Suspect accused of rape 4th time

[Peikko 1,575]

Maybe you have. My opinions are pretty consistent, they don't sway with the prevailing wind.

[Fandango 1,440]

I have to say, I kinda agree with PH on this one.

If he was found 'not guilty', then that's technically what he is: NOT guilty.

[Peikko 1,575]

So obviously the system is failing when someone can indefinitely be acquitted but prosecutors are not allowed to join the dots. The legal system is clearly in favor of the criminal rather than the victim.

The whole system, or the system when it pertains to rape cases? Taking one case to paint this broad picture of failure is rather dramatic.

[Peikko 1,575]

Clearly, rape is a very difficult case to try. Many genuine victims of rape do not want their cases prosecuted because of the suffering that they go through during these trials. I have very clearly stated that rape is a horrible crime and I don't want genuine rapists going free any more than the rest of you do, however, one can't know the facts just by reading a case out of a newspaper.

[Toshtishtash 1]

Clearly, rape is a very difficult case to try. Many genuine victims of rape do not want their cases prosecuted because of the suffering that they go through during these trials. I have very clearly stated that rape is a horrible crime and I don't want genuine rapists going free any more than the rest of you do, however, one can't know the facts just by reading a case out of a newspaper.

I understand that.

But the fact is that this is the 4th time he has been tried. Even if he has been acquitted and found 'not guilty' 3 times before. Surely that means something! There is a pattern here!

He's a dangerous man! He obviously thinks he has a free run now seeing as he knows damn well he's going to get away with it!

[Jasman0717 9]

We are way to lenient with sex offenders

[sj5 4]

They should cut off his Pen**

[Dan J 277]

Clearly, rape is a very difficult case to try. Many genuine victims of rape do not want their cases prosecuted because of the suffering that they go through during these trials. I have very clearly stated that rape is a horrible crime and I don't want genuine rapists going free any more than the rest of you do, however, one can't know the facts just by reading a case out of a newspaper.

I understand that.

But the fact is that this is the 4th time he has been tried. Even if he has been acquitted and found 'not guilty' 3 times before. Surely that means something! There is a pattern here!

He's a dangerous man! He obviously thinks he has a free run now seeing as he knows damn well he's going to get away with it!

Because he has been tied to rape cases 4 times, you are assuming that he has to be guilty of at least one of them. Your looking for a pattern, but that doesn't mean there is one.

[britty 1]

Clearly, rape is a very difficult case to try. Many genuine victims of rape do not want their cases prosecuted because of the suffering that they go through during these trials. I have very clearly stated that rape is a horrible crime and I don't want genuine rapists going free any more than the rest of you do, however, one can't know the facts just by reading a case out of a newspaper.

I understand that.

But the fact is that this is the 4th time he has been tried. Even if he has been acquitted and found 'not guilty' 3 times before. Surely that means something! There is a pattern here!

He's a dangerous man! He obviously thinks he has a free run now seeing as he knows damn well he's going to get away with it!

I agree. If this guy was on his 4th trial for ANY crime, you have to assume there is a pattern. I am sure most of us relate to the "innocent until proven guilty" rule, however, it runs thin on the 4th go. If, for example, I had been arrested four times for shoplifting, I am sure even my husband would have trouble believing I was innocent.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Clearly, rape is a very difficult case to try. Many genuine victims of rape do not want their cases prosecuted because of the suffering that they go through during these trials. I have very clearly stated that rape is a horrible crime and I don't want genuine rapists going free any more than the rest of you do, however, one can't know the facts just by reading a case out of a newspaper.

I understand that.

But the fact is that this is the 4th time he has been tried. Even if he has been acquitted and found 'not guilty' 3 times before. Surely that means something! There is a pattern here!

He's a dangerous man! He obviously thinks he has a free run now seeing as he knows damn well he's going to get away with it!

The whole "no smoke without fire" thing doesn't really fly where the criminal law is concerned, and certainly not when you consider double-jeopardy laws. Fact is - outside of this current case, bringing innuendo into a court room about previous trials where the person was acquitted is a rather dangerous precedent to make as it would tend to prejudice the current trial.

Pretty soon we'd have "The accused is guilty, your honor. I mean... just look at him".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I agree. If this guy was on his 4th trial for ANY crime, you have to assume there is a pattern. I am sure most of us relate to the "innocent until proven guilty" rule, however, it runs thin on the 4th go. If, for example, I had been arrested four times for shoplifting, I am sure even my husband would have trouble believing I was innocent.

But if you were acquitted - i.e. "we looked at the evidence and decided you didn't do it", technically you committed no crime as far as the law is concerned. So what purpose is served by bringing back those dismissed charges? I'm not talking about this case specifically - but surely you can see how this might cause problems, prejudicing a trial of someone who may well have done nothing wrong.

[Marc and Olga 0]

First, there were not 3 aquittals/not guilty verdicts...only 2 previous ones, the third case was dismissed: "A rape charge was dismissed against Barnett in 2003 after court officials could not reach the accuser. "

Now I realise that it is not acceptable to use these accusations against him but I wonder how 4 different women came to accuse him of the same crime (rape)?! Did they all know of his history of accusations, is this some conspiracy against this poor defenseless man... I really doubt that is the case.

Also just because someone was found "not guilty" doesn't mean they were actually "not guilty"...the browns and the goldmans proved that as did O.J. when he wrote that book, lucky him for there is no double jeapordy...

[NavarreMan 10]

That is how the system works. If acquitted of a crime, you go free and as I understood it, although please let me know if I am wrong, any previous accusation cannot be taken into account during a new trial if the accused was acquitted.

The rape charge is a notoriously hard case to try as well, no? The prosecutors being ready trash the reputation of the accuser in the hope that the jury will assume that the sex was welcomed at the time.

Rape is a horrible crime, of that there is no doubt and to wish people who commit such crimes to be sentenced to the maximum that the law allows is understandable, but why is there always the wish to try individuals, without any knowledge of the particular case, from the comfort of your home? Sorry, but I don't understand the lynch mob mentality.

Like it or not this is the way our system works. PHB is absolutely correct. And none of us here know all the facts of any of the accused trials.

It is refreshing to see ya'll ready to throw the rope based on hearsay and assumption.

Is he guilty? Likely. But "hang him"? Let's wait for the trial OK?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

First, there were not 3 aquittals/not guilty verdicts...only 2 previous ones, the third case was dismissed: "A rape charge was dismissed against Barnett in 2003 after court officials could not reach the accuser. "

Now I realise that it is not acceptable to use these accusations against him but I wonder how 4 different women came to accuse him of the same crime (rape)?! Did they all know of his history of accusations, is this some conspiracy against this poor defenseless man... I really doubt that is the case.

I agree it seems unlikely - but the fact that previous acquittals can't be used as admissable evidence really goes beyond this particular case. For obvious reasons.

[NavarreMan 10]

Clearly, rape is a very difficult case to try. Many genuine victims of rape do not want their cases prosecuted because of the suffering that they go through during these trials. I have very clearly stated that rape is a horrible crime and I don't want genuine rapists going free any more than the rest of you do, however, one can't know the facts just by reading a case out of a newspaper.

I understand that.

But the fact is that this is the 4th time he has been tried. Even if he has been acquitted and found 'not guilty' 3 times before. Surely that means something! There is a pattern here!

He's a dangerous man! He obviously thinks he has a free run now seeing as he knows damn well he's going to get away with it!

How appropriate is your Avitar. You are describing perfectly a witch hunt. Because 10 elders of the town of Salem claimed Mrs. Smith was a witch...

Think about what you say very carefully and ask yourself if this is also not a dangerous tack to take. Someday it may be your neck on the block and I think you would have a very different view on what you wrote here.