The Pitt Meadows incident. Update: Code of Silence hampering RCMP.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You can't have proper functioning society without a justice system.

Agreed.

Sometimes this justice system will make errors. The alternative is much worse.

When the justice system lets a criminal off the hook, it is a single error. Those affected get no justice.

When the justice system wrongly imprisons an innocent person for the crime of another, that is two, possibly three errors.
Error 1: The real criminal is off the hook
Error 2: An innocent person is condemned to serve the criminal's sentence
Error 3: If it is determined in the future that the wrong person was convicted, the original victim of the crime has lost all previous closure.

Therefore, I disagree. A criminal walking without punishment is far more favourable than an innocent party serving their time in lieu. And dare I say, if the actual criminal cannot be brought to justice, that is not the failure of the justice system, but a failure of the Crown for not being able to conclusively associate the accused with the crime committed.

Additionally, another article from the Vancouver Sun today.

This particular passage struck me:

Some commenters charged that the girl was a voluntary participant, an allegation that did not sit well with Kristen Gilbert, a regional education consultant and certified sexual health teacher at Options for Sexual Health.

“When I talk in classrooms, young people are shocked — 100 per cent of the time — when I tell them that, by law, people can’t consent to sex when they’re under the influence of drugs and alcohol,” Gilbert said.

“What people need to know is that, later on, someone can genuinely say, ‘It might have looked like I was consenting, but I was drunk or high, so I couldn’t.’ ”

So what I want to know -- and wasn't addressed in the article, but was addressed earlier by a previous poster -- is what happens when all parties involved are under the influence? Do the guys accused of rape get off the hook because they couldn't have possibly known what they were doing if it can be proven they were taking drugs? I highly doubt the system would look on it that way. Now we risk a double standard, wherein a woman cannot consent to sex if under the influence, but a man still can.

The parties involved were at a rave. Despite what rave organizers insist upon, there will be drugs at raves. If I were investigating, I would be very curious as to who was on what.

Like Regorium said, the presence of a sedative in the girl's system would definitely corroborate the accusation of rape. If not, then things get very, very hairy.

If no trace of a sedative can be found, what drugs was she on?

-If she was on one, or a number of drugs, she may have been conscious and aware, but completely loopy.

-If she was on one, or a number of drugs and completely loopy and therefore unable to legally consent, what were the accused on?

-If the accused were individually on one or a number of drugs, then they too are legally unable to consent.

-If any of the accused were drug-free, then yes, technically it's rape.

If she was not on drugs at all, was she forced into intercourse?

-If she was forced, then it's rape no matter what the others were on.

-If she was not forced, then this was not rape. She got in way over her head, has irrevocably destroyed her own individual character, and is now trying to save face by destroying everyone else that was involved.

Except there's also the difference between initiating sex and consenting to it. I believe the current standards would say no matter how intoxicated (whether by alcohol or drugs) an individual is, they are always aware enough of their actions to initiate sex. Or maybe not, according to afc wimbledon.

So again I ask: What if both the woman and man involved are intoxicated? Is the possibility of rape now thrown out the window because no one technically knew what the heck was going on? Conversely if this girl and the accused men involved were all on drugs/alcohol, did a rape occur?

The only way that I would answer yes to the above question is if one of the drugs the girl was on was a sedative.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I shall state this slowly as you aren't getting it at all.

If she was drunk it was rape, drunk, thats all.

And while I agree we are not aware of all of the facts it is clear, and no one is denying, she was very drunk.

And just so we are clear, you can be charged with rape if you meet a drunk girl on the bus, shag her, and she decides she didn't consent, ( and she can make this arguement and will be believed even if she vebally consented) it may not be intirely fair, but it is the law.

Your only defense would be you were not aware she was drunk and that she clearly verbally consented, both unlikely as we know.

A drunk woman is considered legally unable to consent no matter what she says, much like a child, there will be some defense arguements as to how drunk a woman is before she loses the ability to consent, but a man doesn't have to be aware of how many drinks she has had, we are responsible if we know she is drunk.

It's not that open and shut, there is a massive area of grey when it comes to issues of capacity to consent. It would be an incredibly difficult task to argue and win a case in such a situation without testimony from witnesses that confirms the degree of impairment or toxicology showing the presence of substances that would result in sufficient impairment. Remember, the burden is on the Crown, not the defense.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I'm not sure where anyone is getting the idea that she is being labeled a whore.

It has been quite readily implied by Heartsoffire.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

It has been quite readily implied by Heartsoffire.

For the third time, you sir need to quote any passage I have made in this thread, or in the previous locked thread, anywhere I have implied that this girl is a whore.

Your credibility is rapidly falling.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's not that open and shut, there is a massive area of grey when it comes to issues of capacity to consent. It would be an incredibly difficult task to argue and win a case in such a situation without testimony from witnesses that confirms the degree of impairment or toxicology showing the presence of substances that would result in sufficient impairment. Remember, the burden is on the Crown, not the defense.

While I agree there is a burdon of proof up until now it has been met by testimony of witnesses (barmen friends etc) as to how much a person drank, their behaviour etc. Thus far the courts havn't required blood tests as proof, they have been clear for years that rape victims are not always able to come foward immediatly and make unclear witnesses etc and have, fairly or not, bent over backwards to help get them into court.

in this case she is also a minor, and whilst at 16 able to give consent, still not considered responsible, I would not like to defend the adults that are charged if the defense rests on her 'consent'. I have no doubt the judge will shoot that down from the begining.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

While I agree there is a burdon of proof up until now it has been met by testimony of witnesses (barmen friends etc) as to how much a person drank, their behaviour etc. Thus far the courts havn't required blood tests as proof, they have been clear for years that rape victims are not always able to come foward immediatly and make unclear witnesses etc and have, fairly or not, bent over backwards to help get them into court.

in this case she is also a minor, and whilst at 16 able to give consent, still not considered responsible, I would not like to defend the adults that are charged if the defense rests on her 'consent'. I have no doubt the judge will shoot that down from the begining.

Her being a minor has nothing to do with her ability to consent in this context, this isn't a contract case where being under 18 makes any consent invalid. I don't see any reason the judge would even consider shooting that argument down, I actually don't see how he could do so unless it's a bench trial.

The issue with meeting the burden on the whole intoxication thing is that a party like this is lacking for credible witnesses who can testify as to the condition of the aprties involved. There will probably be people that claim she was absolutely smashed, but of course so were they. There will probably be people who say she was fully aware and lucid, even if that isn't true. It gets into pretty muddy waters when you have a bunch of drunk people serving as witnesses, meeting a burden in that situation is tough. Hopefully there was someone who was sober and witnessed what happened.

This is somewhat unrelated, but incidents like this always make me shake my head at the 21 drinking age in the US. Of course parties will always happen, and bars aren't always safer, but forcing young people to drink in secret just opens the door to situations like this due to the lack of any type of authority/control. I don't want to derail the thread, this just reminds me of some of the dangers I saw at parties in US college towns.

[Mad Mel]

I will confess that part of what makes me give the girl the benefit of the doubt is that there is significant potential that men who think that gang-banging a 16 year old is cool may not be too concerned about whether she wants to or not.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

At any rate, there IS a chance that she was perfectly all right with all of this, but in the wake of the release of the pictures/videos and the subsequent embarrassment, she's now trying to save face by claiming rape.
Maybe.

Comment uses the word "maybe" to cover up the fact that you just said she whored it up, so we shouldn't lynch people

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Nevertheless, that doesn't explain why people ARE calling her a whore in the wake of all of this. What am I to assume? Are they cruel people? Or is there more to this story than what we're being told?

Using comments from a bunch of young teenagers who have connections to the accused to insinuate the girl is a whore.

Originally Posted by Regorium

We should focus on the girl's actions:
1) Apparently she was on top? No physical restraint.

At this point in time, she would say anything to save face.

Using something that has no real basis in this argument (her being on top) to try and insinuate she was pro-gang bang, then imply she's just trying to save some face.

I am not going to even delve into the fact you tried to imply she was a sociopath.

Great rape victim support here, team.

Edit- Also, the police made an arrest yesterday on the actual 'rape' side of things and not the child pornography and possession there-of side of things. I begin to think that the toxicology reports may be coming back now.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Comment uses the word "maybe" to cover up the fact that you just said she whored it up, so we shouldn't lynch people




Using comments from a bunch of young teenagers who have connections to the accused to insinuate the girl is a whore.



Using something that has no real basis in this argument (her being on top) to try and insinuate she was pro-gang bang, then imply she's just trying to save some face.

I am not going to even delve into the fact you tried to imply she was a sociopath.

Great rape victim support here, team.

Edit- Also, the police made an arrest yesterday on the actual 'rape' side of things and not the child pornography and possession there-of side of things. I begin to think that the toxicology reports may be coming back now.

You are really reaching to make people look bad. Only the last comment reaches your accusation, and it's not by the person you've been calling out all along. The first two comments simply point out the fact that we have no idea what the reality is and jumping to conclusions and casting judgment from that position is foolish.

Do you understand that there is a difference between discussing what could have potentially happened and insinuating that the victim is to blame? Or is this a case where any discussion that doesn't take everything reported as unquestioned fact turns into blaming the victim? We have no idea what happened, I doubt that anyone outside of very few involved parties really do. We've also seen recent cases of rape claims resulting in innocent people being railroaded. Do I think that the guys here are innocent people? No. Do I think this was consensual? No. Do I know for sure? No. Do I think that accusing people of insinuating that the victim is a whore because they question immediate media reports is completely asininie? I sure do.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by valo403

You are really reaching to make people look bad. Only the last comment reaches your accusation, and it's not by the person you've been calling out all along. The first two comments simply point out the fact that we have no idea what the reality is and jumping to conclusions and casting judgment from that position is foolish.

I entirely disagree. Part of the reason I got into this thread is because of the implications being made against the victim in this story. He could have easily said that "We don't have all the facts in this story, so we can't start jumping to conclusions." Instead he starts saying things like "Well others are calling her a whore," and implying that because other women are sociopathic liars that she could be aswell. It was needless and an attack on someone, who as far as we have been told right now, is a rape victim. There is no evidence that she is lying, but some circumstantial evidence that she was raped. Even still. A rape victim needs to be given the benefit of the doubt, and at the very least supported at this stage. Just as it is innocent until proven guilty for the prosecuted

Originally Posted by valo403

Do you understand that there is a difference between discussing what could have potentially happened and insinuating that the victim is to blame? Or is this a case where any discussion that doesn't take everything reported as unquestioned fact turns into blaming the victim?

This is a case that until it is proven she lied, you should not be blaming the victim. Ever. There is already a stigma for rape victims to come forward because of the very things happening in this thread: they won't be believed. Just because it is a "discussion" does not mean it is appropriate to blame the young girl who could have just possibly been raped.

Originally Posted by valo403

We've also seen recent cases of rape claims resulting in innocent people being railroaded.

Links? Sources on that? I am assuming you mean by the law.

Originally Posted by valo403

Do I think that accusing people of insinuating that the victim is a whore because they question immediate media reports is completely asininie? I sure do.

If all they said was "I don't really know how reliable to news is being here." I'd have not posted in this thread.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Her being a minor has nothing to do with her ability to consent in this context, this isn't a contract case where being under 18 makes any consent invalid. I don't see any reason the judge would even consider shooting that argument down, I actually don't see how he could do so unless it's a bench trial.

The issue with meeting the burden on the whole intoxication thing is that a party like this is lacking for credible witnesses who can testify as to the condition of the aprties involved. There will probably be people that claim she was absolutely smashed, but of course so were they. There will probably be people who say she was fully aware and lucid, even if that isn't true. It gets into pretty muddy waters when you have a bunch of drunk people serving as witnesses, meeting a burden in that situation is tough. Hopefully there was someone who was sober and witnessed what happened.

This is somewhat unrelated, but incidents like this always make me shake my head at the 21 drinking age in the US. Of course parties will always happen, and bars aren't always safer, but forcing young people to drink in secret just opens the door to situations like this due to the lack of any type of authority/control. I don't want to derail the thread, this just reminds me of some of the dangers I saw at parties in US college towns.

I would hazard a guess that the judge will consider the victims age as a relevant factor in her ability to give informed consent to 7 adult men while under the influence of booze or anything else, essentially any half decent crown will argue her age and inexperiance with alcohol will make for a much lower threshhold of intoxication.

That and the peasents with the burning torches and pitchforks outside the court!!

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Comment uses the word "maybe" to cover up the fact that you just said she whored it up, so we shouldn't lynch people

Wrong, wrong, wrong, entirely wrong.

I used the word 'maybe' -- and emboldened it for emphasis -- to clearly address that I was in no way claiming the aforementioned statement was conclusively what took place. Rather, it was a possible scenario, one that was just as likely as what was being told by the media. Not more likely, not less likely, but just as likely. This girl attended a rave, and anyone with a lick of common sense knows that where there are raves, there are drugs. And it is my personal belief that it is more likely she and all the guys involved were high as kites when the incident took place, and now she is trying to save face because of the circulating photographs that have destroyed her character, embarrassed her family and gotten a lot of people in trouble with the law.

I am completely willing to believe her side of the story, should evidence obtained through the official investigation corroborate her claims. But until then, I remain skeptical. But in no way do I 100% irrevocably believe she was just a promiscuous tramp that couldn't keep her legs together.

Using comments from a bunch of young teenagers who have connections to the accused to insinuate the girl is a whore.

I used the comments provided by the other teenagers to point out that there is another side to the story, which is what I have been saying all along. But in no way does it imply that I am taking sides. I'm merely pointing out the fact that the story we've been told may not be as cut-and-dry as people think it is. Also, it's not like these insinuations were coming from 4chan, they were coming from local teenagers, people that either attend the same school, were present at the rave, or both.

Great rape victim support here, team.

Rule #1 when hearing about a shocking incident from the mainstream media: The quicker the report, the more likely it is that it is not completely true. The pressure to report the story first forces journalists and reporters to get sloppy and report the most shocking allegations in order to attract the most viewers.

Facts reported 24 hours after the incident are more believable than facts reported at Breaking News point. Facts reported at 48 hours after the incident are even more believable than facts reported at 24 hours. Facts reported at 72 hours are more believable than facts reported at 48 hours. No one reports facts at 96 hours because by then the general public doesn't give a damn anymore. All they care about is what happens to the perpetrators, if anything at all.

As it was in the case of acid girl, and the sexual assault at Clarence Sansom, the initial reported stories turned out to be either half-true, or not true at all. Therefore, initial reports cannot ever be trusted to be 100% accurate, and it is better to wait until all the facts are out in the open before making a judgment, should you deem it worthy of your time.

At the end of the day because of this incident, someone -- or a group of people -- will have their lives ruined. I just hope it is the right group.

CTV is now reporting (as of the 20th) that in the wake of the Facebook support group for the girl, another Facebook support group has surfaced in support of the men accused of sexual assault, citing 'reasonable doubt' because

"... there is a difference between evidence used to arrest and evidence used to convict and the judicial process will determine what evidence there is and what it means."

Police have adamantly denied the sex was consensual. Insp. Derren Lench told reporters at a Friday press conference that "it's very clear from her physical injuries and her recollection of it and the evidence that we've collected that she was not a willing participant."



"It's very clear she was raped by more than one individual and there was no consent at all."

Reading this, and given how long the investigation has been underway, I could be persuaded to finally side with the girl. However, the very next line:

Police believe the girl was under the influence of drugs, but are awaiting the results of a toxicology report to determine what kind.

This makes me a skeptic all over again. The incident took place on September 10. This article was written 10 days later. 10 days since the incident took place, and the toxicology report isn't in yet?!

This tells me a few things. Arranged in order of likelihood, they are:

1. The toxicology report is in, but the press is not permitted to get any wind of it due to the ongoing investigation.
2. The toxicology report is in fact still pending, in which case the Pitt Meadows RCMP are doing all parties involved in the investigation an unacceptable injustice.
3. The toxicology report is in, and the results are so damning that it puts the girl's entire testimony into question.

It is possible she was slipped a date rape drug, yes. It is also just as possible she, and everyone else involved, willingly took drugs and became so loopy that all would consent to anything. And now, with respect to the injuries she suffered, maybe the sex was rough. It also took place in a field, not someplace comfortable like a bed or a couch. The field could've been rough, causing her to scratch her palms and knees. Maybe there were patches of stiff grass to cause lacerations.

The inspector continues to play the rape card because that's his/her job (Derren? What gender is that name?). The girl is claiming she was raped, so it becomes his/her job to collect evidence in hopes of tying that evidence to her claims. I have no doubt that there is evidence abound to support it, but those injuries are just as likely from a period of vigorous intercourse, especially outdoors in a field. If she and/or anyone else was popping Ecstasy, and if what I've heard about sex on Ecstasy is true, it probably was very vigorous.

As I have been saying all along, there is something fishy about this whole thing.

I also read about the second arrest. That was made on the 17th. As of yet though, no charges have been made. The initial person they arrested they had to release because there was insufficient evidence to lay charges. At the time, that is. He's still a person of significant interest and charges may yet be pending. But the lack of progress in this incident after so many days is really telling. It makes me wonder if greater efforts are being made to curtail the spread of the pictures, because that at least is cut-and-dry criminal no matter how you look at it.

[HeartsOfFire]

Witnesses are coming forward and shedding more light on the incident that took place in Pitt Meadows. Details of witness accounts are not being released to the public as of yet, though the RCMP is saying that the number of men purported to be involved in the 'gang rape' has been downgraded. They won't say to what number it's being downgraded to. Initial reports and media speculation put the number at 5-7, so now we know it's less than that.

She's gone back to school in an effort to restore her life to normal after all the publicity. Brave of her, although the pictures will always be a constant haunting reminder.

Nothing engraves a memory so deep in the mind as the desire to forget it.

Charges have yet to be laid against anyone, though the police will be looking to charge the 16 year old male that took the pictures with distribution of kiddy porn. Why they haven't already, I don't know. Maybe it's a gray area because he himself is a minor?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

If she and/or anyone else was popping Ecstasy, and if what I've heard about sex on Ecstasy is true, it probably was very vigorous.

Only if all the guys took Viagra too.

[HeartsOfFire]

Impotence on Ecstasy is not 100% guaranteed, according to the link I posted.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Impotence on Ecstasy is not 100% guaranteed, according to the link I posted.

According to when I was 17, yeah, it is. I don't have ED problems.

[ernie]

just as a btw full toxicology analysis and reports will often takes weeks not days. It is highly probable that they simply don't have all the info at this time.

[HeartsOfFire]

Damn television for misleading me into believing Toxicology reports took mere hours...

[Hi-Psi]

Although having sex on Extasy(for a guy) can be quite difficult unless it's the late stages when you're coming down, Viagra or Cialis is an easy fix for that and I will tell you that MANY people take those two drugs together.

[HeartsOfFire]

So it's been nigh two weeks now, and very few developments have come out of this incident.

RCMP have laid charges of possessing and distributing child pornography on the 16 year old that got the whole facebook mess started. While technically a valid charge, I don't think the law ever took something like this into consideration when it was conceived.

Consider this: A guy and a girl start dating in the 9th grade. When they start school in the 10th grade, things between them get more intimate and their relationship turns sexual. To tease and flirt with one another while apart, they use smartphones to take photos of themselves in the nude and send them to each other along with a sext message. According to the law as it is written, this is criminal. Should they be charged and tried in the same manner as the law would charge and try a toothless perverted senior citizen with a penchant for muscley-armed paper boys?

Additionally, a Code of Silence is hampering RCMP investigation into the matter. This is quite surprising and disturbing. Obviously, credible witnesses would go a long way into helping the investigation progress. And although two have already come forward, it's obviously not enough for investigators to go by. One would think -- and hope -- that a number of witnesses would come forward and that a majority of their statements would swing the investigation either in favour of the victim or the accused. Instead, nothing. Considering the dozens of people that were at the rave, that is remarkably puzzling.

We already know that the number of males involved in the alleged attack has been reduced from 7 to an unspecified number less than 7. The alleged attack will have taken place over a month ago soon, and yet nothing has been made publically known regarding the toxicology reports. Given how two males were earlier held and later released, I can't help wondering if the toxicology reports came back inconclusive?