpetual-victims meme to convict a man based on no evidence and with so much time past. It is possible that the jury was not really representative, and the accused was simply unlucky. Or perhaps Scotland just has slightly more than its share of gullible, feeble-minded people.
Back in 1974 the prevailing climate was not quite as Stalinist as it is today. Males were not automatically assumed to be evil predators to the extent they are now. This man was still a kid back then. How was he to know that all those years later being male would be criminalized to such a degree, and this would be applied retrospectively to him? How sad.
A case like this never should have even made it to trial. The fact that it did says all one needs to know about the farce that our criminal 'justice' system has become and the extent to which everyone concerned is willing to play Russian roulette with the lives of innocent men.
Imagine I accuse X that he has robbed me on a street corner, threatened me with a knife and took $ 1000.
I bring up the accusation 1 or 2 or 30 years later, when there is no way to prove the crime.
No court proceedings would be started. Lack of evidence. Failure to lodge the accusation within reasonable time.
Now 2 people lodging a robbery accusation would be much more credible. Still, the question would remain why the accusation has not been lodged timely, when there was a chance to find corroborating evidence.
Of course, add to that that the accusers were at a totally immature age when the alleged act happened, that should further undermine the strength of the accusation.
The critical thing is, why these law schemes want to excavate that person's life in the past especially over 36 years?
If a gay person abused a lot of little boys about 36 years ago, will these law schemes excavate his sexual past and punish?
This site, originally, only dealt with rape cases PROVEN to be false. I had complained about this restrictions a few months ago.
I am delighted to see that now you also deal with general "rape culture", cases like this one and Strauss Kahn, that are fishy, where there simply is insufficient evidence and unwarranted judicial over-reaction.
May I remind of the famous German case that hardly ever got mentioned in the US press:
Not guilty verdict in Jörg Kachelmann (false?) rape accusation trial
In Germany, people compare this to Strauss Kahn .......
8:02 PM- I suppose that's possible, but she would have to have been pretty fucking stupid to think that the kid wouldn't die from that. Casey isn't stupid.
I believe it was fully intentional, and done to keep her lies to her mother alive for another two months. (Crazy, I know; but to a compulsive liar, keeping the lies alive is hugely important.)
Bear in mind that I was told by a top Scottish judge that in Scotland there are 15 on a jury, but you can be found guilty by a bare majority, i.e. 8 out of 15.
Also, there is the third 'not proven' verdict in Scottish law, which allows the accused to go free, but leaves a stain on his or her character, because it means that there is some evidence that they might have done it.
Why didn't the jury go for that verdict?
Despite effectively admitting to killing, Casey Anthony was found not guilty.
She took advantage of the presumption of female innocence.
"From the prosecutions standpoint, they failed the simplest of requirements in proving their case – they had zero real evidence of any crime having been committed. No corroboration of the women’s story such as having confided in a friend. Nada.
What the accusers had (as we see in most cases of allegations of rape and sexual assault) was a presumption of honesty."
Exactly. While I realized this happened in the UK, how "they might not be telling the truth" wouldn't be a reasonable doubt is beyond me.
randian said...
Despite effectively admitting to killing, Casey Anthony was found not guilty.
She took advantage of the presumption of female innocence.
Jul 7, 2011 4:31:00 AM
One thing I would like to point out here is the vast majority of people protesting Casey Anthony's aquittal are WOMEN.
It's hard to assert that all women stick together or are "in" on allowing guilty women to go free when you see the angry mobs of women protesting the jury's decision.
The vast majority of women are as ignored and marginalized as the majority of males are.
It's the few "monsters" out there who see how this went down are emboldened to use it to their advantage.
Most idiots see this as "slick defense attorneys", instead of opening anyone's eyes to how injust the justice system is.
Like the O.J. trial, it will only serve to convict more and more innocent.
There will indeed be those who use this as an excuse to supplant real rights with "victims' rights," just as there are shrieking media whores like Nancy Grace who cashed in on the sensationalism of a child's murder.
One thing I would like to point out here is the vast majority of people protesting Casey Anthony's aquittal are WOMEN.
Which isn't relevant even if true. My point on presumption of female innocence is a verifiable fact of the criminal justice system. Women get a break at every level of it: who to investigate, who to charge, what to charge, what plea bargain gets offered, choice to convict, and sentence meted out.
Juries are generally willing to convict men on much flimsier evidence than they will accept to convict a woman. That's why Casey Anthony was found not guilty.
"One thing I would like to point out here is the vast majority of people protesting Casey Anthony's aquittal are WOMEN."
Women doth protest too much?
"The vast majority of women are as ignored and marginalized as the majority of males are."
The vast majority of women are as ignored as the majority of males are? Run away with your BS.
"It's hard to assert that all women stick together or are "in" on allowing guilty women to go free when you see the angry mobs of women protesting the jury's decision."
She didn't kill her son now, did she?
"The vast majority of women are as ignored and marginalized as the majority of males are."
Oh my bad, you said "males". Maybe you think that boys are privileged over women when it comes to such matters?
Or maybe it's the standard feminist lingo that dehumanizes men by using biological essentialism, or it removes the ignominy of having "men", or maybe it's a feminist way of making the two genders(sexes, whatever) more equal by making them equal in the letters needed.
As for former:
http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/blame-boys-first/
One thing I would like to point out here is the vast majority of people protesting Casey Anthony's aquittal are WOMEN.
It's hard to assert that all women stick together or are "in" on allowing guilty women to go free when you see the angry mobs of women protesting the jury's decision.
Who else would they be angry at there isn't a male to pin this on. Unless you accept that her father and brother abused her.
randian said...
"Juries are generally willing to convict men on much flimsier evidence than they will accept to convict a woman. That's why Casey Anthony was found not guilty."
Jul 7, 2011 11:51:00 AM
This is what feminist legal theorists and their supporters acccomplished. Look at the sentencing instructions to juries for each state. Some require juries to be easier on females and harsher on males. Back when I was wrongfully accused of aggravated assault, Tennessee's sentencing instructions to it's jury members were such. There is no way to prove a member of the jury isn't harboring some type of bias against the accused. This can allow a feminist to serve and convince other jury members to convict a man and deliver a not guilty verdict when the defendant is female.
Post a Comment