 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^ I think that's the one thing here that's close to 100% certain: sooner or later, one way or the other, the accused's name will come out, and he will have to confront this allegation publicly in some way.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | There were 2 people who knew what happened, 1 of them is now dead.
There's no witnesses to interview, just some written submissions to read and ask the question of the accused, which has essentially been done. Just not transparently and publicly. |
If you needed a living victim in all cases, no murder or manslaughter that doesn't occur in public would ever be prosecuted. But that's not the case, and it's not necessarily the case for crimes like this, either.
For instance, the minister denies the rape, but that doesn't mean questions can't be asked and some truth can't emerge. Did he know the woman in question? Did he have sex with her? Did people see them go off together? Where was he on the night in question? Does he have an alibi? etc. It may not be possible to prove 100% that he committed the rape in any circumstance, but if he gets caught out in a lie, that might well suggest that he's trying to hide something, and increase the likelihood of him being found guilty. So I wouldn't say an investigation is a fruitless endeavour. |
David, where were you between 7:45pm and 8:03pm on 3 May 1988?
What were you wearing then?
What colour were your socks?
What did you have for lunch that day?
Can any one corroborate what you have said?
The Cold Case tv show doesn't work like that in real life. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Oh, I can tell you exactly: somewhere in Canberra, swimming in amniotic fluid. 
I think there are plenty of reasons to think that someone would remember something that happened back then, particularly if it involved (or didn't involve) a sexual encounter. There may have been other things happening that night, like a party or a school trip (one presumes that the woman's police complaint contained such details). How many men do you know who don't have a clear memory of their teenage sexual experiences?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | ^ I think that's the one thing here that's close to 100% certain: sooner or later, one way or the other, the accused's name will come out, and he will have to confront this allegation publicly in some way. |
Yes. It's a political issue, not a legal one.
Since the woman was apparently only 16 at the time, it may be (depending upon the then age of the alleged rapist) that no issue of consent would arise. As I said previously, it depends upon the detail of the particular story in this case and the extent to which it is verifiable.
I think criminal prosecution - although it can't be ruled out by any of us who don't know the content of the allegation - is unlikely but the problem for the Government is that until a name comes out, there are 15 (more or less) innocent Ministers under a cloud. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The age consent in The ACT is 16, so assuming the law was the same in 1988 the age of the alleged rapist at the time is irrelevant to consent being able to be given.
And yes, this is now completely a political issue.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith 
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I’m pretty sure everyone knows who it is by now, he’s been outed and attacked by the leftie sooks in Twitter
Now Turnbull is claiming she didn’t commit suicide and was the victim of foul play. |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Oh, I can tell you exactly: somewhere in Canberra, swimming in amniotic fluid.
I think there are plenty of reasons to think that someone would remember something that happened back then, particularly if it involved (or didn't involve) a sexual encounter. There may have been other things happening that night, like a party or a school trip (one presumes that the woman's police complaint contained such details). How many men do you know who don't have a clear memory of their teenage sexual experiences? |
So you have no witnesses that saw you doing that? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well, I can think of at least one... 
| eddiesmith wrote: | I’m pretty sure everyone knows who it is by now, he’s been outed and attacked by the leftie sooks in Twitter
Now Turnbull is claiming she didn’t commit suicide and was the victim of foul play. |
And just a reminder, unless anyone is unsure, that we won't be naming him here – or providing "clues", or anything of the kind – at least until his identity has been reported in the mainstream press.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | The age consent in The ACT is 16, so assuming the law was the same in 1988 the age of the alleged rapist at the time is irrelevant to consent being able to be given.
And yes, this is now completely a political issue. |
https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2014-08/apo-nid41113.pdf
Go for it. It looks like they abolished the death penalty for rape in the ACT in 1968, so that's one thing off the table. |
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| <Please don't speculate about such details. There are only 16 people about whom the complaint could have been made. Thanks, Pies4shaw for BBMods> |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | The age consent in The ACT is 16, so assuming the law was the same in 1988 the age of the alleged rapist at the time is irrelevant to consent being able to be given.
And yes, this is now completely a political issue. |
https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2014-08/apo-nid41113.pdf
Go for it. It looks like they abolished the death penalty for rape in the ACT in 1968, so that's one thing off the table. |
WTF are you on?
She was 16, the age of consent is 16, she was able to provide consent regardless of how much older the other party was.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| That's a bit unnecessary, Stui. You posted on the basis that you were "assuming the law was the same in 1988". All I did was link a Commonwealth report that purports to goes through the history of some relevant offences in each Australian jurisdiction and might contain an answer to the issue you raised - because I wasn't that interested in it. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't disagree with much of Chris Uhlmann's take on this:
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/the-fallout-from-a-public-show-trial-probing-rape-claim-would-haunt-us-all-20210302-p576zf.html
| Quote: | In this violent age of outrage any defence of the accused minister will stoke the fury of the mob because, if – as many have already judged –he is guilty, it is the equivalent of making an argument for Satan.
But standing on the shoulders of Hesiod, Bolt made a compelling case on the lips of Thomas More as to why Satan deserved the protection of law.
“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!” |
But, as with a good many of the views being expressed on the other side, I find his argument is lacking in specifics and desired outcomes. As he says, the man's name will soon be revealed publicly – no matter how hard they try to keep it in-house – and when it does, his reputation will be forever tarnished, guilty or not. That is certainly unjust if he is innocent. But the trouble is that the latter is basically an organic cultural process, and one that no-one can grapple with or legislate in any direction. We can and do wield defamation law to stop people being publicly accused in the press (and even on social media) of alleged crimes that are unproven, but you can't really change the way people think.
So the only alternative is to suppress for as long as possible, but as we know from the George Pell case, even the most cast-iron court suppression order (and I see no reason why the minister will be granted anything like that here) is not enough to stop word from being spread widely. We should nonetheless hold fast to principles like the presumption of innocence, and encourage people of the virtue of accepting doubt and the impossibility of discerning the truth of allegations from afar. But I don't think any of that will help the politician in question at this moment in time or going forward; the best he can hope for if innocent, I think, is to submit to some kind of truth-finding process and hope that, in some way, it can offer some vindication. So in his position I would be welcoming an inquiry, not running away from it.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Well there will not be any criminal proceedings, NSW Police have closed the case due to lack of evidence. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Yep. They have officially declared the case closed.
Samantha Maiden should give lessons on how to write good factual investigative pieces. Like this.
https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/photo-emerges-of-alleged-rape-victim-and-minister-on-night-of-claimed-incident/news-story/b4cec5893213beea0d67967075284bbf
Apart from the detail on the case being closed it provides some more detail on the 2 people involved.
Taken from what is there, they moved in same/similar circles, had mutual friends and had socialised together previously. My reading is he was clearly older but not necessarily by much. 2-6 years would be my guess.
On the night in question they allegedly went out in Kings Cross for drinks and dancing. I know from experience that there wasn't much checking for age back in those days.
Again, allegedly, they ended up together where she consented to a sex act but declined oral or vaginal sex. He allegedly forced her to perform oral sex then anally raped her.
David, considering the escalation in these sexual cases, including now news that the SA parliament has roaming hands everywhere, any possibility of consolidating the related content into one thread and leave WPT to throw rocks at Scomo in this one?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
