Victim shown explicit video of herself in rape trial
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgr5p6dv0n2o
Posted by Alert-One-Two
Victim shown explicit video of herself in rape trial
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgr5p6dv0n2o
Posted by Alert-One-Two
13 Comments
Oh damn, that’s a big fat “you a liar!” so what happens now is she charged?
So just because she sucked a dick before it means she can’t have been raped?
>When asked about the video, the victim said she “didn’t remember” it being filmed but acknowledged it was an “important detail”.
Woops.
None of which means she wasn’t raped, and since she said she didn’t remember being filmed, its entirely possible that was non-consensual as well.
[deleted]
And they wonder why women and girls don’t report rape .
Another high profile rape case that should never have gone to court.
Expect to see more of this.
This should never have been allowed. What has that encounter got to do with her being raped. The judge needs removing and a retrial called. Bang out of order.
We know why the defence did it.
They were both police, something ain’t right or being left out here. Not much of that article made sense. And obviously relevant videos will be used as evidence in court.
(Edit : because some people think I am saying what actually happened) So ‘maybe’ she made a movie ‘maybe’ she sucked a dick, ‘maybe’ she humped one .. Jesus she could have been in the middle of making a hard core porno but the minute she said no …. That should have been the end of it. People get it through your skulls, if your partner male or female says no at any point in the proceedings you are done, ya stop, cease all activity, the force fields have gone up. If you really have to bust a nut (or whatever it is women do) then go to the bathroom and strum out a tune on yourself.
It is horrendous that this was allowed to be shown in this manner. If the defence wanted to use this in evidence the judge should have found a way to keep those seeing it to an absolute minimum. Including the fucking media in the room is abhorrent. I’m not convinced the jury should have seen it either. They could have been told about the contents of the videos but not shown them.
For those arguing elsewhere the video wasn’t shown to the media:
> The public gallery was cleared and the explicit video shown to the victim, the jury and the media
But sure, downvote me for thinking this should be treated differently to other testimony due to the sensitivity of the videos.
Every trial reporting article on this site can be distilled into ‘how dare the defence defend their client!’ with a million upvotes.
“Sgt Heard is also standing trial for assault by beating, perverting the course of justice and faces a further count of malicious communication against a second victim.”
Anyone know what the other allegation concerns?