Tony Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 What a terrible story. AN INNOCENT man today spoke of his "hell" - after being falsely accused of rape by a woman whose lies drove another young man to suicide. Shocked jurors who cleared Olumide Fadayomi of rape after just 45 minutes of deliberations gasped and broke down in tears as they were told his accuser had previously made up the same allegations about another man, who went on to kill himself. Despite falsely crying rape twice, the 21-year-old South Yorkshire woman cannot be named in The Star for legal reasons, and her anonymity must be protected. http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Rape-lies-made-my-life.6314422.jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducky1 Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 This woman should be named before it happens to some other innocent person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStar Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 It is bad, surely there's something the police can charge the girl with, perhaps wasting police time or perverting the course of justice. She sounds evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 This is an awful case and the defendant is 'lucky' he had such compelling evidence to support his innocence. I'm not sure though about the benefits of naming women where defendants are found not guilty, although in this case there appears to be clear evidence that her allegation was a malicious one, rather than the defendant being found not guilty on the basis of probability-or her word against mine. The vast majority of rape victims are reluctant to pursue their attackers in the first place, so I dont think naming them before, during or post trial is helpful, it would simply deter genuine rape victims further. I'd rather see anonymity for both parties, unless the defendant is found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 How terrible. I hope this woman gets what is coming to her, charged with the relevant offences and given a decent stretch inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saffy Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 What an evil little coo .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dink Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 This is an awful case and the defendant is 'lucky' he had such compelling evidence to support his innocence. I'm not sure though about the benefits of naming women where defendants are found not guilty, although in this case there appears to be clear evidence that her allegation was a malicious one, rather than the defendant being found not guilty on the basis of probability-or her word against mine. The vast majority of rape victims are reluctant to pursue their attackers in the first place, so I dont think naming them before, during or post trial is helpful, it would simply deter genuine rape victims further. I'd rather see anonymity for both parties, unless the defendant is found guilty. Agree with you on this one boyfriday, this fella will always have this ''rape'' allegation hanging over him for rest of his life, it should be anonymity for both untill found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 It begs the question as to why this allegation was picked up by the CPS in the first place. As the article states: And in an attack on the Crown Prosecution Service, Judge Robertshaw said the case against Mr Fadayomi should never have gone ahead. "The evidence did not and was never going to prove rape," he said, adding "the prime overriding consideration" in the CPS' decision had been merely that "the complainant wished the case to go ahead". What a waste of time and money not to mention putting the defendant through a living hell. If the article is anything to go by, the so called evidence was flimsy to say the least, if the two other witnesses did not corroborate the complainant's evidence and if her friend testified that she had 'bragged' to her that she would accuse the defendant of rape. Sadly, what all this case serves to do is undermine the credibility of genuine rape cases. Was this case brought before the courts merely to make an example of her? Is the complainant's wish to go ahead enough for it to get as far as it did? Presumably she is being charged with 'perverting the course of justice' (or whatever the correct charge is) and quite right too. I'm with BF (for once;)), removing anonymity of witnesses for the prosecution would deter more women (and men) from reporting acts of rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 Agree with you on this one boyfriday, this fella will always have this ''rape'' allegation hanging over him for rest of his life, it should be anonymity for both untill found guilty. Yes, but he has chosen to speak out about it, it would appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaranthus Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 She should be careful lest she become the girl who cried wolf. Disgusting person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.